Blunt Amendment DEFEATED! DOWN IN FLAMES!

[mudwhistle]

Lets just hope jehovah's don't start employing hords of workers or there go transfusions and perhaps dialysis off the benefits plan.

ETA: sure you can say, quit and find a new job. but my child has a pre existing condition and so I can't do that. also i am three years from pension...i should loose all that i worked for because of my employers new found religious conscience?

Didn't you know Obamacare forces ins companies to drop pre-conditions?

Which you want to revoke.

Since it's law figure the odds.

I can want in one hand and shit in the other and see which hand fills first.

Truth is we can't have everything we want. If we did we'd be Greece.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

Great, the senate rejected it just like voters are going to reject Republicans in the Fall.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

This is what Republicans waste their time on in the Senate? They knew it wouldn't pass, and they pushed it anyway.

And what's this about a 'moral objection' being enough to prevent contraception coverage (or any other kind of coverage, for that matter)? Couldn't an employer claim a moral objection to just about anything?

I don't know how hard they were really "pushing" it:

...according to a top Democratic aide briefed on negotiations between Republican and Democratic leaders, something changed in recent days — and in the end Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took it upon himself to force the issue.

“They were pushing for it, but once they realized what a disaster it was turning into they started trying to walk it back,” the aide said. “They started making rumblings that they wanted to change and moderate it, which is why Reid went ahead and filed it as is.”

Late Wednesady, on the Senate floor, Reid hinted at the GOP’s dilemma. “Yesterday I had to bring up a Republican amendment that they didn’t even bother to file, they just wanted to talk about it and hold press conferences on this issue.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...o-contain-birth-control-fallout.php?ref=fpblg

 

[BluePhantom]

Lets just hope jehovah's don't start employing hords of workers or there go transfusions and perhaps dialysis off the benefits plan.

ETA: sure you can say, quit and find a new job. but my child has a pre existing condition and so I can't do that. also i am three years from pension...i should loose all that i worked for because of my employers new found religious conscience?

As heartless as it may sound....life gives us conditions that we often may not like. We choose and hope for the best. If I was in a situation where I must choose between my child's health and my pension that will be a pretty quick decision to make.

There would be no choice because those opposing forced coverage also oppose obamacare which would mean no coverage to pre exisiting conditions; thus no coverage for child. All choices removed.

I have never been of the position that health care did not need to be addressed. I am simply of the position that Obamacare is about the worst way I can think of to address it

 

[Harry Dresden]

Or is it easier to continue to dismiss working Americans and hate the idea of a family actually getting ahead for once? Conservatives do not have a sterling record stepping up for the little guy. Probably because the Conservative nose is so firmly planted in a rich guys ass.

thats funny....the last time i looked the Liberals nose was firmly planted in a different set of rich guys asses.....so whats the difference?....and i dont buy your bullshit were the Democrats help the little guy....maybe years ago this was basically true,not anymore....Democrats/Liberals,just like Republicans/Conservatives TODAY....only do something for YOU....if there is something in it for THEM.....

 

[Disturbed1]

From your link, idiot:
Quote:
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.

*************************************************
LOL proof that he either doesn't read what he posts or just plain old doesn't understand it.

 

[BluePhantom]

So, let's review. Conservatives have no problem with an employer offering a health insurance plan that does not cover blood transfusions, birth control pills or general health and wellness. If the employee is dis-satisfied with a plan offered, he should quit, move from town (if he can find a buyer for his house), seek a new job in the midst of high unemployment and accept all these travails as the natural order of things and a means of consolidating wealth among the very few.

Conservatives also think it's a good idea to eliminate the EPA so companies can finally be free to destroy their neighborhoods, the property values of anyone in the area and the health of future generations. And that's another way to make poor people poorer and rich people richer.

Conservatives want to eliminate public education because they believe that public schools (and universities for that matter) are nothing more than Liberal indoctrination centers and union propaganda mills.

Now, can some Conservative tell me how much he loves the American working family after these policies are in place?

Well Nosmo it's a good thing that you and I agree on some other thread 'cause it appears we're going to bang heads on this one. First of all I don't think employers should be forced to offer health care plans to begin with. There are better ways of dealing with health care that are more effective and do not force a financial burden on employers. Currently, we are in an employers market which means they have the power. It won't be like that forever and it wasn't long ago that we were in an employees market where employers were competing for workers. We will get there again and that's exactly where we want to be because at that point employers will offer insurance willingly in order to attract the best employees.

When it was an employees market, employers had to suck it up and deal with the circumstances. Now it's an employers market and the workers have to suck it up and deal with the circumstances. The liberal position seems to be that the employers should ALWAYS be the ones that have to suck it up and sacrifice.

Conservatives (most of them anyway) do not favor eliminating the EPA. That is liberal propaganda. What we favor is limiting the EPA's power to ensure that the regulations they impose are actually necessary to protect the public good and not bullshit driven by political ideology as it is now.

Conservatives (most of them anyway) don't want to eliminate public education. That is liberal propaganda. What we want is to get government out of our classrooms and let teachers actually teach without some government bureaucrat telling them what to teach. As a teacher at the college level I can assure you BTW that the academic system is highly biased toward the liberal ideology, but that's a different problem.

Let me tell you, brother....the worst harm we have done to society and our children is to embrace the theory that "everyone is a winner", "everyone should get a gold medal for trying hard even if they come in last place", etc. That philosophy has created a generation of lazy losers who don't bother to try hard because they will be entitled to that gold medal whether they come in first place or last place.

 

[Disturbed1]

Well Nosmo it's a good thing that you and I agree on some other thread 'cause it appears we're going to bang heads on this one. First of all I don't think employers should be forced to offer health care plans to begin with. There are better ways of dealing with health care that are more effective and do not force a financial burden on employers. Currently, we are in an employers market which means they have the power. It won't be like that forever and it wasn't long ago that we were in an employees market where employers were competing for workers. We will get there again and that's exactly where we want to be because at that point employers will offer insurance willingly in order to attract the best employees.

When it was an employees market, employers had to suck it up and deal with the circumstances. Now it's an employers market and the workers have to suck it up and deal with the circumstances. The liberal position seems to be that the employers should ALWAYS be the ones that have to suck it up and sacrifice.

Conservatives (most of them anyway) do not favor eliminating the EPA. That is liberal propaganda. What we favor is limiting the EPA's power to ensure that the regulations they impose are actually necessary to protect the public good and not bullshit driven by political ideology as it is now.

Conservatives (most of them anyway) don't want to eliminate public education. That is liberal propaganda. What we want is to get government out of our classrooms and let teachers actually teach without some government bureaucrat telling them what to teach. As a teacher at the college level I can assure you BTW that the academic system is highly biased toward the liberal ideology, but that's a different problem.

Let me tell you, brother....the worst harm we have done to society and our children is to embrace the theory that "everyone is a winner", "everyone should get a gold medal for trying hard even if they come in last place", etc. That philosophy has created a generation of lazy losers who don't bother to try hard because they will be entitled to that gold medal whether they come in first place or last place.

******************************************************
I almost want to get up and clap, especially for that last paragraph.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"100% of male experts agree: nobody knows more about women's issues like birth control than late-middle-aged men and the Republican party is well aware."

Listen-UP, LADIES!!!!!

​

​

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Great, the senate rejected it just like voters are going to reject Republicans in the Fall.

Sure they will. Keep telling yourself that.

All of this crap assures that more will reject Democrats because of their divisive rhetoric.

 

[mudwhistle]

As heartless as it may sound....life gives us conditions that we often may not like. We choose and hope for the best. If I was in a situation where I must choose between my child's health and my pension that will be a pretty quick decision to make.

There would be no choice because those opposing forced coverage also oppose obamacare which would mean no coverage to pre exisiting conditions; thus no coverage for child. All choices removed.

I have never been of the position that health care did not need to be addressed. I am simply of the position that Obamacare is about the worst way I can think of to address it

Obamacare or "The Affordable Health Car Act" doesn't even address the primary reason it was passed.....to decrease the cost of health care. Instead it increases costs.

Obamacare is simply a mass of new laws that effect our freedoms, everything from changing education benefits to taking away religious freedoms. It does very little to solve the rational for it's inception.

We still have to wait for the next shoe to drop on Obamacare. What more is in it that we had to pass before we could read it?

 

[Nosmo King]

Or is it easier to continue to dismiss working Americans and hate the idea of a family actually getting ahead for once? Conservatives do not have a sterling record stepping up for the little guy. Probably because the Conservative nose is so firmly planted in a rich guys ass.

thats funny....the last time i looked the Liberals nose was firmly planted in a different set of rich guys asses.....so whats the difference?....and i dont buy your bullshit were the Democrats help the little guy....maybe years ago this was basically true,not anymore....Democrats/Liberals,just like Republicans/Conservatives TODAY....only do something for YOU....if there is something in it for THEM.....

If the only way to look at how the government protects workers rights or largess to the poor is as a political means to an end, I wouldn't advocate any workers rights or largess at all.

And that's just how Conservatives like it. I get it.

But how does this accomplish the goal we both share? How can the poor advance if their rights are eroded?

 

[Intense]

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.

You are an idiot. The worst that will happen here, because of the attack on Religious Liberty, is if cornered, without remedy, the Churches will simply opt out on the Insurance completely, and pay the fine. All because you want free Birth Control at the Church's expense. Disingenuous Prick that you are, please continue to make false claims and accusations against the Churches. You can always use your imagination, like you have been doing when the truth abandons you.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, let's review. Conservatives have no problem with an employer offering a health insurance plan that does not cover blood transfusions, birth control pills or general health and wellness. If the employee is dis-satisfied with a plan offered, he should quit, move from town (if he can find a buyer for his house), seek a new job in the midst of high unemployment and accept all these travails as the natural order of things and a means of consolidating wealth among the very few.

Conservatives also think it's a good idea to eliminate the EPA so companies can finally be free to destroy their neighborhoods, the property values of anyone in the area and the health of future generations. And that's another way to make poor people poorer and rich people richer.

Conservatives want to eliminate public education because they believe that public schools (and universities for that matter) are nothing more than Liberal indoctrination centers and union propaganda mills.

Now, can some Conservative tell me how much he loves the American working family after these policies are in place?

Well Nosmo it's a good thing that you and I agree on some other thread 'cause it appears we're going to bang heads on this one. First of all I don't think employers should be forced to offer health care plans to begin with. There are better ways of dealing with health care that are more effective and do not force a financial burden on employers. Currently, we are in an employers market which means they have the power. It won't be like that forever and it wasn't long ago that we were in an employees market where employers were competing for workers. We will get there again and that's exactly where we want to be because at that point employers will offer insurance willingly in order to attract the best employees.

When it was an employees market, employers had to suck it up and deal with the circumstances. Now it's an employers market and the workers have to suck it up and deal with the circumstances. The liberal position seems to be that the employers should ALWAYS be the ones that have to suck it up and sacrifice.

Conservatives (most of them anyway) do not favor eliminating the EPA. That is liberal propaganda. What we favor is limiting the EPA's power to ensure that the regulations they impose are actually necessary to protect the public good and not bullshit driven by political ideology as it is now.

Conservatives (most of them anyway) don't want to eliminate public education. That is liberal propaganda. What we want is to get government out of our classrooms and let teachers actually teach without some government bureaucrat telling them what to teach. As a teacher at the college level I can assure you BTW that the academic system is highly biased toward the liberal ideology, but that's a different problem.

Let me tell you, brother....the worst harm we have done to society and our children is to embrace the theory that "everyone is a winner", "everyone should get a gold medal for trying hard even if they come in last place", etc. That philosophy has created a generation of lazy losers who don't bother to try hard because they will be entitled to that gold medal whether they come in first place or last place.

The quaint notion of market forces determining health insurance providers worked well before the advent of the MRI, prescription drug advertising entering popular culture, advanced surgical techniques that can take a gall bladder through a hole the size of a dime and all the technology in between. In other words; the inflation of health care costs.

The burden is too dear to lay upon the people without assistance. It's a tax imposed without representation. It's a dire necessity for some. It's the wisest possible choice for all. But the beloved "free market", that same "free market" that determines who will bear the biggest part of this added, yet needed American 'tax' can't solve this problem without essentially screwing those without the means.

If the state can impose usury laws controlling banking (I went minimal because that's how conservatives like it), the state can similarly regulate health care insurance and costs.

I'd be interested in learning which EPA regulations are so onerous. I don't believe the USEPA is such a political device (I appreciate Conservative propaganda too). And I do believe that science is the fulcrum of EPA regulations. The actual regulation is often influenced by lobbyists from both interested sides. What results is regulation by bottom line.

Which administration began the method of teaching to a test to achieve funding? And how does teaching for a test result in what we call education?

But how does teaching in a sub standard or even dangerous building result in what we call education? Don't sell Abe Lincoln! The skill set needed in the early 1800s has changed a little since. Local schools are plagued by fallen property values and thus less local revenue. Unless you think that rural, suburban and city kids can compete if they can pay.

Unless you advocate the government taking over a sector of the private economy. Like health care, education should be an obligation of the state. That would free up the money raped from the accounts of private Capitalists.

And the "everybody's a winner" business is cultural, not legislated. If you want a more rough and tumble culture, have at it! But don't legislate it. Let it be a true grass roots movement. That's the way to change culture.

 

[Harry Dresden]

But how does this accomplish the goal we both share? How can the poor advance if their rights are eroded?

if the people in this Country would get some balls and start voting for people not in the 2 parties,who offer nothing but THE SAME OLD TIRED SHIT,and start voting for people who talk about the Country and its people over their own or the Parties ideals .....maybe things would actually change.....if nothing else,if enough people vote these people, it might wake up the 2 Parties,who would see that people are fed up with their bullshit and mean business it just may get them back on track....but too many people talk about how disgruntled they are with their party,but vote for the same jackoffs anyway...and then ***** when the same bullshit just keeps on keeping on....

 

[Lakhota]

I heard Boehner say that they are not giving up on this issue. I sure hope they keep beating that dead horse until November.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Democrats that voted against protecting organizations from being forced to do things against their morals just fucked up big time for the next election.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have never been of the position that health care did not need to be addressed. I am simply of the position that Obamacare is about the worst way I can think of to address it

Obamacare or "The Affordable Health Car Act" doesn't even address the primary reason it was passed.....to decrease the cost of health care.

As I've pointed out before and I'm sure will have to point out again:

The ACA's got some of the right's favorite cost control ideas in it, including encouraging more use of higher-deductible plans and HSAs to give consumers more "skin in the game," as well as greater competition and consumer choice through allowing insurers to sell out-of-state or in multiple states. It even lifted the tort reform language from a Republican reform bill, Mike Enzi's 2008 "Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act."

Of course, it has cost control strategies liberals wanted to see like payment reform (rewarding performance, not volume) to move away from inflationary fee-for-service models, greater care coordination and attention to the costs of chronic illness, and more highly integrated care with shared savings for providers who cut costs.

It even has things both sides enjoy, like prevention and wellness incentives, movement toward using health information technology, and the creation of marketplaces where insurers will compete on price and quality. There's also the big drag on health spending, the coming end of the limitless tax subsidy that employer-sponsored insurance plans currently enjoy.

 

[Missourian]

Say goodbye to Senator Claire McCaskill...she has tried so to distance herself from Obamacare...this vote undoes all her efforts.