Quote:

---

I tell you what--try getting qualified employees without benefits as you see it, especially females, and see how that works for your religious hospital.

---

I don't think there are any staffing issues at our local hospital.

Not sure you are aware of this... but as of now... there is NO mandate for them to offer ANY medical insurance. That is why they call it a "benefit " . Just so you know that there are no labor laws mandating that .

This is a new requirement that the President and his commisar Sebillius ginned up to create a phony campaign issue .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do you guys have any NEW arguments? These have all been addressed ad nauseum and I'm not going to respond to any more posts implying I don't know what a word means.

---

Hi Steve,

I am sure you know what a word means. I am sure you know what a lot of different words means.

The problem is that you and me are not in a position to argue in front of a bunch of judges as to exactly what a word means.

Smart lawyers will put forward convincing arguments as to what a word means. If this is unsuccessful they will argue that a particular word should carry a different meaning for legal purposes.


You, me, and most people, can argue that something is unconstitutional because the words don't reflect true meaning of the statement. We can argue this until the cows come home but in the end (rightly or wrongly) what is constitutional will be decided by the judges.

If it turns out the lawyers for the current administration are smart to put forward a convincing judicial arguments then word(s) will mean for legal purposes what every they say it means.

For legal purposes a corporation will be considered a person under certain circumstances. This idea of corporate personhood is a lot nonsense. However, more importantly it is legal nonsense and as far as the courts are concerned this is all that matters.

Tut

Factualy wrong, as this mandate for clarity of benefits started under Nixon, and continues to this day so don't make this out to be left wing thing, or a new mandate under Obama. This was when the GOP, wanted universal healcare, and a mandate for every one to participate. Before the extreme right got into the act, and the republicans were sensible, and logical.

U.S. Department of Labor - A Summary of Major DOL Laws

Quote:

---

Employee Benefit Security

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employers who offer pension or welfare benefit plans for their employees. Title I of ERISA is administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) (formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration) and imposes a wide range of fiduciary, disclosure and reporting requirements on fiduciaries of pension and welfare benefit plans and on others having dealings with these plans. These provisions preempt many similar state laws. Under Title IV, certain employers and plan administrators must fund an insurance system to protect certain kinds of retirement benefits, with premiums paid to the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). EBSA also administers reporting requirements for continuation of health-care provisions, required under the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and the health care portability requirements on group plans under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

---

I would say Tal you are suffering from snakebite (COBRA) probably in the hippocket

No snake bite here Clete, just giving the facts, or is that dry Aussie humor showing?

Tal ;you can't quote a Nixon regulation as a right wing thing. This is the same Nixon who was very much into government control over everything [something you cal " sensible, and logical"].As I recall back then the Dems did not like such power ;at least not in the hands of a Republic.

And you definitely cannot argue that a brand new national mandate that clearly violates the 1st amendment is something that has been established since the 1970s .


Yes ;under Federal Law IF an employer offers medical coverage it has to comply with certain Federal requirements. It does not mandate that an employer must offer the coverage .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

No snake bite here Clete, just giving the facts, or is that dry Aussie humor showing?

---

Hey Tal you got it in one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

tal ;you can't quote a Nixon regulation as a right wing thing. This is the same Nixon who was very much into government control over everything [something you cal " sensible, and logical"].As I recall back then the Dems did not like such power ;at least not in the hands of a Repubic.

And you definitely cannot argue that a brand new national mandate that clearly violates the 1st amendment is something that has been established since the 1970s .


Yes ;under Federal Law IF an employer offers medical coverage it has to comply with certain Federal requirements. It does not mandate that an employer must offer the coverage .

---

Mandate - support from electorate: the authority bestowed on a government or other organization by an electoral victory, effectively authorizing it to carry out the policies for which it campaigned.

Obama ran on health care, so you can say the people mandated his mandate, despite the semantics you righties have presented. The supreme court will decide if its constitutional or not. Until then your assertion of clearly is just an opinion.

Woman's reproductive health care is a requirement for insurance companies, and by law, all employers with so many employees must offer insurance.

The issue before SCOTUS is can government mandate health insurance for all its citizens. Not whether it violates the churches first amendment rights, and the accommodation that has you righties drawers in a bunch is nothing more than a federal adoption of state law that already exists.

The number of states adopting these exemptions allowed by law, is expanding, not shrinking, I might add. But then this is a court that says corporations are people too, so we wait and see.

Hello again,

Let me examine this PC stuff a little further... I think the birth control pill is MEDICINE. I think it's medicine because your doctor has to prescribe it, and you buy it from the pharmacy, where they KEEP it from you until you've identified yourself... I don't think it could be ANYTHING else, BUT medicine.

Therefore, IF it's MEDICINE, it SHOULD be covered by HEALTH insurance.

excon

I don't know what plan you have . Mine ? There are many medicines that are not in the insurance company's formulary that are not covered... even if the doctor prescribed it .

Um, yeah, I already covered that before. No insurance company covers every medication, and your unelected, unaccountable Obamacare bureaucracy is going to do the same thing, decide what treatments they're going to allow. I thought you already knew how that worked.

They even go further under this unconstitutional mandate .They demand that the church or the insurance company that supplied their insurance plan provide them for "free" .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

they even go further under this unconstitutional mandate .They demand that the church or the insurance company that supplied their insurance plan provide them for "free" .

---

Hi Tom,

I guess that's what happens when a government wants to introduce a universal health care plan. Under your system of government the only way this can be achieved is through 'back door' methods.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Tom,

I guess that's what happens when a government wants to introduce a universal health care plan. Under your system of government the only way this can be achieved is through 'back door' methods.

Tut

---

"transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." -Barack Hussein Obama

Hello again,

Let me switch gears here... If you took the past several incidents, the church backlash, Santorum's stand on contraception, the Blunt amendment, the defunding of PP by Komen, the Limprod incident, the 400 bills in congress LIMITING abortion, and you lumped them all into ONE category, you could reasonably call it a WAR ON WOMEN..

No?

I think the Dems have picked that up.

excon

Yeah that's what the left hopes the debate is defined instead of 1st amendment free exercise issues ;and the power of the Federal government to mandate a product or service get purchased by individuals.

You really think the Komen group ;an organization dedicated to cure breast cancer is waging war on women ? Chuckle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah that's what the left hopes the debate is defined instead of 1st amendment free exercise issues ;and the power of the Federal government to mandate a product or service get purchased by individuals.

You really think the Komen group ;an organization dedicated to cure breast cancer is waging war on women ? chuckle.

---

I don't think the organization in general wanted a war, or controversy, but a few of them(1) at the top had a specific agenda and got called on it, and now they are gone. That war is over.

Ex, we didn't ask for any debate about contraception, no one planned on banning contraception, contraception was the furthest thing from our minds. My wife has a full time job, I have no intention of ever keeping her barefoot and making my breakfast. In fact, I do most of the cooking and dishes, I do my own laundry and ironing. I SERVE her, so let's get this conservative sexist crap off the table.

George Stephanopoulos pimped for Obama's coming mandate to inject this irrelevant subject into the debate, which is NOT about contraception. Yet you've been a tool for the left that few weeks telling us a woman's 'healthcare' is none of our business, while making it EVERYONE's business by supporting a mandate to make me pay for it. I can't account for your contradictory views there, it baffles me.

It is in fact a war on the first amendment, not a war on women. I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, we didn't ask for any debate about contraception, no one planned on banning contraception, contraception was the furthest thing from our minds. My wife has a full time job, I have no intention of ever keeping her barefoot and making my breakfast. In fact, I do most of the cooking and dishes, I do my own laundry and ironing. I SERVE her, so let's get this conservative sexist crap off the table.

George Stephanopoulos pimped for Obama's coming mandate to inject this irrelevant subject into the debate, which is NOT about contraception. Yet you've been a tool for the left that few weeks telling us a woman's 'healthcare' is none of our business, while making it EVERYONE's business by supporting a mandate to make me pay for it. I can't account for your contradictory views there, it baffles me.

It is in fact a war on the first amendment, not a war on women. I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

---

It baffles me too.

American history shows corporations waging an increasingly successful war against 1st and 14 amendment rights. Yet, this is conveniently overlooked. It's all right for corporations, but not government?

Tut

Some people Tut, have a vested interest in a weak central government, and a government fearing population. Its like the debate over regulations and tying them to jobs instead of seeing its corporation making money and being legally unaccountable when things go wrong. Think BP! Think AIG!

What I don't get is what's behind an ordinary citizen wanting a weak government that cannot protect, or ensure the security of citizens from corporate greed? I just don't get it?

Where is my free viagra?

Chuck are you suggesting women are clueless?

Hello wingers:

Free isn't the issue.. It NEVER was.. FREE is how the right wing TWISTED the issue to suit them. If you paid attention, you'd KNOW that. Instead, you take the EASY way out. You listen to bigots and fools.

The issue IS, and ALWAYS was, should the government mandate that insurance companies cover woman's health. Really. There ain't nothing FREE about it...

Over to you, wingers..

excon

I heard the President call it "free" .He plainly called it "free"

Quote:

---

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation's leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.

---

Obama delivers remarks on contraception insurance coverage | In Obama's Words | The Washington Post


And you call it the rights 'war on women ' when in fact it's the lefts war on liberty... in this case specifically.. religious liberty.

I think it showcases and brings to the forefront the massive religious hypocrisy. They gladly use the birth control in droves but will raise a stink about it on "moral" grounds. It is to laugh.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not here to defend Obama. I'm here to tell you what is going on, no matter WHO thinks it's NOT going on.

The issue IS as I described it - NOT how you wingers describe it. I guess you DO that because you KNOW you can't WIN if you tell it like it is... I'm used to it. That's why I'm here.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And you call it the rights 'war on women ' when in fact it's the lefts war on liberty ....in this case specifically ..religious liberty.

---

If you mean the churches attempts to make laws based on their doctrines you got that right brudder! If they cannot control their own congregation then for darn sure they have NO right to control me!

You talk of religious freedom but what you mean is less freedom for actual, real people. You want absolute power for the church to do as it will. I DO NOT!

You cannot expect the church to make economic policy for the country, the state, OR the individual. Or use religion as a tool for taking away the free choice of individuals to pursue their own happiness. Even if the government backs off, the states have already limited church doctrine to affect private business through exemptions by a growing number of state policy makers.

YOU know the rules, sue in the courts! The states have won their case, and set precedent for the fed to win theirs.

Just because you say religious freedom, doesn't mean it is. So sue and find out!

No what I really mean is the lefts constant attempt to impose collective universalism on a very diverse country . Either there is freedom of religious conscious or there isn't .I think there is based on 1st Amendment guarantees. You ;you believe the government is the final arbiter on religious conscious .

No I think in this case the federal policy is but a duplication of the majority of states policies. 4 more states, and it meets the lawful status of what it takes to amend, and ratify the constitution to include religious exemptions.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what's constitutional, and what's NOT! That's what you always say. So we agree, AGAIN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Either there is freedom of religious conscious or there isn't

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't know how you guys confuse this... You HAVE freedom of religious conscience. You just can't IMPOSE it on me. The Blunt Amendment would have done that exact thing. It would allow ANY employer in this great land of ours to DECIDE, based on HIS own morals or RELIGION, to IMPOSE those RELIGIOUS matters ON his employees... He could decide that he doesn't like mixed marriage, and decide NOT to cover employees who do that...

And, YOU supported this piece of GARBAGE... What about MY religious freedom to be FREE from people like you?

excon

Quote:

---

You just can't IMPOSE it on me.

---

On the contrary.. it is Obama that is imposing values contrary to the Catholic church's values on them .No one is imposing them on YOU .
I have not come out in favor of the Blunt Amendment ;and it would not have been proposed if the President wasn't making the ridiculous mandate in the 1st place. So put your straw man away.

tal. The whole point of Federalism was for the states to make these decisions .It is the essence of my comment about the Federal government's universalism . I am not impressed that a handful of states have scored victories for their mandates . The only thing that SCOTUS decided with their non-action of not allowing the cases to be heard beyond the appellate courts was to confirm that such decisions was the perusal of the states . This national mandate ;like much, if not all of Obamacare will be declared unconstitutional

The states have made their decisions in ever increasing numbers. And having been to a catholic church or two, they don't seem to adhere to strict doctrines of the church either, so practically, this controversy of religious freedom, and the Blount proposal (which was defeated I might add) is a straw man argument as well. The church is forced to pay nothing, since it's the insurane company that does. And that's the free market.

Driven by the right wing to undermine the very essence of the health care bill, for women, while trying to repeal abortion rights, unions, and poor people bear the brunt of a far right wing agenda to minimize government and establish an oligarchy to replace the federal government.

You guys love churches and corporations but hate government and people. That's not a straw man argument either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The states have made their decisions in ever increasing numbers. And having been to a catholic church or two, they don't seem to adhere to strict doctrines of the church either, so practically, this controversy of religious freedom, and the Blount proposal (which was defeated I might add) is a straw man argument as well.

---

Wrong, yours is the straw man. We've already shown that church doctrine isn't decided by the laity, and the notion that a local church acting contrary to church doctrine is justification is just as spurious an argument.

Quote:

---

The church is forced to pay nothing, since it's the insurane company that does. And that's the free market.

---

YOu somehow still think that insurance companies are going to give this away? LOL, not going to happen, the policy holders will pay for it regardless, and you still ignore the fact that those who self-insure will most definitely be forced to pay for it under Obama's mandate. His "compromise" is smoke and mirrors.

Quote:

---

Driven by the right wing to undermine the very essence of the health care bill, for women, while trying to repeal abortion rights, unions, and poor people bear the brunt of a far right wing agenda to minimize government and establish an oligarchy to replace the federal government.

---

Free contraceptives is not the "very essence" of Obamacare, it's the complete undermining of the first amendment, which apparently you find irrelevant (while exercising your free speech rights no less).

Quote:

---

You guys love churches and corporations but hate government and people. That's not a straw man argument either.

---

No it isn't a straw man, it's an outright lie.

Hello again, Steve:

You poo poo the idea, but I don't see ANY difference between the church PAYING its employees, and THEY buy contraceptives, and the church PAYING its insurance and THEY buy the contraceptives... The money comes out of the SAME bank account.

You say it's a free choice matter, but doesn't the insurance company HAVE a choice?? You pay PETER to buy something you don't like, but you won't pay PAUL when he wants some.. .

I'm having trouble with that... Of COURSE, you'll poo poo it, because it DESTROYS your argument..

excon

Asked and answered, just like every other straw man you guys keep recycling over and over. Church doctrine does not mandate and regulate the private behavior of its members and employees. If they did you would be just as outraged, as you would the state mandating and regulating your private behavior in your home. What an employee or member does on their own time with the money they earned is irrelevant to the church defending its doctrine and rights and you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Asked and answered, just like every other straw man you guys keep recycling over and over.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I'll go away... Just please explain to me the DIFFERENCE between the church writing a check to an employee, and contraceptives get purchased, and the church writing a check to an insurance company, and contraceptives get purchased... I see NO difference - NONE!

Once somebody is paid, whether it's an employee or a contractor, the MONEY they got paid is THEIR money to do with as they please, isn't it?? Then why doesn't the church mind how their EMPLOYEES spend their money, but they VERY MUCH MIND how their insurance company spends theirs??

Getting rid if ME is easy. Just be straightforward and answer the question.

excon

Even self insurers have corporate under writers and managers. That's just the business of it, and who pays what is between the insurance company, and the claimant for service. They collect a premium for profit, and the church has no right to say what services or products a private company provides.

And please get off this idea its coming out of your pocket when someone else claims a service, because in truth, that means when you get a service, it comes out of my pocket, by your logic. And frankly I am tired of paying for your meds, and listening to you selfish righties take the benefits, but not responsibilities.

Sure keep blaming everybody else for your misconceptions. You only object when you get YOUR way, but scream like a banshee when you think someone else gets THEIR way. You act like you are the ONLY one paying for something.

You aren't!

And how come my arguments are phony, and yours are not?

Your closed minded hypocrisy is showing.

Christianity believes in free will. Once the money is in the employees hand ,the church has Zero say in how they spend their money. Forcing churches to pay ,either directly ,or through their coverage however, forces the church to act against it's doctrine.. It's a simple as that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's a simple as that .

---

Hello tom:

Uhhnm, no it isn't. Their employees have free will, but their insurance company DOESN'T?? How's that?? What hold does the church have on it's insurance company, that it doesn't have on it's employees?

What if the insurance company is covering its OWN employees contraceptive needs, and is using the PROFITS it made from the church do so? Would the church object?? What if the insurance company was run by a liberal who gave to liberal, pro-choice causes. Should the church object? What if their employees did it? Can the church stop them? Should they?

And, about this free will crap... Why, when the money is in the hands of WELFARE recipients in Florida, DON'T they have free will to buy marijuana, or lottery tickets??

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

Uhhnm, no it isn't. Their employees have free will, but their insurance company DOESN'T?? How's that?? What hold does the church have on it's insurance company, that it doesn't have on it's employees?

---

Um, the church has to pay its employees, it doesn't have to do business with an insurance company.

Quote:

---

And, about this free will crap... Why, when the money is in the hands of WELFARE recipients in Florida, DON'T they have free will to buy marijuana, or lottery tickets??

---

Oh, so you've moved from forcing me to pay for their contraceptives to forcing me to pay for their drug and gambling habits. See? Even you've recognized the slippery slope the Obama mandate puts us on.

Well dammit, I think I'm entitled to free Starbucks coffee, it helps me function physically and mentally every day. I also need some coffee contraceptives in the way of free coffee filters while you're at it. Oh, and some bottled water, I can't drink that chemical-laced crap the government runs through my faucet, it's a health hazard.

And you know, the cost of gas is way more than Sandra Fluke's contraceptives and far more necessary. If can't drive my 4Runner to work I won't be able to pay for her birth control you know. And then tires and maintenance is expensive. If you can give the 1 percent $7500 (soon to be $10,000 under Obama's plan) to buy a $40,000 car nobody wants then you can afford to pay for the upkeep of my $2500 4Runner.

When they earn their own money I will not care one whit what they do with it.

P.S. Dealing with liberal stupidity makes me anxious and stressed. I need you to buy me some free Xanax.