Safe Sex Is About To Get More Expensive

[WhipperSnapper]

bull fucking shit. I fucking hate this new administration. can it be 2012 already please

Do you really want the Republicans back?

What nation should we ship the rest of our economy too under Republican leadership? India, China, or Mexico?

Under Republican leadership, should the number of foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas who are currently displacing Americans from often knowledge-based, college-education-requiring jobs be increased to 5 million or 10 million?

Under Republican leadership, after they have given amnesty to the illegal aliens (Bush's idea, McCain's idea), will they increase the amount of legal immigration to 3 million or 5 millions/year? It helps wealthy companies get even wealthier while further destroying the middle class, so you can bet the Republicans support it.

I'm not saying the Democrats are much better on these issues, but my point is that the Republicans are just as horrible for our nation's economy.

Oh, have you heard about the Republicans' new free market health care plan? In spite of the mountains of evidence that real socialized medicine is far superior and more economically efficient than what we have today, the Republicans' plan for health care is, "Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly."

 

[lothar]

I specifically excluded condoms in my first post, and there weren't any other contraceptives in the original list. Everything else there was a sexual aid. I am fairly sure that there aren't any FDA guidelines on sex toys (though I am prepared for someone to surprise me there).

They were part of the original list.
I purposely wanted to list an example of each category rather than list every single thing which was why I said "*insert other items here*"

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What wouldn't be such a bad idea would be to take the tax revenue from contraceptives and use it to FUND ABORTIONS for poor women. This would actually result in a net SAVINGS of money over time since the government wouldn't then have to spend gobs of money on welfare, health care, and public education for children born into poverty.

 

[lothar]

What wouldn't be such a bad idea would be to take the tax revenue from contraceptives and use it to FUND ABORTIONS for poor women. This would actually result in a net SAVINGS of money over time since the government wouldn't then have to spend gobs of money on welfare, health care, and public education for children born into poverty.

You mean like a "Sin" tax?
We've tried that for cigars, tobacco, and alcohol...They don't seem to work as intended because states are using that to balance their budgets instead of paying towards healthcare costs and prevention for smokers and alcoholics.

I doubt what you're proposing would end up working as you intended.

 

[Thump553]

I wonder how many times this outright lie will be featured on Fox News. It is abundantly clear from the statutory langauge that condoms sold at retail will not be subject to this 2% tax. Those concerned about an abstinence bent are one Adminstration behind the times.

Much ado about absolutely nothing.

 

[aka1nas]

They were part of the original list.
I purposely wanted to list an example of each category rather than list every single thing which was why I said "*insert other items here*"

Are you referring to your first post? You mentioned one possibly valid example and a bunch of sex aids.

I went ahead and pulled up section 201h from the relevant act:

(h) The term "device" (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 301(i), 403(f), 502(c), and 602(c)) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is--
(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,
(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You mean like a "Sin" tax?
We've tried that for cigars, tobacco, and alcohol...They don't seem to work as intended because states are using that to balance their budgets instead of paying towards healthcare costs and prevention for smokers and alcoholics.

I doubt what you're proposing would end up working as you intended.

I was just speaking in jest. However, if we're going to tax contraceptives, I can't think of a better way to spend the tax money.

 

[Patranus]

I wonder how many times this outright lie will be featured on Fox News. It is abundantly clear from the statutory langauge that condoms sold at retail will not be subject to this 2% tax. Those concerned about an abstinence bent are one Adminstration behind the times.

Much ado about absolutely nothing.

If you happened to look at the link, it was to SFGate, the online version of the San Francisco Chronicle. The San Francisco Chronicle is widely considered "progressively" slanted.

Whats next? Are you going to blame BOOOSH for this as well?

 

[lothar]

I wonder how many times this outright lie will be featured on Fox News. It is abundantly clear from the statutory langauge that condoms sold at retail will not be subject to this 2% tax. Those concerned about an abstinence bent are one Adminstration behind the times.

Much ado about absolutely nothing.

Those not concerned are not looking an Administration forward.
What happens when a Republican President appoints "John Ashcroft Jr." as Attorney General?
Do you believe we'll keep having Presidents as Democrats the next 4-30+ years?

As for me, it doesn't affect me because I don't use condoms or any of those stupid sexual medical devices. Abstinence FTW!!!
I don't care about it so much since I know that I won't pay the tax...Similar to cigar, tobacco, and alcohol "Sin" taxes...I don't pay the tax because I don't use the products, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out something that won't work as intended.

Taxes on medical devices won't reduce healthcare costs. They will just pass that into retail and insurance companies will have to pay the difference leading to increased premiums on the insured.
One would have to be a moron to think Medtronic, Abbott, and Johnson/Johnson won't protect their shareholders by increasing prices to compensate for the tax.
The tax includes surgical equipment, diabetes testing supplies—while others are cutting-edge technologies, like replacement joints, pacemakers, stents, and MRI and CT scanners are also included.

This new tax will eventually be passed through to patients, increasing health-care costs. It will also harm innovation, taking a big bite out of the research and development that leads to medical advancements.

 

[fantolay]

If you're concerned about a 2% tax on cheap products, you need to take a step back and reassess, especially since that money will literally save lives.

Condoms are "cheap" for what they do, but they definitely aren't cheap. You probably wouldn't know because you've never had sex.

 

[Pulsar]

Those not concerned are not looking an Administration forward.
What happens when a Republican President appoints "John Ashcroft Jr." as Attorney General?
Do you believe we'll keep having Presidents as Democrats the next 4-30+ years?

As for me, it doesn't affect me because I don't use condoms or any of those stupid sexual medical devices. Abstinence FTW!!!
I don't care about it so much since I know that I won't pay the tax...Similar to cigar, tobacco, and alcohol "Sin" taxes...I don't pay the tax because I don't use the products, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out something that won't work as intended.

Taxes on medical devices won't reduce healthcare costs. They will just pass that into retail and insurance companies will have to pay the difference leading to increased premiums on the insured.
One would have to be a moron to think Medtronic, Abbott, and Johnson/Johnson won't protect their shareholders by increasing prices to compensate for the tax.
The tax includes surgical equipment, diabetes testing supplies—while others are cutting-edge technologies, like replacement joints, pacemakers, stents, and MRI and CT scanners are also included.

This new tax will eventually be passed through to patients, increasing health-care costs. It will also harm innovation, taking a big bite out of the research and development that leads to medical advancements.

Of course it's going to get passed through.

The logic? Holy crap is it convoluted. Medical care is too expensive. So we're going to set it up so everyone in the country is covered. The rich get to pay for the poor. But that just isn't enough. Then we increase tax ON the medical care, making it more expensive, thus requiring MORE of the riches dollars. Which means we get to tax more of the rich folks dollars into the government, then tax that implements that that money pays for too.

They're getting you coming, going, and now they're getting you even if you have nothing to do with it too. And there are STILL people arguing that this whole thing was a well thought out "good idea".

 

[irishScott]

Looks like people who supported this bill (not health care reform, just this bill) are finally figuring out the cost. They're taxing a lot more than condoms. I just hope the CBO is right and if nothing else we get some extra $$ out of all this, otherwise we're gonna be spending more money for more health care reform in a few years.