It isn't just about kids. It's about protection from STDs as well.

unfortunately, the woman has less control when it comes to stds, her only real choice is abstinence or INSISTING The partner wears a condom

That has nothing to do with the Law.

Rather is it an individual choice in partners.

Coupled with a healthy lifestyle.

Contraception will not protect from STD's no more than an umbrella will keep you dry (if the rain is heavy).

The free market keeps all other forms of insurance cheaper, why wouldn't it keep health insurance cheaper? The only proven method to actually decrease the price of a product or service is competition. So what makes you think that competition for health insurance would raise prices?

I see no problem insisting they wear condoms.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the law. I responded to a post about condoms.

we already have a free market, yet individual insurance is high
I have no reason to think they will come down if there are not employee 'group' options available to make up for their bottom line,,,

No, we don't. Insurance cannot legally be sold across state lines. Most states only have small handful of providers. Most companies only offer one insurance plan. A free market would be a guy living in Ohio being able to buy the insurance of his choice of Kentucky. What we have now is essentially crony capitalism where insurance companies buy their way into the market by lobbying politicians and insurance companies who are already in the market lobby politicians to keep competition out.

I JUST had to POP in and say with MUCH confidents... one THING!!!


RUSH,,,,is NEVER RIGHT!!!!!


He's JUST a PAID PLAYER in the World of GREED and CORPORATION'S...


Its PEOPLE who LISTEN to him,,that our FED,,lies and un-true facts!


HERE'S to smiles

I just heard on the news that Rush Limaugh APOLOGIZED!!!!

And if we had a free market, that *might* actually be true. But with Republican dismantling of the anti-trust laws, we have wave after wave of mergers which DECREASES competition.

Besides, if you study economics, some facets of the economy can ONLY function efficiently as a natural monopoly. It wouldn't be very efficient to have 100 electric power companies planting their own poles. And when you had companies like Enron supposedly providing 'virtual competition' all that happened was massive corruption and sky-high rates.


-Kerry O.

Don't you have that backwards. Women consider men to be responsible for their choices... else they would not be asking us to pay for contraception they chose to use.

Citizens are responsible for themselves.

And Rush only apologized for his poor choice of words. He did not retract the basic comment only the use of the 'slut' word.

While we all throw words at one another the Law that brought this all about still sits upon the table...

Crushing the bill of rights.

Clasic tactics of divide and conquer...

Stir everone up over a non existant problem and they will never see the real one.

Until the next glaring error in the Health Care mandate pops up...

At which point they will divide a diferent sector of the Public to lay smoke over the truth.

So, using your logic, men who have vasectomies aren't actually being responsible for themselves. They're asking the rest of us to pay for what they chose to do.

The types of monopolies are: Natural, Geographic, Technological and Government. Geographic and Technological monopolies are self limiting. If the local cable company charges too much, competitors enter the market. When Apple charged too much for the iPod, multiple companies created alternatives. Both cases where a monopoly has or could end naturally. Government monopolies come in two flavors: Coercive and non-coercive. A non-coercive monopoly would be like patent protection on a new drug. Nobody is preventing the competition from creating a new drug that works equally well or better. The only truly offensive type of monopoly is the coercive government created monopoly. Bell System is an example of a coercive Government monopoly.

Antitrust laws often protect inefficient business models that have trouble competing with more efficient and better run businesses. Who knows what new advances we could have made by allowing well run businesses to grow as large as the market would allow?

I think Rush Limbaugh should have apologized, so I guess we are in agreement there. But I don't see any humor in the apology. What is funny about that?

I didn't see any humor in what he said to begin with, though he tried to say it was humorous. I just think people aren't taking the apology seriously.

We are in agreement.



Why not? His apology seems sincere to me.

I disagree. His apology seemed forced.

Okay, so we disagree on his sincerity. But our opinions don't amount to a hill of beans, what matters is what was in his heart and we'll probably never know that for sure.

He's losing advertisers and supporters. Of course he had to apologize. I doubt it's helping, though.

We already know what he actually thought, as he said it.