- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 13, 2012 at 2:39 am #750538
JoBParticipantMarch 13, 2012 at 5:19 am #750539
kootchmanMemberJoB …
When you pass bills that apply only to women without even giving women the courtesy of being able to give testimony on those bills..
When did that happen? NOT the ISSA hearings… that was not a BC hearing. It was a panel to discuss the constitutionality of the Obama mandates on faith institutions. We didn’t need to here what is already a given. BC is legal, unrestricted, available… hell it’ easier to get than a bottle of Jack Daniels. We don’t care honest… you can have estrogen delivered by the truckloads… as long as people of differing faith conscience are not compelled to pay for it. Respect that first amendment thing. That’s all that hearing was about.
March 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm #750540
redblackParticipantkootch: so issa convened a hearing on the ACA mandate that health insurance provided by employers covers birth control. (by the way, this is a purely congressional issue. it has nothing to do with obama. he merely signed ACA into law.)
there are two opposing positions on this issue. correct?
the controversy arose when issa only chose to hear one side of the issue. if you’re going to have a hearing, shouldn’t you explore opposing views and the reasons for that opposition?
or is issa entitled to legislate from en echo chamber? (there’s no way in hell republicans – or fox news – would put up with that.) what’s the message here?
under ACA, employers who don’t happen to be churches have to pay for insurance coverage for birth control. can we really claim that everyone is equal when church employees aren’t covered? or are churches exempt from obeying laws they don’t agree with?
respect the first amendment, huh? are some people less equal than others? are churches more equal than people?
can you not see why women feel that churches – and republicans – are oppressing them?
March 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm #750541
JoBParticipantkootch..
from tea party ground zero… Arizona
http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/use-birth-control-youre-fired
That’s right.. the fine folks in Arizona want to make it possible for your boss to fire you if you purchase your birth control pills yourself.
So much for the idea that this is about religious rights.
this is economics.
The availability of birth control puts a lie to the idea that you can pay women less because they will be taking time from work for pregnancies..
LOL.. i wonder when men will figure out that the narrowing of the wage gap has only occurred because men’s wages have fallen to meet the competition of women’s wages?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
March 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm #750542
JoBParticipantKootch…
ROFLOL
“It was a panel to discuss the constitutionality of the Obama mandates on faith institutions.”
and of course.. THAT would have nothing to do with women..
About half your posts lately make my point far more effectively than i could make it myself :)
I sure hope the ladies are reading them.
March 15, 2012 at 6:18 pm #750543
JoBParticipantFor all of the irreverent ladies who read this forum..
and some of the irreverent guys too
as for the rest of you
you won’t have to turn down the sound
as long as you can’t lip read
if so hide your eyes
Ann Friedman is not for those who offend easily
at least not if you are only offended by by bad language or salacious images
personally, i find the fact that this link is pertinent in today’s political discussion very offensive
that’s why i posted it
March 15, 2012 at 6:29 pm #750544
JanSParticipantTwo thumbs up, JoB
March 15, 2012 at 7:47 pm #750545
JoBParticipanthe…he…he…
i couldn’t resist
the good news for those who liked it when i was too busy or too tired to post much is that i am feeling positively frisky after speaking my mind for a couple of days…
i fear such unimagined freedom has gone to my head
but i will be back on task and thus somewhat silenced tomorrow
March 15, 2012 at 8:43 pm #750546
kootchmanMemberYep.. Job … you got yer sugar daddy…. Barak Hussein Obama. And all ya gots to do for it is vote. Jeesh, 55% of all Misssissippians think he is a Muslim… guess we can put that one in the red column…. we’ll take it.
March 15, 2012 at 8:57 pm #750547
oddrealityParticipantYou’ll take it even though they believe a lie?? So any lie will do as long as it gets you where you want?
How is Pres. Obama a women’s sugar daddy??Please explain. He has never bought me a thing and does not pay my house payment or buy my groceries.Doesn’t pick up my medical bills.Never received a diamond bracelet…so how?
March 16, 2012 at 1:06 am #750548
kootchmanMemberThey believe it… and they vote red. Sounds like a winning combination to me. I once said I would never vote for Santorum..but I would whilst holding my nose. I prefer Romney..he will as close to a centrist as we will get in November. I’d vote for anyone at this point, just for the change.I I’ll take some warts and blemishes over another four years of this. I know, OR, that’s the sadness of it… glad to see your holding out for more than. $9.00 a month and cheap symbolism.
No redblack he did not convene a hearing on birth control. He convened a panel on First Amendment rights… birth control is not covered in the First Amendment. It was a staged event by an old White House communications hack who happens to be the PR firm for Pelosi, and her henchwomen… it was designed to disrupt the meeting and score cheap points and interfere with the Government Oversight and reform committee in assessing the unprecedented assault on the first amendment. That was the issue. You can’t frame it for what it wasn’t, to wit, a birth control synod.
March 16, 2012 at 1:36 am #750549
oddrealityParticipantSo like most republicans these days Mississippians vote for president based on lies? Is that what you are saying? You think it is ok to vote using incorrect info as long as you get your way????
Kootch, basically you got nuttin’. No actual answer just more blah blah blah..have you any examples of Obama as sugar daddy?? The BC thing does not count. The non catholic women [the catholic women as well since over 90% of them use BC] who work at Catholic organizations are paying for their insurance the same as the rest of us and should get coverage for their prescriptions the same as anyone else’s prescription on that particular insurance. I have no problem with them paying whatever the co-payment is for prescriptions but have huge problems with denying them BC coverage at all.
I don’t have to hold out for myself, I have a daughter and granddaughter and I will look out for them and fight for them as long as I am able.Women’s healthcare rights should not require a vote.Heck, any women’s right should not require a vote. They should just be rights the same as yours.Funny. I never get to vote on your manly medical needs.Why should women have to rely on the vote of old men to have rights? Why should anyone have to listen to men of a church that are still living in the 1500’s to have reproductive rights??It’s insanity.
Please tell me why any government law/rule should reflect Catholic ..or any religions..values?? This is not a catholic country and I do not believe as they do.I also do not want to live like Muslims or Mormons or even Buddhists.If they cannot control their flocks without government intervention ,i.e.convince them that BC is bad,then perhaps they need to come into the modern age and be more what their flock wants.
March 16, 2012 at 2:29 am #750550
kootchmanMemberYou do know that it does indeed affect men. No sterilizations. I can live with it… You don’t have to listen to the church…don’t work for them. It really is that easy. They aren;t asking for the government to do a thing, except what the constitution says. Your access is not being limited… what is limited is the right of the government to “impede the practice” of any religion. It’s right there, First Amendment. There are limits on government. You aren’t going to eat a pork sandwhich at a Halal restaurant either. Your benefit is not a right. It’s a benefit that conflicts with a right. But it is now circular… you don’t see it as a religious right..others do…. that’s why we have elections and a Supreme Court. BTY that stat says…90 per cent of Catholic women have used BC…. that could be once.. or daily and it came from PP…. the source of the data.
March 16, 2012 at 3:28 am #750551
oddrealityParticipantUnless Arizona became a Catholic state Catholic dogma is creeping into all of our lives. This is only the start.Does this [see link, it will not harm you in any way] seem right to you??
Apparently I do have to listen to the church.We all do.I have to listen to them so I can continue to fight their control of my life.
We as a nation do impede on religions at times. I am certain we do not allow any religion to sacrifice virgins on alters or toss them into active volcanos. We try to keep people from letting their children die due to religious beliefs that do not allow medical treatments.Unless you think children should be allowed to die due to their parents religion??We try not to allow religions to condone/encourage the beating of children or women.Not going to allow sharia law that has hands cut off for stealing. Not going to allow women to be killed and buried with their dead husbands or burned alive because of some crazy religion.Those things do happen around the world but luckily are against the law here in the US.We the people do intrude when necessary.We need to. Religion is not “all that and a bag of chips” all the time you know.
March 16, 2012 at 3:16 pm #750552
JoBParticipantkootch..
sugar daddy?
no..i have a husband
and anyone who thinks that is the same thing as a sugar daddy
is sadly mistaken
i also have a president
who as far as i can see
is the antithesis of a sugar daddy
unless you count all of the sugar currently being mainlined into US corporations…
on that basis…
i think he might more accurately be called your sugar daddy kootch
not mine
March 16, 2012 at 3:18 pm #750553
JoBParticipantbtw..
i have to tell you that it really makes my day
when i respond to kootch and then find out someone else has already backhanded him with the same info before i got there..
you rock!
March 16, 2012 at 4:06 pm #750554
dyn99ParticipantOkay, I’m not defending Kootch here, but there is another perspective to share that’s worth considering:
Conservatives (in the true sense of the word – not the GW Republican sense that perverted the party) would argue that it’s not the government’s job to get involved in any of these types of issues – it should be up to the individual/organization to make the choices that are best for themselves.
That means staying out of abortion laws/requirements (with the exception of truly criminal acts like partial birth abortion when the baby is viable) and contraception. Both should be choices made between an individual and their doctor.
However, that also means that it’s not the government’s role to tell a religious organization that they have to cover a certain type of contraception when they’re the ones footing the bill for that insurance policy. That should be up to the organization, especially if it violates the religion’s belief system.
And in all fairness, people forget that medical insurance is “insurance”. Your car “insurance” doesn’t cover oil changes, nor should it. Nor does it cover tune-ups. It is supposed to be for major, unanticipated expenses.
For “medical insurance”, our country would be much better off if everyone had true “insurance” to cover significant medical events, diseases, and expensive medications. But routine visits to your doctor or inexpensive medications like birth control would be up to the individual to pay for.
And non-profits would certainly fill the role of ensuring that birth control was made available for free or almost nothing for individuals that truly couldn’t afford the monthly cost. Some people wouldn’t utilize resources like this and would still get pregnant, but the government can’t force individuals to be responsible. People have to want to themselves.
That would dramatically drive down the cost of care, while ensuring that everybody had access to good care when they needed it.
And it wouldn’t even need to be mandated – you could alter tax policy to ensure that people were economically inclined to make a decision in their own best interest.
It would be quite amazing to see what a market-based system could do to quality and access to care, if politicians ever gave it a chance.
Moral of the story: I don’t want Obama or anyone else telling me what I can or can’t do with my health. I’m all for improving options, but I’m never for forcing a government “improvement” upon those that don’t want it.
March 16, 2012 at 4:57 pm #750555
JoBParticipantdyn99
there are several countries that use mandatory health insurance as the basis of their medical delivery system.. with the option for self coverage and/or upgrades to your insurance.
they all cover preventative health care because it is the most cost effective way to control total health care costs.
they all have lower health care costs than we do here in the states and better total health and longevity outcomes.
they are clearly doing something right in spite of all the advertising to the contrary.
our medical care delivery system may be the most innovative in the world (even that is up for debate these days) but it only delivers that standard of care to a limited number of citizens which really brings our outcome averages down.
just in case some people reading may not understand what that means.. it means people die in the United States at an alarming rate from illnesses and health conditions that are better managed elsewhere.
as for those oil changes…
even car companies are beginning to realize that preventative care is cost effective and are offering those oil changes gratis as part of their warranty program… the savings on warranty programs more than pays for routine maintenance…
and controlling buyer costs helps sell cars.
“Obama” is isn’t telling you what you can or can’t do with your health any more than insurance companies currently do.
What “Obama” is telling you is that you can’t ignore general maintenance and then expect the government to pick up the tab for your health care in the most expensive manner possible…
which is exactly what is happening now.
“Obama” is telling your health insurance company that they can’t take your money for policies and then rescind your care when it becomes costly because you didn’t disclose per-qualifying conditions you didn’t even know you had…
and i put Obama in quotes because what is referred to as Obamacare is a hard fought compromise crafted in Congress… not “the” or even “any” plan Obama proposed.
As for the idea that the church is spending “their” hard earned dollars for birth control or even abortions by purchasing policies that cover women’s reproductive health care…
think again. it’s nice hype..
but the truth is that the church is spending it’s employees health care dollars on that insurance… the church is only the broker purchasing larger lots of insurance… they are the delivery agent. The cost of those policies comes right out of the fair market wage (or not) that it pays it’s employees.
Women are not asking for any special privileges when it comes to health care.
They are simply asking for equal access to the same kind of health care insurance that is provided to men.
When you look at it that way.. without all of the hype.. you have to ask yourself just what is wrong with expecting the same coverage for your dollar that men get?
March 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm #750556
dyn99ParticipantJoB –
I never suggested that we make health insurance mandatory. I suggested that we make people economically inclined to purchase their own, individual health policies and make that the base of our coverage system.
To do this we would make health insurance benefits provided by an employer taxable at the ordinary income tax rate.
Then we’d create a refundable tax credit for the first $6000/year for individuals and $12,000/year for families that buy their own individual policies.
And we’d remove all restrictions and allow insurers in every state to compete with others throughout the country so that the competitive landscape just got much tougher for insurers to make money.
Since this would be “refundable”, everyone would get it. Those receiving wages over that amount could adjust their withholding to cover the cost, making it a net $0 cost. Plus those that had health coverage previously would find themselves with a raise, as their employer would stop providing employer-based coverage, since individual coverage would effectively become “free”.
I do not know of a single country that actually does it this way. If I am wrong, please give me an example.
The countries that do what you are referring to mandate the individual/company to cover themselves/their employees and mandate a minimum coverage level. Some (Switzerland) require insurance companies to provide the basic plan at no profit, and subsidize those that can’t afford to pay for it.
It’s always better to make the market inclined to create it’s own solutions rather than forcing “better” government solutions on everyone.
In terms of preventative care, if the data suggest that it does reduce costs for everyone with increased access (which I am not aware of one way or the other), then every health insurance company will pay for it without the government mandating it. Insurance companies will always act in their economic best interest, and if more preventative care makes healthier people, then insurance companies will save money.
And for the “oil change” analogy – only luxury car makers cover that service under warranty. The reason they do is so they can point to the excessive lease payment (as most of them are now leased) and say “that’s all you’ll have to pay other than gas and insurance”. Or because the want the “total cost of ownership” over the first 3 years to be lower than their competition.
Go buy a Honda. They don’t cover oil changes. Nor would they cover damage to the engine if you didn’t perform the necessary routine maintenance on your vehicle.
Don’t get me wrong – I do believe regulation is necessary. Dropping coverage or increasing prices for pre-existing or catastrophic conditions should be illegal. I’m sure there are other things that should be legislated too, but the fewer the better.
And lastly, if there were a male contraception (oral or injection) that would accomplish the same thing as female contraception does – I wouldn’t expect that to be covered by my insurance either. Plain and simple – it’s not an insurance issue – it’s a family planning issue and the two are separate issues.
March 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm #750557
JanSParticipantDyn…you are assuming that everyone in the country has the income to afford whatever insurance companies will charge. It’s not that easy. When one lives on poverty wages, one buys food and puts a roof over one’s head before ever, ever thinking about healthcare. And they take their chances. Until something changes, it will always be that way. And, you are assuming a lot about insurance companies. For instance, as a massage therapist in WA State, I can become a provider with insurances, and bill them. However, it can only be for “medically necessary”…meaning, you have to have a problem before they will cover, and have a prescription from a doc, with a specific diagnosis. You cannot have your insurance pay if it’s called “maintenance” (something that they deem, not your doc). In other words, preventative medicine. You’re on your own for that.
March 16, 2012 at 10:19 pm #750558
NFiorentiniMemberI think that we need to cut through the chase here: Family planning/contraception/reproductive rights are legitimate and rational. On the other hand, religion is a silly, out-dated superstition and allowing these silly, out-dated superstitious institutions to deny medication and healthcare because of what they claim their sky fairy allegedly wrote in a book is dumb.
We don’t let practicing Mayans perform ritualistic sacrifices; we shouldn’t let christian organizations deny women basic services either. And we also shouldn’t allow christians and the politicians who pander to them to write the laws.
This more than a war against women; it’s a war of deluded mystics and woo-woo against reason.
March 17, 2012 at 2:57 am #750559
dyn99ParticipantJanS – you missed the part about the refundable tax credit…that would mean a reasonable policy would effectively be free.
NF – if you don’t believe in the first amendment to practice religion, move to China. You’ll fit better there than you do here.
March 17, 2012 at 3:06 am #750560
NFiorentiniMemberdyn99-And you should move to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia to be with the rest of your theocratic brethren.
March 17, 2012 at 3:08 am #750561
jamminjMembermy religion doesn’t believe in hiring black people, so the feds shouldn’t regulate my private business and religious beliefs.
March 17, 2012 at 3:15 am #750562
jamminjMemberOh yeah, my religion also states that any medical treatment is going against the tenement of my God, therefore if my employee seeks any medical treatment – they are fired without cause. and feds have no right to infringe on my business and religious rights.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.