UC Berkeley should hire full-time abortionist, provide free abortions: student senate

Omg!!! Photogman!!! Youre back!!!

 

I missed you! I hope all is well down in Texas I was sincerely hoping you were still here. I always found you to be one of the few reasons to look forward to opening this site, and this is not a lie

 

*does the excited, happy swim*
Check your inbox!

 

You mean boat rides on the open ocean where are tax dollars fund the coast guard, navy and other things necessary for this countries safety and survival of it's people? um yeah it is necessary to save an Americans life in that matter since like roads, we put into it. Thats the job of our police, military and other entities we pay for.

As far as the skiing accidents if they have insurance fine, but I also do not agree that it should come out of tax dollars, which it rarely does in most cases, that someone get treated for free on our dime. I believe trips to the hospital very much should be somehow paid off by the individual in some manner. There was a time where I did not have health insurance and I went to the hospital after a car wreck because my shoulder and arm was in extreme pain. I went to the emergency and got x-rays and a prescription for some pain killers, cost me around $500. And I was given the option to pay it off all at once or if I needed to make small payments. Thats what I believe should be done. Out of the times I had to visit the hospital when not having insurance, twice having to be taken by ambulance, I have had to pay out of my pocket . So Never had I heard of any program where the tax dollars pay for me lol. And being a person who has never borrowed from the government, and would rather sell my right arm before I do, I wouldn't allow tax dollars to pay for my mishaps or bad situation. It's my fault alone.

Im just big on personal responsibility.

From what I understand about insurance covering abortion is that, per the ACLU, most americans with employer based health insurance have abortion covered on their plans. Where it is banned is for Federal employees and those on medicaid. But that varies from state to state, like in California only federal employees are banned from having abortion covered, Oklahoma no insurance policy is allowed to cover abortion, and states like Tennessee do not allow those on medicaid or federal employees have abortion covered.

Its a weird situation indeed. Federal employees probably get that treatment because it would be akin to the government paying for abortions, but in the same sense it is hypocritical because federal employees still pay into their health coverages by getting taxed. It may say it's free on your pay stub but your taxes still go to it.

Still much work to be done.

Look I am pro choice and I do believe that if you live in a state that allows abortion then you should have the option to have abortion covered under your plan. I am just not down with making it free because there are a ton of people who do not put into the system. But if you are paying for an insurance policy you should be able to add abortion to it, plain and simple.

Well my point of view on paying for abortion does not include religious reasoning, it is more based on personal responsibility and paying for it yourself in the same manner as most Americans do. I believe abortion should be legal, and you should have every right to have one if you so choose, but it should come from your wallet and not mine or anyone elses.

 

I have explained my positions with facts, if you have an argument go back and read my posts and there it is. I am not going to keep repeating myself over and over again simply for you to ignore the facts I have presented and for you to keep on spewing the same lies and false narratives that you choose.

Ya lost, Im not going to keep explaining myself. My argument is a few pages back, go read it every time you want to argue, because it is not going to change.

Bye bye.

 

Make the dumb girl and guy who didn't use protection pay for it. They're going to UC Berkley for cripes sake, they can afford it. Guess that $1 condom was too expensive, eh? WHat morons.

 

You've tried this before and failed utterly. Which lies are you referring to?

I know your argument. Lifted from a blog masquerading (that means pretending to be) a news site, with a story written by a Dairy Queen employee, half a continent away, who falsifies quotes, printed by a site that has demonstrated its willingness to lie to maintain its narrative.

The "facts" you are referring to are not corroborated by any credible news agency, nor are they reflected in the actual bill you guys have presented.

In other words, you have no facts. Those facts were decimated. You had nothing except the wild claims of a server at a Dairy Queen in Minneapolis, and your own manic musings, which you have been completely unable to provide evidence for. Wild speculation doesn't count as facts outside the right-wing bubble.

Do you have any real facts? It might be best to get them out now before that ship totally sinks.

 

I think we are on a similar page in terms of personal responsibility. Why should the Gov't not be held to the same standard.

The prince of healthcare in this country is extortion. $500 for an x-ray and pain killers ?

The cost of an x-ray machine is around $100,000. Amortized over 5 years at 5% is about $60/day. The manufacturing cost of the pill is pennies. Sure you have costs for Doctors and other staff but really now. You probably paid 25% of their operating costs for the day. Hopefully they had 3 more patients (sarcasm). Actually the Gov't kicked in some money too so the cost was actually much higher.

The medical college could increase the number of Doctors but that is the opposite of what they do ( anti competitive practice).

The same drugs are as much as 10 times more expensive here than in other countries. (Price fixing)
http://www.elderlawanswers.com/buying-prescription-drugs-from-canada-legal-or-illegal-1204

Sure there are lone voices from time to time calling out these practices (horton hears a who) but that lone voice is quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take.

Every time some regulation is made the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster is sitting at the table. (and they should have a seat) The problem is that the politician or person who is supposed to be representing the interests of the people is in the pocket of or influenced by the oligopoly. The oligopoly does not win every table but, over time - table after table - the rules of the game get skewed.

Regulations keep out competition. This is not far and free markets.

Make it to congress and insider trading becomes legal ! One can sit on a committee giving a contract to ABC company and you can buy the stock prior to the news hitting the street. "I want in on that game" ... is a license to print money.

Sure you hear a voice from time to time. Everyone points and says "Look Look .. we have freedom of speech". That voice is then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take.

And you can't really blame them. I would not say anything either. There is no "Cabal" or "Star Chamber" This monster is the natural outcropping of self interest and Greed.

Ex Generals go on television and tout war. The network fails to mention ... btw ... this dude has a massive conflict of interest as he is paid by the defense contractor lobby.

1 Trillion dollars /year in Total Military Spending ... same as with healthcare.

It is no secret that the waste and obscene collusion (fixing prices) is massive. One can google specific examples that would shock even the most frivolous spender.

back to healthcare. I am all for Personal Responsibility but, I am not big on Sodomy.

 

Lol we agree, yes we do get raped often by the system. So much I don't even go to the hospital unless it's a serious emergency as any sickness can be taken care of with a bottle of Jack, or if you know where to find them get some medicines from Mexico that put our antibiotics to shame and can be had for as little as $5 for a package of like 20. 2 of those bastards and you can go from having a bronchial infection and fever to good as new in a day lol.

Yes the main issue is like college, the (*)(*)(*)(*) is just extremely expensive and it is beyond ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

[video=youtube;DzsonDJCSzM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsonDJCSzM[/video]

 

So this is your way of saying you cannot possibly defend your position against these arguments?

 

Ive already defended my position Mr. Liar.

If you want to see it go back to the pages where I owned your lying butt multiple times. There is no point in arguing with someone who so willingly lies and ignores the truth as much as you do.

You lost, let it die.

 

Really? Looked in a mirror? Show me? And remember the four you've racked on this thread.

So you keep saying. And yet, I have outlined 8 points which utterly destroys your argument. Go ahead, take a look. I will remind you that your solitary (and therefore best) source is a Minnesotan Dairy Queen server, and that his story cannot be corroborated by anyone, much a less credible news agency.

This is the basis of your position is it not? If not, by all means, explain what your defended position is. Do you have a credible source somewhere up your sleeve? Another argument? Otherwise, I have decimated this one.

 

No, you are uttering 8 lies I have already addressed and you willingly chose to ignore that I have addressed them . Go back and read my posts that ruined your lies that have been addressed, and you will again see my position.

Go away troll.

 

Really? Could you direct me to your post that addresses these points, or address them here for me?

(1) I demonstrated that your primary (and only) source took Ms. Montez's quote out of context (in mid-sentence!). You cannot show us which question her quote is referring to, thus it is out of context. That's one for me.
(2) I demonstrated that the author of your primary source has no journalism experience, and his last job was at Dairy Queen, by linking to his LinkedIn. That's two.
(3) I demonstrated that three other credible sources followed this story and could not find credible evidence that would corroborate the claims made by your primary source. I showed that they interviewed critics who were not at all concerned about the criticism that your source makes, almost as though it wasn't true.

At this point your primary and only source, which was not particularly credible to begin with, has been shattered and is useless as a source, but let's continue.

(4) I explained why it is very unlikely that the author of your source was able to get an interview with the subject of his piece considering that he is not an actual reporter, and lives half a continent away.
(5) Since we know that your source lacks credibility and ethics, and will take quotes out of context to support a narrative, we have no reason to believe that the interview was ever actually conducted, and that the subject of the story had her statement reported out of context.
(6) Although you claimed that there were no students interviewed who were critical of the bill, I was able to show otherwise using the credible sources I presented earlier.
(7) Your source also claims to have contacted those officials who would "take a pay-cut" because of this bill, and even though it would be in their interests to comment if the story was true, they have not responded. There are tons of reasons why that may be, but all of them are bad for your claims.
(8 ) Your source lacks credibility and integrity, and cannot be corroborated by any credible or respected news agency.

 

The source used was the person that interviewed the sponsor of the bill. enough said. What about that do you not understand?

 

Well a number of things:

(1) Why is it that we are supposed to take the word of a non-journalist, non-reporter, philosophy/Catholic Studies sophomore, with no real reporting experience, whose last job was at Dairy Queen?
(2) Why is it that we are supposed to take the word of an author and website which have taken other quotes out of context to maintain their narrative, to be ethical, and accurate with this woman's quotes?
(3) Why is it that no credible news source have reported on this aspect of the story, even while reporting on the other controversial aspects of the story? How credible can these claims be if they are not corroborated by anyone else?
(4) Why is it that the criticisms of this blog are not a concern of student critics of the bill. Are the student critics of the bill unconcerned about "free abortions"?
(5) Why is it that the claims of the author and blog are not reflected in the bill itself?
(6) Why is it that when this author and site contacted the very campus administrators who would allegedly be "taking a pay-cut" have declined to issue a comment to the author, even though they are on "their side"?
(7) Why is it that they even reported that they reached out to campus administrators? It looks bad that they didn't respond, and the authors had no ethical responsibility to report that they did reach out.
(8 ) How is it that a student writer in Minneapolis (not a reporter, not a journalist), representing a hostile (right wing) blog gain interview access to a very liberal student in California? Did the author spend his own money to get to and stay in California to catch the sophomore student politician while missing classes in Minnesota?
(9) Why did the blog have their Minnesota Correspondent cover this story rather than their California Correspondent?

That's what I don't understand. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

 

yikes... seems liberal professors are now torn about having their wealth redistributed, or providing young whores an abortion at no cost to them....


what's a progressive employee to do.... lol


That's the only part about this story I can laugh about, that the liberal professors are now being forced to eat their own agenda, or lose money out of their pocket. The rest of the story makes me sick and makes me weep for the country.... but the first part is hella funny

 

Lol ok this is the last time im answering this. But I guess I will own you once more and it will either shut your trap, or you will prove once again that you will ignore all facts and ask the same *******n question over again.

Do you understand the definition of insanity, did they show you that on your online curriculum?

A non journalist who is an investigative reporter for Campus Reform, The Daily Caller, Intercollegiate Review, The College Fix, and something called the Catholic Spirit? It seems he has experience as a journalist and something he likes to do. You do realize people are not all one dimensional don't you ? There are many people who have multiple talents.

And so what if he was a Manager at a Dairy Queen, what the hell does that matter other than he got a job while in college? Just because he was a manager at a Dairy Queen means he is not qualified for anything else? I had a teacher in high school who worked at a gas station part time for some extra money, but since he worked as a gas station cashier that ultimately made him unqualified to teach? People get side jobs while they are at college, people work for money. You are just using that as a very cheap attack on his character because your weak argument does not carry weight. Look at the guys profiles and they tell all of his previous positions as a writer/journalist/investigative reporter.

Again are you saying just because at one time I worked at Arby's in the past that there is no way I am a qualified auto mechanic, specialize in Distribution/Logistics, have Supervisor/Team leader/ manager experience, who also happened to be a damn good bouncer? At one time I worked in a warehouse, worked as an auto mechanic on the side and bouncer on weekend nights. So tell me, how does my time at Arby's disqualify me from doing other jobs ? You sir, or whatever the hell you are, are just petty.

here is his profile for Campus reform, obviously if you look at the stories he has done for just that one site I would say he has a good amount of experience as a journalist/writer/investigative reporter. http://www.campusreform.org/Author/?AuthorID=2413149

A little research will pull up more than just a job at a Dairy Queen. Or better yet why don't you contact him and ask lol.

Oh and let me ask you something. What is your area of expertise as far as journalism? Are you qualified to state who is and who is not qualified to be a journalist? Or is that just more typical BS from someone who bases their arguments on false narratives and lying tactics?

He did not take anyones quotes out of context. That is you making things up again because your argument carries no weight. SO of course your only alternative is to lie.

They did their own small piece, it wasn't and investigative piece as done by Anthony Gockowski who took the time to actually question the bills sponsor. The Washington Times piece just reported using the UC-Berkeley student news.

Campus Reform did the article and took the time to interview and make calls to get answers. And if his claims were untrue then why hasn't anyone called him out on it yet? Why has nobody, especially the bills primary sponsor Aanchal Chugh, has not come out to state he is lying?

Because he is not and did not take anything out on context. The only person stating that is you, a person who is not a journalist or even relevant in all of this lol.

I don't know what student critics you are talking about, I didn't read any blogs talking to student critics or critics of the bill. I was only concerned with what the bill supporters want out of this. So whatever the critics say they can say, im not speaking for them.

The bill only states what it wants, it makes no mention of how it is to be paid for. You on the other hand were lying by trying to say it somehow clearly states that it is not intended to be free. WHy do you lie, why are you saying that is in the bill when it is not?

Meanwhile:

Aanchal Chugh, primary sponsor of the bill, told Campus Reform she thinks funds for abortions should be taken from administrator’s paychecks.

“I believe the University should reorganize funds from the administration's paychecks to university health services. Many of the administrators at UC Berkeley receive more than generous paychecks while they continue to put student health on the backburner,” Chugh said. “This resolution is demanding that the university reconsider and reprioritize its funding. Instead of investing money into the administration's paychecks, the university should be investing in students' health and safety needs.”

Whether administrators are willing to take a pay cut or not, Chugh says she does not think students should have to contribute funds for these on-campus abortions in any way.

“The resolution does not expect students to pay for these services as I, and those who voted for it, believe that health is a right not a privilege,” she added. “The university should be providing this right to all students.”


That states everything we need to know. WHat about that, the quotes from the bills sponsor, do you not understand?

Because maybe at the time they didn't have a complete answer? Are you seriously going to state that people never decline to comment on situations right away and wait until something has been discussed before answering any questions? Obviously you really do not understand how things work.

And the piece done by Campus Reform was neither a critical piece nor a support piece, it was just reporting a story with details of what the bill and its sponsor are trying to accomplish. It is not an agenda, or opinion piece as the writer never states his opinion on the matter.

Because all news sites to do that . NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, Huffington Post, etc. etc. all reach out to try and get further detail. And when someone declines to comment at that time those same web sites do in fact mention when someone they try to interview declines to comment. Are you 9 or 90? Have you ever read any reports before this one?

See more lies, he is an investigative reporter and a journalist lol. Stop lying dude, that is where you are messing up. Either that or you are simply ignoring facts, which obviously you do, that do not support your false narrative. It's typical of lefties, you are not alone.

And how was his reporting on the matter "Hostile" lol? He said no such words of hostility and never mentioned his own point of view on the matter lol. Just goes to show you did not read it, because if you did you wouldn't have made such a dumb ass claim lol. Read the Campus Reform article, there is zero hostility.

And again are you saying he couldn't have emailed, called, used a IM messenger, or some other form of technology we have today to interview? You do realize interviews do take place over the internet, or skype, or phone calls, or many other ways of communication. Again, you are trying to sound slick when the fact of the matter is you sound like you are just waking up in the new world.

Question, are me and you not communicating and expressing our opinions to each other and not having to be next to each other to discuss the matter? OMG THEY CAN DO THE SAME THING!!!!! Yes believe it, everyone has access to this kind of communication, isn't that great?

Oh and about traveling. I checked out the guys Facebook and apparently he is in Italy right now getting married. I guess he shouldn't be able to do that either because you said it is impossible to do so correct?

This is exactly why it is pointless to argue with you. Your talking points are trash, there is no way you went to college, it sounds like you just got out of bording school.

Because maybe this guy just wanted too. Is that your call to make or his? Or is everyone supposed to think like you?

Ive tried, but you purposely omit so much information, or you try to twist it when it is clear as day, that you do not want to understand it. You are very hard headed, misinformed and probably the worst debater I have honestly seen on this site. You only cherry pick what is relevant to you, and ignoring the rest that is inconvenient to your opinion.

You need to work on that.

Now seriously, I am done with you, because I know you are going to come back asking the same questions and omitting the information you do not personally like and we will be back at square one. Get help.