Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

#1 Mar 01 2012 at 11:53 AM Rating: Default
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,517 posts
Common sense narrowly prevails in the Senate, 51-48.
MSNBC wrote:
The Senate Thursday defeated a proposal that would have allowed employers and health plans regulated by the 2010 health care law to opt out of paying for medical services that are contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

The vote to defeat the proposal was 51 to 48, with one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, voting with 50 Democrats against the amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, R- Mo.


Nice to know that the government told religions that they can't come between me and my doctor, either.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#2 Mar 01 2012 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
So that's why she's leaving.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Mar 01 2012 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That Snowe will never win re-election now!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 01 2012 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
I think they should've passed it. Serve you guys right for half assing it in the first place.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5 Mar 01 2012 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lies. Everyone knows Canadians are Godless.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Mar 01 2012 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Lies. Everyone knows Canadians are Godless.
Which is why our healthcare covers everyone at a smaller cost. No God to get in the way.


Edited, Mar 1st 2012 2:01pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#7 Mar 01 2012 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Is her retirement meant to be a comment on the seeming irrelevance of not voting along party lines and polarization in Congress? Or is she stamping her foot?
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#8 Mar 01 2012 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The former. She does the latter when she counts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 01 2012 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,109 posts
catwho wrote:
Nice to know that the government told religions that they can't come between me and my doctor, either.

Smiley: laugh

Edit: Also, I'm hugely disappointed that, despite what the title implies, this thread is not about legalizing pot.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 2:05pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#10 Mar 01 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That Snowe will never win re-election now!


Hah!


Honestly though, from a political perspective, she may have just helped the GOP hugely. The Senate refusing to amend the health care law basically means that the likelihood of large portions of it being declared unconstitutional by the SCotUS went up. Not to mention that this will remain a huge election year issue now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Mar 01 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
The Senate refusing to amend the health care law basically means that the likelihood of large portions of it being declared unconstitutional by the SCotUS went up.


Smiley: laugh
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#12 Mar 01 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The Senate refusing to amend the health care law basically means that the likelihood of large portions of it being declared unconstitutional by the SCotUS went up.


Smiley: laugh


And? Do you even understand that the issue here is private hospitals and health care providers run by churches will be forced to both pay for and provide services which violate their own religious beliefs? That's the canary in the coalmine in terms of the constitutional issues with the health care mandates in Obamacare, since it directly violates the 1st amendment (which is kind of a big deal in this country). Had the Senate approved an amendment removing the requirement in the case of religious institutions, it's possible the direct 1st amendment violation aspect of the issue could be avoided. But by not doing so, it's left in place making it nearly impossible for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandates.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Mar 01 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,517 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The Senate refusing to amend the health care law basically means that the likelihood of large portions of it being declared unconstitutional by the SCotUS went up.


Smiley: laugh


And? Do you even understand that the issue here is private hospitals and health care providers run by churches will be forced to both pay for and provide services which violate their own religious beliefs? That's the canary in the coalmine in terms of the constitutional issues with the health care mandates in Obamacare, since it directly violates the 1st amendment (which is kind of a big deal in this country). Had the Senate approved an amendment removing the requirement in the case of religious institutions, it's possible the direct 1st amendment violation aspect of the issue could be avoided. But by not doing so, it's left in place making it nearly impossible for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandates.


And those same private hospitals gladly avail themselves of federal funds. That means they need to keep their noses out of the business of an adult and his or her doctor.

Especially for contraception, which 15-20% of women take for reasons other than preventing pregnancy because it fixes a lot of other problems with female plumbing!

Unless you want to have adult women miss 3-4 days of work every month because they're bleeding so heavily they have iron deficiency anemia.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#14 Mar 01 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
She's right. They can help prevent scarring in the ovaries caused by Ovarian Cysts. Nasty.

I wonder if it would be cool for Jehovah's Witnesses to deny blood transfusions because it's against their religion...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#15 Mar 01 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Honestly though, from a political perspective, she may have just helped the GOP hugely. The Senate refusing to amend the health care law basically means that the likelihood of large portions of it being declared unconstitutional by the SCotUS went up. Not to mention that this will remain a huge election year issue now.

This is just the break the GOP's been waiting for!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Mar 01 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
catwho wrote:
And those same private hospitals gladly avail themselves of federal funds. That means they need to keep their noses out of the business of an adult and his or her doctor.


You've failed to understand what the health care mandates I'm talking about involve.

Quote:
Especially for contraception, which 15-20% of women take for reasons other than preventing pregnancy because it fixes a lot of other problems with female plumbing!


Not the point. When the government passes a law which says that every employer must provide health insurance for their employees, and every health insurer must provide contraceptive coverage, that law then forces that employer to pay for birth control, even if the employer is a church which has a prohibition against such things.

More directly, if said church runs a hospital it *must* provide contraceptive care or none of its care can be covered by any of the aforementioned health insurers. Which, is all of them now. You honestly didn't realize this back when we conservatives were screaming about the mandates in Obamacare?

Quote:
Unless you want to have adult women miss 3-4 days of work every month because they're bleeding so heavily they have iron deficiency anemia.


Adult women who's lack of working 3-4 days each month would actually cost me enough to care presumably make enough money to be able to buy their own birth control pills, right? More to the point, they're free to pay for insurance which covers such things if they want. No one's passed a law making it illegal for them to do this.


Obama care is a law which makes it illegal *not* to buy contraceptives. Think about that for a moment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Mar 01 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
So the thing about blood transfusions? Is that covered by freedom of religion?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#18 Mar 01 2012 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
Obama care is a law which makes it illegal *not* to buy contraceptives. Think about that for a moment.


Hate to ask, but you do have a cite for this yes?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#19 Mar 01 2012 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Obama care is a law which makes it illegal *not* to buy contraceptives. Think about that for a moment.


Hate to ask, but you do have a cite for this yes?


Could be wrong but I think he was making a purely logical argument.

In a sense the hospital is forced to buy contraceptives to re-sell to people who might want them.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Mar 01 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
The law makes it illegal to DENY women contraception, it does not mean you have to provide it. That's a large difference.

If you are a religious institution, even that is an exemption--those women are able to get contraceptives directly from the insurance company instead.

My favorite part is that this law was meant to earn the GOP support, but actually blew up in their face because it was such a poorly structure amendment.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#21 Mar 01 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Saying that is like saying hospitals must keep doctors on hand because someone might decide they need to see one.

It has nothing to do with the hospitals, and entirely to do with ones Insurer covering the cost of prescriptions. Hospitals and Pharmacies only need to keep these drugs on hand (should they choose to), as they already do and have for years, instead of the buyer paying, their insurance does.







Edited, Mar 1st 2012 7:02pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#22 Mar 01 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The law makes it illegal to DENY women contraception, it does not mean you have to provide it. That's a large difference.


Huh? Isn't refusing to provide contraception the same as denying it?

The point here is that as a health care provider (like a hospital), you cannot be on the list of providers which insurance carriers can pay out to unless you provide contraception. You have no choice. And since all insurers must follow those same rules, and all employers must provide insurance from that set of insurers, and anyone who doesn't have insurance will be provided it by the government, and anyone who doesn't buy insurance voluntarily must pay a fine to pay into that insurance system, it effectively means that the government has made it impossible for a hospital, clinic, or pharmacy to be in business if they don't provide contraception (among a host of services, but this is the one currently relevant to the religious issue).

Quote:
If you are a religious institution, even that is an exemption--those women are able to get contraceptives directly from the insurance company instead.


But the religious institution (here we're talking about being an employer and not a health care provider), is not exempt from the requirement to provide insurance (or their employees from obtaining it if they do not). And since the insurance company must provide contraceptive care, even if none of the religious employees use the service, they are still paying for it.


Honestly, it's a much bigger problem with the law than just the religious angle. As I said earlier, that's just the most obvious case. The whole set of mandates creates a massive intrusion into people's free choices.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Mar 01 2012 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Obama care is a law which makes it illegal *not* to buy contraceptives. Think about that for a moment.


Hate to ask, but you do have a cite for this yes?


Could be wrong but I think he was making a purely logical argument.

In a sense the hospital is forced to buy contraceptives to re-sell to people who might want them.


Well that and everyone who buys insurance must buy insurance that covers contraception (because all insurance must cover it by law). Even if you don't want to, you have no choice. Even if the insurer doesn't want to, it has no choice. And you don't have a choice to *not* buy insurance.

See how that's a problem?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Mar 01 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
See how that's a problem?


Nope because I still see the option of using birth control or not using birth control, which means if you don't use it you can pretend its not there (because it doesn't affect you at all)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#25 Mar 01 2012 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
The point is, the church hospital has to have the contraceptives, but the good little Catholic girls can choose not to use them. They're not sprinkling Baby-B-Gon on all the dinner trays.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#26 Mar 01 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I actually understand Gbaji's argument, I just don't find it to be an especially persuasive one. Even on the religious angle, in my mind the idea of religious exemptions should end once you leave hallowed ground. If churches want to get into the education or medical business, fine for them except they can play by the same rules as everyone else. If you can't handle that, stay in your cloister and I'll continue to defend your right to wave the religion flag from the altar.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Mar 01 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
I'd imagine there may be some conflicts between the Hippocratic Oath and religious dogma...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#28 Mar 01 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
See how that's a problem?


Nope because I still see the option of using birth control or not using birth control, which means if you don't use it you can pretend its not there (because it doesn't affect you at all)


Except that you're still paying for it, whether you personally use it or not. No one should be forced to buy something they don't want to buy, and no one should be forced to sell something they don't want to sell. Saying "you have to pay for it, but you don't have to take it home and use it" isn't really a solution.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Mar 01 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#30 Mar 01 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If churches want to get into the education or medical business, fine for them except they can play by the same rules as everyone else.


Churches have been in the education and medical business since long before Obama care was passed, and long before the US even existed. The issue is with the government intruding into these areas and creating mandates which never existed before. There is no need for it. There's a whole huge freaking range between making it illegal to buy or sell birth control and making it illegal to *not* buy or sell birth control.

Shouldn't the government stay in that middle range and let the people make their own purchase choices?


Quote:
If you can't handle that, stay in your cloister and I'll continue to defend your right to wave the religion flag from the altar.


Except the whole "free exercise of religion" is violated if the only place you can exercise it is in said cloister. And let's not forget that said cloister would still be required to provide health care for those in it according to Obamacare, and that insurance must include birth control. So even your analogy fails. This is the government reaching into every part of America, cloisters included and mandating that they buy birth control.


You really don't have a problem with that? I do. I think most people do, once they understand the scope of the problem. And the religious angle is only part of it. Our rights are not limited just to those enumerated in the constitution. I should have just as much right to not buy something whether I'm in a religion or not. The very idea that the government can force every (or even any) citizen to buy something is in complete opposition to the ideals of liberty.


Put more directly: It violates my rights to be required to pay for someone's birth control. It does not violate anyone's rights if the government does *not* pay for someone's birth control. The decision really ought to be simple. Let people buy their own **** health care. Let them decide how much they want. That's freedom.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Mar 01 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.


Not the point. Locking everyone up in jail cells and never letting them interact with each other would accomplish the same thing. So should we do that too?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Mar 01 2012 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.
So would taking Teen Mom and 16 And Pregnant off the air.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Mar 01 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.


Not the point. Locking everyone up in jail cells and never letting them interact with each other would accomplish the same thing. So should we do that too?
LOL. It's hard to take you seriously, gbaji.
#34 Mar 01 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.


Not the point. Locking everyone up in jail cells and never letting them interact with each other would accomplish the same thing. So should we do that too?
That'd be a rather impractical solution, don't you think?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#35 Mar 01 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Churches have been in the education and medical business since long before Obama care was passed, and long before the US even existed.

So? And?

Quote:
Except the whole "free exercise of religion" is violated if the only place you can exercise it is in said cloister. And let's not forget that said cloister would still be required to provide health care for those in it according to Obamacare, and that insurance must include birth control.

The second part is not accurate since actual churches are exempt from the requirement.
The White House wrote:
Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.

The bit that has people up in arms is auxiliary branches such as the mentioned schools and hospitals. As for the first part, we "violate" the free exercise on a regular basis for the good of the nation. You can't burn offerings to Moloch in your yard. The Amish still have to pay federal income tax. I don't consider "Religion!" to be carte blanche to decide which laws of the United States you feel like following and which ones you'll casually discard because... "Religion!"

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 6:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Mar 01 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
My question is, if I work for the Catholic church, and I get into some sort of freak ************ accident, will the insurance company deny my claim? What about if I get an STI before being married, will my religious physician deny me treatment? Or are we gonna foster an environment where people lie even more to their doctors?
#37 Mar 01 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
Guenny wrote:
I get into some sort of freak ************ accident,


A reciprocating saw does not make a good marital aid.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#38 Mar 01 2012 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What if she's ************ freaks? Like at the circus or something as Christian charity work.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Mar 01 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Bearded Lady needs lovin', too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Mar 01 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
A point of clarification. Is the law that every insurance policy has to cover contraception, or is it the law that the insurance companies have to offer the option to have contraception covered?

The first doesn't really make sense to me, the second does. Gbaji is indicating that it's the first.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 7:23pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#41 Mar 01 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
No one should be forced to buy something they don't want to buy, and no one should be forced to sell something they don't want to sell.
Agreed, that's why you go the universal healthcare route.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#42 Mar 01 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,517 posts
If a religious organization objects to covering contraception on the basis that it violates their religion, then they will not be billed for having contraception on their list of services offered; the insurance company will, however, honor requests for it anyway.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#43 Mar 01 2012 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,109 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if she's ************ freaks? Like at the circus or something as Christian charity work.

Marriage is only between one dwarf and one bearded lady. Smiley: mad
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#44 Mar 01 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
Honestly, the amendment was ******** insane. The reason it was being put forth was clearly due to birth control, but it was phrased in a way they hoped would draw in support--that being by asserting that the current policies were a massive affront to religion.

The horrible problem is that the nondescript language of the bill literally gave leave for ANY medical practice to be denied by the employer on religious grounds. And since there is no cutoff for what justifies a religious belief, that holds true. Your employer thinks vaccines are against his religion? Your insurance doesn't need to pay for it. Employer thinks mammograms are a violation of decency mandates on women? Doesn't need to pay for them.

Literally any procedure.

Furthermore, one of the reasons it was so stupid in the first place is because health insurance is almost always offered as part of your deal to take the job. It's essentially a way for companies to save money--they offer to pay health insurance, but take out a plan that covers a ton of people, giving them a great discount. Instead of paying 3k in addition per salary, they pay (say) $1500 a year.

That is not your employer paying for your birth control. That's them choosing to pay for your health insurance directly, instead of giving you a larger wage instead. It's a JOKE to consider that a violation of their religious freedoms, because they OPT to use this system to get out of having to pay higher salaries for the same quality of employee.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#45 Mar 01 2012 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A point of clarification. Is the law that every insurance policy has to cover contraception, or is it the law that the insurance companies have to offer the option to have contraception covered?

The first doesn't really make sense to me, the second does. Gbaji is indicating that it's the first.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 7:23pm by Xsarus


IMO it is the latter, if Jane doesn't want contraception then she doesn't go to her doctor to get a prescribed contraceptive. Thus the company does not have to pay out the coverage.

Regardless of whether or not it is mandatory to fund or optional in a package, it all comes down to a persons free will to use or not use contraception. If it is used it is covered (like other prescriptions) if it is not used it doesn't need to be covered (thus isn't).
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#46 Mar 01 2012 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
You know, it's all kind of amusing watching the conservatives/Christians strive to hang on to the only tradition they can grasp being white Americans. The sad thing is, as we exit the age of Pisces (fish, Jesus) and enter into the age of Aquarius (humanitarianism, radical liberalism) it is inevitable that we will soon have "socialized" everything. The human race will evolve beyond its tribal, secular tendencies of misanthropic anti-socialism and embrace the ideals of unity as people, creatures who require a social order and society to function.

Now, this is a change in motion that won't come to its full fruition for a few more centuries (if we last that long), as each "age" lasts 2700 years, but it's inevitable. It's amusing as gbaji and others struggle against the current of change hoping that for the few short years they have left, they can cling to their moral, white, male superiority and systems created to uphold such.
#47 Mar 01 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
catwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The Senate refusing to amend the health care law basically means that the likelihood of large portions of it being declared unconstitutional by the SCotUS went up.


Smiley: laugh


And? Do you even understand that the issue here is private hospitals and health care providers run by churches will be forced to both pay for and provide services which violate their own religious beliefs? That's the canary in the coalmine in terms of the constitutional issues with the health care mandates in Obamacare, since it directly violates the 1st amendment (which is kind of a big deal in this country). Had the Senate approved an amendment removing the requirement in the case of religious institutions, it's possible the direct 1st amendment violation aspect of the issue could be avoided. But by not doing so, it's left in place making it nearly impossible for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandates.


And those same private hospitals gladly avail themselves of federal funds. That means they need to keep their noses out of the business of an adult and his or her doctor.

Especially for contraception, which 15-20% of women take for reasons other than preventing pregnancy because it fixes a lot of other problems with female plumbing!

Unless you want to have adult women miss 3-4 days of work every month because they're bleeding so heavily they have iron deficiency anemia.

Sometimes when I'm in the car I listen to a republican radio show when I'm tired of listening to kids music and want to argue with the radio. Yesterday the host was talking about this and how he was ****** that the government wanted tax payers to pay for women to have ***. I finally got ****** enough that I called in and told him basically what you wrote, on how contraception is also used for medical reasons. He said his daughter had medical issues like one I used as an example. By the end, I had him semi agreeing with me. I thought the world was ending. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#48 Mar 01 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
Guenny wrote:
The sad thing is, as we exit the age of Pisces (fish, Jesus) and enter into the age of Aquarius (humanitarianism, radical liberalism) it

You knew this was coming.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#49 Mar 01 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
the government wanted tax payers to pay for women to have ***

I like how the conservatives keep phrasing it like that. Apparently women are deathly afraid of making babies during their ******* trysts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Mar 01 2012 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Churches have been in the education and medical business since long before Obama care was passed, and long before the US even existed.

So? And?


It means that arguing this like it's the religious organizations which are intruding into those areas is dishonest. It's the government that is intruding, not the other way around.

Quote:
The second part is not accurate since actual churches are exempt from the requirement.
The White House wrote:
Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.


Um... Except they aren't. The White House doesn't write the laws Joph. Congress does. And the Congress just failed to pass an amendment which would have exempted churches. If they had passed this amendment, then what you say would be true. But they didn't.


Quote:
The bit that has people up in arms is auxiliary branches such as the mentioned schools and hospitals. As for the first part, we "violate" the free exercise on a regular basis for the good of the nation. You can't burn offerings to Moloch in your yard. The Amish still have to pay federal income tax. I don't consider "Religion!" to be carte blanche to decide which laws of the United States you feel like following and which ones you'll casually discard because... "Religion!"


There you go with the big gaping excluded middle again though. So because we can't allow religious people to ignore any law they want, it's perfectly ok to pass any law we want no matter how offensive it might be to a religious person? There should be some reasonable range in between that we can find here.


And as I've stated before, the religious angle is just the canary in the coalmine of this issue. It's a violation of all our rights to impose the sorts of mandates that are in Obamacare. It's just that the ones directly violating various religious institutions 1st amendment rights makes the issue that much more obvious. It isn't really about religion though. It's about the government requiring people to buy things they don't want to buy, and to sell things they don't want to sell. That should not be allowed regardless of whether there's a violation of someone's religious beliefs involved.



What I was saying earlier, is that by failing to pass this amendment they make the argument that much more stark. Had they actually excluded religious institutions from this, they might have been able to play the whole thing as "necessary intrusion via commerce clause". Maybe. Now? That's pretty much down the drain.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Mar 01 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It means that arguing this like it's the religious organizations which are intruding into those areas is dishonest.

They're not intruding. They're not simply "churches" either.

Quote:
Um... Except they aren't. The White House doesn't write the laws Joph. Congress does.

And the administration, via the Dept of Health and Human Services, has the latitude to set regulations and exemptions per said law.

Did you think all those waivers, for example, were just tissue paper without value?

Quote:
There you go with the big gaping excluded middle again though. So because we can't allow religious people to ignore any law they want, it's perfectly ok to pass any law we want no matter how offensive it might be to a religious person? There should be some reasonable range in between that we can find here.

Sure. I don't think demanding an exemption to this law for auxiliary branches of a religious body which go beyond simple religion and into aspects that employ numerous people of various faiths and creeds is reasonable.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 8:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CST
Allegory, Debalic, Shojindo, TirithRR, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (38)