President Trump & the USA

[Benguin]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough - I can certainly understand the economic argument (though in the long term surely more accessible contraception would cost less than unwanted pregnancies). What gets my goat here is that it is female only contraception being limited in this, and the reasons given to opt out are religious in nature. That has no place in modern legislation.

In terms of whether something can be done, for example abortions or gay marriage, I completely take the liberal line. But people being forced to do things contrary to their religious beliefs, within reason, is wrong and I'd say that this is something we don't want to see in modern legislation.

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

In terms of whether something can be done, for example abortions or gay marriage, I completely take the liberal line. But people being forced to do things contrary to their religious beliefs, within reason, is wrong and I'd say that this is something we don't want to see in modern legislation.

If supplying people with the medication they need is against your religious beliefs then you need new beliefs, so **** em - your rights from your beliefs end the moment they impact on others.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

If supplying people with the medication they need is against your religious beliefs then you need new beliefs, so **** em - your rights from your beliefs end the moment they impact on others.

Oh no don't misrepresent what I said. People who refuse too provide medical care for someone who desperately needs them, on the grounds of religious beliefs, are arseholes. 

 

I'm talking about nonessential things or this that can be easily sourced elsewhere.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Oh no don't misrepresent what I said. People who refuse too provide medical care for someone who desperately needs them, on the grounds of religious beliefs, are arseholes. 

 

I'm talking about nonessential things or this that can be easily sourced elsewhere.

And in a few cases, this bill is going to do exactly that. Even the argument about the essentialness of contraceptives aside, at the very least this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by making access to essential drugs for some women much much more difficult (on grounds of affordability).

[The Doctor]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Oh no don't misrepresent what I said. People who refuse too provide medical care for someone who desperately needs them, on the grounds of religious beliefs, are arseholes. 

 

I'm talking about nonessential things or this that can be easily sourced elsewhere.

Thing is it's about the funding to get it - America isn't like the UK with prescription fees, you just get shafted instead. My fiancee takes birth control on prescription after periods that lasted 3 weeks then a week off (completely the wrong way round)- huge difference between being able to afford the sub ten pound prescription and drug costs in 'Murcia if your employer and health insurance provision thinks you shouldn't have it because they have faith in some possibly fictional desert-dweller from two millenia ago.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And in a few cases, this bill is going to do exactly that. Even the argument about the essentialness of contraceptives aside, at the very least this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by making access to essential drugs for some women much much more difficult (on grounds of affordability).

No it's not. There are countless organisations in the states that give out free contraceptives. 

 

Like I said, I don't know enough about the situation to form an opinion on the bill. That said I firmly believe that forcing someone to do something contrary to their religious beliefs, out with the scope of necessity, is not a modern ideology and certainly something I would not support. 

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Thing is it's about the funding to get it - America isn't like the UK with prescription fees, you just get shafted instead. My fiancee takes birth control on prescription after periods that lasted 3 weeks then a week off (completely the wrong way round)- huge difference between being able to afford the sub ten pound prescription and drug costs in 'Murcia if your employer and health insurance provision thinks you shouldn't have it because they have faith in some possibly fictional desert-dweller from two millenia ago.

But the world doesn't work like that. Health insurance providers will be queuing up to provide suitable cover as they know that by distancing themselves from this bill, they will have far more business. 

 

Insurance providers who refuse contraceptives on religious grounds will realise an extremely detrimental effect on their business. But it should be their prerogative to do so.  

[The Doctor]

7 minutes ago, Benguin said:

But the world doesn't work like that. Health insurance providers will be queuing up to provide suitable cover as they know that by distancing themselves from this bill, they will have far more business. 

 

Insurance providers who refuse contraceptives on religious grounds will realise an extremely detrimental effect on their business. But it should be their prerogative to do so.  

If your coverage is coming through your employer you don't really get a choice of which provider

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Benguin said:

No it's not. There are countless organisations in the states that give out free contraceptives. 

 

Like I said, I don't know enough about the situation to form an opinion on the bill. That said I firmly believe that forcing someone to do something contrary to their religious beliefs, out with the scope of necessity, is not a modern ideology and certainly something I would not support. 

And are these organizations accessible to everyone who might need them? If not, then the point still stands. I'm sure in the cities on the coast it's an easier thing to find, but elsewhere I'm not so sure.

 

I guess it comes down to who you think is doing the forcing here, but this seems like state allowing church to impose its own rules and is unconstitutional.

 

20 minutes ago, Benguin said:

But the world doesn't work like that. Health insurance providers will be queuing up to provide suitable cover as they know that by distancing themselves from this bill, they will have far more business. 

 

Insurance providers who refuse contraceptives on religious grounds will realise an extremely detrimental effect on their business. But it should be their prerogative to do so.  

This is, of course, depending on your employer choosing those health insurance companies and (if they don't) choosing a different company is actually affordable.

 

I have doubts that, if a company wants to make a stand based on religious grounds, that they would deal with such insurance companies in the first place.

[leicsmac]

Been an interesting day. One spat with a senior GOP senator..

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41546140

 

And sadly Spencer and the neo-Nazis are back in Charlottesville.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41543631

 

[Guest FriendlyRam]

I dunno what he has to do to be removed tbh,, hes literally threatening genocide on tw*tter a lot now aswell. I think we're stuck with him until 2020,, and I wouldnt be shocked if he was re-elected.

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, FriendlyRam said:

I dunno what he has to do to be removed tbh,, hes literally threatening genocide on tw*tter a lot now aswell. I think we're stuck with him until 2020,, and I wouldnt be shocked if he was re-elected.

Threatening genocide? Have you got an example of this tweet?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Threatening genocide? Have you got an example of this tweet?

Know this is coming a bit out of left field but what's your view on the Charlottesville stuff, Webs? I'd be interested to hear it.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I don't know if it's what FriendlyRam is referring to, but the main genocide accusation I can recall was when he threatened to destroy North Korea.

 

We all have bad days, but it was a bit over the top, I thought

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Know this is coming a bit out of left field but what's your view on the Charlottesville stuff, Webs? I'd be interested to hear it.

You're asking me, yet again, whether I support neo nazis? No I don't and I'm a bit disappointed that you keep asking.

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're asking me, yet again, whether I support neo nazis? No I don't and I'm a bit disappointed that you keep asking.

Oh, definitely not my intent and I apologise for the lack of clarity there that made you think that.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of how you think it would best be resolved as it's a tricky one IMO - should have put that in the original post.

[Guest MattP]

He's definitely taking the piss now, can't not be.

 

 

[Lionator]

He's challenging SoS Rex to an IQ test contest too, what an absolute to55er Donald is. If anything a secretary of state needs to be more intelligent than the president himself but of course Donald would never admit inferiority.

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

He's challenging SoS Rex to an IQ test contest too, what an absolute to55er Donald is. If anything a secretary of state needs to be more intelligent than the president himself but of course Donald would never admit inferiority.

It's a bizarre challenge from someone who on the face of it seems to be as thick as pigshit

[Guest FriendlyRam]

Hed probably be too thick to realise hes been beat

 

Anything like that involving donald will be like the billy maddison quiz test scene,, donald being billy maddison

[EnderbyFox]

 

Looking forward another Trump Twitter meltdown over this. 

[Innovindil]

47 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

Looking forward another Trump Twitter meltdown over this. 

Hopefully he challenges him to a rap battle like he challenged that other dude to an IQ test 

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41567471

 

Ugh.

 

"Picking winners and losers in how we generate energy in this country." That one sentence sums up everything that is wrong about the approach towards environmental matters of this administration.

[Wymsey]

[CollinsLCFC]

US quitting UNESCO.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/unesco-us-withdraw-israel-bias-trump-palestine-haram-al-sharif-temple-mount-latest-a7996791.html