If it is a war on women, it is a war on Americans

[Jarhead]

I brought this up in another thread discussing the "loss of freedom to choose" due to the Hobby Lobby decision when I asked...what about ALL Americans having the " loss of freedom of choice" as it pertains to buying health insurance.

The response I got was "that is unrelated to the topic"...

So fine....Now it is related to the topic of the thread....

If it is a restriction on a woman's right to choose to offer her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices of birth control....

Then isn't it a restriction on an Americans right to choose when he/she is told they MUST buy health insurance?

And if restricting a woman's right to choose by offering her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices is deemed as a "war on woman"...

Then is restricting an Americans right to choose as to whether or not to purchase health insurance deemed as a "war on Americans"?

 

[deltex1]

Too tough a question for the LIBTARDS...

 

[RDD_1210]

The difference is that "choice" to not purchase health insurance affects more than the person who makes that choice, it affects all of us.

 

[bripat9643]

I brought this up in another thread discussing the "loss of freedom to choose" due to the Hobby Lobby decision when I asked...what about ALL Americans having the " loss of freedom of choice" as it pertains to buying health insurance.

The response I got was "that is unrelated to the topic"...

So fine....Now it is related to the topic of the thread....

If it is a restriction on a woman's right to choose to offer her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices of birth control....

Then isn't it a restriction on an Americans right to choose when he/she is told they MUST buy health insurance?

And if restricting a woman's right to choose by offering her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices is deemed as a "war on woman"...

Then is restricting an Americans right to choose as to whether or not to purchase health insurance deemed as a "war on Americans"?

You lost your freedom of choice when Congress passed Obamacare.

 

[Jarhead]

The difference is that "choice" to not purchase health insurance affects more than the person who makes that choice, it affects all of us.

It has a negative affect on those that don't want it.

So is it a war on those Americans?

 

[DGS49]

It is a loss of freedom to require all employees to pay for (via insurance premiums) the birth control costs of those who choose to use them. Why should I pay premiums that support a purely voluntary "medication" that I will never use, but that I might even find offensive?

It is sad that so many Americans refuse to see this social engineering for what it truly is. BC is a routine expense that any person choosing to engage in reproductive acts can choose to use or not. In fact, if they do not want to procreate, they can refrain from engaging in reproductive activities - which will cost them NOTHING.

But through Obama-care we have THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (not people) deciding that it is a public good for people to engage in reproductive activities without producing children.

How perverse is that?

And where, in the U.S. Constitution does the U.S. Government get the power to make this value judgment? My copy must be missing a few pages because I've looked closely and I can't see it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I brought this up in another thread discussing the "loss of freedom to choose" due to the Hobby Lobby decision when I asked...what about ALL Americans having the " loss of freedom of choice" as it pertains to buying health insurance.

The response I got was "that is unrelated to the topic"...

So fine....Now it is related to the topic of the thread....

If it is a restriction on a woman's right to choose to offer her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices of birth control.... Well it's not a restriction on a right to choose/buy birth control. It's a restriction on what is funded by the insurance plan. The lady can still choose/buy birth control of her own choosing. So the what if is a ludicrous lie. Building a case on a lie, is not likely to make sense.

Then isn't it a restriction on an Americans right to choose when he/she is told they MUST buy health insurance? Where has anyone been told they must buy health insurance? Being told you get taxed if you don't have insurance is not the same as being forced to buy health insurance. We get a tax break if we have children, that does not mean we are being forced to have children. You are confused about the nature of taxes and fines. You may have become numb to the face that all taxes are fines. If you work you get punished for it through taxes. If you have children you get a discount, if you don't you don't get the discount which is essentially a tax/fine on people who do not get the discount. It's the same thing. We are taxed based on what this government feels is the best moral position. Sucks.

And if restricting a woman's right to choose by offering her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices is deemed as a "war on woman"... Well we have a war on fear, aka terror, a war on un-prescribed drug use and trafficking, a war on drunk driving, ... Congress no longer declares war. War is the cool buzz word to use for pretty much any disagreement to make the disagreement more marketable. So yes if you say no to a liberals demands you are making war with them. If the demands were for women's products you are making war with women, more specifically with women's access to said products. If you don't agree with Obama's policies you are making war with blacks, cause he's half black. See how this works?

Then is restricting an Americans right to choose as to whether or not to purchase health insurance deemed as a "war on Americans"? Yes. By the bastardized definition of war being a disagreement... It is a war on liberty loving Americans and any other Americans who disagree with ACA.

in blue

 

[Katzndogz]

The difference is that "choice" to not purchase health insurance affects more than the person who makes that choice, it affects all of us.

It has a negative affect on those that don't want it.

So is it a war on those Americans?

The difference is, a woman working for Hobby Lobby can either use one of the birth control methods or buy her own. The restrictions imposed by obamacare means you die.

Woman in class-action lawsuit against Xerox dies | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Just like the excellent care given by the VA.

 

[Jarhead]

I brought this up in another thread discussing the "loss of freedom to choose" due to the Hobby Lobby decision when I asked...what about ALL Americans having the " loss of freedom of choice" as it pertains to buying health insurance.

The response I got was "that is unrelated to the topic"...

So fine....Now it is related to the topic of the thread....

If it is a restriction on a woman's right to choose to offer her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices of birth control.... Well it's not a restriction on a right to choose/buy birth control. It's a restriction on what is funded by the insurance plan. The lady can still choose/buy birch control of her own choosing. So the what if is a ludicrous lie. Building a case on a lie, is not likely to make sense.

Then isn't it a restriction on an Americans right to choose when he/she is told they MUST buy health insurance? Where has anyone been told they much buy health insurance? Being told you get taxed if you don't have insurance is not the same as being forced to buy health insurance. We get a tax break if we have children, that does not mean we are being forced to have children. You are confused about the nature of taxes and fines. You may have become numb to the face that all taxes are fines. If you work you get punished for it through taxes. If you have children you get a discount, if you don't you don't get the discount which is essentially a tax/fine on people who do not get the discount. It's the same thing. We are taxed based on what this government feels is the best moral position. Sucks.

And if restricting a woman's right to choose by offering her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices is deemed as a "war on woman"... Well we have a war on fear, aka terror, a war on un-prescribed drug use and trafficking, a war on drunk driving, ... Congress no longer declares war. War is the cool buzz word to use for pretty much any disagreement to make the disagreement more marketable. So yes if you say no to a liberals demands you are making war with them. If the demands were for women's products you are making war with women, more specifically with women's access to said products. If you don't agree with Obama's policies you are making war with blacks, cause he's half black. See how this works?

Then is restricting an Americans right to choose as to whether or not to purchase health insurance deemed as a "war on Americans"? Yes.

in blue

1) So my choice is to buy insurance or pay a tax. I have a choice. Yes, I get it.

2) So a woman has the choice to use anyone of 16 birth control methods offered or pay for the other 4 on her own.

If item 1 is not a loss of freedom of choice, then how the heck is item 2 a loss of freedom of choice?

 

[KNB]

Who makes the most money off of health insurance? The insurance companies.

Take your problem up with them. They wrote the law.

 

[BluesMistress]

Although woman now get Free birth control & abortion upon demand except the 4 not offered by HL, there are now many people without a doctor that will treat their cancer. There are multiple sclerosis patients that will no longer be eligible for their much needed disease controlling medications.

Why should I be paying for luxury BC services for those that do not pay a dime in co-pay when I cannot even get coverage for much needed life saving medications. As patients we have NO Choice when just a few months ago we were responsible citizens paying for our own HC coverage & had all the insurance coverage needed.

Yes this is a War on America and it has only just begun....
Warning ~ Do Not get sick or need to see a doctor unless you need Free Birth Control or a free abortion

 

[Jarhead]

Who makes the most money off of health insurance? The insurance companies.

Take your problem up with them. They wrote the law.

My problem isn't with the ones making money on the ACA.

My problem is with those that are calling the Hobby Lobby decision a "war on women" and "restricting a woman's right to choose" and "getting involved with a woman's personal decisions regarding her body"

If a few posters said that crap on here, it wouldn't bother me.

But we have politicians saying it without explaining why they say what it is.

 

[emilynghiem]

The difference is that "choice" to not purchase health insurance affects more than the person who makes that choice, it affects all of us.

Health insurance is not the only way to handle health care. Building sustainable teaching hospitals would work better, but that choice is FINED by the IRS if you choose it.

Banning abortion is not the only way to prevent abortion.
In fact, bans would make the problem worse.

Same with PENALIZING all other choices of paying for health care besides insurance.
It made the problem worse.

The fight in Congress over this issue alone cost taxpayers an est $24 billion.
People naturally have and defend free choice, the same as reproductive freedom.

Trying to go against free will or free choice
is like trying to reprogram human nature.

That's why the antichoice legislation fails with abortion.
And that's why the antichoice ACA is opposed as well.

To continue supporting "antichoice" legislation like ACA
is opening the door to regulating abortion all over again.

Democrat support for ACA PROVES that other rights
are deemed "more important" than free choice.

So if Democrats can push anti-choice legislation
because "right to health care" comes first,
what's to stop Republicans from pushing anti-choice laws
because "right to life" comes first.

BOTH are BELIEFS, so both should be freely chosen not forced.
The Democrats made a huge mistake playing politics.
Let's see who will be the first Democrat to stand up and fix it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I brought this up in another thread discussing the "loss of freedom to choose" due to the Hobby Lobby decision when I asked...what about ALL Americans having the " loss of freedom of choice" as it pertains to buying health insurance.

The response I got was "that is unrelated to the topic"...

So fine....Now it is related to the topic of the thread....

If it is a restriction on a woman's right to choose to offer her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices of birth control.... Well it's not a restriction on a right to choose/buy birth control. It's a restriction on what is funded by the insurance plan. The lady can still choose/buy birch control of her own choosing. So the what if is a ludicrous lie. Building a case on a lie, is not likely to make sense.

Then isn't it a restriction on an Americans right to choose when he/she is told they MUST buy health insurance? Where has anyone been told they much buy health insurance? Being told you get taxed if you don't have insurance is not the same as being forced to buy health insurance. We get a tax break if we have children, that does not mean we are being forced to have children. You are confused about the nature of taxes and fines. You may have become numb to the face that all taxes are fines. If you work you get punished for it through taxes. If you have children you get a discount, if you don't you don't get the discount which is essentially a tax/fine on people who do not get the discount. It's the same thing. We are taxed based on what this government feels is the best moral position. Sucks.

And if restricting a woman's right to choose by offering her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices is deemed as a "war on woman"... Well we have a war on fear, aka terror, a war on un-prescribed drug use and trafficking, a war on drunk driving, ... Congress no longer declares war. War is the cool buzz word to use for pretty much any disagreement to make the disagreement more marketable. So yes if you say no to a liberals demands you are making war with them. If the demands were for women's products you are making war with women, more specifically with women's access to said products. If you don't agree with Obama's policies you are making war with blacks, cause he's half black. See how this works?

Then is restricting an Americans right to choose as to whether or not to purchase health insurance deemed as a "war on Americans"? Yes.

in blue

1) So my choice is to buy insurance or pay a tax. I have a choice. Yes, I get it.

2) So a woman has the choice to use anyone of 16 birth control methods offered or pay for the other 4 on her own.

If item 1 is not a loss of freedom of choice, then how the heck is item 2 a loss of freedom of choice?

This is a key difference between how socialists see the world. A socialist does not believe in personal responsibility. A socialist believes in collective responsibility. A socialist believes that no one should have to get something on their own, because if they have to get it on their own they might have to use their own money for it, which they might not have. A socialist believes that every need a person has must be paid for out of some collective bucket of money. Otherwise when the person goes to use the item they might not have the money at the time, thus causing great emotional distress in the person not being an equal member of society as compared to other people who have the means or unfettered access to the item provided for them without question or billing. You see socialists have bought into the whole communal living thing, like Star Trek where you don't see anyone paying for anything. All needs are just fundamentally taken care of by some magical resource distribution function.

So now from the star trek world... imagine if Ohura were to walk up to the magic box that kicks out products and says give me a BC pill and the box says, no you don't have the right insurance policy for that drug, pleas insert 50drakmas. In this example Ohura would cry because she does not get paid enough as a communications officer. She gets prego with an alien baby and looses her job. To a liberal she all her choices were taken from her by the evil insurance company and/or evil star trek command that did not give her the right insurance.

 

[bripat9643]

The difference is that "choice" to not purchase health insurance affects more than the person who makes that choice, it affects all of us.

You can say that about virtually any decision you make. Your choice not to exercise affects all of us. Your choice not to getup and go to work in the morning affects us all. Your choice to goof off in school and not study hard affects us all. Your choice to take up dangerous sports like skiing or rock climbing affects us all.

There's virtually no limit to what government can regulate under the rubric of "it affects us all." It's a justification for totalitarianism. Of course, that's exactly what sleazy servile toadies like you want.

 

[bripat9643]

Who makes the most money off of health insurance? The insurance companies.

Take your problem up with them. They wrote the law.

Harry Reid and Nazi Pelosi wrote the law, dim bulb. Every word in the bill is there because Harry and Nazi wanted it there. Libturds have a million excuses for not taking responsibility for their actions.

 

[KNB]

The oligarchy limits our freedom of choice. That's where the problem lies.

Here's a choice that we're not allowed to have:

Americans' (and the world's) choices have been limited for at least three generations at the behest of the money class. I wish that I could convince you of just how many things will change in this country when this is our reality again. You would have to read several international reports to understand the full scale of "change" that will happen to the free market.

Global increases in food production, durable textiles, biodegradable plastics, annually-renewable paper, the automotive industry, natural pharmaceuticals, all controlled by the People, not the oligarchy as it all is now.

This is why Cannabis Sativa was outlawed. It is because the global rich cannot control the supply or reap the majority of the profits.

 

[RDD_1210]

The difference is that "choice" to not purchase health insurance affects more than the person who makes that choice, it affects all of us.

It has a negative affect on those that don't want it.

So is it a war on those Americans?

It has a perceived negative affect. But despite what you want to believe, the average american can't afford to pay for healthcare costs out of pocket.

 

[RDD_1210]

The difference is that "choice" to not purchase health insurance affects more than the person who makes that choice, it affects all of us.

You can say that about virtually any decision you make. Your choice not to exercise affects all of us. Your choice not to getup and go to work in the morning affects us all. Your choice to goof off in school and not study hard affects us all. Your choice to take up dangerous sports like skiing or rock climbing affects us all.

There's virtually no limit to what government can regulate under the rubric of "it affects us all." It's a justification for totalitarianism. Of course, that's exactly what sleazy servile toadies like you want.

Are those the best examples you can come up with? Because those are pretty ridiculous. But you're a ridiculous person, so its expected of you.

 

[Disir]

I brought this up in another thread discussing the "loss of freedom to choose" due to the Hobby Lobby decision when I asked...what about ALL Americans having the " loss of freedom of choice" as it pertains to buying health insurance.

The response I got was "that is unrelated to the topic"...

So fine....Now it is related to the topic of the thread....

If it is a restriction on a woman's right to choose to offer her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices of birth control....

Then isn't it a restriction on an Americans right to choose when he/she is told they MUST buy health insurance?

And if restricting a woman's right to choose by offering her only 16 choices as opposed to 20 choices is deemed as a "war on woman"...

Then is restricting an Americans right to choose as to whether or not to purchase health insurance deemed as a "war on Americans"?

Why is it necessary to have insurance at all? Every step of the way there has been time to acknowledge what it is that is increasing health care costs. Every step of the way it has been ignored. Universal health care would solve these problems.