 |
According o the last election your opinion is a growing minority one, and despite denial the woman fought back to get what they wanted and rejected what you wanted them to (NOT) have. All the minority groups did.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
2014 will be very interesting don't you think?
You know what is immoral Tom, that you should think that you should have no responsibility towards those who are less advantaged than yourself. The reason you have taxes and no say in how they are used is because you will not address these issues yourself. You live in a country that makes majority decisions by a process you call democracy, but you want it to be the Autocracy of Tom, where only decisions that advantage you are made. How does it feel to be an oppressed minority, Tom? Do you want this for all those disadvantaged people too?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What are you talking about ? Your TGA just approved the use of RU-486 . Does your taxes pay for it ? Are you forced to cover it in your insurance ?
I can say the same thing, what are you talking about
Tom I don't pay for anything. RU-486 is not available on the PBS, all the announcement means is it has been approved for use. If someone wants to use it they will pay for it and a private health fund may or may not provide a benefit to offset part of the cost. You don't understand our system, I am not forced to do anything. I have a right to medical services with choice of doctor, hospital, etc. I can choose not to use these services. I can have private health insurance, or not have it, and it costs a great deal less than your schemes which appear to have the sole purpose of riping off the insured. The advantage of private health insurance is that procedures might be scheduled earlier because of availability of beds in private hospitals
I correctly understand then that your comment to me has no relevance to what an employer in this country who has a moral objection to supplying abortion pills is confronting .
Moral objections are one thing, political insurrection another. Your government has mandated a scheme including the benefits. The place for changing that lies in the ballot box and if your objectors cannot gain sufficient support then they will have to opt for a different set of benefits, pay the workers sufficient wages so they can buy their own insurance, or decide it is all too hard. This is what you get for having a scheme where the government passes the buck to employers rather than implementing their own health care scheme.
The supply of abortion pills is still optional by medical practitioners in your country isn't it, why should an employer be involved with the medical decisions of a medical practitioner or a patient? What sort or tyranny are you running over there
Have you not been paying attention ? The issue is that the government is forcing the employer to cover that in violation of the employer's 1st amendment protections . Tyranny ? Damn straight !
Tom if what you say is correct then the legislation would have been struck down by the Supreme court as unconstitutional, it wasn't, so what you have is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. What I don't understand is your perpensitity for endless argument long after the matter is decided.
The employer doesn't pay for services, insurance companies do. The church isn't even notified of claims, doctors, or services that insurance companies pay for. If you want a tyrant, look at the church who promotes the right to set business services, and tell doctors what their patients need and don't need. That's true tyranny no matter what you believe. Its discrimination against female medical needs.
How does the church have more rights than the citizen? They don't. How do employers have more rights than a citizen? They don't.
It's just the inquisition mentality all over again, the thought police are loose again, this time in the form of presuming everyone who has health insurance will use contraceptives or have an abortion. Heaven forbid that anyone should be able to make a decision for ourselves, they want to take away our God given free will. I wonder what they use the confessional for these days
Hello again, tal and clete:
Quote:
If you want a tyrant, look at the church who promotes the right to set business services, and tell doctors what their patients need and don't need.
**GREENIE'S**Quote:
presuming everyone who has health insurance will use contraceptives or have an abortion. Heaven forbid that anyone should be able to make a decision for ourselves, they want to take away our God given free will
Excon
The court cases haven't made it to SCOTUS... yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Lol too funny... that is the Through the looking glass logic that Sebilius used too. Fine. Then the employer can stop paying the insurance company for that service ? NO ? Well then stop the game playing .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yeah well what was that little ruckus a couple of months agoQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That was only whether the funding for the Obamacare mandate was constitutional. The next tests working their way through court will decide if the Sebillius decision on contraceptive mandatory coverage violates 1st Amendment religious rights.
And their will be more court challenges after that .
Hello again,
I've been TRYING to find some sort of a situation that's similar... But, it appears that YOUR First Amendment violation is the ONLY one you'll consider... This IS, supposedly, a discussion about an employer who finds a government policy that CONFLICTS with his personal beliefs, and what he should DO about it...Quote:
Well then stop the game playing .
But, it seems that only YOUR beliefs can be discussed... MY beliefs don't measure up... Well, that ain't going to win you sh1t.
WHY?? Because if you were SERIOUS about an employer NOT being required to go against his beliefs, you'd be for ALL employers having that right, and you aren't. I assume you do that, because if you DID grant ALL employers the same latitude, you'd SEE how utterly ridiculous your argument is.
Excon
Make your case to the courts. Right now ,42 lawsuits have been filed challenging the contraception mandate .
When you tell me which specifically enumerated right you're referring to and we'll talk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
I did, but I'll do it again... I have the right to HATE. Dad mentioned that we have laws against HATE crimes, but NOT covering health care for people I HATE ISN'T a crime or speech.
Do I NOT have the right to hate? Do I NOT have freedom of thought? Do I NOT have the right to appear in public with my robes on? Do I NOT have the right to act upon my BELIEFS and MORALS??
excon
PS> (edited) I also mentioned my belief in VEGETARIANISM, and my belief in the dangers of fast food. I have the RIGHT to those beliefs, do I not?
Oh, I know YOU don't like my beliefs, but that's NOT the point, is it?
Oh, that canard. I believe I addressed that thoroughly when I said feel free to cover "whatever" you want but not "whoever" you choose to cover.
What?? Now you can pick who gets what coverage, service, or rights? That's blatant discrimination.
Why does a person have to give up THEIR rights for you to have YOUR rights?
Having reading comprehension issues today, Tal? I said, "I addressed that thoroughly when I said feel free to cover "whatever" you want but not "whoever" you choose to cover. What part of the difference between "whatever" and "whoever" do you not get?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
ZZzzzzzzz. We were never guaranteed any right to health insurance. Your faux outrage on this is getting tiresome.Quote:
Why does a person have to give up THEIR rights for you to have YOUR rights?
That's no explanation of why you think the church and bosses should have the right, or authority to tell a female what she can do with her doctor, and insurance carrier. That's the issue, not what you believe.
Let the female get her own policy . There is no "right " to contraception . You may as well argue that there is a right to a face lift ,tummy tuck or botox injections . Contraception is elective.
Same tired argument. You probably think if I'm buying you a Christmas present you have the right to dictate to me what it will be. That's the issue, you dictating how I run MY business, what to do with MY money and .expecting me to violate MY constitutionally guaranteed religious rights in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's not what females say, just YOU guys. You think you have the right to dictate what's acceptable reproductive health care is all about. Holler all you want because they are pushing for want they want and not what you think they should have.
Hell we had to fight a war to get you to honor the rights of slaves and you guys still didn't learn. You do know women can vote don't you?
Your rights aren't violated lets be clear, nor is the right to practice YOUR beliefs, but your beliefs should have anything to do with MY rights, or beliefs, or anyone else that doesn't believe as you do.
Its too late for a Christmas gift, but I do have a birthday coming, and will appreciate anything you decide on.
Need suggestions?
the presumption being that I would've been on the side of the slave states ? I wonder how a Black would feel about you equating their freedom from bondage with a women getting a contraception pill ?Quote:
Hell we had to fight a war to get you to honor the rights of slaves and you guys still didn't learn.
Hello again, tom:
But, there IS a right to equal protection under the law. If they're going to cover MENS health, then they're REQUIRED to cover Women's health...Quote:
There is no "right " to contraception . You may as well argue that there is a right to a face lift ,tummy tuck or botox injections .
It says so, right there in the Constitution. You surely don't LIKE that 14th Amendment, do you?
Excon
Women's health is covered .
Hello again, tom:
Well then, we're done here.Quote:
Women's health IS covered
Excon
Um, you still have it EXACTLY backwards. The only one who rights are being violated are those forced to buy contraceptives against their religious beliefs. There is no constitutional right to health insurance and there is no constitutional right to contraceptives.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's what mystifies, you libs have no problem trampling on clearly enumerated rights; speech, religion, guns - while expecting us to honor nonexistent rights. Come back to reality.
Hello again, Steve:
... " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Quote:
while expecting us to honor nonexistent rights.
I don't know. I think the 14th Amendment counts as rights... What? Did you stop after reading the 2nd Amendment? There's OTHERS, you know.
Excon
I don't know how that adds up to a constitutional right to health insurance or contraceptives but it is that "whoever" thing I keep mentioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
It's a simple concept, really... If a company, or a church is going to cover MEN's health needs, then they MUST cover WOMEN'S needs as well. That's where the word EQUAL comes in.
I don't know what's so HARD about that.
excon
Not all things that men may think they "need " is covered . I really don't see where this becomes a 14th amendment issue. I'd say if anything ;it discriminates against men. Not all plans cover medicines like Viagra . Yet I don't see the HHS mandating it's coverage .
Hello again,
In this same vein, your Republican party wants to INCLUDE more women the next time around. Do you think your position ATTRACTS women, or REPELS them? If it REPELS them, as it did in the last election, do you plan to MODERATE your position? Do you think you SHOULD? Or, is it that women just don't understand your position, and if you only explained it better, you'd get 'em?
I really want to know.
excon
Dear excon:
I read somewhere that Republicans are going to educate women about what they need to be REAL women.
Fondly,
WG
And I don't know what's so hard to understand about how utterly wrong and ridiculous it is for government to compel the church to violate its religious beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As opposed to Democrats treating them as helpless tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again, Steve:
Our laws attempt to BALANCE your rights against somebody else's rights. That's all this is..Quote:
And I don't know what's so hard to understand about how utterly wrong and ridiculous it is for government to compel the church to violate its religious beliefs.
Maybe the Supreme Court WILL say 1st Amendment rights trump 14th Amendment rights... But, I don't think, even this right wing court, will rule that way. But, I could be wrong... I was wrong back '08.
Excon
What would make us REAL? What aren't we doing right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 AM. |