If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Harry Reid urges Republicans to stay "calm" on birth control amendment. Well, that ought to do it   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 227
    More: Unlikely, Harry Reid, Republican, birth control, amendments  
•       •       •

931 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Feb 2012 at 11:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



227 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-10 12:42:13 PM

Uberdeity: Federal law now states you must provide health coverage


No it doesn't. That doesn't go into effect until 2014

And even then it doesn't.

You can pay the fee, which will be cheaper than health insurance. Or you can donate money to a political party and get a waiver.
 
2012-02-10 12:46:37 PM
It is a shame that the nurses that work for a business must comply with that religions retarded rules, even if their own says nothing about the issue.

PLEASE stop being stupid. You are better than this.


The nurses aren't forced to do anything. They can:

1. Work for another business
2. Buy their own health insurance
3. Go bankrupt paying for their own $300 of birth control


If this was such a HUGE obstical, the catholic hospital wouldn't be able to find enough nurses to staff their business.

When you accept a job you take into account various factors. This job pays more, this job has better benefits, this job gives more vacation. If you need birth control so badly and the job doesn't pay for them, then don't take the job. My job gave me less vacation than the one previous, but paid me more. But I made a value judgement.
 
2012-02-10 12:47:31 PM

Uberdeity: It is a shame that the nurses that work for a business must comply with that religions retarded rules, even if their own says nothing about the issue.


they DO NOT have to comply with that religion's "retarded rules". You've said this several times. It is simply not the case. No one if being forced to comply with any religion's rules in this matter.
 
2012-02-10 12:47:44 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Marcus Aurelius: The far right hates abortion. Birth control prevents abortion. So the far right should love birth control, right?

I think that at its root, this is a theological issue for them. Sex is sin. Sin must be punished. Birth control, in their eyes, removes the consequences of that sin.

Here's where it goes off the rails: they simply don't trust God to administer Justice to these sinners. If they did, birth control would be immaterial, and they could rest in the knowledge that everyone is going to get what's coming to them.

Or, an even worse possibility, is that they don't want God to have mercy on sinners that sin in ways that they would like to sin. It's pure jealousy.


Interesting (and truthful) observations. I would also add that, for centuries, the Catholic Church has relied on lack of birth control to increase its flock of believers. Sure, a small % of people convert to Catholicism, but let's be honest: the bulk of its membership is made of 'cradle Catholics', most of whom are socially conditioned to baptize their children into the faith (regardless of their belief in its actual doctrine). Any drop in fertility/babymaking of Catholic women has a direct impact on the number of future-collection-basket-contributors...and thus, diminishes the Catholic hierarchy's temporal power.
 
2012-02-10 12:57:33 PM

Bevets: Birth control is not an essential health issue.


That's for individuals to decide, not you.
 
2012-02-10 12:58:52 PM

Bevets: "Our country is unique in the world because it was established on the basis of an idea: that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights -- in other words, rights that are conferred not by a king or a president or a Congress, but by the Creator himself. The state protects these rights, but it doesn't grant them," McConnell said.

The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)


I just invented a religion that is firmly against minimum wage 40hr work weeks and lunch breaks. Does that's an I can ignore the law. Who is the government to tell me I have to implement all those things
 
2012-02-10 12:59:56 PM
The right has now painted themselves so far into a corner that they're claiming that condoms are an outrage, a violation of human rights, an evil, the sort of thing that you fight to the death over, better to destroy the world than allow this unparalleled horror of sex without pregnancy. First there was the Inquisition, then the Holocaust, now there is the Condomcaust.

The corner is now about one inch by one inch, and the right is standing on a single toe.

It must be starting to hurt by now.
 
2012-02-10 01:00:00 PM

doczoidberg: This is so farking stupid.
Why is Obama giving the GOP a wedge issue and making this crap news???


Obama didn't do anything but lower the co-pay.
 
2012-02-10 01:07:05 PM
Any Republican rallying point can be replaced by the motto, "F**k you. You're not me."
 
2012-02-10 01:13:27 PM
The sad part is most of the people outraged about this probably use birth control anyway, this is just another convenient excuse for them to be mad at Obama for something.

The funny part is, this isn't anything new. This has been required for a long time, Obama's just removing the copay. So all you morons have already been "violating your conscience" for decades.

Torture violates my conscience, and my tax dollars were used to torture people. Can I stop paying taxes?
 
2012-02-10 01:17:49 PM

MugzyBrown: It is a shame that the nurses that work for a business must comply with that religions retarded rules, even if their own says nothing about the issue.

PLEASE stop being stupid. You are better than this.

The nurses aren't forced to do anything. They can:

1. Work for another business
2. Buy their own health insurance
3. Go bankrupt paying for their own $300 of birth control


If this was such a HUGE obstical, the catholic hospital wouldn't be able to find enough nurses to staff their business.

When you accept a job you take into account various factors. This job pays more, this job has better benefits, this job gives more vacation. If you need birth control so badly and the job doesn't pay for them, then don't take the job. My job gave me less vacation than the one previous, but paid me more. But I made a value judgement.


Yet if that nurse decides she has a moral objection to a stated company policy, she can follow those same, rules. Suck it up or get a new job.

Except no, we give THEM special exceptions, like allowing pharmacists to deny prescriptions based on personal religious beliefs.

It's time to stop kowtowing to religious bullying.
 
2012-02-10 01:21:37 PM

birchman: The sad part is most of the people outraged about this probably use birth control anyway


I doubt anyone is outraged about this -- but it does fit neatly into the same old media narratives that have dominated the last 30 years. It's practically formulaic.

Notice how it's been nothing but Abortion (Komen), Gays (Prop. 8) and Contraception (co-pays) for the last several weeks?
 
2012-02-10 01:25:11 PM
Muslems should now be forced to eat Pork????/

same thing folks.....
 
2012-02-10 01:25:39 PM

meat0918: It's time to stop kowtowing to religious bullying.


oh stop
 
2012-02-10 01:26:20 PM

winterwhile: Muslems should now be forced to eat Pork????/

same thing folks.....


you too
 
2012-02-10 01:29:10 PM
Obama just saved us a lot of lawyers fees. It never would have stood up in the courts.

(Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion.. and all that other pesky stuff). Since Citizens United basically endowed corporations with person hood, the logical outcome would be that the courts would also rule that the government cannot force a corporation into doing something they find morally repugnant.

Luckily we have freedom of choice in this country to join a plan or go to a facility that will provide the services we need.
 
2012-02-10 01:30:12 PM
98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception


Link (new window)
 
2012-02-10 01:30:58 PM

HighOnCraic: Link (new window)


liar
 
2012-02-10 01:31:07 PM

winterwhile: Muslems should now be forced to eat Pork????/

same thing folks.....


They should be forced to pay taxes that pay for food stamps that may be used to buy pork products.
 
2012-02-10 01:34:11 PM

skullkrusher: HighOnCraic: Link (new window)

liar


D'oh!

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-10 01:35:14 PM

keylock71: Nah, they'll desperately try to frame it as a "Freedom of Religion" issue...


That's why I was hoping that's how it gets framed...

As for "desperately", they've actually been pretty successful in framing it that way so far. Hopefully Obama's pivoting by having insurers pay instead of the employers is successful.
Seems like the kind of reasoning a Catholic who uses birth control could go for.
 
2012-02-10 01:38:27 PM

winterwhile: Muslems should now be forced to eat Pork????/

same thing folks.....


Yes, the 2% of sexually active Catholic women that have never used birth control are now being forced to use birth control.
 
2012-02-10 01:43:27 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: It's time to stop kowtowing to religious bullying.

oh stop


I would, but let's be honest. Catholic institutions are one of the few bastions of open and condoned discrimination left in America

I'm ok with the feds not stepping in and forcing them to accept women as priests. It crosses a line I'm not willing to cross. It also happens to highlight how stuck in the Dark Ages they are on many fronts. It's a source of ridicule, less mean spirited than pedophile jokes, but still ridiculous that they haven't had a "revelation" akin to the Mormon church and blacks.

However, the bullying has got to stop. That poor girl in Rhode Island that has had to change schools because she demanded separation of church and state be enforced and won. There are countless instances of bullying and threats in reaction to enforcement of that separation.

The outcry against Obama for removing the copay for something these institutions have had had to cover since 2000 AND have lost court case after court case while trying to carve exceptions out is just fatuous.

Seriously. Live in the now. This isn't infringing on your right to practice whatever -ism you believe in. It is protecting others rights not to be forced to live their lives according to your -ism.
 
2012-02-10 01:48:02 PM
Obama just fixed this problem

This is no longer an issue.
Everyone wins.
 
2012-02-10 01:51:32 PM

winterwhile: Muslems should now be forced to eat Pork????/

same thing folks.....


Except that it's not the same thing at all, since nobody is being forced to use contraception.
 
2012-02-10 01:51:33 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Obama just fixed this problem

This is no longer an issue.
Everyone wins.


Well, kinda. The Catholic Bishops have said they won't accept anything except complete abandonment of the rule requiring they cover it at all.

At this point, I think they see an opening to try and reverse the law passed in 2000 mentioned in the NPR link above. (linked here again Link (new window))

I love that the courts have already decided this coverage is constitutional based on 4 simple guidelines

"The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn't qualify as a "religious employer" because it didn't meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):

The organization's primary purpose is "the inculcation of religious values."
It primarily employs people of that religion.
It primarily serves people of that religion.
It's a registered nonprofit organization. "
 
2012-02-10 01:54:54 PM
"Our country is unique in the world because it was established on the basis of an idea: that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights -- in other words, rights that are conferred not by a king or a president or a Congress, but by the Creator himself. The state protects these rights, but it doesn't grant them," McConnell said.

Bevets:

The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception
. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

Bevets:

Why should the government force ANYONE to violate their conscience?

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears:


Pork is a bad analogy. You'll have to come up with something more compelling. Birth control is a women's health issue. Health insurance is concerned with health. In half of all cases, women's health. Therefore, health insurance is concerned with birth control. Therefore, if you provide health insurance you must provide for women's health. Therefore, you must provide birth control.

Bevets:

Birth control is not an essential health issue. Eating pork is not an essential health issue.

To continue the analogy you could suggest:
Eating pork is concerned with nutrition. Therefore, cafeterias must provide pork.


DarnoKonrad:

That's for individuals to decide, not you.

Or you -- hence the modifier 'elective'. Millions of women ELECT NOT to receive contraception. Here is another elective service that is provided by healthcare providers: Cosmetic Surgery. Your employer should not be forced to pay for your elective facelift and they should not be forced to pay for your elective contraception -- ESPECIALLY if it violates the employer's conscience.
 
2012-02-10 01:55:16 PM

meat0918: I would, but let's be honest. Catholic institutions are one of the few bastions of open and condoned discrimination left in America


they won't let women be the bosses. Yep.

meat0918: I'm ok with the feds not stepping in and forcing them to accept women as priests. It crosses a line I'm not willing to cross. It also happens to highlight how stuck in the Dark Ages they are on many fronts. It's a source of ridicule, less mean spirited than pedophile jokes, but still ridiculous that they haven't had a "revelation" akin to the Mormon church and blacks.


many more progressive Catholics would prefer to see men and women with families allowed into the priesthood

meat0918: However, the bullying has got to stop. That poor girl in Rhode Island that has had to change schools because she demanded separation of church and state be enforced and won. There are countless instances of bullying and threats in reaction to enforcement of that separation.

The outcry against Obama for removing the copay for something these institutions have had had to cover since 2000 AND have lost court case after court case while trying to carve exceptions out is just fatuous.

Seriously. Live in the now. This isn't infringing on your right to practice whatever -ism you believe in. It is protecting others rights not to be forced to live their lives according to your -ism.


First of all, federal law just states that prescription birth control be covered if the insurance plan covers prescriptions. Many states, such as NY, require the contraception be covered by employer health insurance. They allow exemptions for religiously affiliated institutions. Why is it such a terrible thing to require contraception be offered but that an employee must pay for it him or herself if the institution has an objection to it?

It then goes beyond "making contraception available" and becomes full on "forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception".
It's unacceptable. The compromise puts the problem on insurers and seems to me to be a fair resolution.
 
2012-02-10 01:56:48 PM

meat0918: Britney Spear's Speculum: Obama just fixed this problem

This is no longer an issue.
Everyone wins.

Well, kinda. The Catholic Bishops have said they won't accept anything except complete abandonment of the rule requiring they cover it at all.

At this point, I think they see an opening to try and reverse the law passed in 2000 mentioned in the NPR link above. (linked here again Link (new window))

I love that the courts have already decided this coverage is constitutional based on 4 simple guidelines

"The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn't qualify as a "religious employer" because it didn't meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):

The organization's primary purpose is "the inculcation of religious values."
It primarily employs people of that religion.
It primarily serves people of that religion.
It's a registered nonprofit organization. "


I'd like to add that if you meet those 4 guidelines, I have only minor problems with you getting an exception. I think it's kinda ridiculous, but hey, we have separation of church and state. Unfortunately that means we have to define what qualifies as a church. It's a necessary evil.

As that article also quotes a later decision in New York, ""When a religious organization chooses to hire nonbelievers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit," the justices wrote."
 
2012-02-10 01:58:45 PM

MugzyBrown: Refuse the benefits and buy your own. Negotiate more pay based on the fact you're saving the company money by not taking their benefits.


Hilarious. Thanks!
 
2012-02-10 02:04:03 PM

Bevets: Or you -- hence the modifier 'elective'. Millions of women ELECT NOT to receive contraception. Here is another elective service that is provided by healthcare providers: Cosmetic Surgery. Your employer should not be forced to pay for your elective facelift and they should not be forced to pay for your elective contraception -- ESPECIALLY if it violates the employer's conscience.


Based on what? I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. Can you find it for me? Thanks.
 
2012-02-10 02:04:15 PM

skullkrusher: First of all, federal law just states that prescription birth control be covered if the insurance plan covers prescriptions. Many states, such as NY, require the contraception be covered by employer health insurance. They allow exemptions for religiously affiliated institutions. Why is it such a terrible thing to require contraception be offered but that an employee must pay for it him or herself if the institution has an objection to it?

It then goes beyond "making contraception available" and becomes full on "forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception".
It's unacceptable. The compromise puts the problem on insurers and seems to me to be a fair resolution.


It's such an arbitrary line. If they offer it a prescription plan, they already are being forced into paying for birth control, because even with the copay that was dropped, the insurer is still using premiums and that negotiating power to lower the cost of prescription drugs, which includes birth control.

Copay's are your portion with the insurance picking up the rest of the tab, correct? So if they offer prescription coverage, they are already and have been since 2000 paying for birth control.

If you are arguing the old federal law also be repealed, that is a different argument. This outcry against dropping the copay is looking more and more like cover to remove the requirement they already have had to meet.
 
2012-02-10 02:09:10 PM

meat0918: It's such an arbitrary line. If they offer it a prescription plan, they already are being forced into paying for birth control, because even with the copay that was dropped, the insurer is still using premiums and that negotiating power to lower the cost of prescription drugs, which includes birth control.

Copay's are your portion with the insurance picking up the rest of the tab, correct? So if they offer prescription coverage, they are already and have been since 2000 paying for birth control.

If you are arguing the old federal law also be repealed, that is a different argument. This outcry against dropping the copay is looking more and more like cover to remove the requirement they already have had to meet.


well, the new law would require they offer contraception regardless of whether they offer prescription coverage. Also, it requires coverage for the "morning after pill" which obviously Catholic institutions are gonna have a problem with. Yes, how funds are used by insurance companies is a gray area. I think the term "copay" is being used incorrectly in this situation. What I *think* it refers to is that the additional cost of BC coverage cannot be passed on to the employee as part of their health insurance premium. Copays happen at the point of service and don't cover the full cost of the service.
Could be wrong about that though.
 
2012-02-10 02:12:55 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: It's such an arbitrary line. If they offer it a prescription plan, they already are being forced into paying for birth control, because even with the copay that was dropped, the insurer is still using premiums and that negotiating power to lower the cost of prescription drugs, which includes birth control.

Copay's are your portion with the insurance picking up the rest of the tab, correct? So if they offer prescription coverage, they are already and have been since 2000 paying for birth control.

If you are arguing the old federal law also be repealed, that is a different argument. This outcry against dropping the copay is looking more and more like cover to remove the requirement they already have had to meet.

well, the new law would require they offer contraception regardless of whether they offer prescription coverage. Also, it requires coverage for the "morning after pill" which obviously Catholic institutions are gonna have a problem with. Yes, how funds are used by insurance companies is a gray area. I think the term "copay" is being used incorrectly in this situation. What I *think* it refers to is that the additional cost of BC coverage cannot be passed on to the employee as part of their health insurance premium. Copays happen at the point of service and don't cover the full cost of the service.
Could be wrong about that though.


But, the compromise does pass that cost on to the employee, unless I read it wrong.

I can live with the compromise, as long as the employee has an easy way of adding it that doesn't subject him or her to getting fired or ostracized because they purchased the add on plan.
 
2012-02-10 02:14:25 PM
This is could hasten the move to what I want anyways, less employer provided benefits and closer to single payer.
 
2012-02-10 02:22:26 PM

meat0918: meat0918: Britney Spear's Speculum: Obama just fixed this problem

This is no longer an issue.
Everyone wins.

Well, kinda. The Catholic Bishops have said they won't accept anything except complete abandonment of the rule requiring they cover it at all.

At this point, I think they see an opening to try and reverse the law passed in 2000 mentioned in the NPR link above. (linked here again Link (new window))

I love that the courts have already decided this coverage is constitutional based on 4 simple guidelines

"The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn't qualify as a "religious employer" because it didn't meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):

The organization's primary purpose is "the inculcation of religious values."
It primarily employs people of that religion.
It primarily serves people of that religion.
It's a registered nonprofit organization. "

I'd like to add that if you meet those 4 guidelines, I have only minor problems with you getting an exception. I think it's kinda ridiculous, but hey, we have separation of church and state. Unfortunately that means we have to define what qualifies as a church. It's a necessary evil.

As that article also quotes a later decision in New York, ""When a religious organization chooses to hire nonbelievers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit," the justices wrote."


If there was a 'legit' religion that didn't believe in business licenses (mark of the beast or something), would they be exempt from having to possess a license? Even after fitting that criteria, that's getting into some weird territory. I agree with the notion that an organization that is religious only in name and spirit should have to play by the rules everyone else does. Religious exemption shouldn't be used as a trump card or to gain advantage over competition.
 
2012-02-10 02:27:28 PM

weave: Bevets: They are forcing groups or individuals to OFFER contraception (against their (First Amendment protected) moral precepts)

Honestly, I agree it's wrong to force religious employers (as long as it's limited to only them) to do this. I actually work for a church (not Catholic though) and they already have a lot of unique exceptions, like legally being able to discriminate on who they hire based on religious beliefs.

That said, a church being against contraception is utterly and amazingly stupid and dark-ages behavior and no Catholics I know pay attention to it anyway. Grow up idiots.


This is not about churches though. they are already exempt.

Its about a hospital that was founded by Christians being able to be exempt or a university that was founded by Christians but gets federal $ being able to be exempt.

At no point were churches in danger of being forced into shiat.
 
2012-02-10 02:36:13 PM

meat0918: But, the compromise does pass that cost on to the employee, unless I read it wrong.


the compromise passes the cost to the insurer AFAIK.

meat0918: I can live with the compromise, as long as the employee has an easy way of adding it that doesn't subject him or her to getting fired or ostracized because they purchased the add on plan.


I think passing the cost to the employee or the insurer should be a compromise that people find acceptable. Some Catholic organizations have praised the compromise and I imagine that anything going forward is gonna be mostly GOP political games
 
2012-02-10 02:42:59 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: I can live with the compromise, as long as the employee has an easy way of adding it that doesn't subject him or her to getting fired or ostracized because they purchased the add on plan.

I think passing the cost to the employee or the insurer should be a compromise that people find acceptable. Some Catholic organizations have praised the compromise and I imagine that anything going forward is gonna be mostly GOP political games



Is the cost on the insurer in all situations of just for those seeking a religious exemption? If it only comes with the exemption I imagine every employer will file for one, so that they too can pass the costs to the insurer.
 
2012-02-10 02:46:52 PM

skullkrusher: HighOnCraic: Link (new window)

liar


So, now that I've provided the link, care to address the point, or do you still want to gloat over my html FAIL in the post that intially made?

As it happens, I just signed out an interesting book on the topic with lots of stats on what Catholics think of the issue.
 
2012-02-10 02:47:06 PM
Conservatives object to federal money going to planned parenthood, because they say you can't separate their other healthcare services from abortion. How can these conservatives do business with an insurer who provides contraceptives, even when it isn't in their plan? Aren't they still supporting contraception by paying their premiums?
 
2012-02-10 02:51:05 PM

I_C_Weener: I just saw that Obama is the first to blink in this issue. Looks like he needs the Ccatholic vote.

With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.


Link (new window)
 
2012-02-10 02:52:41 PM

meat0918: This is could hasten the move to what I want anyways, less employer provided benefits and closer to single payer.


It is what I hope, too, comrade.
 
2012-02-10 02:53:35 PM

HighOnCraic: So, now that I've provided the link, care to address the point, or do you still want to gloat over my html FAIL in the post that intially made?


what point? Sorry you took my post as a "gloat". Was more of a "joke" at your HTML problem.

So, 98% of Catholic women have used contraception... dunno what you want me to say about that.
 
2012-02-10 02:55:06 PM
2005 Gallup Poll:

Who do you think should have the final say about what is right or wrong for a Catholic practicing contraceptive birth control:

Church leaders: 12%
Individuals: 61%
Both: 27%
Neither: 1%

/Not a Catholic, but it's been my experience that Catholics are unhappy with being told what to do by their leadership.
 
2012-02-10 02:55:41 PM

fracto73: skullkrusher: meat0918: I can live with the compromise, as long as the employee has an easy way of adding it that doesn't subject him or her to getting fired or ostracized because they purchased the add on plan.

I think passing the cost to the employee or the insurer should be a compromise that people find acceptable. Some Catholic organizations have praised the compromise and I imagine that anything going forward is gonna be mostly GOP political games


Is the cost on the insurer in all situations of just for those seeking a religious exemption? If it only comes with the exemption I imagine every employer will file for one, so that they too can pass the costs to the insurer.


I think only for those employers with a religious affiliation who object to paying for it.

The policy also ensures that if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge. (new window)
 
2012-02-10 03:01:25 PM

Bevets: Or you -- hence the modifier 'elective'. Millions of women ELECT NOT to receive contraception. Here is another elective service that is provided by healthcare providers: Cosmetic Surgery. Your employer should not be forced to pay for your elective facelift and they should not be forced to pay for your elective contraception -- ESPECIALLY if it violates the employer's conscience.


The fact that you have to use word games to get your point across shows everyone how silly your argument is. It's right up there with 'it's just a theory.'
 
2012-02-10 03:06:04 PM

skullkrusher: HighOnCraic: So, now that I've provided the link, care to address the point, or do you still want to gloat over my html FAIL in the post that intially made?

what point? Sorry you took my post as a "gloat". Was more of a "joke" at your HTML problem.

So, 98% of Catholic women have used contraception... dunno what you want me to say about that.


Well, the huge gap in what the religious leaders want and what their followers want is somewhat on-topic. The Republican spin is that Obama is doing something that should be considered offensive to Catholic voters. You'd think he'd been given an honorary degree from Bob Jones University or something . . .
 
2012-02-10 03:11:01 PM

skullkrusher:
I think only for those employers with a religious affiliation who object to paying for it.

The policy also ensures that if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge. (new window)


I have to wonder how this would apply to some of these institutions that self-insure.
 
2012-02-10 03:12:19 PM

HighOnCraic: Well, the huge gap in what the religious leaders want and what their followers want is somewhat on-topic. The Republican spin is that Obama is doing something that should be considered offensive to Catholic voters. You'd think he'd been given an honorary degree from Bob Jones University or something . . .


The legitimate gripe of Catholic institutions has very little to do with the GOP's politicization of the issue.

Here's the compromise:

• Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

• Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

• Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers' insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

• Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

If you find fault with that on either side, you're an asshole.
 
Displayed 50 of 227 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report