If you believe that Rand would assert that making it easier to take from the state would lessen, not increase the overall cost to the state, you are profoundly mistaken.
Nowhere have I ever said anything that would even suggest making it easier to "take from the state". Making a particular medication OTC instead of prescription has NO CHANCE of making it easier to "take something from the state" -- If anything, it will make it HARDER, because the state is involved with providing prescription medication, not OTC medication. Which was Jindal's point, and which you seem to either have missed entirely, or be completely misconstruing.
Making it easier will simply ensure that more people take advantage of it for their own ends, that wastage and spoilage go up dramatically, since there is no punishment for waste.
Well, the fact that they have to pay for their own drugs, and therefore wasting the drugs would be cost them money, there would be a "punishment" for waste. And if you are arguing that government exists to punish people for wasting their own resources, well again that is certainly not anything like what Rand espouses.
Canon law is pretty clear, you have to obtain the doctor’s prescription with an explanation for the condition being treated.
First, I am surprised to hear that "Canon law" includes the requirement for a government-authorized prescription medication in order to treat medical conditions. What would happen if there was a safe, effective pill that treated these conditions and was available OTC, would this "canon law" preclude such treatment? I stand ready to be corrected, but I never pictured Canon law to be so specific to the laws of a particular country.
But assuming you are correct, why? Can't the Catholic church simply require parishioners to get a Doctor's note and bring it to confession? I still am having trouble with your assertion that Canon Law claims that people can't be trusted not to sin without government intervention; how does the government guarantee that a man doesn't cheat on his wife? Is everything about the Church dictated by civil law to keep Catholics from committing sins? I just find this hard to imagine.
Furthermore, I would find it remarkable that we are expected to keep a drug on the prescription list simply because the Church decided that would be a good way to keep their parishioners in line. TO other Catholics in this discussion -- please remember, I simply have a hard time believing this, so if it is in fact wrong, please don't think I'm accusing the Church of such things.
Anyway, this was a Religion thread, but not a Caucus thread. As such, it is expected that differing opinions on religious matters would be argued. I gave an opinion that the attack on Jindal was wrong-headed. An assertion that "it is what the Catholic Church teaches" is an appeal to authority, and while it certainly is a fine point for the argument that Jindal is being chastised by his church, it is a non-responsive answer to an argument over whether the Church is making a sound argument.
You should also understand that I have never argued that contraceptives should be made OTC. My argument here is that the religious argument against Jindal is an absurd argument, not that his idea is a good one.
It’s perfectly ok for someone who isn’t Catholic to do whatever they like,
Except your argument here is to prohibit me, a non-Catholic, from buying a pill OTC, because Canon Law requires Catholics to get a doctor's approval and selling OTC will prevent the church from being able to enforce it's laws on Catholics. So no, you don't think it is perfectly OK for me to do what I like.
Ah, so the real issue here is the typical, “I want my dope argument.”
No, the argument was that prescription rules are a way for government to dictate a level of control. You certainly can't argue that prescription rules DON'T give government control over what I can do.
“Nowhere have I ever said anything that would even suggest making it easier to “take from the state”.”
That’s exactly what making contraception available OTC through Obamacare would do. You just don’t seem to get it, do you? Right now it takes a prescription to get it and you have to have a doctor and go to your doctor. If your change were implemented, now that hurdle would be gone and people could just line up and buy as much as they wanted, whenever they wanted and ring it up on their Obamacard! “Merry Christmas, suckers!”
“Making it easier will simply ensure that more people take advantage of it”
Can you say, “massive expansion of state expenditures”, boys and girls? Yes, you can.
“Well, the fact that they have to pay for their own drugs”,
Except that Obamacare ensures that they don’t.
“First, I am surprised to hear that “Canon law” includes the requirement for a government-authorized prescription medication in order to treat medical conditions.”
Absolutely it does, at least for Catholics.
“but I never pictured Canon law to be so specific”
There’s lots you don’t know about what the Catholic church teaches and why. :)
“why? Can’t the Catholic church simply require parishioners to get a Doctor’s note and bring it to confession?”
They have to supply the prescription. They have to be able to show that yes, it’s being prescribed by a physician and that these are valid medical concerns to use the pill.
“Is everything about the Church dictated by civil law to keep Catholics from committing sins?”
You still aren’t getting it. That’s the whole point of Canon law, if you follow canon law, you aren’t going to commit sins.
“Furthermore, I would find it remarkable that we are expected to keep a drug on the prescription list simply because the Church decided that would be a good way to keep their parishioners in line.”
Again, I said no such thing. There is significant scientific evidence showing serious side effects associated with hormonal contraception requiring it’s dispensation by a qualified physician and pharmacist. That is why it’s not and should not be distributed OTC. It’s not aspirin.
“I gave an opinion that the attack on Jindal was wrong-headed. An assertion that “it is what the Catholic Church teaches” is an appeal to authority,”
An authority that Jindal has submitted to as he considers himself to be Catholic. You are not. Ergo, what applies to you is not the same as what applies to Jindal. Oh, wait, I already said that, you just chose not to read that part.
“You should also understand that I have never argued that contraceptives should be made OTC.”
Lie.
“My argument here is that the religious argument against Jindal is an absurd argument, not that his idea is a good one.”
The argument that Jindal should be expected to respect the canon law of the church that he purports to be a member? Hardly.
“Except your argument here is to prohibit me, a non-Catholic, from buying a pill OTC, because Canon Law requires Catholics to get a doctor’s approval and selling OTC will prevent the church from being able to enforce it’s laws on Catholics.”
Also lie. I believe that contraception should be regulated because it has serious side effects and that sensible regulation includes requiring a prescription from a qualified physician and dispensation through a qualified pharmacist. But then I already said this, you don’t care to hear it.
“No, the argument was that prescription rules are a way for government to dictate a level of control.”
Give me my dope right now! And make sure you pay for it! Some liberaltarian.