Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage

[Soggy in NOLA]

When has a catholic chruch has the authority to dictate to a private insurance company what they can or cannot provide? The chruch does not provide the contraceptives.

That concept is called being the consumer and paying the bills.

In other words they control what they spend their money on.

are they paying the bills? or are their parishioners paying the bills or are the patients and students really paying the bills? Charities supposedly MAKE NO PROFIT, so whose money is truly paying for the health care coverage?

AND the women working there DO PAY A PORTION of the health care insurance....shouldn't they have a say in their own insurance that they pay a portion of?

All employers supposedly on this health care plan pay for their employee's insurance, IF YOU PUT IT THAT WAY....should they too BE EXEMPT from this coverage?

This IS NOT about the Church and it's employees of the diocese, this is about a business...a hospital or a University....BOTH institutions serving the Public.

My parents are as Catholic as Catholic could be....never missed a Mass in the 50 plus years they have been married, stuck with the Church through hell or high water...but on this topic, they see the Church crying foul and lying about the issue.........

They do have a say.. it's called take it or leave it.. go somewhere else, buy your own insurance, whatever. What you are advocating is a mandate to be given what you want.

Geesh... you fuckers are so needy.

 

[Conservative]

Dems want birth controlled covered but it has nothing to do with health. Why inst condoms covered then because to me that is more about health then birth control pills unless its due to health issues like women who have heavy periods that causes them health problems. Condoms are the best way to reduce your risk for STDS so if anything those should be covered over birth control pills..

these are actually valid points. Birth control pills do not prevent STD's, while condoms do. So, why are condoms not covered, since they actually do have a direct effect on health?

 

[chikenwing]

Think about the concept of "birth control coverage" for a minute. We aren't talking about injuries or accidents resulting in loss of work time. We are talking about birth control pills and other stuf. Doesn't any freaking intelligent American realize that women can chose not to have sex or (God forbid) buy their own freaking birth control drugs without forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill?

Are you daft?

The right keeps talking about liberty and freedom as if it's disappearing, and the next thing we know, Republicans want to give employers the power to interfere in the reproductive choices of their employees, and you guys don't seem to see a problem with that. What's wrong with you people?

What??

 

[hortysir]

Think about the concept of "birth control coverage" for a minute. We aren't talking about injuries or accidents resulting in loss of work time. We are talking about birth control pills and other stuf. Doesn't any freaking intelligent American realize that women can chose not to have sex or (God forbid) buy their own freaking birth control drugs without forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill?

Are you daft?

The right keeps talking about liberty and freedom as if it's disappearing, and the next thing we know, Republicans want to give employers the power to interfere in the reproductive choices of their employees, and you guys don't seem to see a problem with that. What's wrong with you people?

You really ARE that dumb.

And here I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.....

 

[hortysir]

Think about the concept of "birth control coverage" for a minute. We aren't talking about injuries or accidents resulting in loss of work time. We are talking about birth control pills and other stuf. Doesn't any freaking intelligent American realize that women can chose not to have sex or (God forbid) buy their own freaking birth control drugs without forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill?

Are you daft?

The right keeps talking about liberty and freedom as if it's disappearing, and the next thing we know, Republicans want to give employers the power to interfere in the reproductive choices of their employees, and you guys don't seem to see a problem with that. What's wrong with you people?

What??

That's as far as I got too!!

 

[hortysir]

Think about the concept of "birth control coverage" for a minute. We aren't talking about injuries or accidents resulting in loss of work time. We are talking about birth control pills and other stuf. Doesn't any freaking intelligent American realize that women can chose not to have sex or (God forbid) buy their own freaking birth control drugs without forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill?

Are you daft?

The right keeps talking about liberty and freedom as if it's disappearing, and the next thing we know, Republicans want to give employers the power to interfere in the reproductive choices of their employees, and you guys don't seem to see a problem with that. What's wrong with you people?

That's fucking retarded.... by an employer choosing to not pay for contraception your reproductive rights are being infringed upon?

How fucking stupid is that? Go buy some condoms.. they're pretty cheap. Problem solved. God you libs are fucking needy.

Your local Health Department will hand you a bag full for free, even

 

[Amelia]

By Sahil Kapur

Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administration’s birth control rule would effectively permit any employer to deny contraception coverage in their employee health plans, critics note.

“Any employer could deny birth control coverage under Rubio’s bill and all the employer would have to do is say it’s for a religious reason,” said Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. “There is no test to prove eligibility. It’s a loophole you could drive a truck through.”

The Rubio bill, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, comes in response to a Catholic firestorm over the fact that the administration’s exemption on its birth control rule does not include religious hospitals and universities along with churches. But this bill appears to go far beyond that, permitting any employer to claim the religious exemption without a criteria.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday the measure would grant the exemption to “not just Catholic employers — to all employers.”

Rubio’s spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

More: Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage | TPMDC

So what. No one is forcing people to work for an employer.

You moonbats use the same argument about forced union participation don't you?

If you want your employer to cover birth control then go work for an employer who does.

Simple right?

Good point. Yes, they do. They said that it was perfectly reasonable for people who wanted to work for the state of Wisconsin to be forced to pay money by direct deposit, no choice whatsoever, straight to the unions.

And if someone didn't want to finance the unions they could choose not to work for the state of Wisconsin.

Completely ridiculous. Someone shouldn't be forced to fund partisan organizations in order to get a job for the government, but yes they did make that argument.

Thanks for the reminder.




"Don't work for Catholics if you want your employer to pay for things the religion opposes" actually makes sense. A lot more sense than "don't work for the government if you aren't willing to finance the Democrat agenda."

 

[DiamondDave]

This seems way over the top. I really don't understand the Republican agenda.

OK....

Lets think this thru

The purpose of sex is what? Procreation, right? As it is with all animals. However, we as a species have used evolved rational thought and reasoning to be able to learn that we can do this act which feels good for reasons other than procreation. Right? A way for our minds to do this as recreation. It pleasures us. We are free to do this as we choose. At night. During the day. When we're happy. When we're sad. When we're bored. When we're celebrating. Etc... Do we agree on this?

Now... If sex with birth control can be construed as a recreational activity, why is it that employers must be forced to contribute to something for our recreational use??

Now I appreciate that my fiancee's insurance would pay for birth control. I am happy that it is offered. But I would indeed understand that if she worked for a company or organization like a church, that they could say that they do not wish to contribute towards that in their benefit of health coverage. And in our free society, if we did not like this we would have the freedom to seek employment somewhere else that would offer it as part of their health coverage. And a competitor of a company, realizing that employees desire such coverage and are not getting it from their main competition, and they had no 'moral' issues with it, would probably offer it as an advantage in recruiting talent....

So I don't see this as any sort of an issue.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Think about the concept of "birth control coverage" for a minute. We aren't talking about injuries or accidents resulting in loss of work time. We are talking about birth control pills and other stuf. Doesn't any freaking intelligent American realize that women can chose not to have sex or (God forbid) buy their own freaking birth control drugs without forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill?

Thus just goes to show how FUCKING STUPID you are.

Why do you invoke the tax payer? That has nothing to do with this. Is that just a phrase that you wing nuts throw out any time you are ideologically opposed to something, in hopes that it will make something sound evil? Tax payers aren't going to paying for anything. We're talking about PRIVATE INSURANCE.

That same private insurance people use for all kinds of things. It's not just for things directly related to work. So your "loss of work time" argument is ridiculous. It's further ridiculous when you consider the fact that pregnancy is one of the leading causes for "loss of work time." You get the flu, you might be out for a week. You get pregnant, you could be out for months.

Finally, your stupidity is best highlighted when you actually suggest that people should just stop having sex so that they can be better workers. Are you fucking kidding me? What is it with you wing nuts? Sex is a part of human life. This "stop having sex" mantra is ridiculous is a strong indication of a very unhealthy and poorly adjusted attitude toward yourself, life, and society.

 

[DiamondDave]

And the teapartier within finally comes out of Rubio. This bill won't go anywhere and Rubio has effectively sunk the catholic church argument that contraception should be denied.

Rubio has taken it to an absurd level and started yet another never ending and divisive fight.

Nice going, Rubio.

Well... anything to distract from discussing the economy, eh?

Yeah..basically.

In any case..this is bullshit. And it's about putting the hit on women's rights. No one is calling for and end to insurance companies covering the cost of viagra, are they?

And do I blame an employer who chooses health coverage that does not cover viagra in their prescription coverage?? No... I believe they have the freedom to do that as well

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of you still refuse to recognize this is a constitutional issue, not an employment benefits issue.

The Catholic Church is quite right to tell the feds "not on our watch."

The workers have the right to organize and use collective weight to try to force their employer to give them the benefits. The employer has the right to resist in all legal means.

 

[DiamondDave]

Some of you still refuse to recognize this is a constitutional issue, not an employment benefits issue.

The Catholic Church is quite right to tell the feds "not on our watch."

The workers have the right to organize and use collective weight to try to force their employer to give them the benefits. The employer has the right to resist in all legal means.

No.. the workers have no 'right' to enforce employers to pay towards "benefits" nor towards something for recreational activity..

This is not any constitutional issue, you fucking loon

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, this is a constitutional issue: the church is protected from government interference on this matter.

Yes, all employees always have the legal collective right to coerce employers on issues of benefits and salary and safety, and the employers have the right to resist in all legal ways,.

 

[Ravi]

If Rubio were an honest person his bill would allow an employer to disallow any coverage whatsoever.

 

[driveby]

Think about the concept of "birth control coverage" for a minute. We aren't talking about injuries or accidents resulting in loss of work time. We are talking about birth control pills and other stuf. Doesn't any freaking intelligent American realize that women can chose not to have sex or (God forbid) buy their own freaking birth control drugs without forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill?

Are you daft?

The right keeps talking about liberty and freedom as if it's disappearing, and the next thing we know, Republicans want to give employers the power to interfere in the reproductive choices of their employees, and you guys don't seem to see a problem with that. What's wrong with you people?

You've got it ass backward, shocker.....

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, this is a constitutional issue: the church is protected from government interference on this matter.

Yes, all employees always have the legal collective right to coerce employers on issues of benefits and salary and safety, and the employers have the right to resist in all legal ways,.

Since you say this is a constitutional issue.. show in the constitution where workers have the 'right' to coerce employers

 

[DiamondDave]

If Rubio were an honest person his bill would allow an employer to disallow any coverage whatsoever.

I don't disagree with that... that the level or offerings in benefits health coverage that is offered by the employer should be at the discretion of the emplyoyer

 

[hortysir]

despite receiving thousands of comments protesting the absurdly narrow exemption, the department of health and human services nonetheless announced on january 20, 2012, that it would not broaden the exemption but would instead give religious institutions an additional year to `adapt' their consciences to the mandate.

wtf????

 

[PredFan]

Since when is birth control a right?

It's not, never has been, never should be. [/THREAD]

 

[hortysir]

Are the 29 co-sponsors all republican??