Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage

[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,.

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

Show where they can't. Show us that collective bargaining and strikes are illegal. Show me the kindness and gentleness of employers so that students should not have to organize.

This is a constitutional issue of church and state.

If it is a question of workers' access to benefits, then collective bargaining and strikes are acceptable tools to coerce recalictrant employers.

 

[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

Show where they can't. Show us that collective bargaining and strikes are illegal. Show me the kindness and gentleness of employers so that students should not have to organize.

This is a constitutional issue of church and state.

If it is a question of workers' access to benefits, then collective bargaining and strikes are acceptable tools to coerce recalictrant employers.

No no no no

You are not allowed to FORCE or COERCE as your right to trample on the rights of others.... even corporation or business owners... there is no constitutional right to force someone else to comply to your wants

This is not a constitutional issue of church and state... because in a free society, the employer (whether individual or company) does not owe the employee payment or benefit for their recreation... and being against birth control benefits is not inherent to only religious standing... the motivation could be anything including monetary

 

[DiamondDave]

And I will post this again

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.

 

[theHawk]

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

Oh my goodness, a private company can decide what services it will cover and which they won't!
All on their own? How can this be!!??!!

What's the world coming to!

 

[sealybobo]

I don't want the Catholic Cult interfering with my healthcare options. If they accept federal dollars then they can't be pushing their radical agenda.

Don't own an abortion clinic if you are anti abortion.

But you want politicians in Washington to? That's literally insane.

Who should have the power? Our government or the Insurance companies? They have a monopoly, like the oil companies. They must be regulated by our government. Corporations only exist in America if they benefit the citizens. The idea of letting the free markets decide when mega corporations have a monopoly on a product like healthcare or oil is insane! But of course the billionaires of the world love the idea. Every man for himself. And then they turn around and say they care about life and abortions? LOL.

If it wasn't for the United State Government, you couldn't afford healthcare.

I'm assuming you are right smack dab in the middle of the middle class. The insurance companies have been jacking up the prices for decades, making healthcare unaffordable for over 10 million Americans. And the GOP sat by and watched when they ran government from 2000-2006. Not only did they not give us healthcare reform, they allowed it to get worse and they did nothing. Gave the power to the insurance lobbyists!

No I don't want the GOP to continue allowing healthcare insurance companies to deny me coverage for things like pre existing conditions. My government should be working for me, not Blue Cross.

 

[sealybobo]

Polls prove that it's only the religious radicals keeping this issue alive:

More Catholics support contraception coverage than other Americans | The Raw Story

Polls: Catholics support Obama on birth control debate | StarTribune.com

Survey: Majority of Catholics support including birth control in health care plans | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

New surveys: Catholics want birth control coverage

This is classic GOP playbook. Remember before the 2008 election they tried to make an issue of that little country next to Russia. Georgia?

They are going to be making a big deal out of everything until the elections. Most of it will be petty and blown out of perportion.

You mean, that little country that Obama said should show restraint when dealing with Russia?

Please. Educate yourself before you speak again.

How should Cuba deal with the USA? With a little restraint? Wouldn't you say? In other words, Russia will squash you Georgia and we can't afford to get involved, so watch how you poke Russia.

Seems perfectly reasonable advice to me.

Fact is, you righties will make an issue out of everything. Today isn't contraceptive preventative birth control. Who knows what it will be tomorrow.

And you guys are so predictable. You said the economy isn't getting any better, but now that you can't say that anymore, you will give it a month and say its because of all the right wing GOP governors like Christie and Snyder.

I love Republicans in an election year. They will blow every story up like its the biggest story. The catholic thing today is funny. No one gives a shit. Most women want preventative coverage. This story is just to make religious people forget how bad Mitt is an a candidate. Wedge issue.

Notice the GOP word for the day is Strawman argument. CPAC kept telling Thom Hartmann every good point he made was a straw argument. I guess straw arguments means facts?

 

[Mustang]

What an eye-opening thread. Conservatives bemoan the supposed loss of freedom in America, but they support letting employers interfere in the personal lives of their employees.

What's next? Will employers want to monitor the diets of employees outside of work? How much fatty food do you eat? How much do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you faithful to your wife? Are you a GOOD Christian who goes to church every Sunday? Are you <gasp> an atheist?

 

[DiamondDave]

What an eye-opening thread. Conservatives bemoan the supposed loss of freedom in America, but they support letting employers interfere in the personal lives of their employees.

What's next? Will employers want to monitor the diets of employees outside of work? How much fatty food do you eat? How much do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you faithful to your wife? Are you a GOOD Christian who goes to church every Sunday? Are you <gasp> an atheist?

How is not paying for a compensation benefit interfering with the employees PERSONAL lives?? Not providing a benefit that is for personal recreation is not the same as monitoring your diet or if you go to church...

Sorry..... epic fail

 

[sealybobo]

What an eye-opening thread. Conservatives bemoan the supposed loss of freedom in America, but they support letting employers interfere in the personal lives of their employees.

What's next? Will employers want to monitor the diets of employees outside of work? How much fatty food do you eat? How much do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you faithful to your wife? Are you a GOOD Christian who goes to church every Sunday? Are you <gasp> an atheist?

How is not paying for a compensation benefit interfering with the employees PERSONAL lives?? Not providing a benefit that is for personal recreation is not the same as monitoring your diet or if you go to church...

Sorry..... epic fail

Catholic women can choose not to ask for contraceptives. But what about us non Catholics? This is Catholics imposing their cult beliefs on the rest of us, not the other way around.

If they want to be in the business of healthcare, God bless them. Birth control is preventative medicine. If they accept government taxes, they must not let their religious beliefs get in the way of my healthcare.

And now they don't have to thanks to Obama because now the Insurance companies will offer it direct, bipassing the Catholic hospitals. Happy now? You should be. And Obama squashed this faux outrage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Show where they can't. Show us that collective bargaining and strikes are illegal. Show me the kindness and gentleness of employers so that students should not have to organize.

This is a constitutional issue of church and state.

If it is a question of workers' access to benefits, then collective bargaining and strikes are acceptable tools to coerce recalictrant employers.

No no no no

You are not allowed to FORCE or COERCE as your right to trample on the rights of others.... even corporation or business owners... there is no constitutional right to force someone else to comply to your wants

This is not a constitutional issue of church and state... because in a free society, the employer (whether individual or company) does not owe the employee payment or benefit for their recreation... and being against birth control benefits is not inherent to only religious standing... the motivation could be anything including monetary

Yes, Yes, Yes, in order to not have their rights from being trampled upon, the workers have the right through collective bargaining and strikes to coerce employers to provide benefits, salaries, and work conditions the employees want.

The employer can go out of business if he wishes. That is exactly what a Pittsburgh newspaper did back in the 1990s. Decided to fold rather than give in.

 

[DiamondDave]

Show where they can't. Show us that collective bargaining and strikes are illegal. Show me the kindness and gentleness of employers so that students should not have to organize.

This is a constitutional issue of church and state.

If it is a question of workers' access to benefits, then collective bargaining and strikes are acceptable tools to coerce recalictrant employers.

No no no no

You are not allowed to FORCE or COERCE as your right to trample on the rights of others.... even corporation or business owners... there is no constitutional right to force someone else to comply to your wants

This is not a constitutional issue of church and state... because in a free society, the employer (whether individual or company) does not owe the employee payment or benefit for their recreation... and being against birth control benefits is not inherent to only religious standing... the motivation could be anything including monetary

Yes, Yes, Yes, in order to not have their rights from being trampled upon, the workers have the right through collective bargaining and strikes to coerce employers to provide benefits, salaries, and work conditions the employees want.

The employer can go out of business if he wishes. That is exactly what a Pittsburgh newspaper did back in the 1990s. Decided to fold rather than give in.

Simple.. SHOW THE RIGHT GRANTED

 

[California Girl]

What an eye-opening thread. Conservatives bemoan the supposed loss of freedom in America, but they support letting employers interfere in the personal lives of their employees.

What's next? Will employers want to monitor the diets of employees outside of work? How much fatty food do you eat? How much do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you faithful to your wife? Are you a GOOD Christian who goes to church every Sunday? Are you <gasp> an atheist?

How is not paying for a compensation benefit interfering with the employees PERSONAL lives?? Not providing a benefit that is for personal recreation is not the same as monitoring your diet or if you go to church...

Sorry..... epic fail

Catholic women can choose not to ask for contraceptives. But what about us non Catholics? This is Catholics imposing their cult beliefs on the rest of us, not the other way around.

If they want to be in the business of healthcare, God bless them. Birth control is preventative medicine. If they accept government taxes, they must not let their religious beliefs get in the way of my healthcare.

And now they don't have to thanks to Obama because now the Insurance companies will offer it direct, bipassing the Catholic hospitals. Happy now? You should be. And Obama squashed this faux outrage.

You really don't get this issue at all, do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No no no no

You are not allowed to FORCE or COERCE as your right to trample on the rights of others.... even corporation or business owners... there is no constitutional right to force someone else to comply to your wants

This is not a constitutional issue of church and state... because in a free society, the employer (whether individual or company) does not owe the employee payment or benefit for their recreation... and being against birth control benefits is not inherent to only religious standing... the motivation could be anything including monetary

Yes, Yes, Yes, in order to not have their rights from being trampled upon, the workers have the right through collective bargaining and strikes to coerce employers to provide benefits, salaries, and work conditions the employees want.

The employer can go out of business if he wishes. That is exactly what a Pittsburgh newspaper did back in the 1990s. Decided to fold rather than give in.

Simple.. SHOW THE RIGHT GRANTED

Nonsense. No right need be "granted". This is a right "taken" when employers won't pay fair wages, compensate benefits fairly,or not produce safe working conditions.

As Abraham Lincoln note that labor precedes capital. In other words, no constitutional prohibition is given so capital can act asshole on employees.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What's next? Will employers want to monitor the diets of employees outside of work? How much fatty food do you eat? How much do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you faithful to your wife? Are you a GOOD Christian who goes to church every Sunday? Are you <gasp> an atheist?

Interesting question. My company already has adopted "healthy eating" standards at work that force us to eat at our employee cafeteria for lunch every day, prohibit us from bringing in outside food, and then serve us disgusting crap for food. The reason? The health insurance company agreed to lower the company's share of the premiums for focing us to eat "healthy." Of course, our share of the premiums haven't gone down a dime. Actually, I think they went up, IIRC.

 

[initforme]

"Yes, Yes, Yes, in order to not have their rights from being trampled upon, the workers have the right through collective bargaining and strikes to coerce employers to provide benefits, salaries, and work conditions the employees want."

Its that versus lower wages, no benefits. There isnt any middle ground anymore. The ANTI WORKER sentiment is alive and well and some are angered about the class warfare concept and that it has no place in america. Well, its alive, and growing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Simple. The workers have the vote, and if the anti-worker sentiment grow among the business class, the worker class will crush them at the polls.

 

[hortysir]

Anyone know the party affiliations of all the cosponsors?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Soon libs will want insurance to cover sports drinks, vitamins, comestic surgery,etc.

Hell, anything someone wants from a health care/fitness perspective will be covered so some lazy ass person doesn't have to take care of their own needs.

 

[Intense]

What an eye-opening thread. Conservatives bemoan the supposed loss of freedom in America, but they support letting employers interfere in the personal lives of their employees.

What's next? Will employers want to monitor the diets of employees outside of work? How much fatty food do you eat? How much do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you faithful to your wife? Are you a GOOD Christian who goes to church every Sunday? Are you <gasp> an atheist?

Could you be a more disingenuous hack? Don't answer, trick question.
Until now, what are the specifics on Insurance coverage and the Law? Who's making the change Einstein? You dare bring up the Food Police? Progressive Statism is responsible for Totalitarian Regulations on foods, Jackass. You are not that stupid, are you? No. That makes you pretty worthless when it comes to credibility, now doesn't it? Don't answer that. It's another trick question. Your Faith or lack of it, is your business, not mine. Stop projecting. It's propaganda, smoke, mirrors, and distortion, like you. Grow up.

 

[Intense]

Soon libs will want insurance to cover sports drinks, vitamins, comestic surgery,etc.

Hell, anything someone wants from a health care/fitness perspective will be covered so some lazy ass person doesn't have to take care of their own needs.

What they want is life without consequence, and unable to create that Utopia, settle for someone else, anyone, other than themselves, their relations, their friends, getting stuck with cleaning up the mess and paying the bill. You know.... Suckers.