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.

(STLToday)   Missouri lawmakers override governor's veto of bill allowing insurance offered by employers to not cover birth control   (stltoday.com) divider line 269
    More: Followup, Missouri General Assembly, veto override, birth control, Jay Nixon, affiliated institution, lawmakers, affiliated institutions, vetoes  
•       •       •

2907 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2012 at 7:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-13 05:16:12 AM
Thank goodness the majority of people seem to have sense. I was beginning to despair that our country was really becoming an idiot majority.
 
2012-09-13 05:58:28 AM
I'm sure this will be yet another reasoned debate on whether or not business owners have the right to structure the benefits packages of their privately held business in such a way as to conform to their belief structures.and not devolve into a tsunami of hyperbole and wharrgarbl about how anyone wants to end the use of birth control in this country.
 
2012-09-13 06:09:48 AM
The Missouri Legislature has voted to override Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of a bill that would allow employers to opt out of covering contraceptives in health insurance policies for religious reasons.

They overrode his veto?

Guess the Missouri Legislature really...

*puts on glasses*

...showed him.

[YEEEEAAH!]

/Also... Nixon, you dolt!
 
2012-09-13 06:15:15 AM
Businesses being legal constructs, cannot have a religion. People, however, can. So should be fairly simple to see that the employee's freedom of religion should trump.
 
2012-09-13 06:16:34 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm sure this will be yet another reasoned debate on whether or not business owners have the right to structure the benefits packages of their privately held business in such a way as to conform to their belief structures.


No, they don't.

Employers shouldn't be able to dictate those terms because that violates the Freedom *from* religion aspect of Freedom *of* religion.

Potentially endangering a women's health in order to please an invisible Cloud Fairy?

Never a good idea.
 
2012-09-13 06:56:12 AM
The other headline was better:

MO legislature overrides governor's veto of bill that permits Muslim employers to prohibit their employees from buying pork and alcohol
 
2012-09-13 07:12:31 AM
LEAVE MY LADY PEACH ALONE!!!!

/So sick of this crap.
 
2012-09-13 07:29:28 AM
Your beliefs are less important than mine. Suck it and get back to work.
 
2012-09-13 07:47:47 AM
I find it baffling how Republicans continue to make womens' sex lives such an amazing priority in their lives.
 
2012-09-13 07:51:56 AM
If an employers religious beliefs were against radiation could they offer insurance that didn't cover chemo?
 
2012-09-13 07:53:37 AM
Oh for pity's sake...

Oppressing women is NOT a religious right!

(Gov. Nixon sent me a bumper sticker a while back, been wondering if I should put it up, considering what a Blue Dog he's running as)
 
2012-09-13 07:53:53 AM
The war on women continues...
 
2012-09-13 07:54:03 AM

Confabulat: I find it baffling how Republicans continue to make womens' sex lives such an amazing priority in their lives.


The GOP continues its laser-like focus on job creation, as it has since 2010.
 
2012-09-13 07:56:16 AM
Enjoy the unnecessary legal bills to fight a losing court battle, people of Missouri.
 
2012-09-13 07:57:46 AM
Wait a minute:

Missouri lawmakers override governor's veto of bill allowing insurance offered by employers to not cover birth control

Bill: We allow insurance to not cover birth control
Governor: VETO (meaning insurance must cover birth control?)
Missouri lawmakers: OVERRIDE! (meaning they allow insurance to not cover birth control?)

Am I reading this wrong?

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN? MY HEAD EXPLODE!
 
2012-09-13 07:58:43 AM

quatchi: The Missouri Legislature has voted to override Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of a bill that would allow employers to opt out of covering contraceptives in health insurance policies for religious reasons.

They overrode his veto?

Guess the Missouri Legislature really...

*puts on glasses*

...showed him.

[YEEEEAAH!]

/Also... Nixon, you dolt!


Wait..this is a bad thing. Gov Nixon vetoed the bill that allows employers to opt-out of insurance that covers birth control, and the state lawmakers overrode his veto.

The dolts are the Missouri legislators.
 
2012-09-13 07:58:44 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm sure this will be yet another reasoned debate on whether or not business owners have the right to structure the benefits packages of their privately held business in such a way as to conform to their belief structures.and not devolve into a tsunami of hyperbole and wharrgarbl about how anyone wants to end the use of birth control in this country.


We could talk about why it's an employer's responsibility to provide health insurance in the first place if you'd prefer.

Single-payer would alleviate an enormous cost in payroll, thereby opening markets to entry, and make it so that the burden of moral choice is not on a business run by religious people.
 
2012-09-13 07:59:04 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm sure this will be yet another reasoned debate on whether or not business owners have the right to structure the benefits packages of their privately held business in such a way as to conform to their belief structures.and not devolve into a tsunami of hyperbole and wharrgarbl about how anyone wants to end the use of birth control in this country.


Do employers have any say in how I get to spend my money? No. Then why the fark should they get any say in how I use my health insurance?
 
2012-09-13 07:59:14 AM

Achi11es: Wait a minute:

Missouri lawmakers override governor's veto of bill allowing insurance offered by employers to not cover birth control

Bill: We allow insurance to not cover birth control
Governor: VETO (meaning insurance must cover birth control?)
Missouri lawmakers: OVERRIDE! (meaning they allow insurance to not cover birth control?)

Am I reading this wrong?

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN? MY HEAD EXPLODE!


Uh, that's it in a nutshell.. or nutcase, in this case.
 
2012-09-13 07:59:44 AM

Doc Daneeka: Confabulat: I find it baffling how Republicans continue to make womens' sex lives such an amazing priority in their lives.

The GOP continues its laser-like focus on job creation, as it has since 2010.


And there is absolutely no "War on Women" going on. Nope, not at all.
 
2012-09-13 08:00:28 AM
So did the bill allow or not allow birth control? Headline is confusing
 
2012-09-13 08:01:00 AM

EvilEgg: Businesses being legal constructs, cannot have a religion. People, however, can. So should be fairly simple to see that the employee's freedom of religion should trump.


Businesses are people too, my friend.
 
2012-09-13 08:03:03 AM
Additionally: fark you, you farking neanderthals! It's none of your goddamn business what our insurance covers. I bet those same people don't complain about men's boner pills being covered by insurance. :/
 
2012-09-13 08:03:59 AM

Alphax: Achi11es: Wait a minute:

Missouri lawmakers override governor's veto of bill allowing insurance offered by employers to not cover birth control

Bill: We allow insurance to not cover birth control
Governor: VETO (meaning insurance must cover birth control?)
Missouri lawmakers: OVERRIDE! (meaning they allow insurance to not cover birth control?)

Am I reading this wrong?

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN? MY HEAD EXPLODE!

Uh, that's it in a nutshell.. or nutcase, in this case.


So their Governor has common sense and the rest of the law makers are not seeing the bigger picture here?
 
2012-09-13 08:04:58 AM
Subby needs ESOL.
 
2012-09-13 08:06:15 AM

Dr. Whoof: Doc Daneeka: Confabulat: I find it baffling how Republicans continue to make womens' sex lives such an amazing priority in their lives.

The GOP continues its laser-like focus on job creation, as it has since 2010.

And there is absolutely no "War on Women" going on. Nope, not at all.


Actually, the Democrats are the real misogynists for pointing ou the Republicans' medieval policies. Or something.
 
2012-09-13 08:07:06 AM
Why is it that in the UK and EU everything is focused on the person being effected?
You create data on a work computer? That data is YOURS - NOT the company's.
Privacy laws protect that data from collection for legal action.

In America, if you create data on a work computer it is the company's.
They can collect all of it and prosecute at will.

In the UK and EU healthcare is a right of the people.
The government has many mechanisms of taking care of their people.

In America healthcare is a privilege of those working.
Businesses decide what kind of coverage you get.

Huh? Why is this?
 
2012-09-13 08:09:39 AM
I cannot farking believe we are having this discussion in 2012.
 
2012-09-13 08:11:41 AM
"This bill is about protecting our religious liberties," said Rep. Sandy Crawford, R-Buffalo. "It is about protecting businesses from the overreach of government."

Exactly. It's about giving businesses that pretend to be religions a competitive edge.
 
2012-09-13 08:11:54 AM
As I've said before, these regressive simpletons will need to be dragged by the ears, kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Maybe by 2050 or so, we'll be able to get them into the same century as everyone else.
 
2012-09-13 08:15:01 AM

Shadowknight: I was beginning to despair that our country was really becoming an idiot majority.


Becoming?
 
2012-09-13 08:15:55 AM
In fairness, TFA has just as bad grammar. Is it the bill or the Veto that allows for non-coverage?

Grammar means I have no idea what happened.
 
2012-09-13 08:18:25 AM

cc_rider: Additionally: fark you, you farking neanderthals! It's none of your goddamn business what our insurance covers. I bet those same people don't complain about men's boner pills being covered by insurance. :/


Of course they don't have a problem with that. It's vital medicine for dudes. You wouldn't want a dude to be unable to have erections on demand and loads of sex, which is essential to his masculinity.

Birth control pills, on the other hand, have no purpose other than to let the wimmins have slutty slut sex or control the cycle of their... thing [waves in that general direction] or keep from getting cancer in their... inside parts or whatever its called. These are all clearly choices, and insurance rightly can refuse to cover them.

Also, the ladies should pay more for insurance because they have the lady parts.
 
2012-09-13 08:20:07 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: owners have the right to structure the benefits packages of their privately held business in such a way as to conform to their belief structures.


Read that sentence and think about how batshiat insane that sounds.
 
2012-09-13 08:21:09 AM
It's a good job there aren't any other religions or any other moral issues aside from birth control.
 
2012-09-13 08:21:54 AM

Carth: If an employers religious beliefs were against radiation could they offer insurance that didn't cover chemo?


Or what if you worked for a Christian Scientist?

"Well, sir, you have Type II Diabetes, and your leg is falling off. And that car accident was pretty nasty, you'll probably be disfigured for life. But don't worry, we've scheduled 8 brethren to come in and pray for you throughout the night. No, you don't need insulin. Okay, fine, 10 brethren to pray for you then. But only because you're spot-on with those TPS reports."
 
2012-09-13 08:22:18 AM

Achi11es: Huh? Why is this?


Because corporations are people, my friend. And not only that, but since they are made up of people, there is a kind of recursive effect that makes their rights more important than the rights of people people. Duh.

Anyone who thinks that isn't how it should be is a dirty soshulist.
 
2012-09-13 08:22:36 AM

Lupine Chemist: In fairness, TFA has just as bad grammar. Is it the bill or the Veto that allows for non-coverage?

Grammar means I have no idea what happened.


There are two reasonable ways to parse the headline:
(Missouri lawmakers override governor's veto of bill)[;] allowing insurance offered by employers to not cover birth control
or
Missouri lawmakers override governor's veto of (bill allowing insurance offered by employers to not cover birth control)

In either case, the governor is against the bill, the lawmakers overrode him, and the bill/end result is that insurance companies can say fark you to women.
 
2012-09-13 08:23:10 AM
From an actuarial perspective, birth control is far cheaper than pregnancy. I don't get why insurance companies aren't demanding that birth control be covered.
 
2012-09-13 08:24:45 AM
I don't understand. Isn't this a direct contradiction to federal law? How does that work?
 
2012-09-13 08:25:08 AM

Lupine Chemist: In fairness, TFA has just as bad grammar. Is it the bill or the Veto that allows for non-coverage?

Grammar means I have no idea what happened.


For all the people asking:

The bill allows businesses to opt out from providing contraception. The governor is on the same page as the Obama administration.

The Missouri legislature often has problems, not because of Dem vs Rep, but because different factions of Republicans can't agree.
 
2012-09-13 08:26:26 AM
I just can't figure out what the hell is to be gained here. The insurance companies don't care - birth control is cheap. There can't be THAT many business owners looking to not include it. I suppose it's more important to remain simon-pure (heh) to The Cause than think about the value of action, and ultimate damage it may cause. In any event, what a bunch of farktards. The "we don't want to pay for it!" line is a total canard - it's easily covered by the insured as part of their premiums, and actually KEEPS THEM DOWN as pregnancy costs quite a bit more than pills. How can you possibly be as adamantly opposed to abortion, as these folks are, and want to stop the best defense against their necessity? This is just a meanness in the service of theocracy, and in many ways, I sincerely hope their belief set is in fact true and they are held to account for this kind of petty viciousness. I would love to hear the J-man reading these douches the riot act just before hitting the trap door opener.
 
2012-09-13 08:26:48 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: From an actuarial perspective, birth control is far cheaper than pregnancy. I don't get why insurance companies aren't demanding that birth control be covered.


And, as one of the lawmakers pointed out, will likely result in fewer abortions. Why would any person that is anti-abortion not want to ensure (insure, hah!) access to birth control for any woman that wants it?
 
2012-09-13 08:27:44 AM
Work for a Jehovah's Witness? No blood transfusions for you!

/hey, you got religion in my healthcare
//no, you got healthcare in my religion
 
2012-09-13 08:28:37 AM

CPennypacker: I don't understand. Isn't this a direct contradiction to federal law? How does that work?


The Tea Party is big on their State Laws trumping Federal Law. Won't be too long before Justice Roberts gets to lay a smackdown on that. I predict him writing his own opinion.
 
2012-09-13 08:28:59 AM
Achi11es: Huh? Why is this?

mamoru : Because corporations are people, my friend. And not only that, but since they are made up of people, there is a kind of recursive effect that makes their rights more important than the rights of people people. Duh.

Anyone who thinks that isn't how it should be is a dirty soshulist.


Also: Because 'Muricans are the bootstrappiest bootstrappers that ever bootstrapped.
 
2012-09-13 08:29:10 AM

Paul Baumer: I just can't figure out what the hell is to be gained here


A large portion of the electorate for the Dems.
 
2012-09-13 08:29:39 AM

ox45tallboy: Monkeyhouse Zendo: From an actuarial perspective, birth control is far cheaper than pregnancy. I don't get why insurance companies aren't demanding that birth control be covered.

And, as one of the lawmakers pointed out, will likely result in fewer abortions. Why would any person that is anti-abortion not want to ensure (insure, hah!) access to birth control for any woman that wants it?


Because abortion is just the tip of the iceberg,it's also important that sluts be punished for their sins.
 
2012-09-13 08:35:24 AM
The thing I don't get in this whole debate is, who is forcing the pills down women's throats? If the insurance covers it and they choose not to use birth control, fine. If they choose to use birth control, fine. Employers really care that much? Hire only people who believe in your particular sky wizard, or hire only men if that's the case. But wait...that would be discrimination wouldn't it? So they can't discriminate about that aspect of religion but their religion can impact the health of people who work for them who may have a different religion entirely (or none)??

HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!?!?!

/sorry for yelling so early
/I think I popped a vein in my forehead
 
2012-09-13 08:38:01 AM

Carth: If an employers religious beliefs were against radiation could they offer insurance that didn't cover chemo?


Chemo being Chemo-therapy, you know, the chemicals/poison they pour into your bloodstream to kill the cancer which also comes close to killing you too?
Where does the radiation come in?

/also, bunch of assholes
// NO SUCH THING AS A WA ON WOMEN!
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report