obama caves again

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't say that at all. In fact, Japan and every OTHER industrialized country spends LESS per person than we do.

But here's what they do right.

1) They don't have an insurance industry running at at 33% profit margin sucking resources out paying for jet planes and 8 figure salaries.

2) They have universal coverage.

It's really kind of simple.

Check the obeisty rate in Japan versus the US dumbass. We are sicker people due to our lifestyle in the US.

Okay, maybe you can get away with that nonsense with Japan, but, umm, The Canadians live about four years longer on average than we do... And they eat the same fattening crap we do. Now why is that?

Oh, wait. Could it be that they don't have one out of six people without health insurance? Hmmmmmm?

File:Obesity country comparison - path.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Actually, it's been found that offering family planning services are revenue nuetral. This was the case when the Government mandated that their carriers include it. The costs of paying the minimal amount for birth control is offset by the savings of not paying for unplanned pregnancies.

This was never a "cost" issue. The insurance companies aren't complaining about the cost and even the Church wasn't complaining about the cost aspects.

This was a "I want to impose my religious beliefs on you because I sign your paycheck" kind of issue. Last time I checked, Massa Lincoln freed the slaves.

That has not been found, I already posted links that disproved that line.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is no first amendment issue here. A business must follow business law or they should cease to operate a business....just like every other business.

Yeah apparently if religious institutions don't get special treatment it's an infringement of their First Amendment right. They're not entitled to government money and if they want it they (should) have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

What government money? You mean medicare and medicaid that pay below regular rates? The government would go broke even faster without these hospitals. Further, the healthcare network depends on these hospitals to provide quality care for the communities they serve. There is definitely a first amendment right being violated by Obama. All religions are offended, not just Catholics.

Please educate yourself.

Catholic church takes Federal money for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and parochial schools. In 2009, they took $100 million in Federal money for disaster relief.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't buy that line of thinking.

An employer should be able to set the terms of his own benefits package. If that benefit package is unacceptable to an applicant they don't have to take the job.

It's none of the government's business.

Have you ever worked a job where the full parameters of everything that was going to happen to you was set down in the orientation? I haven't. Usually, it's how many things they lied to me about.

If those people go to Congress and say,"Hey, we think that insurance plans SHOULD include coverage for X", then Congress has the power to regulate that.

I never had a job where they lied to me in the orientation. If I ever found a company that did that I would leave that instant, but I understand the concept of choice.

 

[Synthaholic]

so he's not forcing ins cos to provide contraceptives for free?

really?

We were talking about community organizing.

I asked what is wrong with it.

This JD guy said 'nothing, as long as it isn't forced'.

I asked for evidence that Obama or Alinsky had ever forced a community to organize anything.

Now you're up to speed.

Another dopey quibble.

That they allegedly didn't "succeed" in forcing people to do anything somehow removes the blot from their records as community activists who SOUGHT to impose shit on others?

Damn but you're dishonest.

Show ANY evidence that they forced anyone - or attempted to force anyone - to organize, Bushie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no, you criticize them because you're a hater.

at least have the balls to own it, joey the bigot, you're safe behind your keyboard.

I've said the same things direcly to religious people... Except they usually don't have the masochism to come back for more.

Here's the thing. If you keep your stupid, silly superstitions in the church where they belong, I don't have a problem with you.

It's when you try to impose them on the rest of us we are going to throw down.

I haven't run away from your bigotry, maybe you should try talking to more adults.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Did he say free? I thought he said with no copay. Do you have the same objections to the other things that insurances must offer without copay?

And if so, why? If you must have insurance to receive decent medical care why is it wrong to make insurance companies cover preventative care without copay?

Obama said free, which proves he is an idiot, and proves you shouldn't be discussing this since you don't know what is going on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is forcing the church to run a business.

The church runs "charities". It is a business like endevor, they use budgets (unlike the dems), planning and management to keep it running smoothly. Are you really, really suggesting that all the Christian charities just stop? And the left is always telling conservatives how they really care about the poor. The reaction to the church on this is very telling to exactly how the left FEELS about the poor.

They run non-profit organizations. They are free to do so but they are not free to have special rules, IMO.

They could meet their charitable "mandates" by having the priests hand out clothing and food to the poor.

They run charities which the government requires them to register as non profit business organizations. That does not give the government the power to take away their right for them to exercise their religion.

 

[The T]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Did he say free? I thought he said with no copay. Do you have the same objections to the other things that insurances must offer without copay?

And if so, why? If you must have insurance to receive decent medical care why is it wrong to make insurance companies cover preventative care without copay?

Obama said free, which proves he is an idiot, and proves you shouldn't be discussing this since you don't know what is going on.

Whoops...Ravioli needs to learn to pay attention...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxZwAoZ7IbY]President Obama Speaks on Contraception and Religious Institutions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you actually can make this relevent to the discussion, let me know, okay?

Wouldn't that require you to actually address the issues first?

The issue is not my or my families loyalty to the employer. Most people I know think their employers are full of shit, and they are usually right.

Most people I know don't actually think their employers are full of shit. The ones that do are usually more invested in their opinions than trying to understand the other persons point of view. Very few employers are actually full of shit if they have been in business longer than 6 months.

Does an employer have a right to impose his beliefs on you in something that is not job related in any way.

Does the employee have the right to impose their beliefs on the employee?

If your boss found out you were a conservative, and he was a liberal, and he fired you for it, would that be right? Even if your job peformance was exemplary?

No, of course not.

It should be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They run non-profit organizations. They are free to do so but they are not free to have special rules, IMO.

They could meet their charitable "mandates" by having the priests hand out clothing and food to the poor.

SO now libs think they can direct HOW a charitable institution conducts charity including what they might choose to provide or refuse to provide.

So now Liarbility thinks he can twist the words of other posters to make a point?

Oh, wait, nothing unusual in that.

Actually, that was a pretty good summation of what you just said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A smart person would have taken my post and done some research. The cause and effect of obeisty is pretty well known. Statistics aren't that hard to come by either. Intellectual laziness on your part is telling.

No, a smart person recognizes someone who's been sniffin' Limbaugh's rectal gases for so long you can't take anything he says seriously.

HOw about the infant mortality rate? Ours is not only higher than the rest of the industrialized world, we are behind countries like Cuba. Oh, wait, the sniffers got an answer to that one, too. It's because they aren't counting premies like we are.

The US has the world's highest obesity rate at 30%. BUt the UK is right behind us at 23%. so you'd think that they be doing as badly as we are, right?

Obesity statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster

Nope. They are well ahead of us at 25th place in LE compared to 35th place for us.

Sorry, access to the system is a problem. Not just for those who don't have insurance, but the poor who have inadeqate insurance.

There's really no excuse for the country having the system we have other than a lot of assholes are getting rich off it....

You need new eyes, Canada barely comes in ahead of average, the US tops that list you linked to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're so deluded. The Catholic church can run charities. When they run a business, however, they are subject to the same laws that govern other businesses. They are free to run charities in some other manner.

A church in a secular engagement as a CHURCH does not divorce itself from 1st Amendment protection, Ravi. The liberal shtick of secularism on this issue simply will not work.

There is no first amendment issue here. A business must follow business law or they should cease to operate a business....just like every other business.

It isn't often Starkey is right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did he say free? I thought he said with no copay. Do you have the same objections to the other things that insurances must offer without copay?

And if so, why? If you must have insurance to receive decent medical care why is it wrong to make insurance companies cover preventative care without copay?

If the service is not covered by the policy and there is no copay, is that not free?

No, it isn't free. Free is when you go down to the public health clinic and get handed free condoms. People pay for their insurance policies.

Why did you not answer my question?

That is not free either. There is one rule you should always remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, somebody always pays.

 

[Rinata]

According to the new plan, religious affiliated hospitals and universities will not be required to list contraception in their health plans or pay for it for their employees. Instead, the burden will fall on insurance companies, which will be mandated to provide contraception coverage to employees of abstaining institutions at no additional premium.

Does not sound like he caved to me. You right wingers are hateful idiots. If he had caved, the bishops would have been happy. They are not.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/contraception-compromise-doesnt-please-bishops/

 

[JoeB131]

I don't buy that line of thinking.

An employer should be able to set the terms of his own benefits package. If that benefit package is unacceptable to an applicant they don't have to take the job.

It's none of the government's business.

Have you ever worked a job where the full parameters of everything that was going to happen to you was set down in the orientation? I haven't. Usually, it's how many things they lied to me about.

If those people go to Congress and say,"Hey, we think that insurance plans SHOULD include coverage for X", then Congress has the power to regulate that.

I never had a job where they lied to me in the orientation. If I ever found a company that did that I would leave that instant, but I understand the concept of choice.

I understand the concept of fairness.

Too bad you don't....

 

[del]

According to the new plan, religious affiliated hospitals and universities will not be required to list contraception in their health plans or pay for it for their employees. Instead, the burden will fall on insurance companies, which will be mandated to provide contraception coverage to employees of abstaining institutions at no additional premium.

Does not sound like he caved to me. You right wingers are hateful idiots. If he had caved, the bishops would have been happy. They are not.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/contraception-compromise-doesnt-please-bishops/

keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Ravi]

The first thing you need to know is that bishops don’t get a veto. Given the hyperbolic rhetoric now spewing from the likes of Boehner, Gingrich and Santorum, you could be forgiven for believing that churches have constitutional protections. They don’t. If anything they are disfavored in constitutional law.

Cornell University Law School, in its well-regarded annotation of the US Constitution tells us that the Supreme Court unanimously found in Everson v. Board of Education, “that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ‘aid one religion’ or ‘prefer one religion over another,’ but as well those that ‘aid all religions.’”

What about the First Amendment you say? The Bill of Rights (and its ten amendments) applies only to individuals, not denominations. Again, this is not an opinion, it is settled constitutional law. According to The Freedom Forum (which underwrites Vanderbilt’s First Amendment Center), “The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.” Further, the Supreme Court itself recently reaffirmed in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.” The Bill of Rights protects only to the rights of individuals (as was the expressed intent of its writers back in 1791.) They have not, so far, conveyed Citizens United style rights to churches.

So how does this translate regarding today’s issue du jour? When John Boehner says Congress will pass a law to confer veto power to religion, he is showing how little he cares about our founding documents. “Congress shall make no law” is pretty darn clear.

US Constitution: The Bishops Don

Of course! I remember being convinced of this point about the bill of rights during a gun control discussion. The Bill of Rights IS about individual rights.

Bravo, Valerie, bravo!

 

[Ravi]

Up to this point in time that is true, but that will change very soon.

It is my understanding that the mandates only cover for profit insurers and not companies that self insure but if you have a link to evidence to the contrary I'll take a look at it.

It is my understanding that the mandate for birth control is not the same thing as the Obamacare mandate that requires everyone to buy insurance that meets certain minimum standards which actually includes the mandate for birth control. If you have a link that proves otherwise feel free to post it, otherwise I will assume that the law is the law.

The mandate for birth control, like the mandates for coverage of other preventative health care, are part of Obamacare.

So you have no link stating that the self-insurers are part of the mandate? I actually looked for one but I could find nothing stating that rule had changed.

 

[Ravi]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Did he say free? I thought he said with no copay. Do you have the same objections to the other things that insurances must offer without copay?

And if so, why? If you must have insurance to receive decent medical care why is it wrong to make insurance companies cover preventative care without copay?

Obama said free, which proves he is an idiot, and proves you shouldn't be discussing this since you don't know what is going on.

Then you should be able to provide a link.