Nuitari, I like Baldwin's statement, "The heartland values that we embrace. The work ethic and the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, that you should be able to get ahead." Those are the values I grew up with here in Wisconsin; the understanding was that the rules were for everyone.

Are the 98/99% "victims" of a legislature that increasingly appears to favor the top 1 or 2%? I was raised with the notion that it takes two to make a bully. I believe that our government, comprised of We the People, should provide as level a playing field as possible so that everyone has an opportunity to succeed and in turn contribute to society. That old "a chicken in every pot" idea.

What are your thoughts?

No wonder you are always wanting Bren......

She better have her concession speech ready. Tommy Thompson will mop the floor with her radical far left agenda. Kathleen Falk set the bar pretty high for being a unelectable democratic candidate in a statewide election as she failed big time.. Expect Tammy Baldwin to follow suit and go down in flames in a BIG way.

@Bren -

That is a nice statement, and I fundamentally agree with it. But how does Tammy propose to make things fair? Isn't that the substance that counts?

If every proposed tax increase that Baldwin voted in favor of had passed, the average middle class American family would presently be paying 65% of their yearly income in taxes to the various levels of government.

You may consider that to be fair, Bren, but Hoffa doesn't think that government should be taking more than a combined 35% of anyone's yearly income.

So Bren, do you support Baldwin's 65% or more combined taxation policy? What number is fair in Bren's world? Why do you always duck this question when ever it is posited to you?

Bren, your gods of the DNC all had stories of how they were so helpless until the government swooped them off their feet. Hardly believable. As far as a level playing field, sure, as long as you're not taking from one to give to another.

Mr. Hoffa, I think I've written before that I don't really have a problem with our core tax code. I would allow the Bush tax cuts at the top tier to expire however, as that was a social experiment that failed. Reverting back to rates that one had paid before would be less painful than higher new taxes. And we're talking about a group that isn't going to have to worry about putting food on the table. They will survive. I've also called to end the subsidies for Big Oil, but I've since had another thought. After learning that oil spill clean-up technology hasn't advanced much past absorbent paper towels since the Exxon Valdez, and that clean-up strategies for extracted oil pipeline spills are near-nonexistent, I would direct Big Oil to use a significant percentage of those subsidies for clean-up R&D. If measurable strides don't occur within three years (individually or as a group effort, so long subsidies. Then the funds would be used for independent R&D. How does that sound?

Nuitari, I agree with your point, "as long as you're not taking from one to give to another," with the interpretation that gaming the system to shut out smaller competitors (I'm looking at you, Microsoft) is unacceptable behavior.

We the People also have a role we can play, and that's to punish with the pocketbook. There's no law stating we have to shop at the Walmart that's hurting our mom-and-pop store. And we can vote out politicians that support legislation that hurts small/midsize businesses.

@Bren -

Are you forgetting about Kevin Costner's machine?

Eh?

@Bren -

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/how-does-kevin-costners-oil-cleaning-machine-work-exactly/57983/

You're welcome!

@ James R Hoffa
4:43 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
-

If every proposed tax increase that Baldwin voted in favor of had passed, the average middle class American family would presently be paying 65% of their yearly income in taxes to the various levels of government.
You may consider that to be fair, Bren, but Hoffa doesn't think that government should be taking more than a combined 35% of anyone's yearly income.
So Bren, do you support Baldwin's 65% or more combined taxation policy?

Bernie replies;
{“IF} every tax increase she voted for” That’s an inferior statement for you to be making. Not all measures that go to vote is intended to pass and are used as measurements to the house field of voters. Some are used as bargaining chips for future debates. You of all should know this. That aside; Rate of taxation would be determined by what it purchases. Not some arbitrary number plucked from the air. 35% would be nice for the elitist that pay less than 14% of their share. So your question of 65% is naiveté as it does not exist, is not implied it would exist or is up for any vote in the near future. Interesting that you plucked 65% because that is what Main Street USA residents already pay with their income taxes and all the other orbiting taxes, sales tax, licensing tax, marriage tax, property tax, service tax, etc. etc. Hmmm are they taxing air yet?

@Bernard -

If historical performance records are off limits to use as a means of comparing the candidates in this race merely because they could be interpreted in a variety of ways premised upon the perspective or unknown intent of the politician, then doesn't that philosophy discredit ever holding any politician accountable for their records, as after all - it's all a matter of open interpretation?

COME ON!!!

Bottom line is that Baldwin has voted in favor or nearly every proposed tax increase that has come up during her tenure in the House. If you support that, good for you. However, that is not a value that Hoffa supports.

You Pike

@ Hoffa
i would think the better Baldwin strategy for democrats would be to have fewer people hear her far left views . Let me guess......she wants to spend more on nonsense with borrowed money! Like that has worked to do anything but suck the life out of the recovery which now looks like a certain double dip recession .

It is the DNC policy that everything is brought up 3 times, then they cram it down your throat.

Actually, Avenging Angel, the slogan, "A chicken in every pot" was part of an ad taken out by the Republican National Committee in 1928 to support presidential candidate Herbert Hoover. From the Hoover archives: "The ad described in detail how the Republican administrations of Harding and Coolidge had "reduced hours and increased earning capacity, silenced discontent, put the proverbial 'chicken in every pot.' And a car in every backyard, to boot."

Who knew?

And people wonder why I continuously ask what happened to the Republican Party.

You are what you eat. Sometimes. Should have mentioned tacos.

@Steve and Nuitari...how does it feel to be cretinous homophobes? How does another person's sexual preference affect either of you ?

I fear Conservatives missed the point - no surprise from the messages I heard in Tampa last week. Progressives are not interested in a culture of dependacy. We never were. We never will be. We are interested in everyone getting ahead. We believe if you have two chickens, you should share some with someone who has zero. That way, those with zero chickens can be nourished, and work to get thier own chickens. They don't need a whole chicken. They need an opportunity. We then all win.

For being accused of being a secular party compared to Christian Conservatives, it is amazing to me Progressives naturally support the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth compared those who want to leave their neighbors in need out in the cold - who all claim to follow this guy's teachings and want it all in the government. Jesus would have wanted welfare. Why Christian Conservatives fight this will always amaze me.

Troy, I'll be over to your house to see what you have. I may not need it or I may be able to get it on my own, but you may have something that I don't have. After all, we all want to win.
I don't have an X-box, I bet you do.

Typical Conservative dis connect. Why this election will be close (and I know it will be) I will never know.

Nothing like missing my point while proving it - all at the same time

I think it's more like some people are hoarding 100 chickens, and people who used to have one no longer have any. Government policy has let it happen because the chicken-hoarders had all the political influence.

... and the guy who wants to be in charge has taken a whole lot of his chickens out of the country to the Caymans and Switzerland and plays like he is the victim when us little guys question him about it.

Tammy wants everyone to know that she is gay, and she runs directly on it. I do not agree with her eating fish tacos yet talking about eating brats in my state. She lied to the nation, she does not eat brats and can not relate to eating brats.

Romney is rich and has admitted it. The liberals want to ridicule him every waking moment for having some money.

How does it feel to be cretinous classphobes?
Now go wash your mouth out with soap.

NO Controled Thought TROY .. You believe if i have two chickens that you get to use the force of government to STEAL my chicken and give it to someone else .. you are no FREAKIN Christian .. you are a POS Statist suckazz!!

@ Steve - you realize how much of a bigot you sound like right now, right? It is pretty scary - a delusional bigot.

I don't think you are intending to sound that bad. But you really do sound that bad

@ Johnny - for those who follow my posts, I make no apologies I am an atheist. So calling me no Christian is quite a compliment actually - considering Christianity has a history of immorality (depite it's teachings). Funny how Christians tend to freak out when those facts are pointed out.

The gov. is not stealing chickens, but what ever it is to help you sleep at night in the face of your own hypocracy I guess

The real problem is that too many people not only want the chicken, but they want it fried for them. And when they are finished, they want another chicken. I got my chicken and I incubated the eggs, fed and raised the chicks and now I have more chickens. I even have a few cows and a barn to keep them in. I am willing to give a chicken and even some milk to someone that truly needs one, but I don't want to feed them for the rest of their lives, if they have the ability to feed themselves. I don't worry about those that have more chickens than I do, that type of thinking is for turkeys.

And if you really listened to the President's speech last night, he actually said just that.

... and Tammy said the same thing, too.

The exact same thing.

Your the hypocrate ..We believe if you have two chickens, you should share some with someone who has zero. .. And how do they "Share" the chicken? By the government TAKING it and giving it to someone else .. I guess you don't beleive people should keep thier earnings either .. yeah the government isn't STEALING that either .. is that what you believe hypocrate!!

So you should keep all your earnings. No taxes or welfare at all. Keep all your chickens. You've earned them, right? Keep 'em all!!! If some one lost all thier chickens, forget them! It must be their fault. They are just lazy. Never mind those that have an increasing number of them and thier unwillingness to breed or share them. They have them bred in other countries. It's cheaper that way, right?

Real "Christian" attitdue. Thanks again from proving my point.

@Troy -- what do you expect from someone who supports a man who gained his 200 chickens by taking over a chicken farm, taking the single chicken each from the farmhands, mortgaging the farm, paying himself a huge bonus of chickens and then letting the farm go bankrupt?

Troy are you really that ignorant .. Did i say i wouldn't FREELY donate or give away my chickens .. But NO you think it is "Christian" to have FORCED Charity .. come with a gun and force me to donate my chickens ..yeah thats Christian .. moron

I listened to the Presidents speech, he said nothing, but said it very well. Obama is good at talking the talk (when provided with a teleprompter), but his actions fall far short.
Last night he said he was going to cut the deficit by $4.5 trillion, same as he promised 4 years ago, but failed. Is he going to cut spending, from his current rate, by $2.7 trillion/year or is he going to raise taxes that much. I did not hear any pledge about not raising taxes, and cutting spending is not his style.

Name calling - Another tennant of Christianity apparently.

The government collects taxes at gunpoint? Don't know what country you're living in, Johnny, but it sounds like a scary place. Glad I don't live there. My taxes are withdrawn from my check directly and I use TurboTax every spring to confirm the correct amount and typically get a refund from a government that accknowledges it took too much out the first time and refunds the difference. No weapondry is needed in that process.

@Greg - actully, it was Romney's speech that didn't deliver any details. He used a teleprompter also, but amazingly, his delivery wasn't as good,either.

The president has shown a history of cutting spending when necessary (the Pentagon, NASA - that was a mistake, but I digress, Medicare WASTE, etc.)

It really is too bad when facts get in the way of rhetoric.

Makes some people sound really ignorant.

Seriously Troy .. are you that ignorant .. do you know the difference between giving VOLUNTARY .. are being forced to pay .. what if i refuse to pay income tax .. what happens, do they just let me NOT pay .. come on Troy seriously you can't be that stupid!!

I meant Or NOT are forced to pay

My point, actually doesn't take the non payment of taxes to that extreme. I imagine guns are used if necessary... but I am willing to bet there is no need for guns as long as the process is followed.

I like paying taxes as much as the next guy. The difference is I can accept the need for taxes in a civilized society. It's too bad that isn't a common understanding.

Doesn't the Bible say something about paying taxes? I think I remember it's in one of the "gospels"

Troy, Romney presented a 5 step plan, to the contrary when Obama stated anything, that remotely sounded like a plan, he followed it with "you can do that". It reminded me of the guy that sold Richard Pryor the house in the movie Moving. When Arlo Pear (Richard Pryor) would discuss a feature of the house, the seller would say "we're taking it with us", and he did. Then Arlo ended up getting screwed on the house, just like Obama is setting us up to get screwed. "You can do that" is Obama's escape route, mark my words. Let's just hope we never have to find it out.

Thanks for the feedback, Greg.

I actually hope we can find out. I like the idea of solving our problems together vs. carrying all the weight while those in power care nothing for my issues as they are too busy running the country into the ground.

The Bush administration as no fun for the average American and returning to all of those policies is a terrible idea.

Romneys 5 Step Plan:
Spending: End Medicare and Social Security as we know it & privatize it. Leaving greater burdens on those it was designed to protect while making the rich all the richer
Trade: Out source every good paying job because that pesky payroll really affects an executives bottom line (and bonus- ah who cares, they'll just short the stock and still make bank)
Jobs: End all organized labor. Forget workers' rights. With no health care or wage guarantee, labor can be completely expendable - and we can set up shop like that Apple factory in China
Taxes: Cut all taxes on the uber wealthy. As long as they have all the wealth, they can buy whatever they need. The rest of us... who cares? It's not their problem we are all so... poor.True - we may have started off middle class and these 5 steps made us all poor, but really it's our fault for not being rich in the first place, right? I mean, if we arn't already rich, or born into wealth, we must be lazy

My point, actually doesn't take the non payment of taxes to that extreme. I imagine guns are used if necessary ... Of course it doesn't Troy .. because Atheists need to be forced to pay .. Christians GIVE out of the goodness of thier heart to charitys they believe in .. Atheist Statists who don't beleive in chit need for the government to force them to pay because they wouldn't give willingly .. isn't that right Troy?? Do you even have the slightest idea when INCOME tax was instituted ..1913 so we could become the slaves to the banksters YOU are one of thier mindless fools ... What is a Slave .. I say anyone who is FORCED to work in the fields for thier Masters ... even if thier Master is the government ... What does freedom mean to commie tools like Troy .. i Have NO idea

Yep, go with that troy. The special interests have taken over your mind, but fortunately you are bipolar, as is evidenced by your two consecutive threads 10 minutes apart.
I was honest about what Obama presented in his speech, it would be nice if you could do the same in regards to Romney.

Do elves bake cookies in trees or go on adventures in your world, guys?
The thread is the same because I am arguing the same points. This doesn't make me bipolar. I really think you need to look up the definition of bi polar. 'Cause your messing it up makes you sound pretty ignorant.

Keep blaming my beliefs on special interests while your only news is Fox and Rush Limbaugh if it makes you feel better. It's just too bad we hear in the real world need to deal with you guys stuck at the kiddies table throwing tantrums every time you are proved wrong and don't get your way

Or maybe just because it sounds cool.

Nuitari - Avenging Angels, a/k/a Danists, were Mormon terrorists responsible for butchering scores of Protestant women and children in the 9/11 of the 19th century. I believe this name is in very bad taste, particularly as this individual expresses extreme right-wing views and Romney is on the ticket. Scary.

There goes Dirk with his crazy conspiracy theories again!

Hoffa - What part of bad taste do you not understand? Are you denying the Mountain Meadows massacre now? Lots of testimony from that time:

"“After prayer Brother Higbee said: ‘Here are the orders,’ and handed me a paper from [President] Haight... Brother Higbee was then to give the order: ‘Do Your Duty to God!’ At this the Danites were to shoot down the men; the Indians were to kill the women and larger children, and the drivers of the wagons and I was to kill the wounded and sick men that were in the wagons... The Mormons were then at war with the United States, and we believed all Gentiles should be killed as a war measure, to the end that the Mormons, as God’s chosen people, hold and inhabit the earth and rule and govern the globe.”

- John D. Lee Diaries

@Dirk -

I'm sure that you could take issue if the chosen screen name had been Angel Moroni!

Dirk is afraid of going from a Muslim terrorist president to a alleged Mormon one.

@Nuitari - "Dirk is afraid of going from a Muslim terrorist president to a alleged Mormon one". Obama is obviously not a Muslim, but Romney is definitely a Mormon.
Actually, now that you mention it, there are great similarities between the two religions, the following are some:
Each religion sees its founder (Muhammad for Islam, and Joseph Smith for Mormonism) as being a TRUE PROPHET of God, called to re-establish the TRUE faith.
A founding prophet who received visits from an angel, leading to revelation of a new book of scripture;
Insistence that their religion is a complete way of life, meant to directly influence every facet of existence;
A belief that theirs constitutes the one and only completely true religion on the earth today;
Assertions that modern Christianity does not conform to the original religion taught by Jesus Christ;
Belief that the text of the Bible, as presently constituted, has been adulterated from its original form;
Rejection of the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and the Trinity;
Belief in fasting during specified periods of time;
Belief that their faith represents the genuine, original religion of Adam, and of all true prophets thereafter;
Prohibition of alcoholic beverages, gambling, and homosexual and bisexual practices;
An active interest in aggressively proselytizing nonbelievers.
The followers of Muhammad and Joseph Smith both killed innocent "infidel" on 9/11. The Mormons "Meadows Massacre" was in 1857.

Explain how businesses are being victimized? By having to compensate their employees and not endanger them or the environment?

When ever you can't counter an argument due you the failed policies you believe in, just call socialist to make your self feel better.

If Obongocare goes through, all employees will be 1099....problem solved.

@ Bob
Obongo care?
1099?

Huh?
.. not getting it.

@Bob Sacamano -- I actually had an employer who tried that dodge -- call us all independent contractors so he could avoid Workman's Comp, FICA, etc. There were no benefits to begin with, no health insurance, paid holidays, or anything like that in the first place. You're really getting your health insurance on the sufferance of your employers as it is.

Your charming name for the ACA indicates your mindset.

Concerning Christianity, I'm in agreement with George Bernard Shaw. It's a fascinating concept. To bad it's never actually been put into practice.

shocked, although I shouldnt be, by the willful ignorance and complete idiocy of liberals.

I did`nt see her talking to chairs, Dick Head

Same kind of grad as Barrett being governor?

Because Scot Walker is someone the state can be proud of? Sure the Coke brothers love the guy, but they left the minute they bought the election for him - and they did buy that election - both of them.

Tammy will make an excellent Senator. Tommy's conviction flows in the political winds, just like Romney and Ryan. Tammy at least sticks to her guns and has always fought for the little guy. She will continue to make us all proud.

Not ALL.
It is "Koch" brothers. Take some time and check the spelling in your moronic rants. Governor Walker's first name is "Scott". And yes, we are proud of him.

@ Greg. You are right. I apologize. I mis spelled Scott and used the drink instead of the name Koch and there is no excuse. I'll do better

Remind me again - did Scott expect and ask the Koch brothers for help during the drought that devistated our farmers? What about the home builders from Texas and Colorado? No? It was the federal government? Huh.

I saw an interview by Gov. Walker and he was very very impressive. I'm not snarky this time. I am honest. He impressed me big time. I just wish he was that impressive in the way he governs our state - which he isn't

@morninmist -

What the hell is a grand senator? Is that like the grand dragon or something? The only way Tammy's going to be a senator is a state senator representing Dane County!

Why would a Governor ask for money for drought relief from the Koch brothers? They contributed to his campaign, period. Should Barrett ask the unions to pay for the failing schools? Should Obama expect Kaiser to use some of his Solyndra money to repay some of the $700 billion that is being raided from Medicare? I would guess you would think not. Sweep your own side of the street, I'll sweep mine.

I'm sorry, Greg. I must have been listening to too much Conservative thought. I was told private business is the answer to everything - not just campaign contributions for their tax breaks and no other committment to their community.
It's the workers who are taking care of the schools considering it's their kids enrolled. To imply there is as much money in the union as there is in corp. is just silly. Barrett spent $17.9 mil & Walker spent $45.6 mil. a difference of $27.7 mil. for those who thing cutting taxes can somehow raise revenue.

One more time - the $700 from Medicare was from waste a fraud. It was a cut to providers and not to recipients. It was the SAME CUT proposed by Paul Ryan

Sweeping our own side of the street is a very conservative idea. It's the Progressives who believe if we all take responsibility, we call all clean the street and enjoy the prosperity that comes from it.

@Troy .. Sweeping our own side of the street is a very conservative idea. It's the Progressives who believe if we all take responsibility, we call all clean the street and enjoy the prosperity that comes from it. ... That is BS .. Progressives believe if you are capable of sweeping the street but don't want to the government should step in and force you by gunpoint to sweep the street ... You Statist clowns use FORCE to accomplish YOUR goals

Millionaire Tammy certainly is not paying her fair share!

So Troy, Would Barrett have spent $46 million if he had it? Be honest now.

@Johnny.
You could not be more wrong about Progressives. Close your mouth. Open your ears. You'll learn more then.

@Greg
I'm sure Barrett would have spent $46, $47 or even $50 mil had he had it. There is no doubt of that in my mind. If he had it, he would have spent it.

My point is that he didn't have it. Unions don't have the money corp. do. Mayor Barrett didn't get that kind of money from the unions. I think you would agree if unions did have that kind of money, they would have given it. They didn't have that money. Corp. had that kind of money. They gave it. Walker won - twice.

So to say unions have the money and influence corp. do is just plain silly.

Over one million signatures, millions of union members in Wisconsin, tens of millions of union members nationally, the DPW, the DNC, super PACs... All of that and Barrett came up short. I guess they shouldn't of wasted the millions on Falk and I can't believe how cheap the so called Barrett supporters ended up being. They love to bang drums and protest, but signing a check is out of the question.

Tammy would make a worst gay senator than Herbie.

@BABS -

Excellent summary!

Uganda has legislation pending that makes homosexuality a capital offense - meaning it is possible to be executed for the crime of being gay. Sending aid to people compared to invading... that's a tough call. Gov. Walker is in the process of de regulating business and they are still leaving the state by the thousands (or did GE change their mind about the Waukesha plant?). Tea Party rallies during the health care debate frequently threatened with violence those who are gay. There is a great deal of documentation to back that up. There were no threats of violence in the Madison protests. There are many reports about how cooperative protesters were.

Conservatives are amazing to me. When wrong, just ignore the facts, make up a bunch fiction and bury the head deeper and deeper into delerium.

"There were no threats of violence in the Madison protests. " My God you are a dunderhead, would you like me to list links of threats of violence from your kind?

@FreeThought Troy -

Your partisanship blinds you to the truth.

Yes, Bob. I would like a list, please.

@Bob Sacamono - Yes, please list the threats of violence from "our kind" in Madison protests. Also, where will you put the comment by Walker that he thought about planting phony protesters to cause trouble. Please attribute the threats to a particular group you hate, like Commies, Socialists, Democrats, LGBT, Union members, government workers, teachers, school children, firemen, students, doctors, etc.

@Hoffa - If FreeThought Troy is blinded by partisanship, we would have to ask you what it is like being deaf, dumb, and blind, and having no taste.

@Dirk -

At least Hoffa can still feel and smell - 2 out of 5 ain't bad!

Hoffa smells?

@Greg -

Only a little! Hoffa will take a shower soon - I promise ;-)

Probably the Corinthian Leather & Old Spice combination.

@ Dick - considering it's 2012 and we are talking about birth control and "legitimate" rape. I guess another Red Scare is on the way. I wonder when we'll hear about black lists?

Let's not forget that it's the Democrats that put Japanese Americans in concentration camps!

DumbAssTroy and DumbAssDirk, have you heard of the Venona project vindicating all of the folks naming names?

@Bob Sacamono - No, maybe we Dumbasses, as you refer to us, have not heard about the Venona Project and how it vindicated all the name namers. Tell us also about Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

I am more concerned about the Bains of this country moving jobs to Red China. While you are at it, please tell us how Romney believes Russia is public enemy # 1, and Al Qaeda and other such terrorist organizations are down the list.

Dirky boy, Russia still has nukes pointed at us, Putin is a crazed KGB type, and have you seen what he is doing to his own people? Oh forgot, you get your news from Mr. Maddow and Sgt Schultz at MSNBC. Doesn't surprise me that you don't know anything about the Venona Project and how verified Hiss was a commie.....you are a liberal after all.

Sacamano - Bob, old, old, boy, the relevance, accuracy, and even the authenticity of Venona decrypts have been questioned by many critics. But I will give it to you, Hiss was more than likely a Commie. What is your point about Commies today? Russia is not Commie since way back. Are "Commie" protesters today supported by Red China, or North Korea? You need to move on to the enemies that have invaded U.S. soil and are killing our soldiers today.

@FreeThought Troy -

How exactly are we debating women's health decisions?

@Hoffa - Don't even start with me today, Man. If you try to pull your primary and secondary sources and criticizing my education because there were actual factual debates of the use of birth control this year...

My primary source was C-Span. I watched a group of ALL MALE clergy discuss birth control in a congressional hearing. No women in that hearing. Forget Ms. Fluke. There were no women in that hearing. There were no doctors either, by the way.

And yes. Birth control is used not just for contraception. It is also used to treat many forms of health concerns for women. My primary source is American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2005, reaffirmed 2007). Emergency contraception. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 69. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 106(6): 1443-1452.

@FreeThought Troy -

You are talking about if government should force private insurers to cover birth control in their offered coverage plans, at no additional premium, and against the moral/ethical objections of certain private providers.

That's not a debate about women's health decisions - it's a debate about if government can force a private entity to provide coverage, against the companies objections, and at no additional cost to the recipient of such coverage. Essentially, if the government can force a private company to offer and pay out of its own pocket for women's birth control.

Now if there was a debate about outlawing birth control, then maybe you'd have something to gripe about. But as it stand, the objective reality doesn't back you up.

Here's a question for you, Hoffa -- how much extra does it add to a premium to cover contraceptives in a drug plan?

@Randy1949 -

Honestly, Hoffa doesn't know, as Hoffa is male and never had to shop around for that kind of coverage. When Hoffa was in relationships, his significant others always purchased their birth control directly, without the use of insurance. I believe the cost was somewhere around $30/month.

And the birth control was always freely and easily available - at no point did Hoffa ever run into anyone saying that his girlfriends couldn't purchase birth control because the evil Republicans had outlawed it.

Go figure, hey?

Walmart and Target Have Been Offering $9 Birth Control Since 2007

Retail Prescription Drug List for Walmart shows the following women's health medications (birth control bolded):

Women’s Health $4, 30-day $10, 90-day
Estradiol 0.5mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 30 . . . . . .90
Estradiol 1mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . .. 30 . . . . . .90
Estradiol 2mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........30 . . . . . .90
MedroxyprogesteroneAcetate 2.5mg tab . . . . . 30 . . . . . .90
Medroxyprogesterone Acetate 5mg tab . . . . . . 30 . . . . . .90
Medroxyprogesterone Acetate 10mg tab . . . . . 10 . . . . . .30
Alendronate SOD 35mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . .12
Alendronate SOD 70mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 4 . . . . . .12
Clomiphene 50mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 5 . . . . . .15
Sprintec 28-day tab . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .......28 . . . . .N/A
Tamoxifen 10mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........60 . . . . . 180
Tamoxifen 20mg tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........30 . . . . . .90
Tri-Sprintec 28-day tab . . . . . .. . . . . . ....28 . . . . .N/a

I am sure that these broads spend more on smokes than would cost for them to buy BC, Randall.

@Hoffa- so with that logic an insurance company can deny payment for anything based on moral objectives. So they could deny the payment of insulin to diabetics based on some cock eyes moral objection. Insurance premiums are paid. Insurance companies should pay the claims. That is their business. They can't deny care because someone gets sick. That's what ObamaCare is all about.

No, I'm not asking you what hormonal birth control costs out of pocket (it's been years since this was any kind of issue for Randy & family) but how much the coverage for any specific type of prescription drug adds to the cost of the sort of pool insurance employers buy.

My understanding is that the administrators of the various Catholic universities and hospitals did not care so much about the cost of coverage as for the moral issue of not wanting to 'promote' their non-Catholic students and staff using contraception. And are you aware of Wisconsin law on this matter?

Troy, Are you really comparing a rubber and insulin? The "womens health" issue has gotten to the point of being stupid. On both sides.

@FreeThought Troy -

We have something called contract law in this country. Insurance policies are basically contracts. As long as the insurance companies are abiding by the terms of the policy, they can do whatever they want in regards to claims. If you as the customer don't like the terms offered in an insurance policy, guess what - you don't have to buy the policy and make the premium payments!

That's a little something called freedom of choice!

Isn't it a great country!

@Randy1949 -

You already know Hoffa's stance on using insurance to cover any kind of U&C care - of which birth control would be considered. Do I really have to explain it above and beyond what's already been said by Hoffa on the Patch boards a thousands times already on this subject???

@Bob Sacamano -- 'Broads'? Really? Do you have such disrespect for all women or only those who dare to be sexually active?

No. I am not talking about condoms, you fool. Grow up

This is a great contry. Insurance companies have every right to put in moral objections to care coveage the minute the public can have an option between private insurance and a single payer system (Medicare for All).

But we all know where that conversation leads.

Until then, if a woman and her doctor agree on a method of care, an insurance company needs to shut up and pay for it.

That needs to be in every contract.

Bob Sacamano: Thanks for that info! Do you have ED drug prices as well?
By the way, Jerry and Cosmo say, "Hello". :-)

Well next to abortion, the rubber or condom has been the most effective method of birth control. It should be part of your conversation. You fool.......

@Bob Sacamano -- Not just the pills for ED. Do you have the prices on drugs used to treat multiple personality disorder? I rather think you do.

@Bob Sacamano - "I am sure that these broads spend more on smokes than would cost for them to buy BC [birth control]. "
Let's put your statement right up front.

Can you defend the pejoratives in that statement Hoffa?

Sorry Dirky boy, I meant to say skanks.

Hoffa - Freely buying contraceptives by your girlfriends in the old days: That was then, and as we all know, the future, particularly under Romney/Ryan, might make it a lot harder and more hoops to jump through. Somebody from the sex police may even want to talk to the boyfriend.

@FreeThought Troy -

So, the government should force private entities to give stuff away for free, even against their moral/ethical objections?!?!

Apparently, you're not very big on personal autonomy and freedom of choice, are you?

FYI - The beauty of the free marketplace is that there are plenty of insurance providers out there that are more than willing to cover contraception for the appropriate increase in premium payment. Just because a few are objecting on moral/ethical grounds doesn't mean that a woman doesn't have a choice if she insists on having an insurance policy that covers contraception, which given the relatively low retail price of the pill in today's market place only a true idiot would actually want anyway, as opposed to paying direct cash out-of-pocket.

Did you honestly think this one through, are you just playing along with the propaganda crusade against the GOP?

@Dirk -

Do you ever get tired of playing the conspiracy theory card?

@Hoffa -- You still never answered my question about how much extra it costs to provide group health insurance with contraceptive coverage as opposed to without. As for 'freedom of choice', obviously any employer is free to purchase their own private insurance plan, but it will be much more expensive than it would have been for the employer and there are fewer tax breaks. That isn't much of a choice, now is it?

Perhaps if we all had a public option plan with the same premiums for everyone it wouldn't be a problem.

@Dirk -

Why is Hoffa all of sudden charged with being the moral moderator of right-wing comments?

@Randy1949 -

Yes, Hoffa did answer your question at 3:28 pm on Friday, September 7, 2012:

"Honestly, Hoffa doesn't know"

Again, Hoffa doesn't know the specific and direct answer to your question. Do you prefer that Hoffa make something up?

"... but it will be much more expensive than it would have been for the employer and there are fewer tax breaks."

That's quite presumptive, how do you know if it would be more expensive in every case, and how much more expensive is it on average?

If instead of having your employer pay your health care insurance premium for you and you instead received that money in wages, how do you know that you couldn't do better for yourself in the open market? Have you ever shopped around for an individual care policy? Even better, you're free to select your coverage types, limits, and deductibles, instead of being stuck with whatever your employer decides to go with - even more freedom!

And as far as tax breaks go, that's only because of the current administration's reluctance to provide any because it would rather force people into the system it wants them to be in via threat of penalty (less freedom).

@Hoffa - Where's the conspiracy? Are you so paranoid to believe that everyone that disagrees with you or has a different opinion is conspiring? Take the Republican platform, who is going to police all the sex prohibitions?. Are the Republicans just joshing about what they put into writing and agree to? Is a platform just a list of suggestion? I doubt it.

@Dirk -

Did you even read the GOP platform? Or are you just taking everything that Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz say about it as gospel?

@Hoffa -- If 'I don't know' is the answer, then perhaps Hoffa should not be speaking about the extra expense involved for excluding or covering one specific class of prescription medications. Logically, covering birth control ends up being less expensive than covering obstetrical care, just as covering insulin is less expensive than paying for amputations and heart disease. That's what prevention is all about.

Indeed I have priced private health insurance. You, a single person in your thirties, may be able to find reasonably priced coverage. For a person my age, it does not exist. There is no freedom of choice about it.

It would be very nice if employers who provide no health coverage paid extra in wages, but you know very well that they do not.

@Randy1949 -

Last Hoffa checked, birth control pills are not free. Thus if the government is going to force a private insurer to cover such an expense, when it previously didn't, without having the ability to raise premiums, I have little doubt that such expense will impact the insurer's bottom line. As far as what other coverages are offered or not offered by specific policies, I refer you to Hoffa's post to Troy about contract law.

The term 'reasonable,' is so very subjective.

"It would be very nice if employers who provide no health coverage paid extra in wages, but you know very well that they do not."

True, but those who do offer a health insurance benefit will often allow the employee to opt out and get paid the sum of the premium payment in wages, just as Hoffa has always done with such employers.

What would be even better is if the federal government offered better tax incentives to those individuals who choose to opt out and go it alone, and that's exactly what Romney is proposing to do!

@Hoffa - If you agree and encourage, you need to be partly responsible when the little commenters get so full of themselves they start, for example, calling women on birth control "skanks". Why, just the other day, you said Wisconsin was proud of Steve ®. right after he made one of his trademark asinine and wrong comments. Speak for yourself, not Wisconsin.

@Dirk -

You do have a knack for making Hoffa laugh! Thanks buddy!

Sounds like Obama needs to go.

Right. Because things would get sooo much better with Romney.

They would only get worse under Romney

We'll find out soon.

I can't wait for Romney to kick that silly monkey out of office so liberal beotches will have to go back to using coat hangers for their abortions instead of my tax money.

@Nuitari -- read up on the Hyde Amendment and understand what it means. People who don't know what the law is have no credibility.

@Bernard Forand Can you make legislation outlawing absolute greed? No, I think not. Change can only come about when the super-wealthy start caring about their fellow man again. When will that happen? When hell freezes over.

Oh, and, Hoffa, plenty of employers are paying for plans that do cover oral contraceptives along with all the other prescription drugs without any problem.

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa is failing to follow the point of all this.

Bottom line is that the government shouldn't be mandating anything from employers or the insurance industry or any other private industry.

Honestly, what is so difficult to understand about this?

Why do we need the government to dictate and suspend the freedoms that we once enjoyed?

If a religious employer does not want to offer health care plans to their employees that cover oral contraception, that's their right! Just like if Hoffa wanted to offer his employees a health care plan that didn't cover paper cuts, or what ever - that's my RIGHT!!!

If the employees don't like it, they have choices 1) opt out and get your own coverage; 2) get a supplemental policy; 3) pay cash out-of-pocket direct. What's so wrong with any of these available choices?

Under Obama, the employers and insurance industry loses their freedoms and the employees / health care recipients lose out on their choices.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

@Hoffa -- http://oci.wi.gov/pub_list/pi-019.pdf

Why do you hate the laws of our state so much? Plenty of mandates in this document, including one for contraceptive coverage in a prescription drug plan.

@Randy1949 -

So now it's wrong to want to change the laws of our state when they go against freedom?

Would you have said the same about segregation laws that said that separate but equal was OK? Or how about laws that said that it was OK for one human being to claim legal ownership over another just because of the color of their skin - I suppose that law never should have been challenged and changed either, right? Or how about laws that said that women couldn't vote - how dare people challenge such a high and mighty law, right?

Oh, the humanity!!!

Honestly Randy, I expected a better argument coming from you!

@JRH -- Others have come overnight and answered you very well. But I will add that our definitions of freedom differ. I suppose you would like to overturn that tyrannical law that says a restaurant owner no longer has the freedom to deny service to someone on the basis of his or her skin color. No one has the right to infringe on another person's pursuit of life and happiness simply on the basis of a personal prejudice, and that's that.

You want to open the door to spotty medical coverage at an employer's whim. No blood transfusions, no circumcision (I happen to dislike those personally) no medical care at all other than for a broken bone if you work for the Christian Science Monitor. All well and good, but then we will have to change a system that greatly favors employer-based health insurance. Grant the individual the same access to pool rates and the tax deduction that businesses enjoy, and we're starting to make sense. Have employers replace their savings with higher wages when they decline to offer health coverage, and we're even further.

@Randy1949 -

There you go again with your forced government solutions - have the government force employers to pay people more in wages, have the government force a change to the current system, have the government force policy upon private insurance providers, etc.

You do realize that these same goals could be accomplished without government intervention, don't you? The CONSUMER holds a greater power than government does. If people don't like the current health care system, then they could all drop their current insurance provider. The only way the insurance companies are permitted to do what they do is because the consumer enables them by paying premiums for policies.

Honestly, I'm not going to explain this further, as you should get it by now. If not, then there's no point anyway!

You are so predictable, Hoffa. If people were going to do the right thing without a prod from government, why did we need laws about minimum wages, work safety, not selling adulterated food and medicine? Why would we need laws at all?

It's because some people continue to enrich themselves at the expense of others. What some health insurance companies do is the same as a thug in an alleyway snatching a purse or a wallet because he has the size and strength to do it. It's just slightly more polite and elegant.

If you want the freedom to lose everything when you get sick or to pay for insurance policies that end up covering nothing, well, you go for it.

@Randy1949 -

Who is forcing anyone to pay a premium for a policy that they don't like or want? If people are fed up with what insurance companies are doing, then why doesn't everyone stop paying their premiums? Without the premium payments, the evil insurance companies would fold and you wouldn't have to deal with them anymore. Everyone can pay cash direct as they utilize services, the way it used to be prior to WWII. So, why aren't you telling people to stop paying their premium? Come on Randy - start a revolution against the evil insurance companies - or are you all talk and no action?

Back before WW2, a catastrophic illness didn't cost a half a million dollars or more. This really only affects people like you and me who actually have something to lose before running out of money and making the hospital eat the debt. Other people just go bare and the price goes up for everyone else.

You insure your home against fire and tornadoes and all that stuff, right? Could you afford to rebuild out of pocket if your house burned to the ground? I sometimes wonder why I can't insure my own body as cheaply as I can insure my home?

@Randy1949 -

"Other people just go bare and the price goes up for everyone else."

Honestly Randy1949, how bare are those people? Because Hoffa sees them with in style clothes, cell phones, satellite tv, a whole slew of luxuries that Hoffa doesn't even have.

"You insure your home against fire and tornadoes and all that stuff, right? "

Primarily because Hoffa's mortgage lender requires it. Even if Hoffa wasn't required by the terms of his mortgage, he'd probably continue coverage as it's affordable and only really covers catastrophic events, like insurance was only ever intended to do.

"Could you afford to rebuild out of pocket if your house burned to the ground?"

Yes. Hoffa would have to liquidate most of his investment accounts, but he could cover it if the need were to ever arise.

"I sometimes wonder why I can't insure my own body as cheaply as I can insure my home?"

For mere catastrophic coverage - YOU CAN!!! It's because health care insurance has been perverted into providing coverage for practically ever single health care need under the sun - preventative care, U&C coverage, paper cuts, pregnancies, etc. We've already covered this time and again didn't we? And you still don't know why health care insurance is so expensive???

Come on Randy1949, you're a smarter guy than that!

@ morninmist also commented on Tammy Baldwin Takes National Spotlight at DNC.
"All of Wisconsin should be outraged at this Karl Rove type tactics.

Bernie replies;
This is what I was referring to when I stated that since Nixon’s time to the present. Republicans have been escalating false or distorted deceitful information. They have even gone to the extent to advocate voters rights suppression under the guise of voter fraud. A projection of their own voter fraud tactics. Democracy is not what they support. Example; Observe Florida in the election of 2000 for Bush. Damage that caused to our nation. Florida still infected with republican deceitful voter suppression. Recently same can be observed with the false democrat strategy in Wisconsin’s recall voting and Katherine’s 6 false democrats in her primary. They have the ideology that the uneducated voter is supreme in voting for their propaganda’s. Tommy is just another of the sheep they wish to gather up for their “Party First” USA second strategies. Hostage/Ransom politics.
Why would they be against democracy? Perhaps a world renown professor can give us a hint; http://youtu.be/2Ux8Q3XC98U Time to put these sheep to pasture.

I support Thompson even more now. Try being a productive member of society this election season, Obama needs your support and not one of the 88,921,000 not in the workforce.

Tommy hired my son yesterday. I have some skin in the game now.

@Luke

Good Wisconsinites should be ashamed to be associated with the Tommy camp!

GOP Thompson campaign owes Tammy Baldwin an apology for underhanded bigotry http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/thompson-campaign-owes-baldwin-an-apology/article_636134f1-8e83-5d85-adf7-f0baaa7de7ca.html #WIunion #p2 #LGBT #ctl #p2b

@morninmist -

What's so wrong with circulating a video? It wasn't doctored at all, was it?

misty making a fuss over nothing, yet again!

Hmmmmm,

Lets see, according to the Barack Hussein Obama camp:
Mitt Romney committed a felony by falsifying his time with Bain
Romney is hiding millions in the Caymans
Romney is an illegal alien because he grandfather moved back from Mexico
(that one's ironic)
Romney is lying about the unemployment number
(despite DOL reports)
Romney will steal millions from Medicare
(even though Barack Hussein Obama is already doing it
Romney killed a steel worker's wife

So Bernie, which party is "escalating false or distorted deceitful information"?

Ryan, Walker, and Thompson - all highly successful winners!

@morninmist -

What's Tammy's backup plan when she loses the Senate race by an even wider margin than Walker crushed Barrett by for the second time?

They can declare it morally wrong or medically unnecessary or whatever and deny coverage and its fine with me, Ann. It's not a medical necessity. We shouldn't be insisting insurance companies or the government or whomever pay for stuff that's not necessary. That should be purely an out of pocket expense.

You're going to have to come up with a better comparative example than Viagra if the point you're trying to make is that women might be denied something that's a necessity, rather than a convenience.

How about blood transfusions? They are definitely against one religion, and they can be very expensive. How about chemotherapy if your boss is a holistic medicine kind of guy? How about an appendectomy if your boss is a Christian Scientist who believes that abdominal pain can just be prayed away?

@Ann Wright -

Please cite the portions of Paul Ryan's Personhood bill that expressly "criminalize birth control pill."

In regards to Viagra, the standard should be the same as the one applied to birth control, in that the government shouldn't be mandating any private employer to provide insurance coverage for any pharmaceutical product or medical procedure that the employer morally/ethically objects to, and especially without the ability of the insurance provider to collect additional premium for such coverage!

There is no double standard here, as you seem to erroneously assume! If an employer didn't want offer an insurance plan that covered Viagra, and if the man wanted Viagra coverage, the man has options - 1) he can opt out of his employer provided coverage and get his own individual care policy in the private market place; 2) he can purchase a supplemental policy covering whatever he desires be covered in the private marketplace, and/or 3) he can pay for Viagra direct cash out-of-pocket. The same for a female and birth control.

Honestly, did you think the answer would be any different for Viagra?

Stop drinking the MSDNC / Daily Kos kool aide! There is no war against women! The war is against the government takeover of our freedoms and choices!

Wake up and start thinking for yourself!

Randy, I'm guessing the Christian Scientist who's intent on forcing his beliefs on his employees probably isn't even offering health insurance, which you'd probably find out before you decided to go to work for him (I assume most people ask about health insurance before being hired...if not, oh well....).

As for the other two, possibly I suppose. Of course, with Obamacare we'll all be in the same boat your are. No affordable self-insurance and, eventually, none being provided by employers. Misery loves company, doesn't it?

@Randy1949 -

Who's forcing a person to work for a boss that they don't agree with? And even if you don't like your boss, who's forcing you to accept the health care plan offered by your boss as a part of your employment compensation package?

Answer: NO ONE!!!

You act like people don't have choices and the ability to make their own decisions.

Here is the tip and some sources. Have much more;
Last week, we discussed that the Republican Party platform is a road map to dismantle workers’ rights. Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times says the Republican platform “calls for numerous steps that could significantly weaken America’s labor unions” and, for the first time in years, doesn’t even acknowledge the right to form unions.
The New York Times reports, when doing a side-by-side comparison of the platforms, the two visions are “poles apart in their view of the nation.”
Let’s take a look at some of the major differences: Hmmm should I ? Hmmm
Hoffas have probably been warned that the New York Times is a communist rag. Do not read … Fox News is all you need to know my little Rovetites…

Bernie -

In case you didn't realize it yet, Hoffa ignores your anti-conservative cut and paste liberal brain dumps.

Oh and BTW, you've posted nothing from either platform - it's nothing but third party analysis spin and fear mongering propaganda.

Perhaps you should try reading the ACTUAL platforms before you begin commenting on them:

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Oops - sorry, Hoffa forgot that Bernard doesn't know how to read, analyze, and think for himself! Bernie needs Rachel Maddow, the Daily Kos, Ed Schultz, HuffPo, etc to do all the analysis and thinking for him, because Bernie is a good little lemming!

For a minute there, Hoffa thought he was reading the synopsis for an episode of X-Files!

Nothing but conspiracy theory, fear mongering propaganda coming from the left.

Ann, Hoffa thought that you were going to limit your future comments to criticisms premised on primary fact, and not third party analysis/opinion/spin that you heard on MSDNC or read on the Daily Kos!

@Randy1949 -

Laws against arbitrary discrimination are one thing. But laws forcing private entities to provide coverage that they can't charge for - that's tantamount to socialized nationalism. It's against every principle espoused in our founding documents!

If the choice didn't exist at all in the marketplace, that would be one thing. But there is plenty of choice available in the marketplace, as you yourself have admitted. So honestly, where's the problem in this issue???

You haven't made your case yet.

Here are the "separate but equal" policies at my old church (note the use of the term "old") for men and women:

Men: May speak behind the pulpit during service
Women: May stand behind the pulpit while cleaning

Men: May handle sacraments
Women: May clean equipment

Men: May serve as church elders and on committees
Women: May joing the Ladies Circle

Men: Male teachers receive free housing as they may have a family or plan to marry
Women: No

Men: May be pastors and receive free seminary instruction
Women: May not be pastors

Separate but equal always seems to favor one group over another. Considering how important women were to Jesus' ministry, I found these policies discriminatory. The final straw was when I learned that several professional women in the educational field were denied the opportunity to serve on the Education committee, but a male PT was appointed. Everyone has something valuable to share in public service, but I and others believed that this was a blatant display of discrimination that resulted in an EC that lacked the capacity to advance its agenda.

I respect intellectual curiosity and achievement. Period.

Really? I've admitted there's plenty of choice in the health insurance marketplace? It's Hobson's choice. You can 'choose' whatever you can afford, which ends up being very little if you're low-income or in one of those demographics that are deemed high risk.

When you defend this with entities having to 'provide coverage they can't charge for' the burden is on you to prove that denying contraceptive coverage, with the increased obstetrical cost, lowers premiums for the employer. I hypothesize that it does not.

@Randy1949 -

"I've admitted there's plenty of choice in the health insurance marketplace?"

"Oh, and, Hoffa, plenty of employers are paying for plans that do cover oral contraceptives along with all the other prescription drugs without any problem."

You've admitted there are plenty of plans out there that cover contraceptives. Not to mention that direct cash out-of-pocket prices for hormonal BC is so cheap that even a person living in poverty could afford to budget the monthly expense for the pill!

"When you defend this with entities having to 'provide coverage they can't charge for' the burden is on you to prove that denying contraceptive coverage, with the increased obstetrical cost, lowers premiums for the employer. I hypothesize that it does not."

I'm not forced to defend anything! For the last time - a health insurance policy is a CONTRACT. If a person doesn't like the terms of the contract, they don't have to enter into it, do they?

You assume and act like employer provided insurance is the ONLY choice that anyone has, and that's just not true.

When Hoffa opted out of his employer's provided health care plan, he received the amount of premium that the employer would otherwise be paying to the insurance company in wages. Then Hoffa went out and bought his own policy for catastrophic care and started an HSA for contingent events that Hoffa didn't want to pay cash out-of-pocket for. Choice, freedom - it is awesome.

Obama takes freedom away!

@ The Hoffas;;
Bernie Replies;
Freedom of choice is delivered to the individual through Obamacare. Takes it out of the companies, religions, bureaucrats, etc. etc.. Entire medical services and procedures will be decided by the individual and their doctor or doctors. Not subject to constraints, limitations and handicaps as are all the Hoffas are with their plan. Freedom is defined by the Hoffas wallets.
Before you go deciding how women should decide this or that then be prepared to take on the payments for child nourishment to all the single mothers that can not afford, mentally matured or capable for any reason. Hoffas decide for women then Hoffas pay for errors in that equation. Don’t come to me with your “Bills” of errors.

@Bernard -

Read a little closer - it says to PROMOTE the general welfare - not PROVIDE it!

Perhaps some remedial reading courses would help sharpen your reading comprehension!

@Bernie -

You just don't get it - Hoffa doesn't want insurance coverage for U&C care, preventative care, pregnancies, etc.

The only thing Hoffa wants coverage for is catastrophic care, as that's the only care that meets the defined purposed of insurance, "to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss." All other medical / health care should be paid for cash direct out-of-pocket as services are utilized.

Hoffa doesn't want Obamacare, as it does nothing but rips me off and restricts my choices and freedoms!

@Bernie -

Since Obamacare was signed into law, the premium on Hoffa's catastrophic care policy more than doubled.

Obamacare is not working to make healthcare more affordable - instead it's driving prices up! It's doing the exact opposite of what you claim it will do.

EPIC FAIL!!!!

@Bernard Forand As we have seen, when labor is concentrated it usually is to the benefit of society. When labor is dispersed all over creation the society suffers because of it.

Bernie, the problem with health care in this country is not quality of service, but financial access to it. And Barack Hussein Obamacare did nothing to address the real financial problems.

Also, how can you blame just the health care system for the stats you listed. Just yesterday their was another infant death in Milwaukee. While maybe not a co-sleeping death, the child was not in a proper bed for a two month old. How is the health care system responsible for a parent's mistake?

Bernie needs a hobby that keeps his hands busy.

Try origami. One of the aides in the day room can probably get you started.

@Ann Wright -

Last Hoffa checked, the pill prevented ovulation from occurring. If no egg is released, there is nothing to be fertilized by sperm, and the woman cannot get pregnant.

Thus, if a woman is taking the pill, her ovaries don't release an egg. If there is no released egg to meet the sperm, no life. Thus, even if you've accurately conveyed the intent of Ryan's "Sanctity of Life" bill, it would not criminalize the use of the pill, as you've erroneously asserted.

Did you honestly expect people to believe you? Are you honestly that ignorant as to how the pill works?

Come on Ann, Hoffa thought that you were smarter than this!

Please think a little more before proceeding to embarrass yourself on the Patch boards!

@Ann Wright -

As far as insurance goes, insurance should not cover anything other than catastrophic care, as insurance, by its definition was originally designed only "to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."

Unless you experience an immaculate conception, there is nothing contingent or uncertain about pregnancy. If you engage in sexual relations, there's a good chance you'll get pregnant. We know this because that's the way nature works!

Again, did Hoffa really have to explain this?

Hoffa needs to check again. That is the primary way the Pill works -- by preventing ovulation. However, in rare instances, there is breakthrough ovulation and the pill prevents the resulting fertilized zygote from implanting in the womb. Google 'the pill kills' to find sites that refer to the Pill as an abortifacient and would like to see it outlawed.

@Randy1949 -

Please cite the relevant part of Ryan's proposed legislation under which the pill would be effectively outlawed.

Bottom line - you can't do it because it doesn't exist! Only in the minds of MSDNC pundits and the brainwashed who believe their garbage as representing gospel.

Even under those rare instances, the woman would have ingested the pill both prior to and after sexual activity occurs, correct? Thus, so long as the woman is using the pill as intended, the intent of the woman is only to prevent pregnancy and not to abort a viable fetus.

In order for a criminal act to have occurred, there needs to be both an act and the requisite intent.

So no, the scenario you describe would not cause the outlawing of the pill.

It's illegal to use a car to intentionally kill another person, but just because that's one of the potential uses of a car doesn't mean that the government has outlawed the use of cars because of the potential abuses of such a piece of machinery.

Come on guys, use your brains - you do have them for a reason!

Hoffa is just embarrassed that he didn't understand the different ways the Pill works and mocked Ann Wright on that basis. The personhood bill Paul Ryan co-signed defines the beginning of human life at the union of sperm and egg. It says nothing about intent.

Just look into the various campaigns to outlaw the pill and IUDs via these personhood amendments and get back to me.

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa excepted the "rare instances," because 1) they are rare, by your own admission; and 2) traditional birth control is not intended to be used to abort a conjoined egg and sperm.

Now if you're talking about what people commonly refer to as the 'morning after pill,' then yes, the "Sanctity of Life" bill would most likely outlaw such a form or oral aborticide. But not traditional oral birth control (the pill), condoms, vaginal diaphragms, spermicides, etc.

And in the bill that we are talking about here, there is no criminalization of any actions or products, is there? So why are you trying like mad to shift the subject to other bills that have been proposed and shot down? Even in those other bills, can you cite to the express language in such proposed legislation whereby traditional birth control would have been outlawed? I don't think so!

Hoffa doesn't care about biased third party analysis - he only cares about the primary source document - in this case the actual text of the proposed legislation, as that's all anyone with half a brain would actually be concerned about.

Hoffa didn't realize that Randy1949 was into unfounded fear mongering and bought into the whole 'war on women' rhetoric. If Randy1949 is that prone to misinformation and propaganda, then again, Hoffa wishes to extend his offer to sell Randy1949 the Brooklyn Bridge - Hoffa will even knock 15% off the ask, but only if you act now!

Hoffa would have a lot more credibility if Hoffa could restrain himself from all the editorializing. Perhaps no one with half a brain would be disturbed by the contents of the Personhood Amendment, but Randy has a complete brain and can foresee the unintended consequences. (I'm being charitable here and assuming they're unintended.)

@Randy1949 -

Did you lose any sleep when the states all passed laws stating that it was illegal to use your car to intentionally kill someone? Were you worried that an unintended consequence of such law would be the blanket ban on the use of automobiles for transportation?

How about the laws outlawing indoor smoking in non-exempted private but open to the public buildings, a Doyle (Democratic) initiative in this state? Were you worried that an unintended consequence of such law would be that people wouldn't be able to smoke within the sanctity of their own home, if they desired to do so? Or maybe that it would lead to a blanket ban on smoking all together?

How about the seatbelt law? If you're in a bad car accident and the seatbelt receiver gets jammed and won't release the seatbelt and the car started on fire, well, do I have to continue?

Nearly every law on the books could have unintended consequences. How often has one like you're describing actually resulted in the banning of a previously legal product as popular as birth control pills?

@Ann -

You've been so brainwashed by propaganda that Hoffa is seriously concerned for you.

Ann is a wise woman, and Hoffa is just a wise guy.

Good one Dirk G.

Are you talking about pro-choice the right to kill or not to kill? Once that baby is dead, it's final and you have to answer to God for that. No way out of that, Ann.

More from the above post:

"A petition calling on Thompson to "take responsibility for his campaign and the divisive, personal attacks they’re pushing" at Sum Of Us has already gathered nearly 4,000 signatures. It's here."

http://pac.signon.org/sign/tommy-thompson-personal?source=s.icn.tw&r_by=192287

Obama has and is moving us forward at an accelerating rate. Observe the markets of Sept.6 2012.
Observe who he had build the infrastructure to hold Bankers to strict derivatives regulations. Banker’s lobbied with over $200 million! to stop the Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Frank Dodds regulations from being implemented. Republicans are still seeking to deregulate them. Expose what their goals are and its NOT for our Main Street USA.
Elizabeth goes nose to nose right in the face with Wall Streets tycoons. Our lady tiger that has the Tycoons appreciate fear. She is not a BROWN nosing follower of the herded sheep.
2016 she will be a contender for president my predication. Observe her speech at the convention http://youtu.be/zNcbg1EU_bI U-tube speech.
This is one small example of how Obama will seek to continue to move us forward, up and out of the chaos of the republicans mandates.
Fiscal Year{ FY } in politics is from October to September. Bush presented Obama with a 9% constricting economy. Bush received a 5.6 Trillion surplus to budget debt from Clinton. So lets take that and subtract what Bush debts were, that he handed over to Obama. Surplus of $5.6 Trillion plus all debts incurred since October 2008 to January 2009 and we come with a 5.6% reduction in debt to GDP. In 3.3 years Obama is at 15.1% to debt of GDP, from a 20.7% increase to debt by Bush and going rapidly down into the abyss.
I missed you to. Give Rove a call he is feeling down

"Obama has and is moving us forward at an accelerating rate. Observe the markets of Sept.6 2012. "

Yes, forward off of the cliff, you douche bag. Stock markets are high on sugar(QE1, QE2, etc) and inflation, U6 is hovering near 18% unemployment. Obongo is not going to win, get ready for another landslide Walker type victory.

If it is all about the economy, why does Barack Hussein Obama and his minions keep throwing out false accusations?

Because it is about the economy, and Barack Hussein Obama is leading us down the wrong road!

A couple of clarifications about your "facts" Bernie:
The Tampa area is hardly right wing. If anything it leans a little left. The Tampa Bay Times, the operator of Politifact leans left as well.
Karl Rove has been publishing electoral maps for several months. His intent is not to discourage Conservatives, but to provide a realistic view of the ever-changing electorate and help to plot out an election strategy. Here is his latest, published just two days ago, still gives a very slight edge to Barack Hussein Obama, with Romney catching up ( http://www.rove.com/election ). Many of those "solid favorites" really only give a slight lead to Barack Hussein Obama.

We are still two months out. All of Barack Hussein Obama's false accusations are falling flat. When the people of this country listen, they will know Romney/Ryan is the right choice!

Figures that you don't know what U6 means. Continue playing in the street.