Just letting you know that people live their lives differently than you choose to and they aren't bad people for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
Just letting you know that people live their lives differently than you choose to and they aren't bad people for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
http://consumerist.com/2007/09/targe...l-program.html
http://contraception.about.com/b/200...he-counter.htmQuote:
Here's the bad news, those of you who reside in states that prohibit stores from selling prescription drugs as loss leaders are not getting the $9 birth control:
Laws in Minnesota, Wisconsin and seven other states prevent pharmacies from selling drugs below their true cost. As a result, Wal-Mart will charge more to consumers here for nine of the 24 drugs being added to its generic discount program.
In the case of a generic birth control pill called Tri-Sprintec, two Wal-Mart pharmacies in the
Twin Cities on Friday were selling a one-month supply for $26.88.
"We cannot provide the $9 for the three women's health drugs in those states," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Deisha Galberth, referring to Tri-Sprintec as well as a second birth control drug and a fertility treatment.
Just for all the facts.Quote:
Speaking in terms of the United States, ALL birth control pills require a doctor's prescription, so the unfortunate news for Angela is that there are NO types of oral contraceptives that are sold over the counter. There is, though, one exception, and that is Plan B One-Step(more commonly known as the morning-after pill) as this can be bought over the counter. The clincher - you need to be at least 17 years old to purchase it. Those of you under 17 still are required to obtain a prescription in order to buy Plan B One-Step. Most pharmacies stock this behind the counter, so you will need to provide proof of age to purchase it. Plan B One-Step consists of only one pill that is designed to provide a heavy dose of hormones in hope of preventing a pregnancy AFTER one has had unprotected sex (so it doesn't work like birth control pills do and is not a substitute for them).
And I never they were, that's just another one of your gross misrepresentations.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That's hardly all the facts. Even if there were no other options like PP, Target, Costco, Healthwarehouse.com and that was the only generic available, that's $322.56 a year, not the $3000 that Fluke grossly misrepresented. Or over a nine year supply for her numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Im calling BS on the "facts" as the morning after pill is being sold in vending machines. Just like cigarettes used to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/08/pennsylvania-college-sells-morning-after-pills-in-vending-machine/
http://www.therightscoop.com/morning-after-pill-now-available-in-vending-machines/
I guess the population is moving beyond the law. Or is it?
Morning-after pill? It?s in the vending machine. Really. - latimes.com
From wikipedia,Quote:
The vending machine, which also dispenses condoms and pregnancy tests, is in a private room at the college's student clinic and is accessible only by students -- all of whom are 17 or older, the age at which Plan B is available without a prescription.
So my mistake as the link I provided is from 2006, sorry. What, you thought I was perfect??Quote:
On March 23, 2009, a US judge ordered the FDA to allow 17 year olds to acquire Plan B without a prescription.[93] This now changes the August 24, 2006 ruling and Plan B is now available "behind the counter" for men and women. There is a prescription method available for girls under 17.
Hello tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yup, and I still do.
excon
Thanks Ex!!
Back in my day we bought condoms from a machine in the mens room at the gas station. We have come along way baby!
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Steve, what you have done here is exactly the same type of thing I was criticizing in the research into poverty paper you posted.
Please don't thank me for your opportunity to misrepresent my position by misquoting me. What you have presented is called the fallacy of contextomy. It is a very unattractive fallacy..
What I actually saying was that I didn't dispute the facts. I am disputing is the way the facts have been used.
I can assure you I would never say [quote] I don't dispute the facts. [unquote].
Reason... Facts by themselves are meaningless.
I hope this clears this up for you and anyone else reading you earlier post to me.
The so called research paper itself is dishonest. It only gives people the impression there must be a hidden agenda somewhere. If these people are so concerned about the cost of poverty why didn't they fund a proper research?
By the way, you question in regarded to 'general welfare'. I googled it and there are two general welfare clauses. One, being in the Preamble of the Constitution and the others is located in taxation policy.
Tut
Might as well get used to it, that happens all the time here. If you point it out you then become the bad guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Nobody is perfect. I know for sure Im not. Its just to make the argument fair we need to strive for accuracy. The internet has become old. With that there is a lot of information that is old and still makes its way into search engines. I see it all the time in the "Law" sections of the boards.
I think the biggest issue and maybe / possibly worth discussing is how Roe v Wade has been changed and evolved into something that for point of fact is being ignored.
Im not so sure that a vending machine can tell who is buying what as much as a human can. But with unrestricted access there will always be abuse. Just look at how many new "am I pregnant" questions we get in a days time.
Im just glad that we have a place like AMHD where we can bump heads and seek opinions and still walk away smiling from the debates.
One thing I have seen is no matter the law, people are quick to exploit ways around it and actively search for loopholes through it. Ingenuity knows no bounds, and while Roe V Wade upheld the right of women to have an abortion, many laws have popped up to make it harder, or restrict it in some form or fashion.
That the beauty of a free society, there are many ways to view the law, and flexibility is a key function of making things work. I would argue that America is not flexible enough, and to easily subject to gumming up the works when compromise, and consensus are hard to reach.
Oh and the vending machines are in a place that only students can access, at least that's their story.
Again, the pot calling the kettle black.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Tut, the report is from a conservative perspective so I would expect a conservative slant, but it's far from dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
From the beginning you stated "In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this" and ended with "That's as far as I wanted to go into that report."
In between you made judgements based on a lack of knowing the full content so what kind of fallacy is that, Tut?
I said the report was a counter to the prevailing narrative which is dishonest and agenda driven. I also said the report does not dismiss the needs of the poor:
Again, do we want to be effective and efficient in dealing with the needs of the truly distressed, or do we want to just throw money everywhere and have a nation of dependents based on the gospel of Obama and bankrupt the country in the process? Do we buy the lie that the 12 year old girl who shares a tiny home with 11 other people and her drug addicted mother is typical of poverty in America?Quote:
However, there is a range of living conditions within the poverty population. The average poor family does not represent every poor family. Although most poor families are well housed, a small minority are homeless.
Fortunately, the number of homeless Americans has not increased during the current recession. Although most poor families are well fed and have a fairly stable food supply, a sizeable minority experiences temporary restraints in food supply at various times during the year. The number of families experiencing such temporary food shortages has increased somewhat during the current economic downturn.
Of course, to the families experiencing these problems, their comparative infrequency is irrelevant. To a family that has lost its home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating. Public policy must deal with that distress. However, accurate information about the extent and severity of social problems is imperative for the development of effective public policy.
In discussions about poverty, however, misunderstanding and exaggeration are commonplace. Over the long term, exaggeration has the potential to promote a substantial misallocation of limited resources for a government that is facing massive future deficits. In addition, exaggeration and misinformation obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem. Poverty is an issue of serious social concern, and accurate information about that problem is always essential in crafting public policy.
Al Jazeera and others buy the propaganda...
Sorry, but that's not America and we're all more than willing to help the deprived, but we need a little sunshine on the agenda driven lie being propagated about "poverty" in America.Quote:
One of the most regrettable aspects of official U.S. government poverty statistics is the misleading negative image that they project around the world.
U.S. government poverty numbers are like a Potemkin village in reverse, suggesting to the rest of the globe that living conditions in the U.S. are much worse than they actually are.
For example, Al Jazeera uses U.S. government poverty numbers to tell the world what a terrible place the U.S. is. Al Jazeera tells a global audience: “37 million people—that is one in eight Americans—live below the official poverty line. That means these people are often homeless, hungry, and have no health insurance.” Al Jazeera shows a representative poor American family: six people living in a one-bedroom apartment. Other stories go farther. An Al Jazeera special report on “poverty in America” shows America’s poor as homeless or living in rat-infested, crumbling shacks while suffering from life-threatening
Malnutrition.
Oh, I know where the "general welfare" clauses are located. Again, I asked what is the scope of "general welfare?" Where do we draw the line?
How about a case by case evaluation? That's a good place to start, and the feds may supply the money, but Medicaid is administered by the states, so lets blame governors for facts and figures, and outcomes and not the White House.
And why do you give what some foreign newspaper says about what we do here in America any credence? And 30 million poor people,mostly children is NOT propaganda! Ask them!
So you fight the propaganda war but dismiss it as irrelevant?
How about we drop the propaganda and the agenda and let's help those who are truly deprived instead of intentionally expanding the welfare class?
What are your criteria for "truly deprived"? How are you going to find them?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The states don't go looking for deprived people, they have to come in and sign up. Then they are evaluated. The process has been around for a while. The best way to fight propaganda, spin, agendas, and lies is with deeds, actions, and accomplishments. You HAVE to expand the welfare class, because it IS growing!
What are your criteria?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Like Tal said, they sign up and then get checked up on. If they can jump all the hurdles, they qualify.
And you propose a government that has an already 13,000 page health care law is the most efficient way solve poverty?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's easy when it's intentional.Quote:
You HAVE to expand the welfare class, because it IS growing!
That's not criteria, that's method.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The method is check the eligibility against established criteria, like we did at Catholic Charities before allowing clients to get services on a sliding scale.
Critera is a function of individual states. Not the federal government.They all have a procedure in place.
So the federal government never imposes its will on the states. Bwa ha ha ha!!
Obama has said on many occasions that any plan that meets the criteria of his plan can be done, and he sent EVERY state the money to evaluate, and formulate any plan that they deemed effective. That was in 2010, and they have until 2014.
Yeah sounds like he is a real dictator all right. More like the CEO of the worlds biggest economy, trying to get the job done. Many states have already done this, some are just plain lazy, or reticent.
Hospitals will make sure Perry gets on board, kicking or screaming he will comply. They all will or lose one helluva savings. It's a great deal for the states, especially the poor ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Steve we are talking past each other on this issue my. Criticism is aimed at the academic side of the report. I'll leave the politics of the report up to you. You know more about the politics than myself when it comes to this matter.
What I am saying is that I am critical of the methodology and notably, the lack of secondary research found in the paper.
Perhaps you are right, 'dishonest' was a bit strong. Perhaps I can replace that with, 'conveniently neglected information and research'.
Where is the distinction between ,'relative poverty' and 'absolute poverty? Easily accommodated in most reports in the form of secondary research results.
Where is the analysis of the poverty threshold? I would have though that some type of critical analysis of this would be an important prerequisite.
"Yet if poverty means lacking good adequate warm housing and clothing for the family, relatively few of the 30 million identified by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor"
The average person's understanding of poverty would make no distinction between absolute and relative poverty. It is clear the average person understands poverty in absolute terms. So the working definition of the report becomes 'absolute poverty' or what the average person understands by poverty Relative poverty is ignored because chances are most people in relative poverty have all the amenities.
The conclusion is that these people cannot be regarded as poor because if you have all the amenities.
This conclusion could be true but it was never put up for testing. If they are unhappy with relative poverty then they should have said so rather than ignore it. While not necessarily being correct, relative poverty is statistically significant.
If you don't believe me then compare this report to the one you posted.
http://www.epi.org/publications/webf...y_and_poverty/
P.S. If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research. The idea is to minimize the bias as much as possible
Dumb idea 101:
Since churches are not subject to tax. And the Health Care Bill is declared a tax. Then the churches are not subject to it because of taxation.
That would settle everything.
P.S. Note to Tut your link didn't work for some reason.
AMHD messes it up for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America | Economic Policy Institute
Hello dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Couple things.. The "Bill" wasn't declared a tax, only the mandate was. The mandate/tax is for INDIVIDUAL freeriders who want other people to pay for their health care.. Church's don't qualify.
So, let me ask you guys. Is it the PAYING for it you don't like, or the idea that everybody is going to be covered?? I STILL can't figure out WHY you guys DON'T like it. It's got to be cheaper than what we're spending now.
excon
Good luck with that. One of the primary - misleading - mantras of the left in this country is they're not ideological. Nonsense, their ideology permeates everything they do and the majority of our media and I believe there is a legitimate place for research that counters the narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
And your EPI? Check out how much commentary is revealed under their publications link.
Here's a report, Black metropolitan unemployment in 2011. Tell me there's no bias in the conclusion:
That is a distinctly progressive view of things.Quote:
While the country as a whole needs the federal government to provide more economic stimulus, African Americans—who currently experience the highest unemployment rates among America’s major racial and ethnic groups—are especially in need of such assistance. There is broad agreement among economists that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act worked; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the act created more than three million jobs (Montgomery 2012). Additional federal aid to state and local governments is particularly important to black workers, who have suffered the biggest proportional losses of good public-sector jobs as state and local governments responded to budget shortfalls with layoffs (Cooper, Gable, and Austin 2012). While the Obama administration has proposed providing more aid to state and local governments, conservatives in Congress have blocked such efforts (Pear 2011). The time to act is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Below may failed link is NK's post. Apparently he has fixed it.
The primary and secondary sources I am referring to are those sources found in a research paper. Both papers put up for examination contain primary sources. It is the lack of secondary sources relating to absolute and relative poverty that I see as a problem.
I was actually suggesting a comparison of the methodologies used because of the similar nature of the papers. In other words, I was asking which of the papers is most thorough in terms of methodology. I am on about the quality of the research, not the politics. As I said before, I will leave the politics( primary or secondary) up to you.
The conclusion you have presented above in relation to unemployment may well be bias. I don't know because the only papers I read was the one I cited and the one you originally posted.
I can read it and get back to you if you like, but I am not sure what it has to do with the poverty papers. They probably have different authors.
Tut
"If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research."
I believe those were your words.
Why are your neighbors so poor and live as they do? I ask because you see it upclose, so I just wanted your thoughts.
I don’t recall my neighbors saying they're poor, and that's my point about "poverty" in America. Some are content with what they have. Some, like my neighbor across the street and the little old man on the corner I watched out for until he passed, need help. But mostly, they don’t stay stagnant.
Like the guy that bought the little old man’s teeny house has worked on it and expanded until it’s a nice looking place. Another neighbor across the street that barely speaks a lick of English took a place that was run down, bought it cheap and has done the same.
I’ve seen it countless times in my neighborhood and with friends I’ve known all my life, they kept at it until they bettered themselves. I admire that, that’s the spirit we need to foster again in America instead of gathering as many as we can under Nanny Sam’s wing because they’re too helpless to do any better for themselves.
I have seen the same thing and believe that people can do better if they have a mind to. I also think that most have a mind to, and sometimes just need a chance, and that's what the social safety net is about. Not a life choice to do nothing, or an excuse to do wrong.
But during hard times for many is NOT the time to withdraw help from those that need it, and I bet they are grateful to the NANNY state for getting them through it. Like there is shame that they have fallen on hard times.
This ain't good times for people who have nothing after their foundation has been ripped from them. You have to give them more than gloom, and doom, and blame game, dontcha?
I mean the guy who takes a shack and makes it better had to have a bank, or a job to hang his hat on, doesn't he? I don't think any of us succeeds in a vacuum.
The gospel of Obama is not about giving someone a chance, it's intentionally expanding the welfare class to hold a dependent constituency hostage to the liberal oligarchy. I would think you could see that given your rants about corporate America preying on others.
I'm all for giving people a chance and helping them when they're down, I'm not for keeping them down.
That's almost funny, that you think helping those displaced by the results of corporations extracting the wealth and moving overseas, is some kind of socialist plot. Go ahead, give Romney and his running buddies more than they have already, and see if you ever see it again.
LOL, unless you move to Switzerland.
Ditto that in giving the federal government more of your money to waste and see if you ever see it again.
You can believe the exponential expansion of IRS or HHS jobs is the preferred method of "job creation" if you want, but in reality the private sector is where jobs are created. The federal government produces nothing but debt. What are we going to do when they suck us all dry?
Do you really think that big brother isn't doing the same kind of things ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://msbusiness.com/2010/08/panel-...went-overseas/
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:57 PM. |