Blunt Amendment DEFEATED! DOWN IN FLAMES!

[Syphon]

58% of women on oral contraceptives use it for reasons other than family planning.

Protect Women's Access to Contraception

I seriously doubt that 58% number.

Nonetheless, nobody is pushing this latest effort by the moocher class as anything other than a "reproductive justice" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) issue....If women want to fuck like rabbits, let them pay for their own birth control.

I agree.

If you want BC pills then go buy the damned things.

Why should everyone pay higher premium costs so some dimwit can get "free" BC pills.

Common sense. Oh wait I forgot. Ain't none of that in Congress. Never mind.

Oh and BTW I wouldn't call 48-51 down in flames. Jeeze.

if you pay your insurance premiums, you already subsidize other people services and medications..... are you on the phone with your insurance company right now telling them how to do business?

 

[Claudette]

Nope. Are you??

 

[DiamondDave]

do you understand how insurance works? you are already paying for other people services. every time you pay your premium and dont use services you are paying for other people services. are you protesting your health insurer on a daily basis making sure that your exact premium dollars are not being used for any procedures you dont agree with?

Do yo understand that the price of your policy and what is provided CHANGES depending on the packages you choose?? Do you understand that you can add or subtract services when negotiating with insurance companies??

I do not have to agree with the church or whatever else to support their right to choose what they offer in their benefits to employees...

correct, that is for your policy only. if that company you are purchasing through allows for it. some do, some do not allow "a la carte" services. some make you change plans completely, changing co pays, and deductibles and such. just try calling united health care, or kaiser or blue cross ask them if they will remove birth control, or exact specific services from your plan. i guarantee the answer would be, no. you dont have to choose to use them, but they cost of their plans include access to them.

you avoided my questions though. do you understand that you are already paying for others services every time you pay your premium? are you regularly protesting against your health insurance company for providing services you dont agree with?

Is that my argument or stance??

No.... my stance is the employer should not be forced to provide a specific benefit that they would be opposed to for whatever reason

Nice try at deflection though

BTW... I like the fact that my fiancee has birth control partially paid for in her benefits..

 

[BluePhantom]

In case no one has posted this - It was attached to a Dem highway jobs bill the pubs wanted to fail. More than million jobs just went up in smoke because the damn pubs want to control every aspect of our lives AND they want to kill all jobs.

They should have to introduce it as a separate bill instead of using it to kill jobs.

Uh excuse me genius but the Dems just voted for control of our lives and the imposition of government. The GOP voted to respect the religious beliefs of the people according to the First Amendment. BTW the vote was on the amendment to the bill not the entire bill dumb fuck.

 

[mudwhistle]

EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR just said it was cool for ANY business to deny their employees ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT their employees PAY THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR !

So many logical fallacies in a single sentence. This may be a conference record, ladies and gentlemen.

First, the GOP is saying an employer has the right to his religious views under the First Amendment not be trampled on. No one is saying it is "cool" to deny any medical treatment. They are saying it is uncool to violate the Constitution.

And if someone is not covered for something in the first place, then they are not paying for it, idiot. Not only that, the employer is paying for the vast bulk of the insurance.

And if you want more coverage for more things that are not currently paid for, everyone's costs are going to go up. Your birth control cost is going to come out of the pockets of all your fellow employees.

You know other kinds of things are not paid for by some people? Life insurance payments in the event of suicide. Liver transplants for alcoholics. And many other things people find to be moral hazards.

The Democrats have just demonstrated they do not give a shit about a person's values. They have declared war on the religious.

They're lying about what the bill contains. This is about contraception, not medical treatment.

Btw, found it ironic that Kathleen Sabilius said the following:

"The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss."

Funny, they want the government to make the decisions for us. Our doctor is out of the process entirely.

 

[Syphon]

Nope. Are you??

nope, but im not arguing against paying for other people services.

 

[Syphon]

Do yo understand that the price of your policy and what is provided CHANGES depending on the packages you choose?? Do you understand that you can add or subtract services when negotiating with insurance companies??

I do not have to agree with the church or whatever else to support their right to choose what they offer in their benefits to employees...

correct, that is for your policy only. if that company you are purchasing through allows for it. some do, some do not allow "a la carte" services. some make you change plans completely, changing co pays, and deductibles and such. just try calling united health care, or kaiser or blue cross ask them if they will remove birth control, or exact specific services from your plan. i guarantee the answer would be, no. you dont have to choose to use them, but they cost of their plans include access to them.

you avoided my questions though. do you understand that you are already paying for others services every time you pay your premium? are you regularly protesting against your health insurance company for providing services you dont agree with?

Is that my argument or stance??

No.... my stance is the employer should not be forced to provide a specific benefit that they would be opposed to for whatever reason

Nice try at deflection though

BTW... I like the fact that my fiancee has birth control partially paid for in her benefits..

so an employer who is providing health care should be able to dictate the care his employees get?

 

[OtaniKitano]

Not exactly "flames". It's no surprise that the democrat majority led by Harry Reid in the senate would vote against freedom of religion since Reid used graft and bribes, corruption and threats to get Obamacare passed in the first place.

"Freedom of religion", my ass.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, ""People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

 

[Syphon]

Not exactly "flames". It's no surprise that the democrat majority led by Harry Reid in the senate would vote against freedom of religion since Reid used graft and bribes, corruption and threats to get Obamacare passed in the first place.

"Freedom of religion", my ass.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, ""People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

they actually can not force you to put your hand on the bible anymore. same way in which they no longer do it in court. you can choose to do so, but it is not standard practice.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

truckers should be able to get obamacare to pay for their truckstop needs as well

federally subsidized condom machines..................its a "right" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[OtaniKitano]

Not exactly "flames". It's no surprise that the democrat majority led by Harry Reid in the senate would vote against freedom of religion since Reid used graft and bribes, corruption and threats to get Obamacare passed in the first place.

"Freedom of religion", my ass.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, ""People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

they actually can not force you to put your hand on the bible anymore. same way in which they no longer do it in court. you can choose to do so, but it is not standard practice.

That's good to hear! I would pick up a copy of Hustler before I'd open the Bible. At least Larry Flynt was honest about his content.

 

[Ernie S.]

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate has defeated a Republican effort to roll back President Barack Obama's policy on contraception insurance coverage.

The measure sponsored by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a Republican, was defeated 51-48. The measure, an amendment to a pending transportation bill, would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president's health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law's requirement that insurers cover the costs of birth control.

Republicans said it was a matter of freedom of religion; Democrats said it was an assault on women's rights and could be used to cancel virtually any part of the law.
Bill to reverse Obama birth control policy defeated in Senate


EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS!
EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You think this won't come back and bite you on the hinder later on?
Think again.

EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR just said it was cool for ANY business to deny their employees ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT their employees PAY THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR !

Thank GOD this legislative TURD went down to defeat.
Asking corporations to make MORAL DECISIONS about their employee's health.
Only insurance company executives and their leashed whores would think this is a good idea.

From your link, idiot:

Voting with Republicans in favor of the amendment were Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, both up for re-election, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is retiring. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who only this week abandoned her re-election bid out of frustration with the polarized Congress, was the lone Republican to vote to defeat the amendment.

 

[Nosmo King]

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate has defeated a Republican effort to roll back President Barack Obama's policy on contraception insurance coverage.

The measure sponsored by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a Republican, was defeated 51-48. The measure, an amendment to a pending transportation bill, would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president's health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law's requirement that insurers cover the costs of birth control.

Republicans said it was a matter of freedom of religion; Democrats said it was an assault on women's rights and could be used to cancel virtually any part of the law.
Bill to reverse Obama birth control policy defeated in Senate


EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS!
EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You think this won't come back and bite you on the hinder later on?
Think again.

EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR just said it was cool for ANY business to deny their employees ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT their employees PAY THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR !

Thank GOD this legislative TURD went down to defeat.
Asking corporations to make MORAL DECISIONS about their employee's health.
Only insurance company executives and their leashed whores would think this is a good idea.

Contraception isn't "medical treatment", you imbecile.

Really? I'd agree if we were just talking condoms. But birth control pills? Do you get those at Auto Zone? Can your hair stylist prescribe them? And you know what an imbecile is, huh.

 

[BluePhantom]

Look.....while Deception and other liberals are happy squawking away at their perceived "victory" there is little cause for alarm here. The first amendment is clear that government can not set policy which interferes with the free practice of religion and forcing a religious organization that is well known to be against the use of contraception is pretty open and shut. This will go before the courts and the the Obama administration and the liberal position will be shot to hell and that will be that.

In the meantime liberals have just demonstrated that they have no respect for the Constitution (I know we are all busy swallowing our nitroglycerin tablets to deal with the effects of the shock) and it will play well in the GOP's favor prior to the elections.

 

[Nosmo King]

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate has defeated a Republican effort to roll back President Barack Obama's policy on contraception insurance coverage.

The measure sponsored by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a Republican, was defeated 51-48. The measure, an amendment to a pending transportation bill, would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president's health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law's requirement that insurers cover the costs of birth control.

Republicans said it was a matter of freedom of religion; Democrats said it was an assault on women's rights and could be used to cancel virtually any part of the law.
Bill to reverse Obama birth control policy defeated in Senate


EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS!
EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You think this won't come back and bite you on the hinder later on?
Think again.

EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR just said it was cool for ANY business to deny their employees ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT their employees PAY THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR !

Thank GOD this legislative TURD went down to defeat.
Asking corporations to make MORAL DECISIONS about their employee's health.
Only insurance company executives and their leashed whores would think this is a good idea.

Contraception isn't "medical treatment", you imbecile.

actually, it referred to any medical treatment or other medical items that conflict with the morals of the business owner.

In essence, the GOP does not believe that government should force anyone to act outside of their own moral standards.

To be frank, I cant see why any liberal would want the government be allowed to do it.

If I worked for a Jehovah's Witness and he decided that those blood transfusions are just immoral, is my health at risk? Is his decision as a Jehovah's Witness my cross to bear?

 

[DiamondDave]

correct, that is for your policy only. if that company you are purchasing through allows for it. some do, some do not allow "a la carte" services. some make you change plans completely, changing co pays, and deductibles and such. just try calling united health care, or kaiser or blue cross ask them if they will remove birth control, or exact specific services from your plan. i guarantee the answer would be, no. you dont have to choose to use them, but they cost of their plans include access to them.

you avoided my questions though. do you understand that you are already paying for others services every time you pay your premium? are you regularly protesting against your health insurance company for providing services you dont agree with?

Is that my argument or stance??

No.... my stance is the employer should not be forced to provide a specific benefit that they would be opposed to for whatever reason

Nice try at deflection though

BTW... I like the fact that my fiancee has birth control partially paid for in her benefits..

so an employer who is providing health care should be able to dictate the care his employees get?

Are you REALLY this stupid??

Nobody is dictating what care they can get from whatever health care provider... But you certainly are dictating what an employer will offer as a benefit...

If you don't believe in birth control or blood transfusions or even fucking brushing your teeth, and you own a business, you should not be forced to offer a plan that covers those things.. it does not mean that your employee can't go out and pay for it themselves

 

[g5000]

This issue is reason #657 why employer provided health insurance should be eliminated. Buy your own damned insurance, like you do for your car and your house and your life.

 

[Nosmo King]

Look.....while Deception and other liberals are happy squawking away at their perceived "victory" there is little cause for alarm here. The first amendment is clear that government can not set policy which interferes with the free practice of religion and forcing a religious organization that is well known to be against the use of contraception is pretty open and shut. This will go before the courts and the the Obama administration and the liberal position will be shot to hell and that will be that.

In the meantime liberals have just demonstrated that they have no respect for the Constitution (I know we are all busy swallowing our nitroglycerin tablets to deal with the effects of the shock) and it will play well in the GOP's favor prior to the elections.

If my boss who is a Jehova's Witness decided that his religious stance on blood transfusions means that the policy he is offering will now delete that coverage, should the state step up, or should I just accept this foolishness as my boss' First Amendment rights?

 

[mudwhistle]

I think male journalists should able to enter female locker rooms

I think women should be forced to turn over the checkbook

I think lap-dances should be covered by insurance

I think NFL teams should wear yellow for prostrate-cancer awareness

I think fantasy leagues should be an automatic IRS deduction

I think beer and cigars should be free

 

[DiamondDave]

Look.....while Deception and other liberals are happy squawking away at their perceived "victory" there is little cause for alarm here. The first amendment is clear that government can not set policy which interferes with the free practice of religion and forcing a religious organization that is well known to be against the use of contraception is pretty open and shut. This will go before the courts and the the Obama administration and the liberal position will be shot to hell and that will be that.

In the meantime liberals have just demonstrated that they have no respect for the Constitution (I know we are all busy swallowing our nitroglycerin tablets to deal with the effects of the shock) and it will play well in the GOP's favor prior to the elections.

If my boss who is a Jehova's Witness decided that his religious stance on blood transfusions means that the policy he is offering will now delete that coverage, should the state step up, or should I just accept this foolishness as my boss' First Amendment rights?

And you are forced to work for that employer HOW??