Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:yes but (Score 1) 294

by compro01 (#47410423) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.

They were okay with the 1,196 that are on the market. It was just the 4, including two types of IUDs that were problematic.

Yes, and then SCOTUS ruled the next day that Catholic-owned corporations can opt out of all birth control.

Comment: Re:Scientific research never got anyone anything (Score 1) 225

by compro01 (#47384861) Attached to: Senate Budgetmakers Move To End US Participation In ITER

You will need to have a process of converting Fusion-generated energy into fuel.

We've had that for almost a century. The Fischer-Tropsch process. Hydrogen+carbon monoxide+energy=liquid hydrocarbons.

The whole "fuel from seawater" thing a few months ago was this, using seawater as the source for the hydrogen (electrolysis) and carbon (dissolved in seawater).

Comment: Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score 1) 1304

by compro01 (#47357577) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

1. 9% is the "typical use" failure rate. The "perfect use" rate is hypothetical and of little consequence for practical use, as people doing things perfectly is a damn rare occurrence. It's a far better idea to promote the use of methods that are inherently screwup-proof.

2. Yes, that is probably entirely within the constitutional powers of the US federal government. What you listed is quite similar to what was mandated by the second Militia Act of 1792. Though I don't think there was ever a legal challenge to that law, so I'm not completely sure on its constitutionality.

Comment: Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score 4, Informative) 1304

by compro01 (#47355963) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? A month of generic birth control pills costs about $10/mo. Purchased in bulk, condoms are about $0.50/ea. Both are readily available at no cost from a variety of sources for those who can't afford them. Setting aside the heated political debate, it seems foolish to route these sorts of purchases through your insurance company, with inevitable overhead, rather than simply purchasing them yourself.

Great! The people least able to afford a pregnancy can only get the least-effective forms of birth control! Awesome! That's definitely not a bad idea.

Or we can offer them any method they want, including far more effective and foolproof ones (IUD, implant, etc.), all at the same cost, which is what the mandate is about.

Comment: Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score 5, Informative) 1304

by compro01 (#47355745) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

We had it before the ACA's mandate. 85% of group health plans provided it. Non-profits in all 50 States and many local governments make it available to those who can't afford it. The cost is not prohibitive even for those without insurance who don't wish to avail themselves of the aforementioned options.

You're assuming all birth control methods are created equal. They aren't.

The pill is a comparatively poor method in terms of success rate (roughly 9%/year failure rate and needs to be taken religiously every day) compared to more recent methods, such as IUDs (0.2-0.8% failure rate, depending on type. Basically foolproof as they're insert-and-forget for 3+ years) and implants (0.05% (this is actually better than the success rate for tubal ligation), insert-and-forget for 4 years).

The mandate expanded the state of things from "Oh, you're poor, so you get the failure-prone pill because it's cheap" to "Take your pick of any method, they're all covered", which is a good thing. Saddling people who can least afford a child with the most failure-prone method for preventing that is a recipe for disaster.

Comment: Re:Bad media coverage (Score 1) 1304

by compro01 (#47355509) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

To start with Hobby lobby was NOT against contraceptives, and offered it to their employees. They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".

HL has stated they're not against contraceptives, just the ones the voices in their head tell them are bad. And yet somehow, they didn't have a problem with them before the PPACA.

We'll see where they go now that they have their nose in the tent.

Comment: Re:What logic! (Score 1) 139

by compro01 (#47335989) Attached to: Norway Scraps Online Voting

There's no more reason to trust that your paper ballot is being counted correctly than your electronic ballot.

Sure there is. Up here in Canada, the counting of the ballots is observed by representatives of each candidate that wishes to send one. Unless you want to claim that all the candidates are in on it (in which case you're screwed regardless), it's decidedly difficult to mess with the counting process.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...