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.
Did you, by chance, click on the link and look at the address?
Here it is so you can see it is a Georgetown link.
http://benefits.georgetown.edu/health/medical/aetnappo/2012 GU Aetna PPO Plan Summary - FINAL.pdf
Do you, by any chance, understand that insurance companies often send quotes to employers, and that does not mean that those serives are actually bought? Do you also understand that the policy you keep pointing to is a PPO which has a high deductible and copays? That, even if you actually prove that this is a plan offered to Georgetown staff, that most of them would be on a different plan? And that this particular plan doesn't actually cover contraception unless the employee purchases a separate policy that covers it themselves?
Did you even read your own link, or did you just take the word of some blogger on the Internet?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Drill down on the link I provided. If you visit, for example, this link: Medical Insurance: Office of Faculty and Staff Benefits, you get this:
Benefits 2012 » Health & Welfare
Medical Insurance
The following medical plans are available to faculty, staff and AAPs:
To learn more about a plan, click on the plan name.
Aetna Open Choice PPO
United Healthcare Choice Plus PPO
CareFirst BlueChoice Opt-Out Plus Open Access POS
Kaiser Signature HMO
Employee Eligibility
You are eligible to enroll in a Georgetown University sponsored medical plan if you are:
A staff employee, including members of the Allied International Union, hired to work 30 or more hours per week;
An academic employee hired to work at least 75% time;
A fellow.
Dependent Eligility
If you are covered under a medical plan, you may also elect coverage for your spouse/LDA and your eligible dependent children. You will select from one of the following levels of coverage:
Employee only
Employee and spouse/LDA
Employee and child/ren
Family (employee, spouse/LDA and child/ren)
Do you see that list of plans? The first one on the list is the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown University that I had linked to previously...the one that includes contraceptive coverage.
I've proven my claim. Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage to its employees, but won't do the same for its students.
Fluke is an activist and admitted to targeting this college before she enrolled.
In other words she was a lying bitch and deserves all the wrath that can be thrust upon her.
Fluke is an activist and admitted to targeting this college before she enrolled.
In other words she was a lying bitch and deserves all the wrath that can be thrust upon her.
Aren't you the one that keeps ignoring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
Have you come up with a way to actually make a federal mandate that is clearly in violation of federal law legal?
Aren't you the one that keeps ignoring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
OVERTURNED!
The RFRA was deemed unconstitutional, as an application to interpretation of the first amendment, because it was unlawful infringement by Congress into the business of the judiciary. The RFRA does maintain applicability regarding the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress, but it does not affect interpretation of religious freedom under the first amendment. The RFRA is an overall weak law that does little more than affirm strict scrutiny guidelines for federal actions that infringe upon religious beliefs. That is why when it was applied in Adams v. Commissioner the Tax Court ruled against Adams claim to an exemption to income tax law. Even though the court noted that his religious freedom was infringed by tax law, the law served a compelling government interest. Similarly, in Miller v. Commisioner the court ruled that even though Miller's religious beliefs were infringed upon by the use of Social Security numbers, the same presented a compelling government interest and was permissible under the RFRA and the constitution. BTW, I hope you didn't strain your back with all that heavy lifting as you moved the goal post from claims of violating the constitution to where you sit now, claiming violation of federal statute instead.
Now, go back to sucking on the stupid juice.
Have you come up with a way to actually make a federal mandate that is clearly in violation of federal law legal?
There is no such thing as a federal law that violates federal law. That's an egregious contradiction in terms.
Did you, by chance, click on the link and look at the address?
Here it is so you can see it is a Georgetown link.
http://benefits.georgetown.edu/health/medical/aetnappo/2012 GU Aetna PPO Plan Summary - FINAL.pdf
Do you, by any chance, understand that insurance companies often send quotes to employers, and that does not mean that those serives are actually bought? Do you also understand that the policy you keep pointing to is a PPO which has a high deductible and copays? That, even if you actually prove that this is a plan offered to Georgetown staff, that most of them would be on a different plan? And that this particular plan doesn't actually cover contraception unless the employee purchases a separate policy that covers it themselves?
Did you even read your own link, or did you just take the word of some blogger on the Internet?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Drill down on the link I provided. If you visit, for example, this link: Medical Insurance: Office of Faculty and Staff Benefits, you get this:
Benefits 2012 » Health & Welfare
Medical Insurance
The following medical plans are available to faculty, staff and AAPs:
To learn more about a plan, click on the plan name.
Aetna Open Choice PPO
United Healthcare Choice Plus PPO
CareFirst BlueChoice Opt-Out Plus Open Access POS
Kaiser Signature HMO
Employee Eligibility
You are eligible to enroll in a Georgetown University sponsored medical plan if you are:
A staff employee, including members of the Allied International Union, hired to work 30 or more hours per week;
An academic employee hired to work at least 75% time;
A fellow.
Dependent Eligility
If you are covered under a medical plan, you may also elect coverage for your spouse/LDA and your eligible dependent children. You will select from one of the following levels of coverage:
Employee only
Employee and spouse/LDA
Employee and child/ren
Family (employee, spouse/LDA and child/ren)
Do you see that list of plans? The first one on the list is the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown University that I had linked to previously...the one that includes contraceptive coverage.
I've proven my claim. Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage to its employees, but won't do the same for its students.
Aren't you the one that keeps ignoring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
OVERTURNED!
The RFRA was deemed unconstitutional, as an application to interpretation of the first amendment, because it was unlawful infringement by Congress into the business of the judiciary. The RFRA does maintain applicability regarding the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress, but it does not affect interpretation of religious freedom under the first amendment. The RFRA is an overall weak law that does little more than affirm strict scrutiny guidelines for federal actions that infringe upon religious beliefs. That is why when it was applied in Adams v. Commissioner the Tax Court ruled against Adams claim to an exemption to income tax law. Even though the court noted that his religious freedom was infringed by tax law, the law served a compelling government interest. Similarly, in Miller v. Commisioner the court ruled that even though Miller's religious beliefs were infringed upon by the use of Social Security numbers, the same presented a compelling government interest and was permissible under the RFRA and the constitution. BTW, I hope you didn't strain your back with all that heavy lifting as you moved the goal post from claims of violating the constitution to where you sit now, claiming violation of federal statute instead.
Now, go back to sucking on the stupid juice.
There is no such thing as a federal law that violates federal law. That's an egregious contradiction in terms.Have you come up with a way to actually make a federal mandate that is clearly in violation of federal law legal?
Aren't you the one that keeps ignoring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
OVERTURNED!
The RFRA was deemed unconstitutional, as an application to interpretation of the first amendment, because it was unlawful infringement by Congress into the business of the judiciary. The RFRA does maintain applicability regarding the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress, but it does not affect interpretation of religious freedom under the first amendment. The RFRA is an overall weak law that does little more than affirm strict scrutiny guidelines for federal actions that infringe upon religious beliefs. That is why when it was applied in Adams v. Commissioner the Tax Court ruled against Adams claim to an exemption to income tax law. Even though the court noted that his religious freedom was infringed by tax law, the law served a compelling government interest. Similarly, in Miller v. Commisioner the court ruled that even though Miller's religious beliefs were infringed upon by the use of Social Security numbers, the same presented a compelling government interest and was permissible under the RFRA and the constitution. BTW, I hope you didn't strain your back with all that heavy lifting as you moved the goal post from claims of violating the constitution to where you sit now, claiming violation of federal statute instead.
Now, go back to sucking on the stupid juice.
There is no such thing as a federal law that violates federal law. That's an egregious contradiction in terms.Have you come up with a way to actually make a federal mandate that is clearly in violation of federal law legal?
That doesn't apply here.
This is the government forcing Catholic institutions to do something that offends them. I wouldn't be surprised if Georgetown didn't know Aetna covered BC. But imagine the wails coming from the left if they dropped the coverage.
This is the kind of unnecessary crap liberals cause in this country.
*************************************anyone care what some 30 year old professional college student has to say?
my gawd, like she is an EXPERT on something
what a JOKE
Aren't you the one that keeps ignoring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
OVERTURNED!
The RFRA was deemed unconstitutional, as an application to interpretation of the first amendment, because it was unlawful infringement by Congress into the business of the judiciary. The RFRA does maintain applicability regarding the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress, but it does not affect interpretation of religious freedom under the first amendment. The RFRA is an overall weak law that does little more than affirm strict scrutiny guidelines for federal actions that infringe upon religious beliefs. That is why when it was applied in Adams v. Commissioner the Tax Court ruled against Adams claim to an exemption to income tax law. Even though the court noted that his religious freedom was infringed by tax law, the law served a compelling government interest. Similarly, in Miller v. Commisioner the court ruled that even though Miller's religious beliefs were infringed upon by the use of Social Security numbers, the same presented a compelling government interest and was permissible under the RFRA and the constitution. BTW, I hope you didn't strain your back with all that heavy lifting as you moved the goal post from claims of violating the constitution to where you sit now, claiming violation of federal statute instead.
Now, go back to sucking on the stupid juice.
Have you come up with a way to actually make a federal mandate that is clearly in violation of federal law legal?
There is no such thing as a federal law that violates federal law. That's an egregious contradiction in terms.
Aren't you the one that keeps ignoring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
OVERTURNED!
The RFRA was deemed unconstitutional, as an application to interpretation of the first amendment, because it was unlawful infringement by Congress into the business of the judiciary. The RFRA does maintain applicability regarding the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress, but it does not affect interpretation of religious freedom under the first amendment. The RFRA is an overall weak law that does little more than affirm strict scrutiny guidelines for federal actions that infringe upon religious beliefs. That is why when it was applied in Adams v. Commissioner the Tax Court ruled against Adams claim to an exemption to income tax law. Even though the court noted that his religious freedom was infringed by tax law, the law served a compelling government interest. Similarly, in Miller v. Commisioner the court ruled that even though Miller's religious beliefs were infringed upon by the use of Social Security numbers, the same presented a compelling government interest and was permissible under the RFRA and the constitution. BTW, I hope you didn't strain your back with all that heavy lifting as you moved the goal post from claims of violating the constitution to where you sit now, claiming violation of federal statute instead.
Now, go back to sucking on the stupid juice.
There is no such thing as a federal law that violates federal law. That's an egregious contradiction in terms.Have you come up with a way to actually make a federal mandate that is clearly in violation of federal law legal?
Ever heard of the US Constitution jackwad?
OK. Here's the link.
Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube
It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.
This is a prime example of how the left is diverting attention away from the real issue.
People make inaccurate claims about Fluke's testimony, so showing the testimony is diversion?
That hearing was about whether it is constitution for the president to force people to provide this coverage.
No it wasn't. Here's a grade school lesson for you: The President does not pass laws. That's what Congress does.
If you were educated at all about this stuff, you'd know that the law is not unconstitutional. You may disagree with it, as do I, but it's not unconstitutional.
Hmmm, I'm inclined to think that if we are talking about availability of contraceptive coverage amongst female Georgetown law students, then Fluke is a pretty good candidate to talk about that.
Which is why the full committee did not hear her. What's your point?
Her statement was done AFTER the hearing. Do you even know what you are talking about?
*GASP!* You mean to tell me that politicians are playing on people's emotions? Never! No politician would ever do anything like that. Have you ever before seen a politician, for example, use emotionally charged language for a sensitive issue, abortion for example, like "partial birth abortion," or "killing a baby," as opposed to using the correct technical terms? Certainly no politician would ever do something like that.
At best, you're making an ad hominem argument. Forget who has done the speaking. Let's address the merits of the arguments, and maintain an accurate portrayal of them.
You must think awful highly of the President, because you sure are putting an awful lot in his lap. Congress passes laws, the Executive executes the laws.
My guess is that the Dems are well aware that they could not succeed because they know what Obama is doing is unconstitutional
Simply saying "it's unconstitutional" doesn't make it so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the law. Claims of religious freedom infringements are ignorant claims that either have no knowledge of the extensive case law on religious freedom, or they completely ignore it.
and this was a cheap stunt to make people focus on something else. There are enough idiots out there and they know this crap works. Frustrating.
Actually, if anything, the "cheap stunt" is the people who want to insist that the law is unconstitutional, instead of actually addressing the law on its merits. The "cheap stunt" is to say that anyone whatsoever can simply say "I have a religious belief" and they will be instantly exempt from any law whatsoever. THAT would be a cheap stunt.
OVERTURNED!
The RFRA was deemed unconstitutional, as an application to interpretation of the first amendment, because it was unlawful infringement by Congress into the business of the judiciary. The RFRA does maintain applicability regarding the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress, but it does not affect interpretation of religious freedom under the first amendment. The RFRA is an overall weak law that does little more than affirm strict scrutiny guidelines for federal actions that infringe upon religious beliefs. That is why when it was applied in Adams v. Commissioner the Tax Court ruled against Adams claim to an exemption to income tax law. Even though the court noted that his religious freedom was infringed by tax law, the law served a compelling government interest. Similarly, in Miller v. Commisioner the court ruled that even though Miller's religious beliefs were infringed upon by the use of Social Security numbers, the same presented a compelling government interest and was permissible under the RFRA and the constitution. BTW, I hope you didn't strain your back with all that heavy lifting as you moved the goal post from claims of violating the constitution to where you sit now, claiming violation of federal statute instead.
Now, go back to sucking on the stupid juice.
There is no such thing as a federal law that violates federal law. That's an egregious contradiction in terms.
That doesn't apply here.
This is the government forcing Catholic institutions to do something that offends them. I wouldn't be surprised if Georgetown didn't know Aetna covered BC. But imagine the wails coming from the left if they dropped the coverage.
This is the kind of unnecessary crap liberals cause in this country.
It doesn't even apply where he thought it applied. My guess is that Inthemiddle is about 13, and really doesn't understand anything. Why else try to use cases from 1962 and 1979 to argue that a law written in 1993 was overturned?
OK. Here's the link.
Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube
It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.
Fluke was never under oath so she was not testifying
This is a prime example of how the left is diverting attention away from the real issue.
No it wasn't. Here's a grade school lesson for you: The President does not pass laws. That's what Congress does.
If you were educated at all about this stuff, you'd know that the law is not unconstitutional. You may disagree with it, as do I, but it's not unconstitutional.
Hmmm, I'm inclined to think that if we are talking about availability of contraceptive coverage amongst female Georgetown law students, then Fluke is a pretty good candidate to talk about that.
Which is why the full committee did not hear her. What's your point?
Her statement was done AFTER the hearing. Do you even know what you are talking about?
*GASP!* You mean to tell me that politicians are playing on people's emotions? Never! No politician would ever do anything like that. Have you ever before seen a politician, for example, use emotionally charged language for a sensitive issue, abortion for example, like "partial birth abortion," or "killing a baby," as opposed to using the correct technical terms? Certainly no politician would ever do something like that.
At best, you're making an ad hominem argument. Forget who has done the speaking. Let's address the merits of the arguments, and maintain an accurate portrayal of them.
You must think awful highly of the President, because you sure are putting an awful lot in his lap. Congress passes laws, the Executive executes the laws.
Simply saying "it's unconstitutional" doesn't make it so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the law. Claims of religious freedom infringements are ignorant claims that either have no knowledge of the extensive case law on religious freedom, or they completely ignore it.
and this was a cheap stunt to make people focus on something else. There are enough idiots out there and they know this crap works. Frustrating.
Actually, if anything, the "cheap stunt" is the people who want to insist that the law is unconstitutional, instead of actually addressing the law on its merits. The "cheap stunt" is to say that anyone whatsoever can simply say "I have a religious belief" and they will be instantly exempt from any law whatsoever. THAT would be a cheap stunt.
Why did the Dems throw fluke in the hearing at the last minute? Her whining about how she can't afford birth control is not pertinent in deciding whether it's constitutional to force religious organizations to provide it. She was bought in to throw things off track.
Fluke's testimony was meaningless to the hearing and merely a stunt.
Do you, by any chance, understand that insurance companies often send quotes to employers, and that does not mean that those serives are actually bought? Do you also understand that the policy you keep pointing to is a PPO which has a high deductible and copays? That, even if you actually prove that this is a plan offered to Georgetown staff, that most of them would be on a different plan? And that this particular plan doesn't actually cover contraception unless the employee purchases a separate policy that covers it themselves?
Did you even read your own link, or did you just take the word of some blogger on the Internet?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Drill down on the link I provided. If you visit, for example, this link: Medical Insurance: Office of Faculty and Staff Benefits, you get this:
Benefits 2012 » Health & Welfare
Medical Insurance
The following medical plans are available to faculty, staff and AAPs:
To learn more about a plan, click on the plan name.
Aetna Open Choice PPO
United Healthcare Choice Plus PPO
CareFirst BlueChoice Opt-Out Plus Open Access POS
Kaiser Signature HMO
Employee Eligibility
You are eligible to enroll in a Georgetown University sponsored medical plan if you are:
A staff employee, including members of the Allied International Union, hired to work 30 or more hours per week;
An academic employee hired to work at least 75% time;
A fellow.
Dependent Eligility
If you are covered under a medical plan, you may also elect coverage for your spouse/LDA and your eligible dependent children. You will select from one of the following levels of coverage:
Employee only
Employee and spouse/LDA
Employee and child/ren
Family (employee, spouse/LDA and child/ren)
Do you see that list of plans? The first one on the list is the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown University that I had linked to previously...the one that includes contraceptive coverage.
I've proven my claim. Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage to its employees, but won't do the same for its students.
The one with the $500 individual preferred deductible and the $20 per prescription copay? That is $740 a year towards contraception that is not covered by the plan, which is almost as much as Fluke falsely claimed contraception costs. The only point you made is that you really didn't read the policy because the non preferred care plan, which is the exact same plan students get, doesn't even cover prescription meds. My guess is that students, if they wanted to shell out the higher premium, could get the preferred care insurance and sill not get contraceptive coverage, but they could pretend they do.
OK. Here's the link.
Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube
It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.
Fluke was never under oath so she was not testifying
Then she shouldn't have been testifying.
That is the point of all of this. The Democrats set up this decoy to get the discussion off track because they knew their position was shaky at best.
Pointing to cases about taxes, which are actually written into the constitution
to make the case that the RFRA is overturned is really stupid.
Pointing to cases about taxes, which are actually written into the constitution, to make the case that the RFRA is overturned is really stupid.
