Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[JoeB131]

[

When people rack up insurance claims, for their weekend flings, those insurance claims end up driving up insurance premiums, which filter right back down to ME and other premium payers.

Are you like RUsh, you think that a woman has to take more birth control if she's having more Sex? Do you even understand how the lady parts work?

[
It is my dime. That policy indirectly costs me money. When my company has to pay a higher price for insurance, they too end up passing that cost down to ME and other premium payers, by increase the amount of the total insurance policy I have to pay.

Further, employers pay employees less in wages, to cover the cost of health care.

Today the total number of firms offering employees health insurance is now only 57%, the lowest it's been in 15 years.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with birth control. Birth control actually SAVES money, as $300.00 in birth control pills is cheaper than a $3000-$10,000 full term pregnancy that takes an employee off the line for 12 weeks.

Before, most place had very low deductibles. Now 38% of all company plans have deductibles over $1,000.

The cost of these "pay for my everything" Obama care requirements are being passed on to the customer, as all regulations are.

*YOU* are paying for this. Not Hobby Lobby. Not your company. *YOU* are. And *WE* are.

Where you people get off living in this mythical world where we are not paying for stuff is beyond me.

Again, what we are paying for are Nine-Figure salaries for insurance executives.

BUt as far as priorities go, paying for prevention is cheaper than paying for treatment.

$300.00 in Birth Control is cheaper than $10,000 for a live birth requiring a Caesarian Section.

A $1000 colonoscopy is cheaper than a $100,000 treatment of Colo-rectal cancer.

The Europeans live longer and have less expenses because they have universal coverage and strong preventive measures.

So if you are arguing cost, you are really barking up the wrong tree.

 

[JoeB131]

Democrats playing games again folks

they know this won't go anywhere

and if it does you all should be damn worried about your FREEDOMS

Yes, i will happily give up my freedom to be cheated by my employer.

So would most people.

 

[dblack]

Democrats playing games again folks

they know this won't go anywhere

and if it does you all should be damn worried about your FREEDOMS

Yes, i will happily give up my freedom to be cheated by my employer.

So would most people.

How was anyone 'cheated' in this instance? If they were promised certain benefits as compensation, and didn't receive them, that would count. But that's not what's going on here. Where is the deception?

 

[zeke]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

 

[Slyhunter]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

logic fail, men who need viagra can still get women pregnant.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Democrats playing games again folks

they know this won't go anywhere

and if it does you all should be damn worried about your FREEDOMS

Yes, i will happily give up my freedom to be cheated by my employer.

So would most people.

How was anyone 'cheated' in this instance? If they were promised certain benefits as compensation, and didn't receive them, that would count. But that's not what's going on here. Where is the deception?

He has no idea, but it SOUNDS good!

Joey is a clear example of a five-cent mind using five-dollar words.

 

[Stephanie]

Democrats playing games again folks

they know this won't go anywhere

and if it does you all should be damn worried about your FREEDOMS

Yes, i will happily give up my freedom to be cheated by my employer.

So would most people.

You've already sold your soul and honor to a party and so government (TAXPAYERS) can take of you
so freedoms won't be anything

 

[zeke]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

logic fail, men who need viagra can still get women pregnant.

No logic fail there. Viagra is sold for recreational sex. This hypothetical woman CEO is religiously opposed to recreational sex and her company will not be paying for those types of medications any more.

Why would you have a problem with this woman and her religious views on what her company should pay for?

I am sure you don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision, right?

 

[zeke]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

logic fail, men who need viagra can still get women pregnant.

How does that work? If a man cannot maintain an erection, how will the impregnation take place?

My hypothetical CEO who is a woman also has religious problems with artificial insemination. She isn't interested in paying for that service as well. Goes against her religious beliefs.

Either a man and woman can perform on their own and make babies or they can't. But as CEO of a corporation this CEO is not interested in paying for any artificial means of becoming pregnant or any thing that promoted recreational sex. Those actions are against her religious beliefs.

I can't wait for this woman to come forth. It's gonna be fun.

 

[Meister]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

You do understand that there are 16 other choices to avoid pregnancies, right?

Do you really think that a man would complain if Viagra wasn't on the table, but Cialis and Lavitra were?

You leftwing goofballs really don't think it through, just pick up the talking points from the democtat goons, then end up looking foolish.
This is no more than the left trying to create hysteria out of nothing in an election year to cover for the mess Obama has created in his second term.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

logic fail, men who need viagra can still get women pregnant.

No logic fail there. Viagra is sold for recreational sex. This hypothetical woman CEO is religiously opposed to recreational sex and her company will not be paying for those types of medications any more.

Why would you have a problem with this woman and her religious views on what her company should pay for?

I am sure you don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision, right?

I'd be fine with that. Her business, her decision.

 

[zeke]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

You do understand that there are 16 other choices to avoid pregnancies, right?

Do you really think that a man would complain if Viagra wasn't on the table, but Cialis and Lavitra were?

You leftwing goofballs really don't think it through, just pick up the talking points from the democtat goons, then end up looking foolish.
This is no more than the left trying to create hysteria out of nothing in an election year to cover for the mess Obama has created in his second term.

You have a reading comprehension problem don't cha? Try re reading the part where I wrote Viagra or any other form of artificial hardon.

Would you have an issue with a woman CEO taking this position or not? That is the ONLY question.

Can a woman CEO refuse to pay for artificial hard on medications for her men employees?
Yes or no?

 

[zeke]

logic fail, men who need viagra can still get women pregnant.

No logic fail there. Viagra is sold for recreational sex. This hypothetical woman CEO is religiously opposed to recreational sex and her company will not be paying for those types of medications any more.

Why would you have a problem with this woman and her religious views on what her company should pay for?

I am sure you don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision, right?

I'd be fine with that. Her business, her decision.

Good for you. An honest answer.

 

[daveman]

I think you are deliberately ignoring practical effects.

A Cashier at Hobby Lobby makes $9.00 a hour. Or $18,000 a year before taxes. After you deduct rent and food and utilities, she doesn't have money left over for birth control.

That's why she's working for a company like Hobby Lobby, which provides insurance in lieu of pay.

HL's insurance offers 16 different kinds of birth control.

You really have no argument.

But there are 20 kinds available, and the four they DON'T allow might be the best applicaitons in some cases.

And Hobby Lobby isn't a doctor.

Again, nothing is keeping anyone from seeking those options on their own.

Stop being dishonest.

 

[daveman]

[

They shouldn't fund ANY birth control at all, period.

Pregnancy is not a "disease" that needs controlled. Further, birth control is not an expensive thing. It can be purchased very cheaply.

Why should I be forced to pay for someone else who is not even sick, who simply wants to go out and have sex without consequences on my dime?

You want to go out and have a good time, fine. You pay for it yourself.

except that it isn't on "your dime".

Hobby Lobby does not give out health coverage out of goodness. They give it out because the value of the labor or that employee covers her salary, insurance and other costs. In short, that young worker produces the money that pays for that insurance.

IN short, she's already worked or paid for that birth control, you are asking her to pay for it a second time.

and I will go one further. Most young people do not require $5000 of health treatments a year. If you gave them that money in a lump sum and encouraged them to buy their own insurance, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the Private Health Care market would collapse in about five years, as the young would only buy cheap policies and the old couldn't get policies at anything less than an exhorbitant price.

So the young worker is essentially subsidizing the rest of us.

And that's exactly what Obamacare does. So why is it good in that case, but bad when it's private insurance?

You will now predictably screech "Single payer!!"...while once again ignoring the fact that it's the taxpayers who subsidize everyone else.

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought. At all.

 

[daveman]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

Reality is under no obligation to validate your fantasies.

 

[Meister]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

You do understand that there are 16 other choices to avoid pregnancies, right?

Do you really think that a man would complain if Viagra wasn't on the table, but Cialis and Lavitra were?

You leftwing goofballs really don't think it through, just pick up the talking points from the democtat goons, then end up looking foolish.
This is no more than the left trying to create hysteria out of nothing in an election year to cover for the mess Obama has created in his second term.

You have a reading comprehension problem don't cha? Try re reading the part where I wrote Viagra or any other form of artificial hardon.

Would you have an issue with a woman CEO taking this position or not? That is the ONLY question.

Can a woman CEO refuse to pay for artificial hard on medications for her men employees?
Yes or no?

I don't have a reading comprehension, but you must.
You are arguing like everything was taken off the table and the women has no choice....but that really isn't the case....is it?
They have 16 choices to choose from. Your trying to make a point by taking everything off the table for the guy. You're arguing apples to oranges....I was arguing apples to apples.
You can't argue apples to apples and make the premise sound. Too bad for you.

 

[kaz]

I wouldn't know. I think the Republican Party used to be sane until they decided to start pandering to you extremists who have nowhere else to go, anyway.

So you're a Republican because you're fucking nuts? I can't disagree with that. Why am I one then?

Uh, gee, I don't know, maybe that 'Let them die" mentality you LiberTARDians have.

Why am I even talking to a Libertarian Retard, anyway?

Who do I want to let die? Now I'm a libtertard? I thought I was a Republican. Can you decide and let me know? We have an election coming up in the fall and I need to know how to vote.

 

[Stephanie]

let em die is the Democrat motto folks

they are the party that supports, abortions

so don't let them turn that saying on you

 

[Slyhunter]

I am waiting for the woman who runs a company to come out and state her religious belief is that sex should ONLY be engaged in for the act of pro- creation.

Therefore and for ever after, this woman CEO will not pay for the Viagra that is so popular among men who can't get it up like the used to.

This woman CEO will be completely opposed to paying for Viagra just so the men in her company can engage in recreational sex.

After all, if you need help to get it up, you are way past the time to be fathering children.

And this CEO who is a woman has a religious view that recreational sex is a sin.

So she will end the coverage that pays for Viagra or any other form of artificial hard ons.

This woman CEO will be hailed as a hero by the men who call themselves Republicans.

logic fail, men who need viagra can still get women pregnant.

No logic fail there. Viagra is sold for recreational sex. This hypothetical woman CEO is religiously opposed to recreational sex and her company will not be paying for those types of medications any more.

Why would you have a problem with this woman and her religious views on what her company should pay for?

I am sure you don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision, right?

Viagra is also used for procreational sex.
Now if you said condoms you would have a solid argument.