If little boys could get pregnant..

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Yes, you do

Nice try! But I fear your attempts to tell other people what they really believe will work about as well as . . . all your other attempts to do the same thing.

Now get back to supporting pollution and HIV, you troublemaker.

Yes you do, the church has to provide insurance or be fined since they employ over 50 people. so the money they are fined will go to pay for insurance for people that have contrception in the policy. therefore they either provide insurance with contrception, or pay a higher premium because it is still mandated to be given by the insurance company, or pay a fine that goes towards paying for insurance that has contrception in it. there is no way out of not paying for or providing contraception for the church. so by supporting the bill in any way makes the church supply or pay for something that goes against the religion and that is illegal acording to the constitution.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>It would start that way and end up that way.

Then why hasn't that happened with government-mandated car insurance?

Because, by golly by gee, people realize the stupidity of it for vehicles, fire, etc. How moronic would it sound for a person to be uninsured, get in a wreck, then seek insurance to cover the damage to the vehicle? Aka a “preexisting condition.” Yet, for some reason, health insurers should not only cover those things but shouldn’t charge the unhealthy any more than the healthy because it’s discriminatory.

Why haven’t they treated auto insurance the same way? Because it’s moronic when applied to any other situation. It’s also moronic when applied to health insurance but it’s just the kind hearted thing to do with that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And hmm, men on their periods....

Picture an episode of Happy Days:

Fonzie: “I got my period. AYYYYY!!!!!”

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Hasn't the input from the Right Wing Conservatives here driven home the points that -

1. They do not care about, or believe in, facts that do not support their opinions.

2. They do not care about truth, honesty, or anything that questions their opinions.

3. They have zero respect for the US Constitution, unless that part they are quoting supports their opinions as to how they think things "should" be.

4. Their hipocrisy extends to all facets of their belief structure. For example, they profess to want minimal government intrusion into personal and private lives. At the same time, they are rabidly anti-choice and anti women in general. Their supposed concern for the welfare of children ends at delivery. After that, the mother and child are on their own.
Another example of the hipocrisy is their unswerving support of the death penalty, decided and carried out by the same incompetent government that they believe can't do anything right.

5. The hipocrisy extends to complete disregard for the first amendment when it comes to religions that they don't like. The prime example of this is the mosque that will be built a few blocks (a very long way in lower Manhattan) from "ground zero".

6. RWCs actually think that a former professor of constitutional law is really a socialist, which to them, is a form of terrifying bogeyman. It is much worse that this person is not fully of white, northern european descent.

Given their complete ignorance of history, and their profound dislike of anyone or anything that questions authority, arguing with those idiots is like trying to reason with a child. They simply do not have the capacity to understand complicated issues, They can deal with black and white issues when they are told what and how to think.

With regard to health care, the drain on the economy that for profit insurance companies are is something that needs to go the way of Jim Crow laws. It is long past time to get to a national health care system that is not employer dependent. How many entrepreneurs would start businesses if they did not have to deal with trying to get and keep extremely expensive health insurance for themselves and their families? How many people would go for new jobs if they did not have to deal with the issue of health insurance. The current system is a massive drain on, and hindrance to, the economy. Losing 30-45% of revenue to profit seeking companies that only make money when denying all services they can legally get away with is not a recipe for success.

Trying to figure out how my post garnered this response. Maybe you just clicked on my post cuz it was the most recent one at the time?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[BikerBabe 0]

probably.

The only issue i have is that most insure covers viagra, but nor birth control. how in the HELL iis that in any way....right? not sexist? fair? you pick the word.

I'll tell you why. because underneath all the church/state rhetoric, it's really about good old fashioned "conservative" values and controlling the bodies of women. they can dress it up all they want in economic or constitutional terms, but really, that's the gist of it.

So the OP is actually posing a very astute question.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Only if you define "separation of church and state" as "the US Government will give Christians anything they ask for."

The Catholic Church did not get everything it wanted out of this. Too bad, so sad. But that's because we live in a democracy where the Church is not in charge.

Neither is the Fed. The people are supposed to be.

But it is interesting to see that you do not care about seperation of church and state.

The people get to elect the government. The people have no say in selecting bishops or popes.

If the church wants separation, it shouldn't concern itself with governance except for its own. The Roman bishops are inserting themselves in a secular matter.

Incorrect
The state is telling a churh it has to supply birth control and morning after abortion drugs

This is against a long standing church positon

the state by default is tell the church what to do

So the church IS concerned with only its own

The drugs are still available are they not?

It is just a question of who pays for them

Your twist is just laughable

The way you word that, and the way a lot of people are manipulating statements, is very misleading. I'm not aware of any church that supplies BC, or has been told they must.

Basically, the government has told them that if they want to stick their nose in the health care financing business, they must abide by the rules of insurance. One of those rules (and I'm very broadly stating the concept), is that they can not decide not to cover certain services because of their religious beliefs.

On top of that, if they are in any way involved in a government funded program, putting qualifications or restrictions on that program based on religion is not allowed.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 3,077]

>The state is telling a churh it has to supply birth control and morning after abortion drugs

No, it's not.

================
Obama announces contraception compromise
RELIGIOUS GROUPS
February 10, 2012|By Alan Silverleib, CNN

President Barack Obama announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees.
==================
WASHINGTON -- The White House has support from a key Catholic health group on its compromise birth control policy.

Sister Carol Keehan heads the Catholic Health Organization. She says the compromise "has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed."

Senior administration officials tell The Associated Press the compromise policy says religious employers won't have to cover birth control for their employees, after all.

Instead, insurance companies will be directly responsible for providing free contraception.

Keehan says the resolution "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions."
====================

[kelpdiver 2]

I'm still trying to figure out how exactly this is different.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Only if you define "separation of church and state" as "the US Government will give Christians anything they ask for."

The Catholic Church did not get everything it wanted out of this. Too bad, so sad. But that's because we live in a democracy where the Church is not in charge.

Neither is the Fed. The people are supposed to be.

But it is interesting to see that you do not care about seperation of church and state.

The people get to elect the government. The people have no say in selecting bishops or popes.

If the church wants separation, it shouldn't concern itself with governance except for its own. The Roman bishops are inserting themselves in a secular matter.

Incorrect
The state is telling a churh it has to supply birth control and morning after abortion drugs

This is against a long standing church positon

the state by default is tell the church what to do

So the church IS concerned with only its own

The drugs are still available are they not?

It is just a question of who pays for them

Your twist is just laughable

All of these issues would disappear with a national health care system that took employers and churches totally out of the loop completely.

I am SO surprised to see that RWCs are too stupid to see the reality of the situation.

What happens when the Jehovah's witlesses decide that they don't want to cover blood transfusions in their health plans for NON CHURCH MEMBER employees of peripheral business that are NOT directly church related?

The RWCs are a pack of useless scumbags, as usual. Health care is not something that superstitious nitwits get to pick and choose which services will be available for their NON CHURCH MEMBER employees of peripheral businesses. The CHURCH itself is allowed this level of discretion on their DIRECTLY RELIGION RELATED businesses. Their peripheral businesses like hospitals, etc, are subject to the same rules and regulations as any other employers. What the fuck is wrong with that?
Equal treatment under the law is fully in place. If the churches are so wound up about this issue they can take their first amendment priveleges back to their actual CHURCH operations and sell off their peripheral businesses. On other words, keep religious privleges limited to church operations only. Peripheral businesses are NOT subject to first amendment privleges.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I'm still trying to figure out how exactly this is different.

Me too. As a matter of fact, many larger employers are self-insured and only utilize a health insurance company for claims processing. So they are going to have to charge more for "claims processing" and then pay for contraception out of that? I guess, but that is a shell game.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

Includes what the company chooses to provide along with a contribution from me

Thanks for asking

Does your group insurance cover birth control?

[kallend 2,107]

"Contraception's not OK", Rick Santorum.

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/rick-santorum-wants-your-sex-life-to-be-special/253104/?google_editors_picks=true Right around the 18 minute mark.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

All of these issues would disappear with a national health care system that took employers and churches totally out of the loop completely.

I am SO surprised to see that RWCs are too stupid to see the reality of the situation.

problem doesn't go away. In your scenario they still pay for contraceptives but now you've tacked on abortions (and of course premarital childbirth).

[popsjumper 2]

For me, the most telling paragraphs were these two:

"Democrats, who control the Senate, are likely to block any bill with such broad opt-out provisions."

"But supporters, including prominent Republicans, say they will keep pushing for the change, which fits into a wider theme of defending individual freedoms against government intrusion which is expected to play prominently in the November election."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>But it is interesting to see that you do not care about seperation of church and state.

I care about it a great deal - which is why I am glad that the US government did not cave in to the church's demands, and instead maintained that separation.

You have a much different definition of 'separation', evidently. Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is 'maintaining separation', how? For that matter, it's compatible with 'freedom of religion', how?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

>But it is interesting to see that you do not care about seperation of church and state.

I care about it a great deal - which is why I am glad that the US government did not cave in to the church's demands, and instead maintained that separation.

You have a much different definition of 'separation', evidently. Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is 'maintaining separation', how? For that matter, it's compatible with 'freedom of religion', how?

The original European settlers came to America seeking refuge from government intrusion into their religion.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

The original European settlers came to America seeking refuge from government intrusion into their religion.

SOME probably did .. there must have been all sorts of reasons ... for some might be it was just the doughnuts.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Includes what the company chooses to provide along with a contribution from me

Thanks for asking

Does your group insurance cover birth control?

It did not used to years ago

I dont know now

If they do fine
If they dont fine

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

In your scenario they still pay for contraceptives but now you've tacked on abortions (and of course premarital childbirth).

I believe premarital childbirth is covered under any policy that covers postmarital childbirth now. The uproar over a policy that asked one's marital status for certain procedures would be interesting.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The original European settlers came to America seeking refuge from government intrusion into their religion.

SOME probably did .. there must have been all sorts of reasons ... for some might be it was just the doughnuts.

I didn't think the doughnuts were that bad last time I was in London. Certainly not so bad that I would have hopped on a tiny ship and fled the country.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Quote

In your scenario they still pay for contraceptives but now you've tacked on abortions (and of course premarital childbirth).

I believe premarital childbirth is covered under any policy that covers postmarital childbirth now. The uproar over a policy that asked one's marital status for certain procedures would be interesting.

Wendy P.

I'd have to check on that. When my teenaged daughter got pregnant 11 years ago my employer-sponsored health insurance specifically stated that pregnancy related expenses would only be covered for the policy holder's legally married spouse. Although my daughter was covered for other things via my family coverage, anything having to do with prenatal care, the delivery, or my granddaughter's pediatric care we paid out of pocket. It seemed quite discriminatory to me at the time, as there was no comparable situation in which boys would be denied coverage (for example, treatment for STDs would be fully covered). Welcome to the Bible belt!

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In your scenario they still pay for contraceptives but now you've tacked on abortions (and of course premarital childbirth).

I believe premarital childbirth is covered under any policy that covers postmarital childbirth now. The uproar over a policy that asked one's marital status for certain procedures would be interesting.

Wendy P.

I'd have to check on that. When my teenaged daughter got pregnant 11 years ago my employer-sponsored health insurance specifically stated that pregnancy related expenses would only be covered for the policy holder's legally married spouse. Although my daughter was covered for other things via my family coverage, anything having to do with prenatal care, the delivery, or my granddaughter's pediatric care we paid out of pocket. It seemed quite discriminatory to me at the time, as there was no comparable situation in which boys would be denied coverage (for example, treatment for STDs would be fully covered). Welcome to the Bible belt!

Don

Would your daughter have been covered for STD treatment? If not, then there's a problem.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,077]

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

In your scenario they still pay for contraceptives but now you've tacked on abortions (and of course premarital childbirth).

I believe premarital childbirth is covered under any policy that covers postmarital childbirth now. The uproar over a policy that asked one's marital status for certain procedures would be interesting.

Wendy P.

Pregnancy is on all group policies and cannot not be removed here in Illinois. Since my shop has a group policy my wifes insurance has pregnancy covered with a higher premium eventhough my wife cannot get pregnant nor can I get her pregnant. these are some of the things in insurance that really piss me off because the pregnancy coverage is espensive but I don't want to pay for it. I am made to pay about $100 a month for something I don't want and cannot use. All this stuff in the health care bill adds to the list of things you pay for but don't use or want.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Forcing the church to provide a service that goes against the tenets of the faith is
>'maintaining separation', how?

They don't. No church needs tp provide any birth control services to their employees.

However, the employees can request that through their insurance company if they choose. Do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with the church being made to pay for it, if the individual wants this coverage they should have to pay for it themselves with a rider attached to the policy.