obama caves again

[Liability]

Quantum Windbag's Avatar
Quantum Windbag Quantum Windbag is online now
Thou art God.
Member #23420

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,067
Thanks: 6,943
Thanked 3,725 Times in 2,732 Posts
Rep Power: 666
Quantum Windbag could successfully start his own religion

Saved. For posterity.

Thanks, I didn't notice.

It goes by in a flash.

 

[amrchaos]

Can someone please educate me on what exactly is going on?

First, the Catholics were being forced to buy insurance for their employees that allowed access to contraception as an option.

Now the Catholics are being forced to buy insurance for their employees in which the plans include free contraceptions.

What is the difference again? It seems like a bunch of word play to me and I am still missing how the church is giving away "day-after pills" and "abortions" in the whole arguement but that claim keeps coming up as well.

 

[JoeB131]

And no...NOT ONE SINGLE STATE had a mandated that FORCED them to do it. The FREE MARKET did it's job.

Not true...(Mind you, this is BEFORE the President's compromise)...

WRONG...unless you take my quote out of full context. The TRUTH is as I stated it. In 2002, all but 2% of health insurance companies covered one or both of these items and 86% covered BOTH in one form or the other and NOT ONE STATE required it AT THAT TIME!

See...this is what the left does. They tried the same crap with John McCain when he was running in 08. He was asked how he felt about insurance companies covering Viagra and no birth control. When his answer didn't fit the mold...they tried to paint him a fool.


THANKS MORONS!

Ummm, is there a universe where you can really justify that position? I mean, what was he going to say defending that which wouldn't have sounded- well, kind of stupid.

There are a lot of sound medical reasons for birth control. Viagra- meh,not so much.

 

[Liability]

Can someone please educate me on what exactly is going on?

First, the Catholics were being forced to buy insurance for their employees that allowed access to contraception as an option.

Now the Catholics are being forced to buy insurance for their employees in which the plans include free contraceptions.

What is the difference again? It seems like a bunch of word play to me and I am still missing how the church is giving away "day-after pills" and "abortions" in the whole arguement but that claim keeps coming up as well.

It was a very special Obama Moment.

Heads I win. Tails you lose.

You have nailed it with your observation.

Liberal critics of the President upset that he allegedly "caved" (again) have missed the point. They are depriving The ONE of proper adulation.

Conservative critics of the President and his policies are also missing the point if they accept this alleged "concession" as an actual win.

He is the one WINNING. But it's just a cheap political "win." And, he is doing it at the cost of our rights, liberties and the rule of Constitutional law.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. What actually happens is that companies that provide prescription drug coverage in those states are required to provide information to their employees that allows them to purchase additional coverage that covers birth control pills. It is not paid for by insurance companies because, until Obama, no one ever thought telling companies they had to do things for free was possible. Sane people still don't think it is possible.

Umm, not really.

$300.00 for birth control or $10,000 for an unplanned pregnancy that requires a Caesarian Section? You tell me which an insurance company would rather pay for.

 

[JoeB131]

When Santorum gets elected he pans to institute a rule requiring your insurance company to pay for free counseling from priests. Since you actually won't be forced to use that counseling if you don't want it I am sure you will have no problem with the new mandate because you will not be forced to change your enlightened and scientific viewpoints if you do not want to.

DId he actually say that, or are you trying to come up with a hypothetical that would put me on your side.

Because right now, I'm kind of inclined to support Santorum, don't blow for me.

On the off chance it is true, can't see it being the same thing, really. That would be a direct government payment for religious activity, not the church being a sub-contractor for a government service.

 

[amrchaos]

Can someone please educate me on what exactly is going on?

First, the Catholics were being forced to buy insurance for their employees that allowed access to contraception as an option.

Now the Catholics are being forced to buy insurance for their employees in which the plans include free contraceptions.

What is the difference again? It seems like a bunch of word play to me and I am still missing how the church is giving away "day-after pills" and "abortions" in the whole arguement but that claim keeps coming up as well.

It was a very special Obama Moment.

Heads I win. Tails you lose.

You have nailed it with your observation.

Liberal critics of the President upset that he allegedly "caved" (again) have missed the point. They are depriving The ONE of proper adulation.

Conservative critics of the President and his policies are also missing the point if they accept this alleged "concession" as an actual win.

He is the one WINNING. But it's just a cheap political "win." And, he is doing it at the cost of our rights, liberties and the rule of Constitutional law.

So in other words,

The Healthcare Bill is just a bunch of BS
and Obama just ran more BS to keep it going forward.

OK, so I am not going crazy.

 

[amrchaos]

When Santorum gets elected he pans to institute a rule requiring your insurance company to pay for free counseling from priests. Since you actually won't be forced to use that counseling if you don't want it I am sure you will have no problem with the new mandate because you will not be forced to change your enlightened and scientific viewpoints if you do not want to.

DId he actually say that, or are you trying to come up with a hypothetical that would put me on your side.

Because right now, I'm kind of inclined to support Santorum, don't blow for me.

On the off chance it is true, can't see it being the same thing, really. That would be a direct government payment for religious activity, not the church being a sub-contractor for a government service.

If people consider spiritual counsel akin to psychological counseling, what is the problem?

 

[saveliberty]

Umm, not really.

$300.00 for birth control or $10,000 for an unplanned pregnancy that requires a Caesarian Section? You tell me which an insurance company would rather pay for.

They don't want to pay for either one dipstick. They expect someone to pay them premiums for whatever coverage is wanted.

 

[del]

That's fine, but I would like to be able to have sex with my husband for fun and not just to have kids. Not only would MY health suffer if I got pregnant every time, but so would the health of my kids.

But hey, I've never been a perfect Catholic.

And I'm kind of mystified at your old fashioned attitude.

I'll get over it, though.

i don't care who does or doesn't use birth control.

i've got a teensy problem with the govt forcing churches to supply it against their beliefs.

i guess i'm old fashioned that way.

Supply it? GMAB.
No one is asking them to supply it.

 

[del]

obama caves again

Nazi!

yatzee

 

[del]

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

you get more stupid by the post.

google non profit

 

[JoeB131]

Umm, not really.

$300.00 for birth control or $10,000 for an unplanned pregnancy that requires a Caesarian Section? You tell me which an insurance company would rather pay for.

They don't want to pay for either one dipstick. They expect someone to pay them premiums for whatever coverage is wanted.

Well, if insurance companies had their way, they'd just collect premiums and never pay for any treatments.

But you know, we really should make them do what they promise to do, like any other business.

So if we are really going to be a bunch of meanyheads and make them do what they promised to do, which one do you think would sound more cost effective to them.

Because they've kind of been getting a free ride by people paying out of pocket for their own reproductive health costs.

 

[JoeB131]

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

you get more stupid by the post.

google non profit

NOn-profit is one of those big lies. They call them "budget surpluses" such as "The budget surplus from teh school means we can buy new Stained Glass Windows for the Church.

Probably should replace this one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. What actually happens is that companies that provide prescription drug coverage in those states are required to provide information to their employees that allows them to purchase additional coverage that covers birth control pills. It is not paid for by insurance companies because, until Obama, no one ever thought telling companies they had to do things for free was possible. Sane people still don't think it is possible.

Umm, not really.

$300.00 for birth control or $10,000 for an unplanned pregnancy that requires a Caesarian Section? You tell me which an insurance company would rather pay for.

Let me see if I can get this through that hard mass you call a head.

If the insurer provides contraceptive coverage, and the women actually goes to the doctor, gets it, and continues to refill her prescription every month, and then grinds up the pills and uses them to scrub her sink, the insurance company still has to pay for them, and it is still on the hook for the pregnancy that happens because she doesn't actually take the pills, even if she has a seriously complicated pregnancy that results in hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical expenses.

Would the insurer like to be able to force women to take the pill instead of getting pregnant? Of course. Can they? Not at this point, but give it time under the world you are advocating and watch it happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When Santorum gets elected he pans to institute a rule requiring your insurance company to pay for free counseling from priests. Since you actually won't be forced to use that counseling if you don't want it I am sure you will have no problem with the new mandate because you will not be forced to change your enlightened and scientific viewpoints if you do not want to.

DId he actually say that, or are you trying to come up with a hypothetical that would put me on your side.

Because right now, I'm kind of inclined to support Santorum, don't blow for me.

On the off chance it is true, can't see it being the same thing, really. That would be a direct government payment for religious activity, not the church being a sub-contractor for a government service.

I am pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument. If one is unacceptable they both are, I happen to think both are wrong, you happen to prefer to think one will never happen, so you support the other. That makes one of us a naive idiot, and the other a practical cynic.

 

[California Girl]

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

you get more stupid by the post.

google non profit

Scary, but true. Started as a conservative, and became a drooling lefty because Romney took the lead in the nomination.... credibility fail complete.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm, not really.

$300.00 for birth control or $10,000 for an unplanned pregnancy that requires a Caesarian Section? You tell me which an insurance company would rather pay for.

They don't want to pay for either one dipstick. They expect someone to pay them premiums for whatever coverage is wanted.

Well, if insurance companies had their way, they'd just collect premiums and never pay for any treatments.

But you know, we really should make them do what they promise to do, like any other business.

So if we are really going to be a bunch of meanyheads and make them do what they promised to do, which one do you think would sound more cost effective to them.

Because they've kind of been getting a free ride by people paying out of pocket for their own reproductive health costs.

Ultimately, insurers would rather be able to force people to comply with their edicts, which is why they backed Obamacare because the government is the only entity with the power to enforce compliance. How long do you think it will be before some progressive decides to require people to use contraception for the public good?

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. What actually happens is that companies that provide prescription drug coverage in those states are required to provide information to their employees that allows them to purchase additional coverage that covers birth control pills. It is not paid for by insurance companies because, until Obama, no one ever thought telling companies they had to do things for free was possible. Sane people still don't think it is possible.

Umm, not really.

$300.00 for birth control or $10,000 for an unplanned pregnancy that requires a Caesarian Section? You tell me which an insurance company would rather pay for.

Let me see if I can get this through that hard mass you call a head.

If the insurer provides contraceptive coverage, and the women actually goes to the doctor, gets it, and continues to refill her prescription every month, and then grinds up the pills and uses them to scrub her sink, the insurance company still has to pay for them, and it is still on the hook for the pregnancy that happens because she doesn't actually take the pills, even if she has a seriously complicated pregnancy that results in hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical expenses.

Would the insurer like to be able to force women to take the pill instead of getting pregnant? Of course. Can they? Not at this point, but give it time under the world you are advocating and watch it happen.

Okay, now your arguments are getting truly bizarre. Do you really think their are women using their birth control pills as a bathroom cleanser? Do you really think anyone is taking time off work to see a doctor to get pills they don't want, just to screw with an insurance company? Really?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

you get more stupid by the post.

google non profit

NOn-profit is one of those big lies. They call them "budget surpluses" such as "The budget surplus from teh school means we can buy new Stained Glass Windows for the Church.

Probably should replace this one.

Stained glass windows are usually bought by family members in memoriam for someone, which is why tiny have those tiny little dedication plaques under them.