XPost: alt.politics, alt.abortion, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.politics.democrats
From: sid9@
"Eddie Haskell" wrote in message
news:yyw0r.250415$gr6.190484@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "SilentOtto" wrote in message
> news:ce79cde6-69b5-4415-b0df-3d50498ac0da@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 2:14 pm, "Eddie Haskell" wrote:
>> "Leon Manfredi" wrote in message
>>
>> news:ag6mj7td8602n4ik1di6vbkfea0c85b0ub@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
