[NeedKarma]

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Just letting you know that people live their lives differently than you choose to and they aren't bad people for doing so.

[talaniman]

http://consumerist.com/2007/09/targe...l-program.html

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.

http://contraception.about.com/b/200...he-counter.htm

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).

Just for all the facts.

[speechlesstx]

Just letting you know that people live their lives differently than you choose to and they aren't bad people for doing so.

And I never they were, that's just another one of your gross misrepresentations.

[speechlesstx]

The Consumerist Target Matches Walmart’s $9 Birth Control Pill Program


Just for all the facts.

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.

[cdad]

The Consumerist Target Matches Walmart's $9 Birth Control Pill Program



Can Birth Control Pills Be Bought Over the Counter?



Just for all the facts.

Im calling BS on the "facts" as the morning after pill is being sold in vending machines. Just like cigarettes used to be.

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/

[talaniman]

I guess the population is moving beyond the law. Or is it?

Morning-after pill? It?s in the vending machine. Really. - latimes.com

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.

From wikipedia,

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.

So my mistake as the link I provided is from 2006, sorry. What, you thought I was perfect??

[excon]

What, you thought I was perfect?????

Hello tal:

Yup, and I still do.

excon

[talaniman]

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!

[TUT317]

Thank you.

What borders on dishonesty, Tut, is the way the left spins poverty in this country. This report seeks to counter that narrative with the facts, which you don't dismiss. Heritage (nor I as I've done repeatedly) doesn't dismiss the poor or pretend poverty isn't an issue, but on average those in "poverty" in America have it pretty darn good. Fact.

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

[NeedKarma]

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..

Might as well get used to it, that happens all the time here. If you point it out you then become the bad guy.

[cdad]

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,



So my mistake as the link I provided is from 2006, sorry. What, you thought I was perfect?????

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

Might as well get used to it, that happens all the time here. If you point it out you then become the bad guy.

Again, the pot calling the kettle black.

[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 I don't dispute the facts.

Tut, the report is from a conservative perspective so I would expect a conservative slant, but it's far from dishonest.

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:

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.

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?

Al Jazeera and others buy the propaganda...

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.

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.

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?

[talaniman]

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!

[speechlesstx]

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?

[Wondergirl]

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?

[talaniman]

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!

[speechlesstx]

What are your criteria for "truly deprived"? How are you going to find them?

What are your criteria?

[Wondergirl]

Like Tal said, they sign up and then get checked up on. If they can jump all the hurdles, they qualify.