[talaniman]

universal care will never happen here. When the people see the disaster your side has inflicted on us with Obamacare ,then it too will be universally rejected . You think I would have less objection because my tax money pays for something I think is immoral ?

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.

2014 will be very interesting don't you think?

[paraclete]

universal care will never happen here. When the people see the disaster your side has inflicted on us with Obamacare ,then it too will be universally rejected . You think I would have less objection because my tax money pays for something I think is immoral ?

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?

[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 ?

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

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 !

[paraclete]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[excon]

Hello again, tal and clete:

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.

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

**GREENIE'S**

Excon

[tomder55]

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 court cases haven't made it to SCOTUS... yet.

[tomder55]

The employer doesn't pay for services, insurance companies do. .

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 .

[paraclete]

the court cases haven't made it to SCOTUS ...yet.

Yeah well what was that little ruckus a couple of months ago

[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 .

[excon]

Hello again,

Well then stop the game playing .

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...

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

[tomder55]

Make your case to the courts. Right now ,42 lawsuits have been filed challenging the contraception mandate .

[speechlesstx]

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...

But, it seems that only YOUR beliefs can be discussed... MY beliefs don't measure up... Well, that ain't gonna 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

When you tell me which specifically enumerated right you're referring to and we'll talk about it.

[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?

[speechlesstx]

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.