Week in Review
Gays and lesbians have fought for same-sex marriage. Because they want to be like traditional couples. A man and a woman entering wedded bliss. With all of the legal and employer spousal benefits that come with it. Even while feminists decry the institution of marriage as enslaving women into a loveless relationship where women are cooks in the kitchen, maids in the house and whores in the bedroom.
Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning after being arrested for leaking classified documents. Chelsea is now asking for the government to pay for hormone treatment therapy to become physically a woman. And that denying this costly treatment was cruel and unusual punishment.
So there is a lot of pressure to help people become what they want to be. And some argue that tax money should pay to help them. As well as rewrite our laws. But how far should this go? How far should we go to help people who are unhappy with their circumstance in life (see Men are funding breast implants for women they’ve never met in exchange for their attention online. That’s pathetic by William Henderson posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?
I’ve just been reading an article about a woman in the north of England whose breast implants were paid for by strangers. In just three months, 23-year-old Gemini Smith from Northumbria raised the £4,450 needed to transform her from a 34A to a 34DD, and it’s all thanks to MyFreeImplants.com – or rather, the men who use it. This is a website for women who feel unhappy in the chest department but lack the funds to change it. They create a profile explaining why they would like breast implants and why they can’t afford them, and are given a dollar for each message they receive; men are invited to buy chat credits in order to send them messages, and are offered “… direct access to thousands of women seeking friendship and your help in obtaining the body they’ve always dreamed of”.
Should the taxpayers pay for breast implants, too? As having small breasts is causing some women pain in their lives. For they don’t feel as attractive as women with larger breasts. As men tend to look at women with larger breasts. Because men are pigs. Yet these women want these pigs to look at them. And suffer pain when they don’t.
One wonders where the feminists would fall on this issue. As providing free birth control is no more necessary for a healthy life than having breast implants. But women getting breast implants are seeking acceptance based on how attractive men find them. Which runs contrary to feminism. Much like feeding women free birth control so they can please as many men as possible sexually. Placing a woman’s sexuality at the core of her being. Again, something that kind of runs contrary to feminism. And the left.
Which makes the left’s obsession with same-sex marriage puzzling. As they are trying everything within their power to help women live without having to marry a man. While at the same time they are doing everything they can to help same-sex couples do what they try so hard to prevent women from having to do.
Tags: birth control, breast implants, free birth control, marriage, same-sex marriage
The Left empowers High School Girls by Encouraging them to have Lots of Sex
The War on Women is all about trying to prevent women from having as much sex as they possibly can. At least that’s what you’d believe listening to those on the Left. For the only thing important to women in the last election was preserving their birth control. And their access to abortion. So they can have as much sex as possible without having babies. For if Mitt Romney had won that election, the Left claimed, he would have relegated women to second-class status. Forcing them into marriages against their will. The worst fate that could befall any modern women. Forcing them into loveless marriages. Having nothing but babies. And being a sex-slave for her husband. While he goes out and lives life.
This is the message the Left tells women. That marriage is horrible. Unless you’re gay. Then it’s the most beautiful thing in the world. But heterosexual women are to avoid it like the plague. Which birth control and abortion help a woman do. So they can avoid sex in marriage which is little more than rape to those on the radical Left. So they can enjoy sex outside of marriage. A lot of it. Because it empowers them. According to those on the Left. Being a sexual being. Pleasing multiple sex partners. Even if it objectifies them. By allowing men to satisfy all of their sexual fantasies. Where these men go from woman to woman. Bedding them and then leaving them. Using these women for nothing more than sex. Allowing the modern man to have more sex with more women than ever before. Without ever having to put a ring on it. To quote Beyoncé.
Having lots of sex with lots of different partners is so important for women that the Left helps them at every level. Even in high school. By providing free birth control. And access to abortion. Even without letting their parents know if possible. And trying to tell these girls to wait until marriage is just another way to try and oppress women. Taking them back to the Fifties. When life was horrible for women. Because they were married and raising families. A fate worse than death. Unless you’re gay. Then it’s the most beautiful thing in the world. So we help high school girls have sex. And don’t blame high school boys for encouraging these girls to have sex. For this is how the Left empowers these girls. By giving them the tools they need to have as much sex as possible. Because nothing we say will prevent these kids from having sex. So the responsible thing to do is to help them. By objectifying these high school girls. So high school boys can give in to their surging hormones.
Men can Open their Fly and Quickly Urinate when Paused on a March in a Combat Zone
Before military personnel shipped overseas to fight in World War II they watched films teaching them how to avoid catching a venereal disease. Because these men had just graduated from high school. And had surging hormones filling them with sexual desires. Just like high school kids today. These boys were leaving home for the first time. And they knew that they may not come back home alive. A very dark and foreboding feeling. A sense of your own mortality. So a lot of these boys facing death in a combat zone thought about dying. And these boys didn’t want to die as boys. If they were going to die they wanted to die as men. And there were women near these combat zones that could help them become men. And the military bosses knew these men were going to have sex. No matter what they said. So they tried to educate these men on how to be safe. So they wouldn’t catch something from these women. Who were helping so many other boys to become men.
So what is life like in a combat zone? It’s long periods of boredom filled with moments of absolute terror. In the large-scale combat operations of World War II there were great battles. A lot of marching. And a lot of waiting to march. As bad as the terror of combat was the long waits when they did nothing but think about the coming terror of combat were just as bad. For your mind can wonder to all the horrible things that can happen. But apart from this dread they were bored. And looked for things to occupy that boredom. And these were the times these boys became men.
While in a forward position these men leave propriety back at base camp. If they pause in a march they can open their fly and quickly urinate. And button up before the column goes back on the march. Easy for a man to do. For they can pee without dropping trou. For there is nothing worse than having your pants around your ankles taking a squat when incoming mortars start raining down. Or artillery. You can drop down and take cover with your pants still around your ankles. If cover is available. But if you need to run to take cover you first have to pull up your pants. The extra time needed may just be enough for an artillery round to find you. Wounding you. Causing another soldier to risk his life to pull you to safety. Which a soldier won’t hesitate to do. But thankfully men don’t have to poop as much as they pee. So they don’t often have their pants around their ankles while in a combat zone.
Women in a Combat Zone will present an Alternative to the Unbearable Boredom when not in Combat
Of course, women have to drop trou to pee. So while a man can turn to his back to the column, unbutton his fly and urinate a woman will have to pull her pants down and squat. Will she do this in front of her fellow soldiers? Or will she move off a little for some privacy? Will other women go with her to stand guard while she pees away from the main body of troops? Or will she pee alone. And risk being captured by the enemy? And what about her menses? How will she address this while on the march during her period? Will the column have to pause so she can dig a hole to bury her soiled tampon or pad? Or will she just cast it aside and let it be discovered by the enemy? If operating behind enemy lines something like that could tip off the enemy of her presence. And her fellow soldiers.
But what about the time they are not in combat? Or on a march? Or behind enemy lines observing and evading the enemy? What if they are in a rear camp? Bored. Men and women together. Looking for something to do to kill time. These men and women away from home. Away from their sweethearts. With a heavy sense of their own mortality. After having recently been in high school where there was free birth control and access to abortion. So high school girls could have as much sex with as many people as possible. Where boys enjoyed this empowering of these girls. Would all that change in a combat zone? Will they stop having sexual desires?
Of course they won’t. Only it won’t be like in high school. Where kids were just going to have sex no matter what their parents or teachers said. So we had to give them birth control and access to abortion to let these kids be kids. But after teaching high school kids that it was okay to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible how do you un-teach them that in the military? When they are but a few years out of high school? When all of a sudden it’s just not boys and girls just being boys and girls. But women presenting an alternative to the unbearable boredom when not in combat. No, then these boys aren’t just being boys. They become predators. Who have to learn to keep it in their pants. Lest these women end up pregnant. This is the problem of having women in combat. (Well, one of them. Men are typically stronger. Taller. They don’t have breasts so body armor fits better. They don’t need tampons or pads. And the enemy is less likely to rape men if captured.) For men and women are different. As celebrated by the Left when these kids are in high school. But once women move into combat positions women will have to fight two enemies. The one the state is at war against. And the one trying to get into their pants. Men who will have to be reprimanded for acting like a base animal in a combat zone. Normally a good thing when you have to kill people. Which is what soldiers do in a combat zone. But not a good thing when you have ladies in your platoon.
Tags: abortion, access to abortion, babies, birth control, boredom, combat, combat zone, drop trou, empowers, enemy, enemy lines, free birth control, marriages, pee, sexual desires, soldiers, surging hormones, terror, urinate, venereal disease, women
Week in Review
The fact that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare doesn’t change some facts. People don’t like it. They don’t want it. And they want to repeal it. Especially the seniors (see Poll: Most Floridians disapprove of federal healthcare law, half want it repealed by Alex Leary, Tampa Bay Times, posted 7/12/2012 on The Miami Herald).
A majority of Florida voters oppose the national healthcare law and half want it repealed, a new Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9 poll shows two weeks after President Barack Obama’s signature achievement was largely upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Only 43 percent of voters statewide support the Affordable Care Act and 52 percent oppose it, with 5 percent undecided. With the exception of southeast Florida, more voters think the law will make the healthcare system worse.
More voters also favor the state opting out of provisions of the law, something Gov. Rick Scott has already said it would do…
In perhaps the most worrisome sign for Obama and Democrats, only 39 percent of voters 65 years or older support the law. Seniors make up about 30 percent of the overall state’s electorate…
The results mirror surveys in other states and show the same entrenched partisan feelings.
What is even more significant is that seniors are the largest consumers of health care services. These aren’t ill-informed young adults who want free birth control and abortion on demand. These are people whose very lives depend on quality health care. And that’s the problem. These informed consumers of health care services see Obamacare reducing the quality of their health care. For they listen to the details. Unlike healthy people in their twenties who have other pressing issues on their minds. I refer you back to the part of Obamacare that interests them. The free birth control and abortion on demand.
When Coke came out with New Coke the consumers of the original Coke did not like the change. So they brought out Classic Coke. And eventually dropped New Coke. Because New Coke was a disaster with the people who consumed the vast majority of Coke. The Coca Cola Company understood they had to please the people who consumed the vast majority of their product. So they took actions to please the consumers of Coke.
The reaction of seniors to Obamacare is similar. For the new health care system doesn’t benefit the largest consumer of health care services. These seniors. No. These seniors will lose the most. Obamacare will make huge cuts in Medicare spending which will hurt seniors. Obamacare will reduce doctors’ Medicare reimbursements and cause many of them to drop Medicare patients. Again, this will hurt seniors. And Obamacare will prioritize the use of their limited health care resources. Those who are younger and have more to live for (i.e., who can work longer and pay more taxes) will receive priority over a senior who no longer contributes to tax revenue while consuming enormous amounts of health care resources. The phrase ‘death panels’ does not appear in the health care law but there will be government bureaucrats determining who will receive health care and who will not. Which is a terrifying prospect to all seniors and the terminally ill. As well as the chronically ill.
Coke listened to their consumers because they cherished them as customers. The problem with Obamacare is that the government looks at the largest consumers of health care as a burden. And they don’t like them. As shown by the passage of a health care bill that is so hostile to them. Seniors often voted Democrat because they benefited from growing government spending. That spending will continue to grow under Obamacare. Only they will pay for a lot of it with spending cuts on programs that serve seniors. So it’s not likely that the seniors will vote Democrat in the 2012 election. Especially when only 39 percent of voters 65 years or older support Obamacare. Meaning 61% don’t. In Florida as well as other states wherever seniors can be found. No. They will vote for those who will listen to them as the largest consumers of health care services. And who don’t plan on fixing whatever problems we have in the health care system by trying to get seniors to die sooner.
Tags: abortion on demand, Affordable Care Act, death panels, Floridians, free birth control, government bureaucrats, government spending, Health Care, huge cuts in Medicare spending, Medicare, Obamacare, repeal Obamacare, seniors, Supreme Court
Week in Review
Here’s the skinny on Obamacare. And it isn’t good. For it transfers health insurance into a massive welfare program. That ultimately will be paid for by the state. Which means we the taxpayers will pay for it with massive new taxes. After Obamacare shuts down the private health insurance industry. Which it appears to be designed to do (see Obama’s health care law: A trek, not a sprint by RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press, posted 3/11/2012 on Yahoo! News).
The Affordable Care Act gradually reorganizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy to cover most of the nation’s 50 million uninsured, while simultaneously trying to restrain costs and prevent disruptions to the majority already with coverage.
If the government takes over one-sixth of the U.S. economy this won’t be the same USA anymore. It won’t be free market capitalism here. But a European social democracy. Like the European nations suffering from the European sovereign debt crisis. Caused by excessive government spending. And excessive government borrowing to pay for that spending. Which will happen under Obamacare. Because you can’t provide more for less. More health care will cost more. And when the private health insurance industry fails when they can’t provide more for less that leaves government as the sole provider in the health care market. The ultimate plan for Obamacare. As it has to be. Because you can’t provide more for less.
“We really haven’t seen the main game,” said Drew Altman, president of the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit information clearinghouse on the health care system. “The major provisions that will affect the most people and cost the most money don’t go into effect until 2014 or later.”
The timing of Obamacare is further proof that it will be a disaster for health insurers and for those buying health insurance. If it was good they would have implemented it before the 2012 election. So Obama could campaign on its successes. But knowing it was a failure they pushed back implementation until after the 2012 election. So that failure wouldn’t dash all hopes for an Obama second term.
Millions of people are getting preventive care that now must be provided at no additional cost to patients. Birth control for women soon will be on that list. Insurance premium increases are getting more scrutiny.
You can’t provide more for less. Forcing health insurers to provide free birth control without charging more in premiums to pay for this will put the private insurers out of business. Unless they allow insurers to increase premiums. Then everyone will pay more so women can use birth control without paying for it. A product that shuts down a natural biological function of the human body. Which isn’t insurance on more than one level. First of all, it’s not financial protection against an unexpected catastrophic health care expense. For there is nothing unknown about this expense. Second, getting pregnant is the proper thing for female body to do after sex. Stopping this process is not a health issue. It’s a lifestyle choice. And therefore shouldn’t be paid for by the same thing we use to pay for cancer treatments. An unexpected catastrophic expense.
A highly promoted program that provides a lifeline to people denied coverage because they already had medical problems has probably saved lives. But enrollment in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan has been disappointing, with only about 50,000 people nationwide.
Glenn Nishimura, a consultant from Little Rock, Ark., checked it out and found his premiums would come to about $6,300 a year.
“It’s out of my price range,” said Nishimura. It makes more financial sense to take care of his high blood pressure and high blood sugars by paying out-of-pocket and gambling that his health will hold up, he reasons. In three years he’ll be eligible for better coverage under Medicare.
This individual mandate, the main target for the law’s critics, also takes effect in 2014. Without it, many experts fear that the new exchanges, the state-based markets for private insurance, won’t work. Healthy people would be tempted to postpone signing up until they get sick, raising costs for everybody.
You can’t provide more for less. And there’s nothing that costs more in the health insurance industry than paying for preexisting conditions. Because if you’re covering a preexisting condition it means that the preexisting medical condition wasn’t covered before it existed. Meaning the person did not buy health insurance when they were younger and healthier. And paid nothing into the health insurance pools to help offset the costs of those who fall ill with an unexpected and catastrophic illness. Only now that they are sick and facing large medical bills do they want health insurance coverage to pay these bills. Which isn’t insurance. It’s welfare.
The individual mandate addresses this. But it’s unconstitutional. For the government doesn’t have the right to make people buy anything. And, no, it’s not the same as car insurance. Because if you don’t drive a car you don’t have to buy car insurance. And if the Supreme Court upholds this unconstitutional individual mandate it will have the same effect as a massive tax increase. And kill economic activity. At a time the nation is still reeling under the Great Recession. Massive new government expenditures and a fall in economic activity, and therefore a fall in tax revenue, will put the U.S. ever closer to those European social democracies wallowing in the European sovereign debt crisis. And in case you’re wondering what that would mean it would be a bad thing. A very, very bad thing. Unless you like riots in the streets. As they had them in Greece, France, and the UK. And elsewhere wherever they tried to cut back some great government welfare program.
Tags: 2012 election, birth control, european sovereign debt crisis, excessive government spending, free birth control, health insurance, individual mandate, massive tax increase, Obama, Obamacare, one-sixth of the U.S. economy, preexisting conditions, premiums, private health insurance, social democracy, unconstitutional, unexpected catastrophic expense, welfare program, you can't provide more for less