dagblog - Comments for "Barack Obama, Warlord of the 21st Century"

The source you linked to said

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:07:43 +0000

The source you linked to said Democrats weren't gaining much from it:

"the poll indicates that they [Democrats] aren’t benefiting from it in respondents’ perceptions of the two parties. "

So should we believe your sources or not?

Thanks for that. I hadn't

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:02:26 +0000

In reply to Public Religion Research

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen this one. I suppose the two polls could be reconciled. In the NYT poll 51% said "not all" employers should have to cover contraception, and in the PRRI survey only 42% said even churches should have to cover it. So maybe in the NYT poll, the 51% just had in mind an exemption for churches...? Dunno. But intriguing.

In any case, now we have exactly two relevant polls (post slutgate, asks the specific coverage question, etc). I think we'd need a third to establish which one - if any - is an outlier, no? And also we'd need a third to establish whether Peracles was 'factually incorrect' as you claim. Let's see who finds one first, shall we?

;^)

Public Religion Research

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:01:23 +0000

In reply to If you check out that

Public Religion Research Institute:

Roughly 6-in-10 Americans say that publicly held corporations (62%) and religiously affiliated hospitals (57%) should be required to provide employees with health care plans that cover contraception. A slim majority of Americans believe that religiously affiliated colleges (54%), privately owned small businesses (53%), and religiously affiliated social service agencies (52%) should be required to provide employees with health care plans that cover contraception. Only 42% of Americans say churches and other places of worship should be required to provide this coverage to their employees.

Catholics overall are generally more supportive than the general public of the contraception coverage requirements. Nearly two-thirds (65%) say that publicly held corporations should be held to this requirement. Roughly 6-in-10 report that religiously affiliated social service agencies, colleges, hospitals, and privately owned small businesses should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception. Less than half (47%) say churches and other places of worship should be required to provide this coverage.

White Catholics make few distinctions between churches and other religiously affiliated employers. Less than half of white Catholics believe that churches (43%), religiously affiliated colleges (43%), social service agencies (44%), and hospitals (48%) should be required to include contraception coverage in their insurance plans. However, a majority of white Catholics believe that non-religiously affiliated employers, including privately owned small businesses (55%) and public corporations (61%), should be required to provide employees with contraception coverage.

White evangelical Protestants are the only religious group that opposes requiring any type of employer to provide their employees with no cost contraception coverage. Majorities of white evangelicals believe that most types of employers should not be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception, including religiously affiliated colleges (56%), hospitals (55%), and social service agencies (59%), privately owned small businesses (56%), and churches and other places of worship (64%). Half (50%) believe that publicly held corporations should also not be required to provide employees with contraception coverage.

With the exception of publicly held corporations, less than half of Americans who attend religious services at least once a week believe that other types of employers should be required to provide employees with health care insurance that covers contraception.

But I know, you all have your one New York Times outlier poll. Other polls cannot be considered because they indicate that Republicans are taking a bit hit with women. LOLz on that one.

Good question. There ARE a

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:56:37 +0000

In reply to I think it's undeniably

Good question. There ARE a whole lot of unplanned pregnancies. In some cases (like my cousin) they are using birth control, but get pregnant anyway.

With poorer or less informed women, it might make a difference. They probably don't have health insurance at all right now, so first they'd have to figure out how to use the darn thing and then learn how to use contraception.

I may be selling them short, but my wife works with pregnant teens, mostly poor latinas who are pregnant at 14, 15, 16 and up, and they don't know nothing bout it and have no one to turn to.

No, I get it. That's why I

Verified Atheist — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:13:11 +0000

In reply to I keep straining to keep my

No, I get it. That's why I added my last sentence. I just wanted to make it clear that the "broad opinion" is without merit.

I think it's undeniably

Verified Atheist — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:11:02 +0000

In reply to My understanding, such as it

I think it's undeniably cheaper to pay for contraception than pregnancy/birth. However, it's (probably) cheaper still to get the woman to pay for the contraception herself. I added "probably" because the unknown factor is how many women would use contraception if their insurance company paid for it but not if they have to pay for it out-of-pocket. I suspect that number is actually fairly small, but that's pure speculation on my part.

If you check out that

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:11:13 +0000

In reply to I wonder, though, how they

If you check out that poll-aggregator site linked to above, there's an ABC/WaPo poll with that question where people say THEY SHOULD, 61 to 35. Which is a huge majority. So it looks like most people accept a mandate on insurers and not on employers. Make of that what you will...

My comment was simple,

moat — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:15:03 +0000

In reply to i can't base a foreign policy

My comment was simple, simplistic really, expressing frustration more than insight. I will try harder this time.

I am not a pacifist. I get that "national security" is about securing resources for our system as well as promoting an international environment where we get to live as we have done. What is deemed necessary to achieve those ends are the basis of the strategic decisions that get made. Using the inverse of the Obama expression, a "smart" war does what has to be done, as you say.

But necessity in this sense is not self evident in the way blocking a punch is when it is coming at you. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, not the other way around. We made them a part of a story where they seemed to be invading us.

In addition, there is divergence that happens between overt and covert objectives in war because of two unalterable conditions; successful fighting is based upon unbalancing the enemy; wars need to be marketed because they require incredible amounts of money. But how long can one hide one's "real" intentions? After ten years, a covert objective might as well become a protocol for the Department of State.

After enough time, it isn't war anymore. It becomes diplomats with automatic weapons.

They are partly creating the

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:12:36 +0000

In reply to Not sure why you called it

They are partly creating the tidal of opinion.

But agree that a goal of dismantling and underfunding government is much easier than trying to make government work.

My understanding, such as it

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:23:14 +0000

In reply to Wouldn't it be a novel idea

My understanding, such as it is, is that it's cheaper to pay for contraception than for a pregnancy/birth.

If true, insurance companies (and those who pay them premiums) should all be for this coverage.

But sometimes, these "obviously true" points turn out to be incorrect.