Senate Democrats Propose Law to Force Christians to Pay for Abortion Drugs

originally posted by: Blaine91555
What exactly is wrong with finding an accommodation that satisfies both sides? You see any politicians even suggesting that?

Nothing wrong with that. Have any suggestions? How about this?

For a woman to have adequate health care, birth control must be covered by her health insurance. For a business owner not to violate his religious beliefs, he must not have an abortion. That's the perfect solution. A person's religious beliefs should apply to THEM and them ONLY. Paying for health insurance is a large corporation's obligation, not deciding what that coverage is.

I wish we had the single payer system.

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
It is not the business of the employer, the pastor or the government to meddle in medical decisions that should be between the INDIVIDUAL and their doctor.

That's the bottom line.

a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

What is the point of cake then in your analogy?

This.

What way is it ?

First they scream goverment stay out of a womans womb !

Then it's

Nooooooooooo make someone else PAY for their contraception/abortions !


That is called trying to have it both ways.

AKA having the cake and eat it too.

WHICH WAY IS IT ?

This may apply to Hobby Lobby....

With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage. The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

The final rules provide more details on the accommodation for both insurers and third party administrators.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations

So many dozens of conflicts of interest and discrimination by the ACA itself and HHS and IRS.

They are going to pluck the ACA chicken one feather at a time.

a reply to: mOjOm

I love this argument to no end.

Women under the current policy can get a month supply of condoms proscribed from their doctor. MEN cannot. Men have always and will always be required to pay for their own contraception.

In the realm of sexual dysfunction men AND women are both covered under insurance policies. It just so happens that women benefit from more over the counter products than men do.

It's comparing bananas to donuts though as the two have nothing to do with one another in the argument of contraception and insurance coverage.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

That kind of makes my point here. No willingness to compromise and find a solution that satisfies both sides. It's my way or the highway.

That the ACA was poorly written is a fact evidenced by all the changes. It was written by people of one ideology, completely ignoring the wants of everyone else, to force it on them. People should be talking about that and mad about that. Next time it may be the other side doing the same, with same result; divide us to control us.

We are so easily drawn into this crap, including me, that we should wonder why we are so willing to let ourselves be controlled so easily.

I am 100% willing to compromise. I prefer private insurance and a public option, which has always been the point of the public option. People who want to pay for logos, lawyer, CEOs, executives and TV ads can by private insurance, while I would just like the benefit of an insurance pool in case my luck runs out. We can do away with Obamacare tomorrow and yall can have what you want and so can we, problem solved.

However, I must correct you here

It was written by people of one ideology, completely ignoring the wants of everyone else, to force it on them. People should be talking about that and mad about that. Next time it may be the other side doing the same, with same result; divide us to control us.

The fact is, the policy that is embodied by Obamacare was developed by conservatives in the 90's. It is a bit hard from my perspective to ignore history, and history shows that the personal mandate and set standard for ALL insurance was championed by Conservatives for many years. In fact Republicans tried to pass a similar act in 1974 under Richard Nixon too....

Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.

Among other features, the Chafee bill included:

An individual mandate;

Creation of purchasing pools;

Standardized benefits;

Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;

A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

"You would find a great deal of similarity to provisions in the Affordable Care Act," Sheila Burke, Dole’s chief of staff in 1993, told PunditFact via email. "The guys were way ahead of the times!! Different crowd, different time, suffice it to say."

That said, the Senate plan from 1993 was not identical to the health care law that passed in 2010. The Republican bill did not expand Medicaid as Obamacare does, and it did have medical malpractice tort reform, which the current law does not. In contrast to the current employer mandate, the Chafee bill required employers to offer insurance, but they were under no obligation to help pay for it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

What is the point of cake then in your analogy?

This.

What way is it ?

First they scream goverment stay out of a womans womb !

Ya, but YOU GUYS are the ones who claim to hate government. It would be different if liberals hated government and then used the government to control other people. As it is, conservatives claim to hate government, yet use the government to control other people. The difference is hypocrisy. Liberals don't go around saying they oppose using the government to create policy, it is accepted as a fact.

I makes my question how can conservatives claim to hate the government but consistently use the government to control other people.

Don't you see the fundamental contradiction? It is like saying I hate spousal abuse while you choke your wife you wife on a regular basis.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Blaine91555
What exactly is wrong with finding an accommodation that satisfies both sides? You see any politicians even suggesting that?

Nothing wrong with that. Have any suggestions? How about this?

For a woman to have adequate health care, birth control must be covered by her health insurance. For a business owner not to violate his religious beliefs, he must not have an abortion. That's the perfect solution. A person's religious beliefs should apply to THEM and them ONLY. Paying for health insurance is a large corporation's obligation, not deciding what that coverage is.

I wish we had the single payer system.

My mom once said to a religious man, "You mean Obamacare is forcing you to have an abortion?", he shut right up and all his arguments fell by the wayside.

a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

Ya, but YOU GUYS are the ones who claim to hate government.

And the point is ?

The flip side claims to hate government too because apparently they aren't giving the masses everything they want.

But still thanks for not answering the question.

a reply to: xuenchen

How can you say this may apply to Hobby Lobby? Did you miss these four words from your link?

non-profit religious organization

This may come as a shock to you but HL is NOT a non profit religious organization. Seeing how the owner has become a billionaire from his business they seem to be profiting very well.

I can't believe people are getting all riled up again.

We all know where we stand on the subject.

Hell, the mods could probably attach labels on our avatars based on where we stand on any given topic.

This issue is a non-issue. While it is important to show the lengths that Senate progressives will go to blur any other election issue this, in the long run, will fail.

Before trying to pass a law like this the Dems first need to get rid of corporate person hood. Also passing something that says companies that are run for profit are not allowed to have religious rights.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

False argument. The SCOTUS decision only applies to a very specific class of corporation where all the owners share the same belief and only applies to four methods that are seen to cause a fertilized egg to abort.

Also, in the case of Hobby Lobby, 16 forms of birth control have been provided all along and still are. The venom they are seeing all comes from uncompromising people who do not want to find solutions, they want to control them. Only using a false argument can they even enter the debate, so they misrepresent the facts.

See that's the problem. Both sides have spewed so much propaganda that the water is too muddy to see through. To even know what is true takes an effort few are willing to give.

Isn't the real solution to find a compromise for the rare cases where this applies? I'm sure someone smart enough to hold high office would be smart enough to tackle that problem. They do not want to. They pretend that asking someone to pay for what they honestly believe to be murder is rational or anything other than bullying. It is not.

I could easily find a case where the shoe is on the other foot, as could anyone else. It's about control, not the issue at hand IMO.

This is why I oppose the entire Party System. Look what it does to us! Any person qualified to hold high office should be a master of the art of compromise and be willing to work with all sides to do their jobs. I don't see any at the moment. We are not who they serve. They serve only themselves and those who flood them with money and promises for after they leave office.

I'm actually offended by both Parties and were I a member of either, I'd have to hang my head a little lower in shame. People need to stop letting others do their thinking for them.

Republican: Abortion is bad. Don't have one.
Normal person: Ok, so birth control then?
Republican: Nope. We will be making sure health care doesn't cover that.
Normal person: So then unwanted pregnancies will happen.
Republican: So what? That's your problem.
NP: Ok...so good prenatal care then? Even if I can't afford it?
Republican: Nope. We will be making sure you don't have coverage for that either. Give birth to unwanted, prenatally uncared for baby and give it up for adoption.
NP: But there are already lots of unwanted kids in foster care because there aren't enough adoptive parents. Should we let loving gay couples adopt?
Republican: Nope. Gays are bad. Let them grow up in foster care if they need to.
NP: So we will fund foster care then?
Republican: Of course not. We will cut funding to that too.
NP: So the kid will be prenatally uncared for, developmentally delayed, poor, unwanted and uneducated. Won't he gorw up to be a criminal?
Republican: If he does we will kill him!

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: xuenchen

How can you say this may apply to Hobby Lobby? Did you miss these four words from your link?

non-profit religious organization

This may come as a shock to you but HL is NOT a non profit religious organization. Seeing how the owner has become a billionaire from his business they seem to be profiting very well.

The Supreme Court ruling eludes to that....

read the "Held:" parts. It's fairly clear.

Hobby Lobby Hobby Lobby Hobby Lobby

originally posted by: buster2010
Before trying to pass a law like this the Dems first need to get rid of corporate person hood. Also passing something that says companies that are run for profit are not allowed to have religious rights.

The Supreme Court "Held" that too !!!

originally posted by: buster2010
Before trying to pass a law like this the Dems first need to get rid of corporate person hood. Also passing something that says companies that are run for profit are not allowed to have religious rights.

Sounds good to me.

Let that teach them unions a lesson too.

Then people don't get to sue them either.

OR ANYTHING ELSE.

I really wish that some people would stop lying about that.

Corporations were not 'granted' all the rights of people.

Just enough to make lawyers billions off of.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Battleline
Isn't it fascinating when these people are so willing to show everyone how childish and pathetic they are while demanding you pay for there sex life...

1.5 million women use birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes ONLY.

Most likely because they don't have a sex life.
Joking

a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

That's a bit off there. We know who wrote those 2,000 pages nobody read and that is so screwed up that they have had to make dozens of changes.

Whether or not it was proposed at other times in history does not change who authored the ACA. Thats just more talking points and diversion to change the conversation away from what they should be talking about.

I'm actually close to your corner here. I do not subscribe to any Party if that's not already clear. I have issues with both sides and the harm they are doing to all of us with their ME, ME, ME and to hell with you attitudes. I am 100% for free health care for those who cannot pay, but those who can should choose their own.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: buster2010
Before trying to pass a law like this the Dems first need to get rid of corporate person hood. Also passing something that says companies that are run for profit are not allowed to have religious rights.

The Supreme Court "Held" that too !!!

Yep and they have CLinton to thank for it.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications

en.wikipedia.org...