7 States Sue over Contraception Mandate. It's not just the Catholics, OBUMMER!

[Syphon]

7 States Sue over Contraception Mandate. It's not just the Catholics, OBUMMER!

I wonder how many of those states already have a similar mandate put in place by state legislatures? Maybe one of them is NH - which had such a mandate put in place by a Republican-controlled legislature 12 years ago. Maybe one of them is AR - whose Republican governor Huckabee signed such a mandate into law in 2005. Or NY - whose Republican governor George Pataki signed such a mandate into law in 2001

dont forget good ole boy Rick Perry and his mandate for cervical cancer vaccination.

if the GOP mandates it, its legal. but the Dems mandate it, its illegal...... brilliant argument from the GOP

 

[J.E.D]

7 States Sue over Contraception Mandate. It's not just the Catholics, OBUMMER!

I wonder how many of those states already have a similar mandate put in place by state legislatures? Maybe one of them is NH - which had such a mandate put in place by a Republican-controlled legislature 12 years ago. Maybe one of them is AR - whose Republican governor Huckabee signed such a mandate into law in 2005. Or NY - whose Republican governor George Pataki signed such a mandate into law in 2001

dont forget good ole boy Rick Perry and his mandate for cervical cancer vaccination.

if the GOP mandates it, its legal. but the Dems mandate it, its illegal...... brilliant argument from the GOP

That's because, IOKIYAR

 

[JoeB131]

Bureaucrats are not appointed by elected anything, and cannot be fired when a new administration comes in. Their only interest is expanding theor power base and making voters miserable.

Hmmm, the scary thing is that you probably actually believe that...

You really think that bureaucrats live to make people's lives miserable?

Do you really think they don't? you yourself pointed out that your one and only encounter with a bureaucrat was a negative one.

I didn't say it was my "only" encounter with one. IN fact, most of the time, when I've dealt with people on the state, local or federal level, they've been nothing but helpful.

In that case, we had on EM who decided he wanted to screw with a guy on the way out, because he figured I was on the way out and there wasn't anything he could do about it. I contacted my local congressman, and he cleared that situtation right up.

 

[saveliberty]

Simple enough solution.

Universal Health Care. Get employers out of the picture altogether.

The notion I could be denied medical treatment because my employer is a religious fanatic is kind of frightening.

No danger of that in a union. Quit making crap up.

 

[JoeB131]

Only if you think paying all your loans back on time is living large.

Israel does no such thing. We give them 4 billion a year in aid. Outright. Then we spend billions either knocking down whoever they are afraid of or bribing their neighbors to play nice.

Seriously, screw Israel.

I love it when people make up numbers.

In 2010 we spent a grand total of $3.175 billion in military aid to Israel. The vast majority of that ended up back in US hands when Israel bought weapons from US manufacturers. (We gave Egypt $1.55 billion the same year, which also ended up with them buying weapons from US manufacturers.) That is a lot of money to a country that spent less than $70billion that year, but it is a drop in the bucket for a country that spent $3.5 trillion. We actually gave more foreign aid to Africa than we did Isreal in 2010.

No, we don't.

And when you give them money and they spend it on weapons (which they only need because they are illegally occupying someone else's land) it's pretty much like you are giving them free weapons.

Actually, Israel is the top recipiant in foreign aid. (Not counting Iraq, which is actually an occupation, not aid.) After that is Egypt.

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

No african countries (excluding Egypt) on that list until Kenya, which only gets about 473 million.

MOst of our aid is to catch terrorists, catch drug manufacturers or to play nice with the Zionists.

 

[JoeB131]

Simple enough solution.

Universal Health Care. Get employers out of the picture altogether.

The notion I could be denied medical treatment because my employer is a religious fanatic is kind of frightening.

No danger of that in a union. Quit making crap up.

I agree, if we were all in unions and got our health care through them, that would be pretty sweet... My dad had union insurance when we were growing up, and it was pretty decent. My brothers are in unions, and they do well enough.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't need to be in a union. I am a hard worker and am highly skilled. Why would I want to help a bunch of worthless do nothings?

What seems to get lost on the left here is, diminishing one right will lead to erosion of other rights. Better to protect all of them, even the ones you feel are not as important as another to you.

Obamacare will fail without the mandate for everyone to have coverage of one form or another. It is unconstitutional to make people buy this. Once we get that reversed, the whole program falls apart.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't need to be in a union. I am a hard worker and am highly skilled. Why would I want to help a bunch of worthless do nothings?

Oh, I don't know. Because it's the right thing to do? Maybe you need to take a history class about what it was like for working folks before the union movement. Of course, they've deviously hidden this information from you in things called "books".

What seems to get lost on the left here is, diminishing one right will lead to erosion of other rights. Better to protect all of them, even the ones you feel are not as important as another to you.

Yes, frankly, I'm always amazed that you seem to whine about these supposed lost rights.

Like the female poster here who screamed like a banshee about the Church losing it's "right" to impose it's religious stupidity on its employees, but then wouldn't fess up to whether she used Birth Control.

Somehow, I don't think you are out there excercising your "right" to not get health insurance.

Obamacare will fail without the mandate for everyone to have coverage of one form or another. It is unconstitutional to make people buy this. Once we get that reversed, the whole program falls apart.

Actually, if the Courts are dumb enough to strike down the mandate, which they probably won't be, then all that will do is speed up the demise of private insurance. Because the courts will NEVER remove the pre-existing conditions rules. Ever. So if you make it the equivlent to buying insurance after you've crashed the car, only the sick will buy insurance.

Which means people will demand a government program after Cigna and Blue Cross get out of the insurance business.

Again, why do you think Big Insurance was behind this plan.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

7 States Sue over Contraception Mandate. It's not just the Catholics, OBUMMER!


This is why Obama hates the Constitution. Because the Constitution allows States to fight back against an overreaching unConstitutional move like this!

I'm thinkin' it's got a little-bit-more, to do, with the fact too many women still feel some cultural-obligation to defer to assholes like
Lil' Dumbya, John Boner, Eric Cantor & Rick Santorum.​

WOMEN:

50.7% Of U.S. Population

15% Of Congress!!!!​

 

[Jroc]

No, I don't think that at all. In fact, my point is that the conservative media and its articles-- e.g. "Three reasons why introducing means-testing into entitlements, as Paul Ryan has done, is a good thing"--are mistakenly giving Paul Ryan credit for Obama's achievements.

Obama's achievment? first of all Obama didn't write the bill, Second.. Most Americans don't want it. We'll see if it is an "achievement" when the election comes around, it might be his failure.

its actually pretty much split down the middle on those for and those against. i simply want to know outside the mandate, which exact section of the law do you disagree with? and i mean exact section. assuming you have actually read the entire law...

"Read the bill”? Neither Congress nor Obama read the stupid bill idiot..And I disagree in principle with government run health care, the payoffs and bribes to get the bill passed, and the general expansion of the powers of the federal government get it?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA]Congressman John Conyers: "Why Read The Bill?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[logical4u]

Simple enough solution.

Universal Health Care. Get employers out of the picture altogether.

The notion I could be denied medical treatment because my employer is a religious fanatic is kind of frightening.

Hey, let's do it according to Darwin: no healthcare for anyone that can't pay for it. Survival of the fitest/evolution on parade done scientifically!

hmmmm, sounds like you'd love it to be that way, those with money can have their medical needs taken care of and those without the means...well, they are crud out of luck..... that's sad Logical, very sad....

Just think it is hilarious that the same people that tout evolution, and "science" when it comes to those 'superstitious Christians' (the ones that really started community charities, large scale), are the same ones that want to "lecture" the same 'superstitious Christians' when it comes to "paying" the bill.
You want it both ways and refuse to admit it. You want the hard working Christians to pay for anyone's healthcare that is "unwilling" (those "unable" have been part of Christian charities for EONS) to work for it; and then you want to be able to tell them how they should provide "health care", to include liberal BELIEFS.
You think what I said was sad, how sad are liberals that want to live their way, and want to be able to FORCE others to support their way of live (don't the muslims do that?).

 

[initforme]

If some dont want to offer contraception I have no problem with it if its for religious purposes. I have a problem with those who dont like contraception, like the pill. What I fear is that there will now be a push to make contraception a harder thing to get, which would be frankly stupid. If you are against contraception (i'm not talking abortion here), then you should be very willing to fork out alot of your own money to help those children who arent wanted and put up for adoption. Cant have it both ways you hypocrites.

 

[Jroc]

If some dont want to offer contraception I have no problem with it if its for religious purposes. I have a problem with those who dont like contraception, like the pill. What I fear is that there will now be a push to make contraception a harder thing to get, which would be frankly stupid. If you are against contraception (i'm not talking abortion here), then you should be very willing to fork out alot of your own money to help those children who arent wanted and put up for adoption. Cant have it both ways you hypocrites.

For some reason people don't seem to get It or they are just trying to change the subject the federal government has no power to force and anyone to buy anything got it?

 

[logical4u]

Hey, let's do it according to Darwin: no healthcare for anyone that can't pay for it. Survival of the fitest/evolution on parade done scientifically!

hmmmm, sounds like you'd love it to be that way, those with money can have their medical needs taken care of and those without the means...well, they are crud out of luck..... that's sad Logical, very sad....

Sadly, that this kind of thinking has found a home in the GOP.

You see, this is where I think the GOP has gotten off the track. the notion of self-reliance is a wonderful one, but they've alligned themselves with people who think that the middle class is a big pain, and paying middle class salaries is just keeping them from owning more polo ponies.

So they create the very government dependence they disdain.

You bust your ass for an employer for 40 hours a week, and he tries to cheat you at every oppurtunity.

You vote for a Democrat, and there's no end of the stuff he's willing to do for you- with other people's money, of course.

I can feel the frustration of people who still do the busting your hump thing and watch those who are finding ways to game the system.

But the GOP has enabled those people.

No sir, the GOP has not "enabled" those people. The main difference between the dems and the GOP is the speed at which we are heading for socialism. The dems want to be there already, and the GOP, is slowly inching that way.

The reason I made the statement was to make you consider. Do you see where Greece is? How fast do you want to join them? Health care provided by the gov't is unsustainable, as being demonstrated in many countries right now. Instead of dems observing and learning, they seem to be saying: 'let's beat them to the bottom of the pit'.

This country is extremely wealthy. That wealth does not belong to the collective. It belongs to individuals, that each get to use their earnings as they see fit, not as some 'intellectual elite' wants to guilt or bully their actions. If "health care" is truly important to you, donate your worldly goods, donate your time, but you do not get to donate mine. I may have my own charities that you are unaware of, and that I do not want you to know about. It is not your business.

If you want to be in everyone's business, let's start with male homosexuals: their lifestyle is extremely hazardous to their health, and the care that will be required is extremely expensive. Let's pass laws for insurance companies to penalize them for their lifestyle, and get a "Gay" Czar to make recommendations on how to "regulate" homosexual activity. (Can you see it, yet, gov't run health care is going to be extremely, ugly?)

Conservatives do not want to pay for other people's health care that do not want to purchase health care. They do not mind contributing to charities, or assisting those that are unable. It is time everyone "paid" their fair share: if you aren't paying for yourself, don't expect others to pay it for you. Waiters and other "cash" paid employees don't claim all their tips, and under-report their earnings. Then they want those of us, that do pay taxes, and have much less "disposable" income than them to buy insurance for them? How is that FAIR?????????????

 

[JoeB131]

Just think it is hilarious that the same people that tout evolution, and "science" when it comes to those 'superstitious Christians' (the ones that really started community charities, large scale), are the same ones that want to "lecture" the same 'superstitious Christians' when it comes to "paying" the bill.
You want it both ways and refuse to admit it. You want the hard working Christians to pay for anyone's healthcare that is "unwilling" (those "unable" have been part of Christian charities for EONS) to work for it; and then you want to be able to tell them how they should provide "health care", to include liberal BELIEFS.
You think what I said was sad, how sad are liberals that want to live their way, and want to be able to FORCE others to support their way of live (don't the muslims do that?).

But that's not what we are talking about here. This isn't about "not being able to pay for it". This is about the Churches offering health insurance as a condition of employment. It is no more charity than a company parking lot is. In short, in exchange for services provided to the Church, the church in turn provides health care.

Now, here's the critical thing. When I was growing up Catholic and enduring things that have left me with a lifetime hatred of all religions, the Church was still able to get people to sign up for the Holy Orders.

So while half of my teachers in the 1970's were Nuns or Christian Brothers, today (according to my nieces and nephews) there are almost none of them left. They have to hire people to do those jobs, and sometimes, those people aren't even Catholic. And they have to admit non-Catholics as customers because they couldn't pay the bills just admitting or enrolling Catholics.

Case in point. When my neice went to the fancy Catholic High School for $6000 a year, fully 1/3 of her classmates were non-Catholics. there was even a Muslim girl in there, headscarf and everything. Which means to make the money, they had to pass over catholics who couldn't pay in order to get tuition from non-Catholics who could.

At that point, it stops being a religion and starts being a business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Israel does no such thing. We give them 4 billion a year in aid. Outright. Then we spend billions either knocking down whoever they are afraid of or bribing their neighbors to play nice.

Seriously, screw Israel.

I love it when people make up numbers.

In 2010 we spent a grand total of $3.175 billion in military aid to Israel. The vast majority of that ended up back in US hands when Israel bought weapons from US manufacturers. (We gave Egypt $1.55 billion the same year, which also ended up with them buying weapons from US manufacturers.) That is a lot of money to a country that spent less than $70billion that year, but it is a drop in the bucket for a country that spent $3.5 trillion. We actually gave more foreign aid to Africa than we did Isreal in 2010.

No, we don't.

And when you give them money and they spend it on weapons (which they only need because they are illegally occupying someone else's land) it's pretty much like you are giving them free weapons.

Actually, Israel is the top recipiant in foreign aid. (Not counting Iraq, which is actually an occupation, not aid.) After that is Egypt.

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

No african countries (excluding Egypt) on that list until Kenya, which only gets about 473 million.

MOst of our aid is to catch terrorists, catch drug manufacturers or to play nice with the Zionists.

First of, there ain't no such thing as free.

Second, Isreal is the country that receives the most foreign aid, Africa, in case you slept through geography class, is a continent. Try adding up all the countries in Africa, not excluding Egypt, and you will see we give them more aid than Israel.

Third, you are a racist bigot.

 

[logical4u]

"You see, this is where I think the GOP has gotten off the track. the notion of self-reliance is a wonderful one, but they've alligned themselves with people who think that the middle class is a big pain, and paying middle class salaries is just keeping them from owning more polo ponies."

This sums it up. At least this is the feeling that persists out there. Its the wealthy of this country versus the middle class. It has been since the 80's and the trend is growing. Too bad we cant meet in the middle but more towards the middle class. Its gonna be about class warfare.

In "your world" it might seem like this. The "wealthy" politicians are pitted against the middle class, and the wealthy individual in the private sector. The want your liberty to steal "your" wealth. Face it: the fleecing of the rich is a once in a generation thing, once its gone, its gone for decades, but taking $20 from the middle class, adds up really quick.

The "wealthy" that I know have a lot of toys. They very rarely get to use them. They work long, long days, sometimes, six or seven days a week, with vacations few and far between. They work with "middle class" that work 40 hours a week and go home, no headaches about keeping the business going, no payroll to meet, no gov't regulators coming around telling them how much more money (that could have gone for raises) will be required for the next quarter. They are over-worked, under-paid, and have the responsiblity of every person that works for them on their shoulders. What do they hear from employees (same type, maybe for different businesses): it is "unfair", UNFAIR!

My mother used to tell me that if you put all the troubles of the world into a single pile and were about to divide those troubles "equally" that everyone would quietly pick up their own troubles and go home.

It is time that baby boomer generation and the ones following them MATURE, and seek WISDOM. There is no other way to get this country out of the mess, that a cradle to grave care by the gov't will be fixed.

 

[JoeB131]

No sir, the GOP has not "enabled" those people. The main difference between the dems and the GOP is the speed at which we are heading for socialism. The dems want to be there already, and the GOP, is slowly inching that way.

I would say the Democrats are pulling and the Republicans are pushing. As I point out, the goal of the wealthy in this country has been to demolish the middle class. The problem is, they aren't going to go off and die quietly, they are just going to demand a reshuffling of the cards. A reshuffling that would have never had to happen, had the wealthy not been dealing from the bottom of the deck to start with.

The reason I made the statement was to make you consider. Do you see where Greece is? How fast do you want to join them? Health care provided by the gov't is unsustainable, as being demonstrated in many countries right now. Instead of dems observing and learning, they seem to be saying: 'let's beat them to the bottom of the pit'.

Greece's problems have less to do with socialism and more to do with the fact it was hooked into a unified European economy where it didn't belong.

I should point out that Germany has had universal coverage since 1888, which has survived Kaisers and Nazis and partition and re-unification.

We spend more on health care than any other country in the world, per capita, and we have the worst results. (highest infant mortality rate, lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world, and the highest rate of health-related bankruptcies.)

This country is extremely wealthy. That wealth does not belong to the collective. It belongs to individuals, that each get to use their earnings as they see fit, not as some 'intellectual elite' wants to guilt or bully their actions. If "health care" is truly important to you, donate your worldly goods, donate your time, but you do not get to donate mine. I may have my own charities that you are unaware of, and that I do not want you to know about. It is not your business.

I think you miss the point. The problem is not government redistribution, it's redistribution by the capitalist system. There has been a redistribution away from the people actually doing the work to the people investing. This has happened because of union busting, off-shoring, automation and a host of other factors that are too lengthy to get into here.

I would personally like to see everyone work hard at a job where they pay their own way. That's not the economic system we live in anymore. Fair Wages = Less Polo Ponies.

If you want to be in everyone's business, let's start with male homosexuals: their lifestyle is extremely hazardous to their health, and the care that will be required is extremely expensive. Let's pass laws for insurance companies to penalize them for their lifestyle, and get a "Gay" Czar to make recommendations on how to "regulate" homosexual activity. (Can you see it, yet, gov't run health care is going to be extremely, ugly?)

But here's the thing. The Insurance companies are ALREADY going to start penalizing people for their lifestyle choices. Right now, my company is in the process of identifying the smokers, who will pay more.

Conservatives do not want to pay for other people's health care that do not want to purchase health care. They do not mind contributing to charities, or assisting those that are unable. It is time everyone "paid" their fair share: if you aren't paying for yourself, don't expect others to pay it for you. Waiters and other "cash" paid employees don't claim all their tips, and under-report their earnings. Then they want those of us, that do pay taxes, and have much less "disposable" income than them to buy insurance for them? How is that FAIR?????????????

Simple enough solution to that. Eliminate the INcome tax for anyone making less than $50,000 a year, and replace it with a sales tax or VAT. Then make the wealthy pay their fair share by raising the top marginal rates back to where they were under Reagan, that evil Socialist.

That way, the "underground" economy doesn't get away with cheating, and neither do the rich.

 

[logical4u]

Just think it is hilarious that the same people that tout evolution, and "science" when it comes to those 'superstitious Christians' (the ones that really started community charities, large scale), are the same ones that want to "lecture" the same 'superstitious Christians' when it comes to "paying" the bill.
You want it both ways and refuse to admit it. You want the hard working Christians to pay for anyone's healthcare that is "unwilling" (those "unable" have been part of Christian charities for EONS) to work for it; and then you want to be able to tell them how they should provide "health care", to include liberal BELIEFS.
You think what I said was sad, how sad are liberals that want to live their way, and want to be able to FORCE others to support their way of live (don't the muslims do that?).

But that's not what we are talking about here. This isn't about "not being able to pay for it". This is about the Churches offering health insurance as a condition of employment. It is no more charity than a company parking lot is. In short, in exchange for services provided to the Church, the church in turn provides health care.

Now, here's the critical thing. When I was growing up Catholic and enduring things that have left me with a lifetime hatred of all religions, the Church was still able to get people to sign up for the Holy Orders.

So while half of my teachers in the 1970's were Nuns or Christian Brothers, today (according to my nieces and nephews) there are almost none of them left. They have to hire people to do those jobs, and sometimes, those people aren't even Catholic. And they have to admit non-Catholics as customers because they couldn't pay the bills just admitting or enrolling Catholics.

Case in point. When my neice went to the fancy Catholic High School for $6000 a year, fully 1/3 of her classmates were non-Catholics. there was even a Muslim girl in there, headscarf and everything. Which means to make the money, they had to pass over catholics who couldn't pay in order to get tuition from non-Catholics who could.

At that point, it stops being a religion and starts being a business.

So we are all to be punished because you had a bad experience?

 

[JoeB131]

MOst of our aid is to catch terrorists, catch drug manufacturers or to play nice with the Zionists.

First of, there ain't no such thing as free.

Second, Isreal is the country that receives the most foreign aid, Africa, in case you slept through geography class, is a continent. Try adding up all the countries in Africa, not excluding Egypt, and you will see we give them more aid than Israel.

Third, you are a racist bigot.

Actually, Northern Africa is considered part of the Arab world, why sub sahara Africa is culturally considered Africa. But if you want to add up 60 countries to get to where we are giving away to the Zionazis, even though half of that is just paying people to play nice with the Zionists, have at it.

There's no good reason to support Israel. None. It makes our foreign policy more difficult, it's an international pariah because of it's apartheid policies. But we keep writing the checks to underwrite their little fantasy the Invisible Sky Man loves them the very bestest.