Where is my free viagra?
|
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"
Obama delivers remarks on contraception insurance coverage | In Obama's Words | The Washington PostQuote:
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.
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
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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 .Quote:
You just can't IMPOSE it on me.
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.
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:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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:
The church is forced to pay nothing, since it's the insurane company that does. And that's the free market.
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:
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.
No it isn't a straw man, it's an outright lie.Quote:
You guys love churches and corporations but hate government and people. That's not a straw man argument either.
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 .
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Um, the church has to pay its employees, it doesn't have to do business with an insurance company.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.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??
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:05 PM. |