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)   5-foot-6 Congressman Luis Gutierrez: "I'm pleased to announce today that if Newt Gingrich can speak for all Catholics, I'm going to start speaking for all tall people"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 158
    More: Amusing, Newt Gingrich, tall people  
•       •       •

3279 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Feb 2012 at 4:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-16 05:30:25 PM

Aquapope: How is Obama's revised plan infringing on religion in any way? Catholics don't have to pay for, receive or use any contraceptives at all. Where's the infringement?

They keep yelling that it's war on religion, but never really say how that's the case, in real examples of religious belief or practice being compromised, curtailed or even made more difficult under the revised plan. How is this supposed to work? Suzie in accounting at St. Stultus Hospital down the street gets free birth control, so now I can't take communion or wear ashes on my forehead one day every spring?

If this were a real war on religion, where are all the bodies from the many years that many states have had contraceptive coverage rules? Or did it now just become a war?


In the new plan where is the money coming from? From the insurance companies.
Where will they get their money. From their subscribers (and they will raise their rates a bit to get back to where they were)
Who are the subscribers in this case? Well, some of them are the Catholics who think that they shouldn't be paying for other peoples contraceptives.

Not hard to see. This solution is just a shell game.
 
2012-02-16 05:31:46 PM

Kome: On this matter I disagree. Everyone is capable of speaking for the Catholic Church. Remember, religion is a bunch of made up bullsh*t, and religious organizations are even more full of it. Determining expertise within a religious hierarchy is wholly (pun intended) arbitrary. So Newt is fully qualified to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church, as is the Pope and Richard Dawkins and any one of us. The fact that people listen to a bishop or a cardinal or a pope isn't because they have authority, but because other people give them that authority. It isn't like an expert or authority in surgery or computer programming where a definitive, observable, measurable outcome exists and we can justify the description of that person as an expert or authority on a matter.


how do you define "speaking for"? If the only things that can be truly "spoken for" solely by experts in the field are hard sciences, then no philosophy can be labeled, no political party can be described unless you detail each stance, Jews worship the sun and Episcopalians live by the motto "Be prepared". Anything is whatever the speaker wants it to be.
 
2012-02-16 05:32:09 PM
A few years ago Newt was asked by Chris Wallace after Newt bragged about his faith and conversion to Catholicism if he could take communion and I almost choked to death laughing.
 
2012-02-16 05:34:16 PM
I would really love to see these Catholics in a country where they are actually oppressed and discriminated against. I bet any family living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan would love to come to the United States and have to deal with our jackbooted regime telling Catholics they have to hand out the pill to women.
 
2012-02-16 05:36:16 PM

Kome: I would really love to see these Catholics in a country where they are actually oppressed and discriminated against. I bet any family living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan would love to come to the United States and have to deal with our jackbooted regime telling Catholics they have to hand out the pill to women.


We should replace our national motto of "In God We Trust" with "The United States - better than Sudan and Saudi Arabia"
 
2012-02-16 05:38:29 PM
Skinnyhead: What about those who do have the authority to speak for the Catholic Church on the issue of "abortion rights." Will Gutierrez listen to them or will he mock them too?

Hopefully, yes.
 
2012-02-16 05:38:48 PM

Kome: I would really love to see these Catholics in a country where they are actually oppressed and discriminated against. I bet any family living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan would love to come to the United States and have to deal with our jackbooted regime telling Catholics they have to hand out the pill to women. that health insurance plans must cover the costs of contraceptives if the participants choose to use them.

 
2012-02-16 05:39:09 PM
That's awesome.
 
2012-02-16 05:39:39 PM

CujoQuarrel: Aquapope: How is Obama's revised plan infringing on religion in any way? Catholics don't have to pay for, receive or use any contraceptives at all. Where's the infringement?

They keep yelling that it's war on religion, but never really say how that's the case, in real examples of religious belief or practice being compromised, curtailed or even made more difficult under the revised plan. How is this supposed to work? Suzie in accounting at St. Stultus Hospital down the street gets free birth control, so now I can't take communion or wear ashes on my forehead one day every spring?

If this were a real war on religion, where are all the bodies from the many years that many states have had contraceptive coverage rules? Or did it now just become a war?

In the new plan where is the money coming from? From the insurance companies.
Where will they get their money. From their subscribers (and they will raise their rates a bit to get back to where they were)
Who are the subscribers in this case? Well, some of them are the Catholics who think that they shouldn't be paying for other peoples contraceptives.

Not hard to see. This solution is just a shell game.


Unless of course, there is no significant change in the actual dispensing and consumption of BCP. The cost of coverage only increases if the actual sales increase. Not to mention the actual savings against the cost of all the prenatal/postnatal care that they don't have to pay for. And then there is the following 26 years of dependent care that they are no longer on the hook for. All in all, for a shell game, it's not a very good one.
 
2012-02-16 05:41:05 PM

skullkrusher: Kome: I would really love to see these Catholics in a country where they are actually oppressed and discriminated against. I bet any family living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan would love to come to the United States and have to deal with our jackbooted regime telling Catholics they have to hand out the pill to women.

We should replace our national motto of "In God We Trust" with "The United States - better than Sudan and Saudi Arabia"


It's more true than the former, at least, thank goodness.
 
2012-02-16 05:41:17 PM

skullkrusher: Kome: I would really love to see these Catholics in a country where they are actually oppressed and discriminated against. I bet any family living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan would love to come to the United States and have to deal with our jackbooted regime telling Catholics they have to hand out the pill to women.

We should replace our national motto of "In God We Trust" with "The United States - better than Sudan and Saudi Arabia"


At least it removes God from our National motto. that's a step in the right direction.
 
2012-02-16 05:41:55 PM
Can we all at least agree on this much: Gingrich is a hypocrictical, amoral, weasel who is attempting to manipulate a serious issue of personal health and public policy to his political advantage?

In his defense, it must be conceded that he is a lying sack of shiat.
 
2012-02-16 05:42:00 PM

CujoQuarrel: Aquapope: How is Obama's revised plan infringing on religion in any way? Catholics don't have to pay for, receive or use any contraceptives at all. Where's the infringement?

They keep yelling that it's war on religion, but never really say how that's the case, in real examples of religious belief or practice being compromised, curtailed or even made more difficult under the revised plan. How is this supposed to work? Suzie in accounting at St. Stultus Hospital down the street gets free birth control, so now I can't take communion or wear ashes on my forehead one day every spring?

If this were a real war on religion, where are all the bodies from the many years that many states have had contraceptive coverage rules? Or did it now just become a war?

In the new plan where is the money coming from? From the insurance companies.
Where will they get their money. From their subscribers (and they will raise their rates a bit to get back to where they were)
Who are the subscribers in this case? Well, some of them are the Catholics who think that they shouldn't be paying for other peoples contraceptives.

Not hard to see. This solution is just a shell game.


What if I don't want to pay for someone else's brain cancer treatments?

/slippery slope
 
2012-02-16 05:44:45 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: Kome: I would really love to see these Catholics in a country where they are actually oppressed and discriminated against. I bet any family living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan would love to come to the United States and have to deal with our jackbooted regime telling Catholics they have to hand out the pill to women.

We should replace our national motto of "In God We Trust" with "The United States - better than Sudan and Saudi Arabia"

At least it removes God from our National motto. that's a step in the right direction.


heh does that keep you up at night?
 
2012-02-16 05:44:46 PM

czetie: Can we all at least agree on this much: Gingrich is a hypocrictical, amoral, weasel who is attempting to manipulate a serious issue of personal health and public policy to his political advantage?

In his defense, it must be conceded that he is a lying sack of shiat.


No. You didn't call him an asshole. Without that, I can't get on board.
 
2012-02-16 05:44:47 PM
... alluding to infidelity with two of his three wives and his ethics violation as Speaker.

"Frankly, I think his personal life is none of our business," Gutierrez said. "But ...


The "But" is when you know you're dealing with a lying coont.
 
2012-02-16 05:47:45 PM

skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: Kome: I would really love to see these Catholics in a country where they are actually oppressed and discriminated against. I bet any family living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan would love to come to the United States and have to deal with our jackbooted regime telling Catholics they have to hand out the pill to women.

We should replace our national motto of "In God We Trust" with "The United States - better than Sudan and Saudi Arabia"

At least it removes God from our National motto. that's a step in the right direction.

heh does that keep you up at night?


No, that job is handled quite nicely by my neighbors. The motto is just one more tiny little foothold for the nutjobs to hold on to. They already have their fantasies, why do we need to give them anything more?
 
2012-02-16 05:48:25 PM

czetie: Can we all at least agree on this much: Gingrich Obama is a hypocrictical, amoral, weasel who is attempting to manipulate a serious issue of personal health and public policy to his political advantage?

In his defense, it must be conceded that he is a lying sack of shiat.


As usual, you will always know liberals by what they accuse others of.
 
2012-02-16 05:48:44 PM

CujoQuarrel: Aquapope: How is Obama's revised plan infringing on religion in any way? Catholics don't have to pay for, receive or use any contraceptives at all. Where's the infringement?

They keep yelling that it's war on religion, but never really say how that's the case, in real examples of religious belief or practice being compromised, curtailed or even made more difficult under the revised plan. How is this supposed to work? Suzie in accounting at St. Stultus Hospital down the street gets free birth control, so now I can't take communion or wear ashes on my forehead one day every spring?

If this were a real war on religion, where are all the bodies from the many years that many states have had contraceptive coverage rules? Or did it now just become a war?

In the new plan where is the money coming from? From the insurance companies.
Where will they get their money. From their subscribers (and they will raise their rates a bit to get back to where they were)
Who are the subscribers in this case? Well, some of them are the Catholics who think that they shouldn't be paying for other peoples contraceptives.

Not hard to see. This solution is just a shell game.


There is also the problem that christain based hospitals would have to provide contraceptive services. Many of them do not now and they should not be forced to do so.
 
2012-02-16 05:49:19 PM
The fake outrage of the GOP and people like Skinnyhead is so weak it's laughable. Don't you religous freaks see why the majority is getting sick of your ilk and your fairytales about God? Tell your church to go rape somemore altarboys and continue paying no taxes- the only two things you're good at.
 
2012-02-16 05:49:51 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: No, that job is handled quite nicely by my neighbors. The motto is just one more tiny little foothold for the nutjobs to hold on to. They already have their fantasies, why do we need to give them anything more?


the motto is old. It was a stupid, pandering idea when it was put in place and it remains that today. That said, meh.
 
2012-02-16 05:50:32 PM

pxsteel: There is also the problem that christain based hospitals would have to provide contraceptive services. Many of them do not now and they should not be forced to do so.


They can always go back to being churches. Then the rule doesn't apply to them.
 
2012-02-16 05:52:53 PM

skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: No, that job is handled quite nicely by my neighbors. The motto is just one more tiny little foothold for the nutjobs to hold on to. They already have their fantasies, why do we need to give them anything more?

the motto is old. It was a stupid, pandering idea when it was put in place and it remains that today. That said, meh.


No doubt. But consider it like mold or mildew. Even just a little bit soon gets out of hand if you allow it to.
 
2012-02-16 05:53:04 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Kalevi: I'm black, do I now have all of the prerequisites to speak for all black people? Or does being part of a group not mean you are the official spokesperson? I'm also a Farker, do I get to make decisions on your junk because we frequent the same website?

But if you disagree with positions of Jesse Jackson or Obama or the NAACP, do I have the right to say you aren't really black? Or if you agree with them and I disagree, do I have the right say you aren't really black-black, but just black as a skin color? This is the double-speak here regarding Catholicism.


No, no it's not

The argument is Newty isn't the farking Pope so he can't puport to speak for Catholics as if they're all in lock step behind him.
 
2012-02-16 05:54:49 PM

randomjsa: czetie: Can we all at least agree on this much: Gingrich Obama is a hypocrictical, amoral, weasel who is attempting to manipulate a serious issue of personal health and public policy to his political advantage?

In his defense, it must be conceded that he is a lying sack of shiat.

As usual, you will always know liberals by what they accuse others of.


What a surprise, you ran off like a coward immediately after posting that.
 
2012-02-16 05:54:51 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: No, that job is handled quite nicely by my neighbors. The motto is just one more tiny little foothold for the nutjobs to hold on to. They already have their fantasies, why do we need to give them anything more?

the motto is old. It was a stupid, pandering idea when it was put in place and it remains that today. That said, meh.

No doubt. But consider it like mold or mildew. Even just a little bit soon gets out of hand if you allow it to.


this insurance kerfluffle ain't gonna help matters.
 
2012-02-16 05:55:01 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: OK - while the one-liner is indeed snappy, I do wish people would make up their damn minds on this.

1. Gingrich converted, was confirmed, receives communion... by the rules, he's a Catholic.

2. When the Church as an institution farks up, we get told by Catholics that "Church is the people" - meaning, actual PEOPLE Catholics are not the administration

3. But since Gingrich doesn't agree with alot of US Catholics, now he's not a Catholic, really? Or is it that he doesn't agree with what the Church propagates? I'm confused.

Please. Pick one position and stick to it, guys. You're giving me a headache.


Newt isn't "the people" he is "a person"
He is no more representative of the curch than an individual American is of the US government, even though it is a "Government of the people"
"The people" refers to the body as a whole, i.e. all Catholics, whatever means they determine they are representative.

Of course "the Catholic Church" is in no way "the people" but the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc that "the people" had no say in selecting and is quite willing to go against "the people" such as the birth control crap (which most Catholics support).
 
2012-02-16 05:57:11 PM

randomjsa: czetie: Can we all at least agree on this much: Gingrich Obama is a hypocrictical, amoral, weasel who is attempting to manipulate a serious issue of personal health and public policy to his political advantage?

In his defense, it must be conceded that he is a lying sack of shiat.

As usual, you will always know liberals randomjsa by what they accuse others of the massive amounts of projection that drip from every post.


FTFY
 
2012-02-16 05:59:45 PM

sprawl15: TheBlackrose: [DEEP THOUGHTS]

[img194. skinny derp image 594x372]


img96.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-16 06:00:12 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: pxsteel: There is also the problem that christain based hospitals would have to provide contraceptive services. Many of them do not now and they should not be forced to do so.

They can always go back to being churches. Then the rule doesn't apply to them.


Most are considerred extentions of the church. There is a very easy fix to this. If Obama would just change his edict to Planned Parenthood and all hospitals/clinics that wish to participate will henceforth provide these services at no cost. Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

/not a Catholic
 
2012-02-16 06:03:41 PM

Derwood: CujoQuarrel: Aquapope: How is Obama's revised plan infringing on religion in any way? Catholics don't have to pay for, receive or use any contraceptives at all. Where's the infringement?

They keep yelling that it's war on religion, but never really say how that's the case, in real examples of religious belief or practice being compromised, curtailed or even made more difficult under the revised plan. How is this supposed to work? Suzie in accounting at St. Stultus Hospital down the street gets free birth control, so now I can't take communion or wear ashes on my forehead one day every spring?

If this were a real war on religion, where are all the bodies from the many years that many states have had contraceptive coverage rules? Or did it now just become a war?

In the new plan where is the money coming from? From the insurance companies.
Where will they get their money. From their subscribers (and they will raise their rates a bit to get back to where they were)
Who are the subscribers in this case? Well, some of them are the Catholics who think that they shouldn't be paying for other peoples contraceptives.

Not hard to see. This solution is just a shell game.

What if I don't want to pay for someone else's brain cancer treatments?

/slippery slope


Well, let's see brain cancer is caused by well, cancer .
Taking a BC pill is to prevent a condition that is caused by an action you are voluntarily performing (well, hopefully , voluntarily)

I'm all for BC being cheap and available and it would be great if it could be OTC but I'm against someone being forced to pay for it against their religious leanings. If a Jewish or Muslim leaning person was getting food would you force them to purchase a pork product just so you could spread the cost around?

If you don't want to pay for someone else's you shouldn't be forced to do that. You should have the option of opting out of that insurance policy and the right to get whatever insurance policy you want. For example it used to be (not sure if it is now) you could get a high deductible policy that pretty much only covered the major major illnesses like cancer. For all the little stuff (colds , broken bones) you were expected to pay out of pocket. I remember when reproductive services was an option to my insurance policy (or at least there was as check box saying if you wanted it or not) but I haven't seen that lately.
 
2012-02-16 06:03:49 PM

pxsteel: Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.


Obama pisses off the fundies by breathing.
 
2012-02-16 06:05:33 PM

Fart_Machine: pxsteel: Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

Obama pisses off the fundies by breathing.


Poking them with a stick doesn't make things better
 
2012-02-16 06:05:54 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: czetie: Can we all at least agree on this much: Gingrich is a hypocrictical, amoral, weasel who is attempting to manipulate a serious issue of personal health and public policy to his political advantage?

In his defense, it must be conceded that he is a lying sack of shiat.

No. You didn't call him an asshole. Without that, I can't get on board.


I could go with he's a "hypocrictical, amoral, weasel asshole whose trying to manipulate any issue to his political advantage" but that covers about 99% of politicans.
 
2012-02-16 06:05:58 PM

KingPsyz: The argument is Newty isn't the farking Pope so he can't puport to speak for Catholics as if they're all in lock step behind him.


He wants to be Pope after he's President. He likes the hat.

i43.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-16 06:06:14 PM

pxsteel: More_Like_A_Stain: pxsteel: There is also the problem that christain based hospitals would have to provide contraceptive services. Many of them do not now and they should not be forced to do so.

They can always go back to being churches. Then the rule doesn't apply to them.

Most are considerred extentions of the church. There is a very easy fix to this. If Obama would just change his edict to Planned Parenthood and all hospitals/clinics that wish to participate will henceforth provide these services at no cost. Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

/not a Catholic


Actually, the best way to fix this is for all these Catholic Employers who have a problem with the insurance mandates to immediately cease taking funding provided to them by non-Catholic taxpayers, and completely fund their own universities, hospitals and charities with the donations of the 12 little old ladies who still attend Saturday Morning mass.

What the GOP are wording this so insurers are allowed to opt out of covering people for their "moral beliefs". "Morals" are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, much less protected by it. It's an ambiguous term that can mean just about anything. Vegertarianism is a moral belief. Living frugal is a moral belief. Not eating too much sugar is a moral belief. What the GOP are essentially trying to is create a new generation of "pre existing condition" laws that allow insurers to opt out of covering anyone they deem inconvenient or too costly.
 
2012-02-16 06:07:01 PM

Jake Havechek: Gingrich is as much of a Catholic as Nixon was a Quaker.


He was more of a shaker.


whiskeygoldmine.com

At least until 11 am.
 
2012-02-16 06:07:23 PM

pxsteel: More_Like_A_Stain: pxsteel: There is also the problem that christain based hospitals would have to provide contraceptive services. Many of them do not now and they should not be forced to do so.

They can always go back to being churches. Then the rule doesn't apply to them.

Most are considerred extentions of the church. There is a very easy fix to this. If Obama would just change his edict to Planned Parenthood and all hospitals/clinics that wish to participate will henceforth provide these services at no cost. Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

/not a Catholic


It's pretty simple. Most people in this country are moderates. By pissing off the fundies, Obama has gotten them to go full retard over birth control, thereby further aligning the majority of the voting public against the fundies. Now, I can't say that was his actual intent, but it certainly was the result. At this point, you have even devout Catholics looking at these people and saying, "Hey, you really need to tone this shiat down. You're making the rest of us look farking bonkers by association."

Meanwhile, you have the GOP contenders fighting over who supports the fundies the mostest. End result: The voters see the GOP happily cozying up to crazy people, and then they potentially decide to vote for anyone one Earth who is not part of the GOP.
 
2012-02-16 06:08:15 PM

pxsteel: Fart_Machine: pxsteel: Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

Obama pisses off the fundies by breathing.

Poking them with a stick doesn't make things better


Actually, it has and it will continue to. So long as you define "poking with a stick" as "being Barack Obama."
 
2012-02-16 06:09:14 PM

CujoQuarrel: I'm all for BC being cheap and available and it would be great if it could be OTC but I'm against someone being forced to pay for it against their religious leanings. If a Jewish or Muslim leaning person was getting food would you force them to purchase a pork product just so you could spread the cost around?


No one is forcing anyone to purchase contraception.
 
2012-02-16 06:09:37 PM

CujoQuarrel: If you don't want to pay for someone else's you shouldn't be forced to do that. You should have the option of opting out of that insurance policy and the right to get whatever insurance policy you want. For example it used to be (not sure if it is now) you could get a high deductible policy that pretty much only covered the major major illnesses like cancer. For all the little stuff (colds , broken bones) you were expected to pay out of pocket. I remember when reproductive services was an option to my insurance policy (or at least there was as check box saying if you wanted it or not) but I haven't seen that lately.


I'm a vegetarian and tri-athalon runner. I want to opt out of covering insulin, gastric bypasses, joint replacement surgeries, heart bypasses, Lipitor and high blood pressure medications of all the Fatty McFatFats who didn't have the will power to put down the chicken fried steak and eat a salad. Gluttony and sloth are against my "moral beliefs".

Where do I sign up?
 
2012-02-16 06:10:18 PM

pxsteel: More_Like_A_Stain: pxsteel: There is also the problem that christain based hospitals would have to provide contraceptive services. Many of them do not now and they should not be forced to do so.

They can always go back to being churches. Then the rule doesn't apply to them.

Most are considerred extentions of the church. There is a very easy fix to this. If Obama would just change his edict to Planned Parenthood and all hospitals/clinics that wish to participate will henceforth provide these services at no cost. Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

/not a Catholic


That would work. Not sure who would pay for it though

/ Not a Catholic either
// Pretty much a heathen
/// But not a heretic
//// Because they try to convert heathens. Herectics are burned.
 
2012-02-16 06:10:45 PM

CujoQuarrel: In the new plan where is the money coming from? From the insurance companies.
Where will they get their money. From their subscribers (and they will raise their rates a bit to get back to where they were)


Ideally, it would come from the money saved in reduced prenatal, maternity and child coverage - a net plus on the their books. But even if it does come from very minimally increased costs to subscribers, so what? That's the way insurance works. Currently, those very same Catholics pay premiums that go into a big pile at the insurance company, which sometimes pays out contraceptive coverage. So, no change to the current way things are.

Plus, why should Catholics get a say in how insurance payouts are disbursed, but I don't? I shouldn't pay, through my premiums, for coverage for a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. child because it's against my belief system to overpopulate the planet! But Catholics love overpopulation, and their beliefs trump mine, apparently.

Slightly-related, funny, paraphrased quote:
"Recently George Bush said that he thinks childbirth is a miracle. So is popcorn, if you don't understand it" - Elayne Boosler
 
2012-02-16 06:13:38 PM

CujoQuarrel: I'm all for BC being cheap and available and it would be great if it could be OTC but I'm against someone being forced to pay for it against their religious leanings. If a Jewish or Muslim leaning person was getting food would you force them to purchase a pork product just so you could spread the cost around?

If you don't want to pay for someone else's you shouldn't be forced to do that. You should have the option of opting out of that insurance policy and the right to get whatever insurance policy you want. For example it used to be (not sure if it is now) you could get a high deductible policy that pretty much only covered the major major illnesses like cancer. For all the little stuff (colds , broken bones) you were expected to pay out of pocket. I remember when reproductive services was an option to my insurance policy (or at least there was as check box saying if you wanted it or not) but I haven't seen that lately.


Welcome to what some of us like to call "living in a civilized society". Part of that process means that you are going to be contributing resources, be it money, time or work, to things that you don't like, don't use, don't want, or don't care about. If you don't think that's fair, you are welcome to stop using everything our society provides for you and become wholly self-sufficient. Just let us know when you do that, so we have an idea of when to plan your memorial services after you starve to death or are eaten by a large predator.
 
2012-02-16 06:15:36 PM

pxsteel: Fart_Machine: pxsteel: Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

Obama pisses off the fundies by breathing.

Poking them with a stick doesn't make things better


Doesn't make them worse either. Call it a freebie. Look, the rule doesn't say that they must cover BCP. It says if they offer prescription drug coverage as part of the policy, BCP are prescription drugs and must be covered. Particular and specific drugs cannot be singled out for non-coverage. These hospitals and schools have been given choices, and they're the same exact choices any other business is given. Cover prescriptions or not, their call. Be a business or not, their call. But they don't get to carve out a third option that is unavailable to other businesses. Do or not do. There is no try.
 
2012-02-16 06:17:43 PM

CujoQuarrel: pxsteel: More_Like_A_Stain: pxsteel: There is also the problem that christain based hospitals would have to provide contraceptive services. Many of them do not now and they should not be forced to do so.

They can always go back to being churches. Then the rule doesn't apply to them.

Most are considerred extentions of the church. There is a very easy fix to this. If Obama would just change his edict to Planned Parenthood and all hospitals/clinics that wish to participate will henceforth provide these services at no cost. Why is he intentionally pissing off the fundies when there is absolutely no need for it.

/not a Catholic

That would work. Not sure who would pay for it though

You and I are going to pay for it, that's pretty much how it works. I don't mind kicking in a few bucks because the alternative probably costs me more in the long run.

 
2012-02-16 06:18:15 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: CujoQuarrel: I'm all for BC being cheap and available and it would be great if it could be OTC but I'm against someone being forced to pay for it against their religious leanings. If a Jewish or Muslim leaning person was getting food would you force them to purchase a pork product just so you could spread the cost around?

No one is forcing anyone to purchase contraception.


The money is coming from the insurance premiums paid for by the churches.
 
2012-02-16 06:20:25 PM

CujoQuarrel: Philip Francis Queeg: CujoQuarrel: I'm all for BC being cheap and available and it would be great if it could be OTC but I'm against someone being forced to pay for it against their religious leanings. If a Jewish or Muslim leaning person was getting food would you force them to purchase a pork product just so you could spread the cost around?

No one is forcing anyone to purchase contraception.

The money is coming from the insurance premiums paid for by the churches.


BZZZT!!! The money is coming from the businesses, and their employees, operated by the Church. You skipped a step there.
 
2012-02-16 06:21:02 PM

InmanRoshi: CujoQuarrel: If you don't want to pay for someone else's you shouldn't be forced to do that. You should have the option of opting out of that insurance policy and the right to get whatever insurance policy you want. For example it used to be (not sure if it is now) you could get a high deductible policy that pretty much only covered the major major illnesses like cancer. For all the little stuff (colds , broken bones) you were expected to pay out of pocket. I remember when reproductive services was an option to my insurance policy (or at least there was as check box saying if you wanted it or not) but I haven't seen that lately.

I'm a vegetarian and tri-athalon runner. I want to opt out of covering insulin, gastric bypasses, joint replacement surgeries, heart bypasses, Lipitor and high blood pressure medications of all the Fatty McFatFats who didn't have the will power to put down the chicken fried steak and eat a salad. Gluttony and sloth are against my "moral beliefs".

Where do I sign up?


I don't know but couldn't you go negotiate with an insurance provide to get a policy that only covered 'X' or has that been outlawed? Like I said you used to be able to get something like a 'Cancer only' policy
 
2012-02-16 06:21:23 PM
Are Catholic Hospitals allowed to default to saving the baby over the mother in cases of complications with labor?
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report