Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WillowTree just negged me for posting this "factual" article.
Righties love to hammer down free speech - of others...
Ernie S. , one of my usual harassers and stalkers, just negged me for the above post.
Wow, look at Pee-wee goooo. His little bike also has "whitewalls"...
Avatar4321 said:Hi, you have received -457 reputation points from Avatar4321.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Youre whining about neg reps are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Stop whining and man up and participate in the discussion.
Regards,
Avatar4321
Note: This is an automated message.
More wingnut negging...
By Sahil Kapur
Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administrations 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 Rubios bill and all the employer would have to do is say its for a religious reason, said Jessica Arons, Director of the Womens Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. There is no test to prove eligibility. Its 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 administrations 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.
Rubios spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
More: Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage | TPMDC
Rubios spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Who could blame him, his boss is an idiot.
But Rubio has managed to raise his little flag of rightist extremism for all the Nation to see.
Rubio is a lightweight.
well, me thinks you are possibly lying on that Nola....Sure, but they can definitely dictate what coverage they will pay for. I've picked plans that don't cover maternity because of the expense.. you want maternity.. you pay for it.
unless you are speaking about times before 1978, 35 years ago....or you have fewer than 15 employees....
because if you cover employees with insurance then the insurance plan MUST COVER maternity for the employee or spouse....
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires companies with 15 or more workers to cover maternity benefits if they cover other health benefits. But although the law applies to employees and their spouses, theres an exception for non-spouse dependents,....
the above is for SOGGY in nola....
By Sahil Kapur
Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administrations 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 Rubios bill and all the employer would have to do is say its for a religious reason, said Jessica Arons, Director of the Womens Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. There is no test to prove eligibility. Its 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 administrations 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.
Rubios spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
More: Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage | TPMDC
The admin's stance on reproductive coverage and Catholic institutions is a loser. (1) It infringes on church and state separation. (2) It will, and should, rile up the conservative base.
However, Rubio's legislation is as big government, statist and progressive as the left's in his right wing proposal to use the political process to institute a religious exemption without qualification. That is as prohibited constitutionally as is Obama's admin's proposal.
There's no reason for my employer to be involved with ANY of my medical decisions.
Or the government.
So I should be free to purchase any procedure or compound for self medication that I can come to terms with a seller of?There's no reason for my employer to be involved with ANY of my medical decisions.
Or the government.
Abortion?
Euthanasia?
Assisted Suicide?
why don't you research it and spend some time contemplating it Avatar? I'm sure you would find the answer as to why.....well, me thinks you are possibly lying on that Nola....Sure, but they can definitely dictate what coverage they will pay for. I've picked plans that don't cover maternity because of the expense.. you want maternity.. you pay for it.
unless you are speaking about times before 1978, 35 years ago....or you have fewer than 15 employees....
because if you cover employees with insurance then the insurance plan MUST COVER maternity for the employee or spouse....
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires companies with 15 or more workers to cover maternity benefits if they cover other health benefits. But although the law applies to employees and their spouses, theres an exception for non-spouse dependents,....
So why shouldn't we be free to choose a policy that doesn't? Why do we need to pay for coverage we dont need?
People should be allowed to negotiate with others for the services they want and not be forced to pay for services we dont need.
Why is the only solution ever forcing everyone to comply? What the heck is wrong with being free?
The admin's stance on reproductive coverage and Catholic institutions is a loser. (1) It infringes on church and state separation. (2) It will, and should, rile up the conservative base.
However, Rubio's legislation is as big government, statist and progressive as the left's in his right wing proposal to use the political process to institute a religious exemption without qualification. That is as prohibited constitutionally as is Obama's admin's proposal.
In what way is Rubio's legislation big government? How is not forcing people to do things a principle of big government?
There's no reason for my employer to be involved with ANY of my medical decisions.
Or the government.
But he seems to have no issue asking his employer or fellow citizens to pay for his medical decisions and needs. Go figure. Just lemme do whatever I want and I'll send you the bill.
There's no reason for my employer to be involved with ANY of my medical decisions.
Or the government.
Abortion?
Euthanasia?
Assisted Suicide?
Or the government.
But he seems to have no issue asking his employer or fellow citizens to pay for his medical decisions and needs. Go figure. Just lemme do whatever I want and I'll send you the bill.
Where the fuck did you get that?
I never said anything about 'free' coverage of anything for anyone. Try to keep up with the reading before you write, eh Sport?
Or the government.
Abortion?
Euthanasia?
Assisted Suicide?
What about when the government decides that there's too many people burdening our healthcare system and legislates people over 80 are euthanaised? Because it's in the best interests of everyone, right? If people do not defend the Church... where does this power mad bullshit end?
The admin's stance on reproductive coverage and Catholic institutions is a loser. (1) It infringes on church and state separation. (2) It will, and should, rile up the conservative base.
However, Rubio's legislation is as big government, statist and progressive as the left's in his right wing proposal to use the political process to institute a religious exemption without qualification. That is as prohibited constitutionally as is Obama's admin's proposal.
In what way is Rubio's legislation big government? How is not forcing people to do things a principle of big government?
The issue isn't force but the size of political mechanism to get his way: the federal government.
Progressivism: to affect change governmentally, economically, socially, or culturally through political means. You don't get any bigger than the national government.
You know, every time we get into something about free abortions or free birth control, I become more convinced that perhaps government should fund mandatory birth control and abortions for Liberals. 60 years or so, and we'll be done with them once and for all.Its obvious O is hence his fascination with birth control in bedrooms.
Since so many rw's are illiterate, its difficult to understand your exact meaning. Therefore, I'm giving you a comma (,). Please use it wisely.
But, really, its squirrely little Santorum of frothy anal secretions, who talks of controlling birth control and every bedroom activity you can think of.
OTOH, President Obama has only addressed a woman's right to decide for herself when she should or wants to bear a child.
Why do you want to force women to bear a child every single year of her life?
dear me, you ObamaBOTS are not the sharpest knives.
You and everyone in this country go buy BUY birth control...NO one is controlling IT, go pay for your own birth control and abortions..
OR heres a novel idea...DON'T HAVE SEX..
they provide insurance, not decisions.
pretty basic, imo. if you don't like what they provide, decide to work elsewhere. no one is chained to their workplace.
we're becoming a nation of mewling infants, and we want our binky NOW
What if you like your job but not your insurance?
What if you like your insurance but not your job?
Baring a single payer option, it makes sense to be paid more and able to buy health coverage on your own.
Can you imagine if you had to buy your car insurance and your appliance maintenance agreements from the one company your employer made an 'arrangement' with?
Surely that sounds stupid to someone besides me.
Nope... only you. Imagine if your automobile insurance company offered coverage for oil changes, flats, new tires, tune ups, front end alignments, shocks, struts, CV joints, etc.?
Part of the problem here is people don't think they should have to pay for ANYTHING when it comes to their health care.
Abortion?
Euthanasia?
Assisted Suicide?
What about when the government decides that there's too many people burdening our healthcare system and legislates people over 80 are euthanaised? Because it's in the best interests of everyone, right? If people do not defend the Church... where does this power mad bullshit end?
Holy shit, not this "Death Panel" retard shit again.
Abortion?
Euthanasia?
Assisted Suicide?
What about when the government decides that there's too many people burdening our healthcare system and legislates people over 80 are euthanaised? Because it's in the best interests of everyone, right? If people do not defend the Church... where does this power mad bullshit end?
Holy shit, not this "Death Panel" retard shit again.
What if you like your job but not your insurance?
What if you like your insurance but not your job?
Baring a single payer option, it makes sense to be paid more and able to buy health coverage on your own.
Can you imagine if you had to buy your car insurance and your appliance maintenance agreements from the one company your employer made an 'arrangement' with?
Surely that sounds stupid to someone besides me.
Nope... only you. Imagine if your automobile insurance company offered coverage for oil changes, flats, new tires, tune ups, front end alignments, shocks, struts, CV joints, etc.?
Part of the problem here is people don't think they should have to pay for ANYTHING when it comes to their health care.
Do you read English?
