It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Vio1ion
The service is there, you make the choice to use it or not.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
Hopefullly SCOTUS will rule that any mandate within the Health Care law is unconstitutional, as it is. There's no line in the constitution that gives them the power to make you do things, only the state can do that, and even then, it's very limited as far as my understanding goes.
There's certainly a better way of doing things, I don't know what it is, but it's not for the Government to decide what's best for you.
Originally posted by spyder550
How do you feel if the birth control pills are used to control many health conditions.other than just contraception. How do you discriminate.
If you look at this from an actuarial point of view, pills are a lot cheaper than delivering babies.
If you look at it sociologically we are better of with fewer unwanted children and with planned families.
If you look at it from a pro choice point of view, birth control prevents abortion.
If you look at it from the Santorum view, you shouldn't be having sex unless you are making a baby, and if you enjoy sex you are a bad person and have a window seat in the bus to hell.
I don't see Obama forcing the catholic church to do it. Why not ask insurance companies why.
Insurance companies will pay for viagra, but not BC pills - isn't there a disconnect here.
No one is stopping women from obtaining birth control. Just stop asking the church to pay for it!
The new version of the BC thing is that the Churches BUSINESS which is making money providing services are not required to pay for or promote or monitor usage. The insurance companies pay and they tell the users that the service is available -- the user can decide if that is what they want or not.
Apparently 98 percent of the women use or have used birth control - that is a lot of people to be on the wrong side of this.
Politically the right wing is trying to ride this horse saying that an EMPLOYER can taylor his insurance to discriminate against you because what you do is whatever they come up with. Diabetic sorry you should control it with a healthy diet.
The scope and sheer arrogance in determining for each and all of us is/was unthinkable, until recently.
Originally posted by Aliensun
"Redefinition of insurance" is a great term!
Government is taking over the responsibility of our health and has determined that we will pay them for that generous, benevolent act.
In that way, they virtually control via whatever laws, regulations or stipulations they want to impose upon our lives from preconception until after death. You have no reasonable choice to opt out.edit on 17-2-2012 by Aliensun because: again, spellingedit on 17-2-2012 by Aliensun because: word arrangement
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
It is deliberate. Politicians since FDR and even before hate the Constitution and see it as an impedance to their exercise of power. Bush, Clinton Bush 2, and the O are all guilty of treating the Constitution as toilet paper. We need to stand every one of them up against the wall. If George Washington had gotten stood against the wall for his unlawful use of troops against Americans resisting an income tax during the whiskey rebellion, we would not have this problem now. Politicians would know their place.
Originally posted by David9176
Eliminate the whole problem with a public option.
This entire argument only proves that it's needed.
A public option is what this is being driven to. We need to change direction.