XPost: alt.fan.neal.boortz, alt.abortion, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.politics.obama
From: emoneyjoe@iglou.com
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:22:40 -0500, "George Conklin"
wrote:
>"emoneyjoe" wrote in message
>news:5cglj71u2vreva81hvhiosloh1jm5erofg@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:29:05 -0800, Juris Diction
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article , Neal Boortz
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> This whole so-called ?ccommodation?that Obama and his health care czar
>>>> announced last Friday is a complete and absolute fraud. I?l explain
>>>> this, but first let? make sure you know why this is an issue in the
>>>> first place.
>>>>
>>>> What we have here is a pure election-year ploy for the woman? vote.
>>>> Contraception isn? expensive. Women can have their birth control pills
>>>> every month for less than they typically spend on makeup. The whole
>>>> ploy here is to set up contraception as a basic right for every woman S
>>>> to make it a basic part of health care that every woman is ?ntitled
>>>> to.? The goal here is to be able to tell voters in future elections
>>>> that if you elect Republicans they will ?ake away your health care.? I
>>>> can see the campaign ads now: ?o-and-so (The GOP candidate) wants to
>>>> take away women? right to basic health care services.?
>>>>
>>>> But what about this head fake Dear Ruler delivered last Friday? All we
>>>> have to do is present a simple before and after comparison.
>>>>
>>>> Before: Obama? mandate was that religious institutions had to provide
>>>> for ?ree?contraception for all females working for those institutions
>>>> through the health insurance policies provided to those workers.
>>>>
>>>> After: Now the health insurance companies are simply going to have to
>>>> provide ?ree?coverage for contraceptives in all health insurance
>>>> policies.
>>>>
>>>> Can someone please tell me the difference here? If Caesar Obammus steps
>>>> forward and mandates that all insurance policies must pay for
>>>> contraceptives, aren? those insurance companies simply going to factor
>>>> the cost of that coverage into the premiums paid by the employers?
>>>> Doesn? this mean that these Catholic institutions are still going to be
>>>> paying for contraceptives?
>>>>
>>>> But wait! Maybe Obama will ?larify?his mandate and tell the insurance
>>>> companies that they cannot increase premiums to pay for his
>>>> contraceptive mandate Sor for any other mandate he comes up with.
>>>> Don? put this one past him. It would, after all, hasten the bankruptcy
>>>> of these insurance companies Sand that is the ObamaCare final solution.
>>>> When the insurance companies are run out of business the government
>>>> will be there to take over with the coveted (by proggies) single-payer
>>>> plan.
>>>
>>>
>>>What an idiot!
>>>It's cheaper to give a woman birth control pills than it is for the
>>>insurance companies to have to pay for childbirths and other female
>>>problems.
>>>
>>>PS your concern and compassion for rich insurance companies is
>>>...touching.... I'm choking up.
>>
>> The only thing you will choke on is federal mandates,
>> those will set the democrat party back big time, people
>> do not like being told what they must do.
>>
>
>
>Right. We don't want the Catholic church telling us what we must do: get
>our women pregnant.
:-) Are you asking, or making a statement?
I thought people were supposed to give to the church,
not that the church should give to the people.
The hospitals and doctors I know are not doing
well, some are going broke, merging, closing down,
how could a president ask them to spend more?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
