From: hrubin@skew.stat.purdue.edu
On 2012-02-15, Leon Manfredi wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:52:12 -0800 (PST), jane wrote:
>>On Feb 14, 1:13 pm, SilentOtto wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 12:49 pm, jane wrote:
>>> > On Feb 14, 12:29 pm, Juris Diction wrote:
>>> > > In article , Neal Boortz
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > This whole so-called “accommodation” that Obama and his health care
czar
>>> > > > announced last Friday is a complete and absolute fraud. I’ll explain
>>> > > > this, but first let’s 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’s vote.
>>> > > > Contraception isn’t 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 …
>>> > > > to make it a basic part of health care that every woman is “entitled
>>> > > > to.” The goal here is to be able to tell voters in future elections
>>> > > > that if you elect Republicans they will “take away your health
care.” I
>>> > > > can see the campaign ads now: “So-and-so (The GOP candidate) wants
to
>>> > > > take away women’s 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’s mandate was that religious institutions had to
provide
>>> > > > for “free” 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 “free” 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’t those insurance companies simply going to
factor
>>> > > > the cost of that coverage into the premiums paid by the employers?
>>> > > > Doesn’t this mean that these Catholic institutions are still going
to be
>>> > > > paying for contraceptives?
>>> > > > But wait! Maybe Obama will “clarify” his mandate and tell the
insurance
>>> > > > companies that they cannot increase premiums to pay for his
>>> > > > contraceptive mandate … or for any other mandate he comes up with.
>>> > > > Don’t put this one past him. It would, after all, hasten the
bankruptcy
>>> > > > of these insurance companies … and 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.
>>> > Well, then in that case, we should fuck Minority rights and the US
>>> > Constitution.
>>> Who's minority rights are being trampled, rightard?
>>> No one is being forced to use anything that their religion prohibits.
>>> > "our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring
>>> > about change that I would like sometimes." - Ruler Obama.
>>> > > PS your concern and compassion for rich insurance companies is
>>> > > ...touching.... I'm choking up.
>>> > What about the businesses and organizations that are self insured?
>>> What about them, rightard.
>>> If a church wants to engage in secular activities, then they have to
>>> abide by secular laws.
>>> We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him
>>> from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that
>>> the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more
>>> than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that
>>> proposition. - Justice Anthony Scalia - Employment Division,
>>> Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith
>>> Really, rightard...
>>> It's not that complicated.
>>> Heh heh...
>>> Lying racist rightard socialists...
>>> Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>>First, why do you call me a rightard? I find it wrong that the
>>government considers smoking a plant a criminal offense; I don't care
>>who marries whom or how many spouses a person has; I personally feel
>>that the states should get out of the business of selling marriage
>>licenses; and I believe marriage should be a personal agreement
>>between people rather than an agreement between people and the state.
>>First and foremost, I am for the defense of liberty, even the liberty
>>that does not affect me. Does that make me a rightart?
>>I find it interesting that you choose the SCOTUS decision that you
>>did. It is an agreement that PROHIBITS an illegal action. I agree.
>>For example, if you have a religious belief that your crops will
>>benefit by sacrificing a virgin, then the Constitution does not permit
>>you to murder based on religious belief. In the current issue, the
>>federal government is demanding an employer to DO SOMETHING that
>>violates his religion. See the difference?
>>Additionally, I am not sure, but I believe that the SCOTUS decision
>>that you referenced involved a person who wanted to smoke payote as
>>part of his religion. THAT brings up an interesting discussion: Do
>>you REALLY think that it is the providence of a government to make
>>smoking a plant in your own home a criminal offense?
>>Are there absolutely NO liberties that you are willing to defend???
> Smoking has been deemed as a criminal offense, because it involves the rest
of us.
> Mainly, that God given right for all of us, to breath clean air any where we
go, to
> eat, work, play, sleep, or even getting a piece of the action.... Secondly,
it
> affects all of us financially, as well as government services, when you need
the kind
> of care you need for something you brought on to yourself..
> As for abortions..... I't doesn't cost anyone a cent, other than to those
who want
> one...
But the unwanted pregnancies, and even more so the children born,
cost a LOT of money to the taxpayers.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
