Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Washington Post)   Dems to GOP: "I heard you need more rope? Here take as much as you need. And be sure to tell people they're unclean while they're ovulating too"   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, GOP, Democrats, Terri Schiavo, democratic coalition, advice columnist  
•       •       •

10416 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:52 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-17 11:02:08 AM  

CapnBlues: Is the Roman Catholic Church opposed to vasectomies?


Yes.
 
2012-02-17 11:03:26 AM  

indylaw: Debeo Summa Credo: Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?

Why not choose the coverage that doesn't cover pharmaceuticals? You could save hundreds per employee per month! Or psychiatric care! Big savings.


They should absolutely be allowed to cover only what they want, or nothing. The employee can take the benefit plan offered, along with salary and other compensation, into their decision as to where to work.


You never answered my question yesterday in another thread - health care coverage is a benefit that is granted to an employee as part of that employee's compensation. By paying the premiums on general health insurance policies, the Catholic Church or its affiliates are not buying birth control or being forced to take birth control, which would undoubtedly be a violation of their religious conscience. (You may mention that some Catholic organizations are self-insuring, but all this really means is that they set up a fund which is administered by a health insurance company third-party administrator).

If I buy health insurance for an employee, and that employee uses that insurance to get an abortion, I'm not being forced to pay for abortion, unless you accept the logic that if I pay my employee $50,000 and they use some of that money to get an abortion, I'm being forced to pay for abortion. I'm being forced to pay for abortion. What's the difference? Ought a Catholic organization be able to forbid its employees to engage in certain economic activities?

If not, why not, and how is that different from telling employees how they can apply their health insurance?


Because the employer is buying it the coverage! The employee can work at a place that provides BC in their plan, or at another place that doesn't provide health insurance at all, or works at a place that doesn't provide BC in their plan. Nobody is denying that an employee can go out and buy their own health plan that covers BC, or that they can go out and use their salary to buy BC or abortions or Ozzy Osbourne albums.

If I want to provide a health plan to my employees, I should be able to decide what kind of coverage is provided. If my employees don't like the plan, when combined with other benefits, they shouldn't come to work for me!
 
2012-02-17 11:03:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: CapnBlues: Is the Roman Catholic Church opposed to vasectomies?

Yes.


Yeah, but who cares if insurance covers vasectomies and viagra. Men work hard for that stuff.
 
2012-02-17 11:03:57 AM  

sweetmelissa31: ghare: All I can say is, if you're female and vote Republican you ought to go see a head doctor about the squirrels living in your brain.

Next step for the Republicans: try to repeal the 19th amendment.


Hey! You pipe down! Men are talking here. Go do you womanly duty and be preggers somewhere else.
 
2012-02-17 11:04:04 AM  

sprawl15: Why you think it would be cheaper to not get BC coverage. Those plans would inevitably be more expensive due to higher risk.



WHY ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS
 
2012-02-17 11:04:05 AM  

bulldg4life: That right being the right to impose my views on other people?


I don't see the religious right hesitating for one second to impose their views on me. Now they scream bloody murder when I return the favor.
 
2012-02-17 11:04:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: CapnBlues: Is the Roman Catholic Church opposed to vasectomies?

Yes.


WOW. what a bunch of tards. so their opposition to birth control has nothing to do with the natural order of life. it's really just about trying to get people to have as many babies as possible. i can't think of a better explanation. expand the church through sheer numbers.
 
2012-02-17 11:04:20 AM  

indylaw: The more I consider this, the more I'm convinced that the Obama camp has some diabolically clever people. They could not have timed their announcement of the birth control coverage rule better, right as Santorum knocked Mitt Romney off his balance. Mitt Romney can't seem to help adopting a social conservative position on birth control . . . in 2012 . . . in order to try to impress the base that he's a real conservative.

It's not just abortion, which is still broadly controversial... it's about restricting birth control, which is a fringe cause by a small population of Catholic robots and hardcore misogynists. It's one of those crazy issues that makes Santorum toxic to moderate voters, but the Religious Right are now touting opposition to The Pill as a cause celebre... in 20-farking-12!

Holy shiat.


My niece was horrified when I posted the picture of the Sharia Panel on Facebook. She said 'this is really starting to piss me off".

My reply was:

No, no...this is beautiful. Obama just delivered those assholes a massive psychological smackdown. This committee can't do squat. Obama is within his Executive rights to craft this compromise - if what I came across is true, this privilege was given to him when the healthcare bill was enacted. They're only posturing for the elections and it's backfiring in spectacular way. Obama just pulled a boatload of Catholic votes away from the Republicans. This was some seriously awesome politically maneuvering - he is a Constitutional scholar giving these rubes enough rope to hang themselves. Meanwhile, the economy grows, the stock market clips along.

This is Susan G. Komen, Part II. The Teabaggers are imploding and taking the Republicans with them. We have hope.
 
2012-02-17 11:05:25 AM  

ssa5: JimmyFartpants: I don't understand why anybody who's either a woman or not a billionaire would ever vote Republican.

I don't understand how anyone with an IQ above 10 or with more than two working brain cells can vote for this utter fail of a party.

They really just need to close shop, and start over.


The Bull Moose Party. Bring back the Bull Moose Party. In its centennial year. With Teddy Roosevelt as the icon. What Democrats really want is encapsuled by TR's policies. And I suppose the non-fundie would be former Republicans could join a centrist Bull Moose Party.
 
2012-02-17 11:05:41 AM  

gimmegimme: Researcher: gimmegimme: Kurmudgeon: gimmegimme: Either you're with God or you're against God.

Leviticus is Jewish priest law, are you a Jewish priest of ancient times?
Then don't worry about it.

So Jewish priests are the only ones required to put homosexuals to death and forbidden from eating shrimp?

Good to know. Who wants to call Fred Phelps and Rick Santorum to let them know?

Look, if you're trolling then bravo. But discussing a religion like Judaism and looking to the old testament is like talking economics but only looking to Locke.

Mainstream Judaism (pretty much conservadox on down) now recognize Male and Female Rabbis who can be gay or lesbian respectively. The religion, the rules, the interpretations have a lot more to do with the Talmud than they do, at this point, with the old testament.

This may seem mind blowing, but the rules have changed. The PURPOSE of the rules have been scrutinized and agonized over for thousands of years, and what to do with those concepts in the modern world is what drives the interpretation of those laws.

There is no autocratic ruler in modern Judaism, and while we're keeping track of the Kohenim for various and sundry reasons, it is a very democratically run religion at this point.

If you're actually interested in learning a thing or two about the actual religion, there's some books I can recommend, and some websites that do a pretty good job of explaining things.

If you're alive now you're probably the descendant of people who killed other people, often, and to our modern sensibilities with very little reason. Citing to the most ancient examples of this avails discussion of religion, belief, or just about anything else nothing at all. Heck, I'm to the left of Trotsky politically, and it drives me crazy when people do the EXACT same thing by only talking about Marx in discussing socialism, as if it was epically relevant to discussing socialism today.

Things change.

I'd learn to accept that or come to terms with soun ...


Fair enough...

The problem is, I think the answer to your question is no. They don't actually base it on the old testament, nor do they base most of their beliefs on the new testament. Despite the talking points, most of it seems to be some sort of cultural mish mosh of beliefs.

Examine for a moment someone who's Catholic: What makes someone Catholic? I would posit the Nicene Creed (and various other creeds). If you;re going to follow that creed, you need to treat your enemy as yourself, and basically be jesusesque in your doings.

Mainstream American Christianity has been exceptionally bad at wrestling what the religion says, as opposed to what the political religious bodies are telling them. Jesus had some strong opinions about rich people getting into heaven (a very Carnegie type message of what to do with your money). Don't even get me started on taxation as an issue, render unto Cesar what is Cesar's after all. Try squaring that circle with some of the kookier right wingers.

Besides all of that, quoting Leviticus as a christian, considering the entire concept of the New Covenant, is just flummoxing. What the old testament says about homosexuality, or shrimp, or anything else has almost no bearing on a christian (in history or now) because of that New Covenant. They can eat all the traif stuff they want because they believe, as Jesus said (and I paraphrase) "It's not what goes into someone's mouth that makes them holy, but what comes out" or visa versa. There are some things in the New Testament about it, but I doubt you'll see them cited often, and I'm not sure if most people (and most people use these things as talking points, rather than as a reflection of their actual knowledge) even know they exist.

I also don't think Buddha ever discussed proper etiquette regarding soccer riots or political demonstration, but monks get mixed up in it just like everyone else. The water gets muddy because of people, not because of doctrine... it's a baby and the bathwater situation.

I think Christendom has a lot to offer, so long as the purpose of the religion is actually adhered to. ie; Salvation via being a nice person and being modeled on a pretty nice guy. In which case, good for them. I also think that people need to carefully parse their concepts, for themselves and others, and where they disagree they need to come to some very basic decisions. However some of those decisions are tantamount to "Am I a republican or a christian" because right now, in today's political terms, I don't think you can be both.
 
2012-02-17 11:05:46 AM  

bulldg4life: Who was implying that the compromise did grant that ability? Are you getting confused here?


that's what I've been talking about since the beginning.

bulldg4life: Employers didn't want to offer certain aspects of insurance coverage based on religious views. That is wrong. Their religious views shouldn't be used to determine insurance coverage of medically legal and valid products, procedures, or drugs. It is beyond ridiculous to think that someone else's religious views should hold that power.


They have been offering coverage for contraception in accordance with federal law since 2001 I believe. Many states also have similar laws in place. The issue came about when Sebelius' recommendation that employers must cover the copays for contraception came about. If people were biatching, you didn't hear about it. However, now that the government wanted to mandate that these employers not only offer access to contraception but also pay for it, it became an issue. Leave it be. The status quo is fine.
 
2012-02-17 11:06:01 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If I want to provide a health plan to my employees, I should be able to decide what kind of coverage is provided. If my employees don't like the plan, when combined with other benefits, they shouldn't come to work for me!


If my employees don't like the fact that I forbid them to spend their money on things I don't like, they shouldn't come to work for me!
 
2012-02-17 11:06:48 AM  

sprawl15: Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?

Why you think it would be cheaper to not get BC coverage. Those plans would inevitably be more expensive due to higher risk.


I'm just quoting from the study, $21 per year (not month, thank you for the correction deadcrickets) is the cost they estimate.

If BC was actually cheaper for the health insurers, you would think they'd include it in all policies anyway and this mandate wouldn't be necessary for regular employers. But it doesn't matter - if an employer wants to exclude a particular coverage from the provide plan, even if that exclusion costs them more in premiums, they should be allowed to do it.
 
2012-02-17 11:06:57 AM  

Kurmudgeon: gimmegimme: So Jewish priests are the only ones required to put homosexuals to death and forbidden from eating shrimp?

Good to know. Who wants to call Fred Phelps and Rick Santorum to let them know?


You missed the part about "ancient" law. As for Fred and Rick, doubt they'd listen to me.
So far they haven't listened to anyone else.


Are you denying that these problems are influenced by Judeochristian-influenced antipathy for women, sex, childbirth.

I don't care whether a made-up deity changed the rules in the perception of some. I care that these attitudes are hurting the country and the people in it.
 
2012-02-17 11:07:03 AM  

Antimatter: I love that they just keep doubling down more and more, instead of realizing how many people this is alienating.

They are trying to mandate that employers religious beliefs should trump their employees, as well as basically demand abstinence from adult women as a method of birth control.

It's crazy to be having this discussion in this day and age, but yet, they keep pushing it.


This is generally what happens when a group of people are confined to their own little echo chamber... They think everyone thinks like them and that they're speaking for the "silent majority".

It's going to be funny watching women and moderates run away from the GOP like a plague... Lot's of empty space and a few old rich white guys in that "Big Tent" these days.
 
2012-02-17 11:07:05 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If I want to provide a health plan to my employees, I should be able to decide what kind of coverage is provided.


The government gets to regulate your business. Don't confuse your office for your church and you'll be ok.
 
2012-02-17 11:07:06 AM  
skullkrusher       
 
Smartest
Funniest
  2012-02-17 10:52:44 AM  
Make More Hinjews: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: The GOP spent an entire summer a couple years ago talking about how the government shouldn't come between a person and their doctor. Your boss, though? A-ok.

huh? Your boss is coming between you and your doctor if he doesn't pay your co-pays for birth control pills?

Yyyyyyyyyes.........

/ Considering birth control is a prescribed drug....

// And your boss's feelings on the matter aren't really important to your health....

you put together some words to form sentences but they don't make any sense.



Sorry, let me make more sense. By talking louder and using shorter words.

In answer to your question: YES, NO COVER HEALTH STUFF BECAUSE YOU THINK IS SIN, IS TOO MUCH DADDY-MOMMY TO WORKER FROM BOSS. IS BIG BOO BOO.

Why, you ask? SAME SHINY PENNIES FROM HEALTH PLAN COULD BE USED TO FIX BROKE KNEE BUT NOT KEEP BABBY FROM BORN BECAUSE BOSS MAN THINK BABBY SHOULD ALWAYS BE BORN. YOU, WORKER, KEEP SHINY PENNIES ONLY IF YOU DO THINGS NOT SIN.

Huh. Interesting point. YAY. GOOD READER. *pats head*

Let me know if you need me to break it down further. Always happy to oblige.
 
2012-02-17 11:07:28 AM  
dig your heels in and insist this is about birth control instead of the free exercise of religion.
what could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-02-17 11:08:29 AM  
Why is it your bosses choice whether your insurance provides birth control. I don't know where most of you work, but everywhere else the employee pays for all or a portion of their health insurance costs. Shouldn't the person who is the insured and pays for it have be able to decide for themselves?

GOP says no, the employee should be controlled by the employer as much as possible. The typical GOP ass sucking response.

Family planning is important, of course, the Republicans are really about control. Controlling women, controlling employees, hopefully they won't controlling the country anytime soon.
 
2012-02-17 11:08:45 AM  

ManateeGag: The issue for me, at least, is that it went from "We don't want to pay for it" to "We don't want you using it" and to a lesser extent "Keep your legs shut, you filthy whore"


I agree - the GOP doesn't know when to stop. "We will offer it and make it available as an option in your health insurance coverage but we are not going to pay for it" is eminently reasonably to me.
 
2012-02-17 11:08:48 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But it doesn't matter - if an employer wants to exclude a particular coverage from the provide plan, even if that exclusion costs them more in premiums, they should be allowed to do it.


If you can't meet certain government regulations, then I guess you can't stay in business.
 
2012-02-17 11:08:50 AM  

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Is it reasonable to assume that a jehovah witness could ban insurance coverage of blood transfusions? Personally, that sounds ridiculous.

what the hell are you talking about? The compromise does not grant anyone the ability to ban any coverage of anything. It offers another way to pay for contraceptive insurance for religious organizations. That's it. They still have to offer contraceptive insurance and it still won't cost the employee ANYTHING.


I was told this was Obama's war on religion. I was told this was the end of the first amendment.
 
2012-02-17 11:08:57 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?

-------------------------

You have any examples of insurance plans being CHEAPER by not offering bc? Because paying for pregnancy care, birth, and not being able to kick sick kids off their parent's insurance anymore costs more than bc, I am pretty sure.
 
2012-02-17 11:10:53 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: sprawl15: Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?

Why you think it would be cheaper to not get BC coverage. Those plans would inevitably be more expensive due to higher risk.

I'm just quoting from the study, $21 per year (not month, thank you for the correction deadcrickets) is the cost they estimate.

If BC was actually cheaper for the health insurers, you would think they'd include it in all policies anyway and this mandate wouldn't be necessary for regular employers. But it doesn't matter - if an employer wants to exclude a particular coverage from the provide plan, even if that exclusion costs them more in premiums, they should be allowed to do it.


So where is the limit for this? If they can override your wants and exclude something because it offends them, what else should they legally be allowed to refuse coverage for? Can I refuse to cover maternity care for unwed couples? If I'm opposed to blood transfusions, can I refuse to cover those? If I think lung transplants are unholy, can I deny coverage for that? How about if i'm into homeopathy, can I refuse all prescription drug coverage?
 
2012-02-17 11:11:35 AM  

colon_pow: dig your heels in and insist this is about birth control instead of the free exercise of religion.
what could possibly go wrong?


Apparently nothing. The polling on it is amazing. Not even the Catholic flock is siding with their leadership.
 
2012-02-17 11:11:58 AM  

Bessame: Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?
-------------------------

You have any examples of insurance plans being CHEAPER by not offering bc? Because paying for pregnancy care, birth, and not being able to kick sick kids off their parent's insurance anymore costs more than bc, I am pretty sure.


One uncomplicated pregnancy and birth is more expensive than a lifetime of contraception. Its not just a little cheaper if you factor in the cost of the kids insurance.
 
2012-02-17 11:12:27 AM  

KwameKilstrawberry: This is Susan G. Komen, Part II. The Teabaggers are imploding and taking the Republicans with them. We have hope.


The narrative is that this is Terri Schiavo pt. II. I honestly don't remember that fiasco being that politically costly for the GOP, but this one is gearing up to be a massive clusterfark.
 
2012-02-17 11:12:38 AM  

colon_pow: dig your heels in and insist this is about birth control instead of the free exercise of religion.
what could possibly go wrong?


Yeah, the Dems really have egg on their faces over this whole imbroglio.
 
2012-02-17 11:12:43 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: or that they can go out and use their salary to buy BC


Health care coverage is part of the salary package. It's the employee's money.
 
2012-02-17 11:12:48 AM  

Make More Hinjews: YES, NO COVER HEALTH STUFF BECAUSE YOU THINK IS SIN, IS TOO MUCH DADDY-MOMMY TO WORKER FROM BOSS. IS BIG BOO BOO.


but health stuff still covered. Boss just no pay copay. You need to pay $10 copay for happy funtime pill. Rest of bill covered by insurance boss pay for. No one coming between you and doctor. You dum.
 
2012-02-17 11:12:49 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: colon_pow: dig your heels in and insist this is about birth control instead of the free exercise of religion.
what could possibly go wrong?

Apparently nothing. The polling on it is amazing. Not even the Catholic flock is siding with their leadership.


Don't pick on colon_pow. He is desperately trying to change the conversation, but it isn't working.
 
2012-02-17 11:13:19 AM  

MadCat221: Trollbama


murphed.com

Problem?
 
2012-02-17 11:13:59 AM  

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Really? You don't see how your boss' religious views restricting your access to certain medical insurance coverage doesn't come between you and your doctor?

If my boss was a jehovah witness, could he ban me from having blood transfusions?

again, that's not what the compromise was. That's not even what the current law says.



That law can change if Sen. Blunt has his way:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/15/roy-blunt-s-push-to -o verturn-obama-s-contraception-compromise.html (new window)
 
2012-02-17 11:14:04 AM  

PanicMan: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Is it reasonable to assume that a jehovah witness could ban insurance coverage of blood transfusions? Personally, that sounds ridiculous.

what the hell are you talking about? The compromise does not grant anyone the ability to ban any coverage of anything. It offers another way to pay for contraceptive insurance for religious organizations. That's it. They still have to offer contraceptive insurance and it still won't cost the employee ANYTHING.

I was told this was Obama's war on religion. I was told this was the end of the first amendment.


I was told that your boss is coming between you and your doctor if you have to pay a copay. Both sides are farking dumb. Vote skullkrusher.
 
2012-02-17 11:14:05 AM  

Bessame: Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?
-------------------------

You have any examples of insurance plans being CHEAPER by not offering bc? Because paying for pregnancy care, birth, and not being able to kick sick kids off their parent's insurance anymore costs more than bc, I am pretty sure.


Better quit it now with that there logic.
 
2012-02-17 11:15:01 AM  

colon_pow: dig your heels in and insist this is about birth control instead of the free exercise of religion.
what could possibly go wrong?


I would like to know how this represents a threat to religious freedom. People can freely practice their religion at church and at home. And if they run a faith-based organization, they don't have to pay for contraceptive coverage. But they cannot, and should not, feel that it is their right to force their faith on me. Which is precisely what this argument it about.
 
2012-02-17 11:15:21 AM  
A Terri Schiavo moment? Is the author implying that opponents of insurance mandates are brain dead?
 
2012-02-17 11:16:16 AM  
Whenever personal freedoms butt up against religion or business the GOP never sides with personal choice.
 
2012-02-17 11:17:01 AM  

colon_pow: dig your heels in and insist this is about birth control instead of the free exercise of religion. what could possibly go wrong?


Thanks for your concern, but we'll be just fine.
 
2012-02-17 11:18:24 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If BC was actually cheaper for the health insurers, you would think they'd include it in all policies anyway and this mandate wouldn't be necessary for regular employers.


Before, when they could have lifetime and annual limits, they had no real incentive to reduce your costs: they set your limits so you always make a net profit. Now, insurance companies certainly want to provide BC. Giving a woman the pill for 20 years is cheaper than paying for a single birth. Giving a guy condoms for 20 years is cheaper than paying for a single case of AIDS.

What about this are you not getting?
 
2012-02-17 11:18:40 AM  
Personally I think the GOP has a rock solid strategy for the '12 election.

The 1812 election, that is.
 
2012-02-17 11:20:19 AM  

sprawl15: Debeo Summa Credo: If BC was actually cheaper for the health insurers, you would think they'd include it in all policies anyway and this mandate wouldn't be necessary for regular employers.

Before, when they could have lifetime and annual limits, they had no real incentive to reduce your costs: they set your limits so you always make a net profit. Now, insurance companies certainly want to provide BC. Giving a woman the pill for 20 years is cheaper than paying for a single birth. Giving a guy condoms for 20 years is cheaper than paying for a single case of AIDS.

What about this are you not getting?


the part where male contraception is covered. It isn't. This is only women's contraception we're talking about. Men are still on their own. Oddly, this isn't an issue.
 
2012-02-17 11:21:04 AM  

colon_pow: dig your heels in and insist this is about birth control instead of the free exercise of religion.
what could possibly go wrong?


You're right. It's not about birth control. It's about men trying to reassert dominion over women.
 
2012-02-17 11:21:37 AM  

stoli n coke: Bessame: Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?
-------------------------

You have any examples of insurance plans being CHEAPER by not offering bc? Because paying for pregnancy care, birth, and not being able to kick sick kids off their parent's insurance anymore costs more than bc, I am pretty sure.

Better quit it now with that there logic.


Go to the farking link I posted. $21 per year extra per that study.
 
2012-02-17 11:22:01 AM  
Contraception? Contraception? Without condoms, santorum would become the frothy mixture of lube, fecal matter, and sperm that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
 
2012-02-17 11:22:04 AM  

skullkrusher: Vote skullkrusher.


No way... That guy's a dangerous nut job.
 
2012-02-17 11:22:06 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They should absolutely be allowed to cover only what they want, or nothing. The employee can take the benefit plan offered, along with salary and other compensation, into their decision as to where to work.


You're arguing that large employers ought not to be required to purchase any healthcare coverage, which is a separate argument with separate underpinnings. You're entitled to that policy position, but the reality is that as the law stands now, and until it's overturned, qualified employers are required to offer standardized health insurance benefits to their employees. The Catholic Church doesn't oppose this generally. In fact, the Conference of Catholic Bishops has long been in favor of universal healthcare access by law. They were on board with Obamacare.

Their issue is that the universal healthcare that is available covers services that they don't like, and if they had their way, NO ONE would have access to. They asked the Obama administration to exempt the Church itself from purchasing coverage for birth control for its employees. This is not too problematic, as most direct employees of the Catholic Church and its dioceses and parishes are celibate men or women. But the Church got its knickers in a bunch when the administration refused to extend the same special treatment to Catholic-affiliated organizations like hospitals and universities, which employ numerous employees with families, who often are not Catholic. And now that the administration has engineered a compromise, the hypocritical bishops now want the same treatment extended to businesses owned by Catholic individuals. And now Catholic robots like you are saying that no employer should be forced to pay for any medical insurance, even though your church has long advocated for universal health coverage.

It's a precious tantrum which shows just how idiotic and impertinent the Church is. You don't get to follow different rules simply because your religion says you should get special treatment. If we followed your logic, you'd have numerous employers claim that they should be exempt from complying with any health care regulations because of moral conscience reasons, in a cynical attempt to cheap out. The healthcare law then has no teeth.

If you oppose Obamacare, you're entitled to that opinion. But don't pretend that this fight is still about genuine concern about freedom of moral conscience. And don't pretend that your position makes any sense from a moral standpoint.
 
2012-02-17 11:23:12 AM  

skullkrusher: the part where male contraception is covered. It isn't. This is only women's contraception we're talking about. Men are still on their own. Oddly, this isn't an issue.


HEY NOW THERE ARE FEMALE CONDOMS SO I AM NOT WRONG

Seriously, since boner pills were covered, I figured condoms would be as well. Then again, since condoms aren't generally prescribed, it sort of makes sense. Either way, the point still stands.
 
2012-02-17 11:24:26 AM  

sprawl15: Debeo Summa Credo: If BC was actually cheaper for the health insurers, you would think they'd include it in all policies anyway and this mandate wouldn't be necessary for regular employers.

Before, when they could have lifetime and annual limits, they had no real incentive to reduce your costs: they set your limits so you always make a net profit. Now, insurance companies certainly want to provide BC. Giving a woman the pill for 20 years is cheaper than paying for a single birth. Giving a guy condoms for 20 years is cheaper than paying for a single case of AIDS.

What about this are you not getting?


Again, why is the mandate needed for ordinary businesses if it saves health insurers so much? You'd think health insurers would be putting free BC in all their plans if its going to improve their bottom lines.
 
2012-02-17 11:24:34 AM  

skullkrusher: Vote skullkrusher.


I'm in. Dibs on "cushy appointment with no real work".
 
Displayed 50 of 606 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report