Bigdogg;1085647 wrote:I don't consider everyone that posts on this forum as blithering idiots, just a few. I already pointed out several facts, some which were referenced on sites a few of you don't like. I already provided links to court rulings and other facts.

Fact:
1) There are 28 states that currently require contraceptives to be included in employee health plan just like proposed.
2) Of those 28, 8 do not have any exclusions for religious reasons.
3) Two of the States, New York & California the State Supreme Courts have upheld the mandates.

Where has the outrage been before? This is a wedge issue that some right wingers have jumped on because it is in the news and you are convinced it's all Obama's idea therefore it is bad. Where were you when the Patriotic Act was passed?

The outrage is that this is normally outside the federal government's jurisdiction. If one buys a house there are numerous local laws that dictate how the contract works, very few, if any, involve the federal government's input because it is a local matter. If I buy a house, take out a mortgage that requires that I purchase home fire and casualty insurance, is it the federal government's job to intervene and say "ok, that insurance must cover fire extinguishers and smoke detectors?' I would think most people would say why is this Washington's business? I'm not sure this is that much different pre-Obamacare and the overtaking of an entire industry that has little to do with interstate commerce. I could easily make the argument that the Commerce Clause should give the feds power over the home fire and casualty industry because if a home is uninsured and a person loses their home they are less likely to spend money in other states....it is an argument, but ultimately a stupid argument. The religious angle is secondary IMO.

I Wear Pants;1087255 wrote:The interest in seeing an end to state sanctioned marriage is somewhere between high and overwhelming.

See isadore, I can just ****ing make **** up too.

What is made up, the idea that interest in ending state sanctione marriage is between "high and overwhelming." In the fight for civil rights, the fight to end the ban on gay marriage. Thousands were in the streets demonstrating, people were voting for candidates based on their stand on the issue, in numerable interest groups were pressuring their legislatures, and those legislatures were acting reflecting the interest of their electorate on the issue. Ending state sanctioned marriage the interest is somewhere between minimal and non existent.

Con_Alma;1087361 wrote:This is really the whole point right here.It's not fair and equal and those fighting for gay marriage really if don't care if its fair or equal yet want the support of others. Allowing the State t sanction marriage gives them the authority to determine who should and who shouldn't be permitted to hve relationship contract. That's the fundamental issue.

They would have my support if they were fighting for a fair and equal movement. They aren't.

Finally the real proof of your purpose with this dead end crusade. What I have always asserted it is just part of an effort to divert people from the important cause of government sanctioned marriage for gays. If they won't join your crusade to allow incestuous couples to marry then you are against them.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/15/sebelius-didnt-consult-bishops-on-contraception-deal/

baby killers run amok .... the arrogance of this administration is incredible.

QuakerOats;1087503 wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/15/sebelius-didnt-consult-bishops-on-contraception-deal/

baby killers run amok .... the arrogance of this administration is incredible.

Sorry, this should be totally discounted because it came from a right wing blogger

Except it is actual testimony in the US Sentate. sorry

isadore;1087407 wrote:Finally the real proof of your purpose with this dead end crusade. What I have always asserted it is just part of an effort to divert people from the important cause of government sanctioned marriage for gays. If they won't join your crusade to allow incestuous couples to marry then you are against them.

I am not against them at all. I won't however support such a cause as the continuation of an unnecessary State intrusion.


There's a difference between being against someone and not supporting them.....it doesn't appear you have the capacity to differentiate that, however.
I support gays and any adult being married if they so choose.

QuakerOats;1087732 wrote:Except it is actual testimony in the US Sentate. sorry

Wow... That sure makes it credible.....

Devils Advocate;1087767 wrote:Wow... That sure makes it credible.....

Actually, it kinda does...that whole "on the record" thingy.

fish82;1087780 wrote:Actually, it kinda does...that whole "on the record" thingy.

When did we start consulting with the Catholic church before we set regulations on the insurance industry?

Glad to see the University of Dayton will continue to do the right thing as they have for the last 20 years.

“The bishops’ blanket opposition appears to serve the interests of a political agenda, not the needs of the American people,” according to a statement by Catholics United, a nonpartisan social justice group. The group said the bishops are becoming isolated from the institutions most affected by the rule.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/ud-to-keep-birth-control-coverage-for-employees-1329319.html

fish82;1087780 wrote:Actually, it kinda does...that whole "on the record" thingy.

Oh... so when the Sec of Defense testifies that the war in Iraq will only cost about 74 billion, It's credible?


Incredible

Bigdogg;1087919 wrote:Glad to see the University of Dayton will continue to do the right thing as they have for the last 20 years.

The University of Dayton doesn't count. They are Marianists... which is only kind of Catholic

Think of them as jewish Catholics, They don't care who you are as long as you give them money. And besides, they are not credible either. The Hired Ex Gov. Taft. (you still think they are doing the right thing?)

Devils Advocate;1087948 wrote:The University of Dayton doesn't count. They are Marianists... which is only kind of Catholic

Think of them as jewish Catholics, They don't care who you are as long as you give them money. And besides, they are not credible either. The Hired Ex Gov. Taft. (you still think they are doing the right thing?)

You learn something new every day.

Hiring Taft no, offering good benefits that include contraception for women, yes.

Devils Advocate;1087947 wrote:Oh... so when the Sec of Defense testifies that the war in Iraq will only cost about 74 billion, It's credible?


Incredible

We're talking about 2 different things. I was referring to the credibility of the article which was called into question due to it being a "blog." I was merely pointing out that the article is referencing actual on the record statements from the SECHHS, and therefore is credible.

fish82;1088007 wrote:We're talking about 2 different things. I was referring to the credibility of the article which was called into question due to it being a "blog." I was merely pointing out that the article is referencing actual on the record statements from the SECHHS, and therefore is credible.

Oh.... I thought we were talking about on the record thingy's..... MY bad

Bigdogg;1087919 wrote:When did we start consulting with the Catholic church before we set regulations on the insurance industry?

About the time we're trying to get a relatively unpopular POTUS re-elected on the back of an even more unpopular law, without pissing off one of the larger voting blocks in the country.

BoatShoes;1086090 wrote:If there were an Amish University for example, they would be required to provide health insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act and the adminstration has not exempted such religious type institutions from the requirement that the health insurance they provide their employees cover birth control.

They're not singling out catholics. It just so happens that Catholics are particularly perturbed by one of the laws requirements...in the same way that one religious sect was particularly perturbed with the Requirement that they be paid a minimum wage.

I heard interesting points this morning on 610 regarding HHS making Catholics toe the line like everyone else because Big Brother says they must comply:

1. In government-run prisons, Muslim inmates are not forced to eat pork when it's served to everyone else. They get their own religion-friendly menu.
2. At government-owned Guantanomo Bay (a/k/a Club Gitmo), the Muslim inmates were given special religious privileges regarding prayer-time, rug-owning, and also the afore-mentioned unique dining menu.
3. On government-owned roads, the Amish are allowed to own and operate horse-and-buggy vehicles that do not meet state standards for safety, other than the reflective triangle sign.

Therefore, the government has made special rules for those receiving government services based solely on religion. But with ObamaKare, that's out...unless, of course, you get a waiver such that you receive a governmental annointing. Just make sure your campaign contribution makes it in on time.

World's 4 biggest lies....
1) I love you
2) The check is in the mail
3) I won't ***in your mouth.
4) Insurance companies will "reach out" and offer this benefit at no charge.


Really? You hear this stuff come out of his mouth and you ask yourself...Does he actually believe this?...Is he competent?...or is he just spinning like a top. Whatever the answer you come up with, the net result is that we can't afford 4 more years of this.

Con_Alma wrote:I support gays and any adult being married if they so choose.

or

Con_Alma wrote:This is really the whole point right here.It's not fair and equal and those fighting for gay marriage really if don't care if its fair or equal yet want the support of others. Allowing the State t sanction marriage gives them the authority to determine who should and who shouldn't be permitted to hve relationship contract. That's the fundamental issue.

They would have my support if they were fighting for a fair and equal movement. They aren't.

That is called having it both ways.

"4) Insurance companies will "reach out" and offer this benefit at no charge."

Reps.

Nothing is free. Somebody will have pay for it, now or later. Election year politics are always ugly, but this administration's vote-buying and crony politics are an exact 180 degree turn from his campaign in '08. For those who support this, how will you react when the government overreaches in an issue you disagree with?

Manhattan Buckeye;1088503 wrote:"4) Insurance companies will "reach out" and offer this benefit at no charge."

Reps.

Nothing is free. Somebody will have pay for it, now or later. Election year politics are always ugly, but this administration's vote-buying and crony politics are an exact 180 degree turn from his campaign in '08. For those who support this, how will you react when the government overreaches in an issue you disagree with?

I have a hunch they'll support whatever the MSM tells them to support even if it means happily taking it up the ass without KY jelly.

BGFalcons82;1088026 wrote:I heard interesting points this morning on 610 regarding HHS making Catholics toe the line like everyone else because Big Brother says they must comply:

1. In government-run prisons, Muslim inmates are not forced to eat pork when it's served to everyone else. They get their own religion-friendly menu.
2. At government-owned Guantanomo Bay (a/k/a Club Gitmo), the Muslim inmates were given special religious privileges regarding prayer-time, rug-owning, and also the afore-mentioned unique dining menu.
3. On government-owned roads, the Amish are allowed to own and operate horse-and-buggy vehicles that do not meet state standards for safety, other than the reflective triangle sign.
.

This is really weak.

1. The prisoners are not employing people or running a business

2.The prisoners are not employing people or running a business

3.The Amish are not using their little black buggies for interstate business

The prisoners do not make a profit on heath care and send money to the Vatican..


Hope this clears things up.

BTW have to love American media "polling":

They love the plan:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/public-backs-obama-birth-control-fight-poll-suggests-205113637.html

Not so much:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/16/cnn-poll-half-oppose-obama-birth-control-insurance-plan/

I wonder how the poll would result if the question was honest: "Do you support a government-mandated provision of goods by a private insurer with said goods being easily available at low cost to the consumer, but the insurer's cost will be borne by those who pay taxes"?

Devils Advocate;1088600 wrote:This is really weak.

1. The prisoners are not employing people or running a business

2.The prisoners are not employing people or running a business

3.The Amish are not using their little black buggies for interstate business

The prisoners do not make a profit on heath care and send money to the Vatican..


Hope this clears things up.

So every business is subject to federal government regulations? GTFO.

HitsRus;1088257 wrote: 4) Insurance companies will "reach out" and offer this benefit at no charge.

5) Insurance companies will lower rates if there is tort reform capping punnitive damages on medical related law suits. ( Texas annd Nevada have done this and have the same exponential explosion on rates as all off the states that do not have tort reform)