What would it take for you to vote across party lines?

[BigDaddyFin]

I've voted across party lines many times.  In upstate NY the Republicans and Democrats often flip parties just to run against each other, and there are a lot of Democrat Judges who end up Democrat-Conservative-Independant on the ticket. 

It's next to impossible in my district to be a straight ticket anything.

[badger6]

The ability to get pregnant is not a medical condition? Do go on.

Really, it's pretty simple. The ability to get pregnant is not a medical issue whatsoever. Being pregnant is a medical issue. Just like a man having ability to get someone pregnant is not a medical condition. There are no symptoms or medical diagnosis for not being pregnant. Insurance companies should not be on the hook for the convienience of people to get their rocks off without any responsibility. It's simple, you don't want to get pregnant, DON'T FUCK. If you do buy your own goddamn birth control. Just more of the same from the "entitlement" population that thinks they are exempt from life choices and personal responsibility and wants a handout. If you can't afford birth control you should be focusing on changing your situation instead of spreading your legs. If not take resposibility for your own life choices. The only other person that should be paying for birth control, other than the female, is the one screwing that female...
.

[Buddhagirl]

Really, it's pretty simple. The ability to get pregnant is not a medical issue whatsoever. Being pregnant is a medical issue. Just like a man having ability to get someone pregnant is not a medical condition. There are no symptoms or medical diagnosis for not being pregnant. Insurance companies should not be on the hook for the convienience of people to get their rocks off without any responsibility. It's simple, you don't want to get pregnant, DON'T FUCK. If you do buy your own goddamn birth control. Just more of the same from the "entitlement" population that thinks they are exempt from life choices and personal responsibility and wants a handout. If you can't afford birth control you should be focusing on changing your situation instead of spreading your legs. If not take resposibility for your own life choices. The only other person that should be paying for birth control, other than the female, is the one screwing that female...
.

You are aware that most insurance companies already cover birth control, right? (I know mine does.)

[SCFinfan]

For me, I'd easily vote across party lines - I don't necessarily hold beliefs that are to the right on issues like evolution, the economy, etc.

However, I am "to the right" on issues like abortion, the contraceptive mandate, same-sex marriage, etc etc. I would need a democrat who's not so far to the left that they think these things are abhorrent. I mean, it's pretty clear - except to those who're so far to the left they don't understand, these things are perfectly reasonable, rational, cogent, able to be accepted by open-minded people of education, good grooming, and above-average intelligence.

I took a quiz on http://www.isidewith.com/ the other day. Of course, I was unsurprisingly in favor of Mitt Romney 91%. However, I was 68% w/ Barack Obama. I would suggest we all take it. It's quite eye-opening.

Some of the discussion in this thread is pretty silly. To suggest the Republicans have moved far to the right of the country on this one is ludicrous. They haven't. Remember, the last election, in 2010, was overwhelmingly won by hardcore, far-to-the-right Republicans. It's no mandate, of course, as we also have a far-to-the-left President and Democratic party. Frankly, I think CF's initial point stands. We're a divided nation. Half of us think Gay marriage is the offshoot of the sexual revolution, and will inevitably be another failed experiment with harsh consequences for the fruit of marriage: children. The other half, w/o a whole lot more explanation, believes these beliefs to be out of date and intolerant and bigoted. Look at the language on here from people like Buddha: "I don't want someone to drag the country back 100 years." Is this conciliatory or centrist at all? Uh, no. It's far left. And ridiculous.

But that's the point. We're divided. I think if we realize that, come to terms with it, and remember ol' libtard/conservaturd down the road ain't so bad after all, it'd be a little easier for us all to come to terms with. But that, of course, is not what Rachel Maddow or O'Reilly want you to do. They want you to be inflamed. They want discord. It sows ratings.

For one, I can get along w/ everybody. Really, that's my politics.

[Spider-Dan]

Really, it's pretty simple. The ability to get pregnant is not a medical issue whatsoever. Being pregnant is a medical issue. Just like a man having ability to get someone pregnant is not a medical condition. There are no symptoms or medical diagnosis for not being pregnant. Insurance companies should not be on the hook for the convienience of people to get their rocks off without any responsibility.

Insurance companies already cover stuff like Viagra.  So if they are going to cover that, why not birth control?

[Buddhagirl]

Consequences for the fruit of marriage? WTF does that even mean?
Heaven forbid if I want all people to have the same rights. Keep hiding your bigotry behind the bible there, SC.

Also, I took the quiz. I'm 98% green party, 96% Dem, 66% libertarian, and 5% republican. Interesting result with the green party.

[Spider-Dan]

However, I am "to the right" on issues like abortion, the contraceptive mandate, same-sex marriage, etc etc. I would need a democrat who's not so far to the left that they think these things are abhorrent. I mean, it's pretty clear - except to those who're so far to the left they don't understand, these things are perfectly reasonable, rational, cogent, able to be accepted by open-minded people of education, good grooming, and above-average intelligence.

What are you saying here, exactly?

Are you saying that being in favor of criminalizing abortion, outlawing same-sex marriage, or allowing employers to opt-out of healthcare coverage is "reasonable and rational?"  Or are you saying that opposing those things is unreasonable and irrational?

I would also ask you the following: do you think it's "reasonable" to be anti-evolution in favor of teaching children all the various ideas about the origin of life (including creationism and intelligent design), so that they may make an informed decision for themselves?

To suggest the Republicans have moved far to the right of the country on this one is ludicrous. They haven't. Remember, the last election, in 2010, was overwhelmingly won by hardcore, far-to-the-right Republicans.

I say the GOP has moved far to the right (at the federal level) because the party is monolithically conservative; there are no more self-proclaimed liberal Republicans, and there are hardly any self-proclaimed moderate Republicans.  In contrast, there are quite a few proudly conservative Democrats, and a large number of self-proclaimed moderates (I daresay the majority).

None of that has anything to do with who won which election.  The fact that the majority of the people who showed up to vote in 2010 preferred much more conservative candidates tells us nothing about a shift in the party itself.

Half of us think Gay marriage is the offshoot of the sexual revolution, and will inevitably be another failed experiment with harsh consequences for the fruit of marriage: children.

And yet, while these people ostensibly want to outlaw same-sex marriage "for the children," they have mysteriously remained silent on the topics of outlawing divorce or single parenthood, both of which are much more "harmful" to children than allowing two gay parents to get married.

The ultimate irony is that you will not see a single conservative politician in this republic stand up for denying homosexuals the right to have children.  So at the end of the day, if homosexuality isn't outlawed (which is not on the table), and homosexual parenthood isn't outlawed (which is also not on the table), the only thing that banning same-sex marriage does "for the children" is to prevent their parents from getting married.

This position is so transparently full of holes that it seems obvious that the real goal is simply to deny rights to homosexuals; i.e. bigotry.

[badger6]

You are aware that most insurance companies already cover birth control, right? (I know mine does.)

If they choose on their own to cover birth control before August 1, 2012 (I doubt it, but it's possible) then that's one thing. They made the choice to do it as a company. The government shouldn't mandate it at all.

Insurance companies already cover stuff like Viagra.  So if they are going to cover that, why not birth control?

Erectile Dysfunction is a medical condition that Viagra treats. Read it again, Medical Condition !!! What medical condition does birth control treat I'll wait.............

[Buddhagirl]

If they choose on their own to cover birth control before August 1, 2012 (I doubt it, but it's possible) then that's one thing. They made the choice to do it as a company. The government shouldn't mandate it at all.

Erectile Dysfunction is a medical condition that Viagra treats. Read it again, Medical Condition !!! What medical condition does birth control treat I'll wait.............

Endometreosis
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
PMS
PMDD
amenorrhea
Irregular periods

Birth control is just hormones.

[Phishfan]

What medical condition does birth control treat I'll wait.............

That question was just full of ignorance on the topic.

[badger6]

Endometreosis
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
PMS
PMDD
amenorrhea
Irregular periods

Birth control is just hormones.

Good I'm glad someone answered. I'll trust your post on those and won't even fact check because I know that birth control does actually treat a few medical conditions. Now since those are actual medical conditions I'm sure you would agree that they should be covered. So are you saying that those conditions should be covered and coverage for preventing pregnancy should not be covered. Or do you think that any woman who wants birth control should be covered ?

[Phishfan]

However, I am "to the right" on issues like abortion, the contraceptive mandate, same-sex marriage, etc etc. I would need a democrat who's not so far to the left that they think these things are abhorrent. I mean, it's pretty clear - except to those who're so far to the left they don't understand, these things are perfectly reasonable, rational, cogent, able to be accepted by open-minded people of education, good grooming, and above-average intelligence.

What a slap in the face. So basically since you do not agree with someone on these positions they are closed minded, uneducated, slovenly, and have below average intelligence. You cetainly cannot get along with everyone if that is how you feel about them. Slap in the face with one hand and pat them on the back with the other, is that your philosophy?

[badger6]

That question was just full of ignorance on the topic.

Asking a question is ignorant ? Since you don't know the reason I asked the question, I think your statement is ignorant. Run along now...

[Dave Gray]

Insurance companies WANT to cover birth control.  It saves them a lot of money.  If it's a question of finances, there's no question:  Private industry makes money when they offer birth control for free.

I think SC is talking about the moral disagreement with employers paying for birth control when they're morally opposed to it.  I don't respect that position on the grounds that I don't want my employer's religious beliefs affecting my insurance.  Do Jehovah's Witness bosses not cover blood transfusions?  If my boss is a homeopath, can they refuse to provide actual medicine?

Now, you can you the above paragraph to discredit the whole idea of an insurance mandate and that's a position that I disagree with, but at least understand.  But if we're operating on the idea that employers are providing insurance, I don't think they can pick and choose based on their own personal morals.

[badger6]

Insurance companies WANT to cover birth control.  It saves them a lot of money.  If it's a question of finances, there's no question:  Private industry makes money when they offer birth control for free.

I think SC is talking about the moral disagreement with employers paying for birth control when they're morally opposed to it.  I don't respect that position on the grounds that I don't want my employer's religious beliefs affecting my insurance.  Do Jehovah's Witness bosses not cover blood transfusions?  If my boss is a homeopath, can they refuse to provide actual medicine?

Now, you can you the above paragraph to discredit the whole idea of an insurance mandate and that's a position that I disagree with, but at least understand.  But if we're operating on the idea that employers are providing insurance, I don't think they can pick and choose based on their own personal morals.

If they really wanted to prevent pregnancies they would cover male vasectomys also, which they don't. Not only are they more effective at preventing pregnancy. It would save money over the long run since it's a one time procedure as opposed to a never ending trip to the pharmacy every month. Not to mention that it screams of gender discrimination not to offer birth control to the "other gender". For a bunch of people that scream "equality" every time they have the chance around here, I don't hear anyone complaining about the lack of a male alternative for birth control. Sounds kinda hypocritical to me. Like Barney Fife said, "nip it in the bud". With a vasectomy it's all a moot point and you would save time, money, gas, pill taking errors, and some of the pregnancies that still do occur. So since it's all about money, why don't they offer male birth control as an option since it would save money.