• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

A month's supply of birth control pills can be had for 9 dollars at Targets and probably cheaper if one shops around. It probably costs that much to include birth control pills in the health insurance policy. I don't see why it is even included. The idea is to make expensive pills available to the poor, leave the nuns alone. In fact just drop the pills, 9 dollars a month is about 30 cents a day. Let's get real on this thing.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo Requiring nuns to pay for contraceptive insurance. Thats funny. Whats next...requiring gay men to get insurance covering pregnancy?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the costs of pregnancy is covered in all insurance policies as part of the mandate or a regulation added by HHS. I have heard this many times, but never took the time to check. Perhaps one of you all knows the correct answer.
 
Perotista said:
I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the costs of pregnancy is covered in all insurance policies as part of the mandate or a regulation added by HHS. I have heard this many times, but never took the time to check. Perhaps one of you all knows the correct answer.
Click to expand...
I'm PROBABLY being a bit sarcastic with some of those comments. Yes...the new ACA mandates people buy a cookie cutter policy that includes all of those things, regardless of whether or not you want them or need them. Because...you know...the government knows best.
 
VanceMack said:
I'm PROBABLY being a bit sarcastic with some of those comments. Yes...the new ACA mandates people buy a cookie cutter policy that includes all of those things, regardless of whether or not you want them or need them. Because...you know...the government knows best.
Click to expand...

I heard this which seems crazy for males since they don't get pregnant. It sure does seem the insurances companies have gotten a pretty sweet deal from the government for their support of the ACA, which does include a provision for taxpayers to pick up some of the costs if the insurances companies do not make enough money. It is something like that in the law itself.
 
Perotista said:
I heard this which seems crazy for males since they don't get pregnant. It sure does seem the insurances companies have gotten a pretty sweet deal from the government for their support of the ACA, which does include a provision for taxpayers to pick up some of the costs if the insurances companies do not make enough money. It is something like that in the law itself.
Click to expand...
Im sure people will someday realize what is actually in the law...after they have read the law.

Its kinda funny to hear the continuing rhetoric. Its not a tax! Its not going to raise taxes at all. Wait...the only way it receives SCOTUS approval is as a tax? Well...that seems fair after all...I mean...everyone has to pay taxes. Thats almost as funny as the people that loudly and proudly proclaimed support for passage now saying theres no way in hell they will get the coverage, they would rather pay the fine...to not get the coverage they were so anxious to have passed. Some people have gone from seconds to thirds on that **** sandwich...just to show how much they REALLY love it.
 
VanceMack said:
Im sure people will someday realize what is actually in the law...after they have read the law.

Its kinda funny to hear the continuing rhetoric. Its not a tax! Its not going to raise taxes at all. Wait...the only way it receives SCOTUS approval is as a tax? Well...that seems fair after all...I mean...everyone has to pay taxes. Thats almost as funny as the people that loudly and proudly proclaimed support for passage now saying theres no way in hell they will get the coverage, they would rather pay the fine...to not get the coverage they were so anxious to have passed. Some people have gone from seconds to thirds on that **** sandwich...just to show how much they REALLY love it.
Click to expand...

I heard on the news around the first of the year that around 50 new Obamacare taxes have taken effect. I am unsure of the number as I can't remember the exact number of new taxes Obamacare has brought on us. People will not notice them this year, but will next year when they do their 2014 taxes. The support for and against Obamacare has remained fairly constant since it was first passed. 39% for 53% again back in March of 2010 and today it is 38% for and 53% against.

Did you know that having insurance is mandatory, but that the government is going to tax the insurance also. In other words, the government is making you buy something so they can tax it. Huh
 
fmw said:
No, the crux of the issue is Obamacare. While you can view everything as political if you like, in my experience partisan laws are usually bad laws and bipartisan laws seem to be good laws. That's the political agenda to which I refer.
Click to expand...

What would be bipartisan? Certain this legislation includes republican ideas. And republicans (yes, democrats have the same mindset) set out not to help, but to block. So the agenda is what? To get the job done? To start the work?
 
Anthony60 said:
No point in me reposting what I already have. Though I don't know what the point is about the employee owning the insurance once he receives it. All he can do is use it, he can't change it. If he receives $1000 in pay, he can't change the paycheck to $10k if he wants.
Click to expand...

It's a simple point. Truly simple. The employer doesn't get birth control; the employee does. It's not employer's business. Not the employer's concern. The discussion you entered into was about employers going against their beliefs.
 
iacardsfan said:
Well shoot, if being certain religions means getting exempt from Obamacare, im off to church everybody.
Click to expand...

Well if Obama care were not a socialist program of wealth redistribution there would not be an issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
What would be bipartisan? Certain this legislation includes republican ideas. And republicans (yes, democrats have the same mindset) set out not to help, but to block. So the agenda is what? To get the job done? To start the work?
Click to expand...

No. Bipartisan means that it was passed with a majority of both parties voting for it by my definition. There were no republican votes at all. Bad bill. The agenda is to secure more power and control for the federal government just like all partisan laws. That shouldn't be a mystery to anyone.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo Requiring nuns to pay for contraceptive insurance. Thats funny.
...
Click to expand...

For the tenth time - the nuns are not required to pay for contraceptive insurance, nor is their insurance trust (they are self-insured), nor are they mandated to provide it for their employees (many of which are lay people).
 
Paperview said:
For the tenth time - the nuns are not required to pay for contraceptive insurance, nor is their insurance trust (they are self-insured), nor are they mandated to provide it for their employees (many of which are lay people).
Click to expand...
Oh good...you just think Justice Sotomayor agreed for the SCOTUS to hear the case because she is a dumbass and doesnt understand the case or law.
 
VanceMack said:
Oh good...you just think Justice Sotomayor agreed for the SCOTUS to hear the case because she is a dumbass and doesnt understand the case or law.
Click to expand...

You appear to not understand this issue. Why the smarmy non sequitur when poverty of knowledge on the matter rests with you?

Sotomayor has not "agreed for the SCOTUS to hear the case." She issued a temporary injunction when requested by the plaintiffs. The injunction does not speak to the merits of the case. In her order, she required the government to respond to the stay by 10AM Friday. On 10AM last Friday, the Solicitor General responded.

No one knows at this point what decision she will make. She may (and likely will) bring it before the full court, but at this point, we are all waiting for her response.

I again repeat, the temporary injunction does not speak to the merits of the case.

Last night I posted this which might provide some insight on the technicalities of granting a stay: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/182585-sotomayor-ruling-4.html#post1062757684
 
Paperview said:
You appear to not understand this issue. Why the smarmy non sequitur when poverty of knowledge on the matter rests with you?

Sotomayor has not "agreed for the SCOTUS to hear the case." She issued a temporary injunction when requested by the plaintiffs. The injunction does not speak to the merits of the case. In her order, she required the government to respond to the stay by 10AM Friday. On 10AM last Friday, the Solicitor General responded.

No one knows at this point what decision she will make. She may (and likely will) bring it before the full court, but at this point, we are all waiting for her response.

I again repeat, the temporary injunction does not speak to the merits of the case.

Last night I posted this which might provide some insight on the technicalities of granting a stay: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/182585-sotomayor-ruling-4.html#post1062757684
Click to expand...
A SCOTUS stay is a pretty solid indicator that regardless the finding at the fed court level it is headed to the Supreme Court. That they are willing to issue a stay is a pretty good indicator they think there is something deserving attention.
 
Paperview said:
For the tenth time - the nuns are not required to pay for contraceptive insurance, nor is their insurance trust (they are self-insured), nor are they mandated to provide it for their employees (many of which are lay people).
Click to expand...

It's too late. The right wingers have got the phrase "Nuns have to pay for contraceptive coverage" and now there's no way to get it out of their head no matter how untrue it is

VanceMack said:
Oh good...you just think Justice Sotomayor agreed for the SCOTUS to hear the case because she is a dumbass and doesnt understand the case or law.
Click to expand...

See what I mean?
 
sangha said:
It's too late. The right wingers have got the phrase "Nuns have to pay for contraceptive coverage" and now there's no way to get it out of their head no matter how untrue it is



See what I mean?
Click to expand...

So there ISNT a challenge in fed court and the SCOTUS has NOT issued a stay?
 
VanceMack said:
A SCOTUS stay is a pretty solid indicator that regardless the finding at the fed court level it is headed to the Supreme Court. That they are willing to issue a stay is a pretty good indicator they think there is something deserving attention.
Click to expand...

Still demonstrating how you don't understand what you're talking about

The case is not "headed to the Supreme Court"; It's already there.

But that doesn't mean that they will hear the case. They may accept the accept the govt's response, lift the stay, and never let the case get a hearing.
 
VanceMack said:
A SCOTUS stay is a pretty solid indicator that regardless the finding at the fed court level it is headed to the Supreme Court. That they are willing to issue a stay is a pretty good indicator they think there is something deserving attention.
Click to expand...

As I've said many times, yes , it likely will (full SCOTUS), or it could be enjoined with other suits that we know are pending. It still makes no commentary on the merits of the case.

The hurdle the nuns have to overcome is trying to explain how filing out a one page piece of paper, which affirms their religious faith, and self-certifies them as being exempt, a provision these non-profits requested I might add -- how filing out the form is considered an undue burden.

The plaintiffs here are really a poor one for the cause, because no matter what - neither the nuns or their Insurance Trust (Christian Brothers) are required to provide birth control coverage for their employees.

It's about the paperwork. It.
 
Paperview said:
As I've said many times, yes , it likely will, or it could be enjoined with other suits that we know are pending. It still makes no commentary on the merits of the case.

The hurdle the nuns have to overcome is trying to explain how filing out a one page piece of paper, which affirms their religious faith, and self-certifies them as being exempt, a provision these non-profits requested I might add -- how filing out the form is considered an undue burden.

The plaintiffs here are really a poor one for the cause, because no matter what - neither the nuns or their Insurance Trust (Christian Brothers) are required to provide birth control coverage for their employees.

It's about the paperwork. It.
Click to expand...
by the time something gets to the SCOTUS there have been lower level challenges. As the politico article stated there are NUMEROUS challenges to the contraceptive requirements law. The court has already agreed to take two separate challenges to the contraceptive requirement, but they involve religious owners of for-profit businesses, not religious nonprofits like this Denver nursing home. Dozens of religious-affiliated groups, dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s attempts to address their concerns, have petitioned federal courts to eliminate the requirement.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...traception-decision-101719.html#ixzz2pdSbBGPK

Nuns...pastors...religious charitable organizations. There are numerous people being mandated to carry insurance they simply don't want or need but have been forced into. The lawsuits and legal challenges have only just begun.
 
sangha said:
It's too late. The right wingers have got the phrase "Nuns have to pay for contraceptive coverage" and now there's no way to get it out of their head no matter how untrue it is



See what I mean?
Click to expand...

It makes for red-meat sound bites though, which is likely why the Becket Fund chose the nuns. Obama sticks it to Nuns! Poor Little Sisters victims of the angry jagged-toothed abomination of Obamacare!...just a few minutes ago, I read this one:

"We are witnessing a modern-day version of King Darius ordering that Daniel be thrown into the lion's den for refusing to deny his faith. "

Yeesh.
 
VanceMack said:
by the time something gets to the SCOTUS there have been lower level challenges. As the politico article stated there are NUMEROUS challenges to the contraceptive requirements law. The court has already agreed to take two separate challenges to the contraceptive requirement, but they involve religious owners of for-profit businesses, not religious nonprofits like this Denver nursing home. Dozens of religious-affiliated groups, dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s attempts to address their concerns, have petitioned federal courts to eliminate the requirement.

Read more: Sonia Sotomayor faces health law contraception decision - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

Nuns...pastors...religious charitable organizations. There are numerous people being mandated to carry insurance they simply don't want or need but have been forced into. The lawsuits and legal challenges have only just begun.
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with the case, all the briefs in it, the 10th Circuit opinion, the Orders and responses, long before you came along and started telling us what you don't know.

For now the 11th time (man, this gets old) Nuns...pastors...religious charitable organizations - are NOT being forced into providing BC.

A provision was made for these religious non-profits to avoid it. It's called self-certification and involves filing out a form.
 
Paperview said:
I'm quite familiar with the case, all the briefs in it, the 10th Circuit opinion, the Orders and responses, long before you came along and started telling us what you don't know.

For now the 11th time (man, this gets old) Nuns...pastors...religious charitable organizations - are NOT being forced into providing BC.

A provision was made for these religious non-profits to avoid it. It's called self-certification and involves filing out a form.
Click to expand...
and THATS why there is NOT a case in the federal courts and one that the SCOTUS has issued a stay for.
 
VanceMack said:
Nuns...pastors...religious charitable organizations. There are numerous people being mandated to carry insurance they simply don't want or need but have been forced into. The lawsuits and legal challenges have only just begun.
Click to expand...

None of those groups are mandated to cover contraception. From the article you linked to and quoted from

“Applicants have no legal basis to … complain that it involves them in the process of providing contraceptive coverage,” government lawyers wrote to the court.“This case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation” under a 1974 labor law that predates the president’s health care law.

The Little Sisters, in their reply to the government’s brief on Friday afternoon, said that signing a piece of paper allowing contraception — even if it doesn’t result in contraception being handed out —is itself a violation of their religious protections. That certification is part of the current legal process for religious non-profits that object to providing the contraception.


Read more: Sonia Sotomayor faces health law contraception decision - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

Your claim that "nuns are required to pay for contraception coverage" is nothing but a lie
 
sangha said:
None of those groups are mandated to cover contraception. From the article you linked to and quoted from



Your claim that "nuns are required to pay for contraception coverage" is nothing but a lie
Click to expand...
as the cited article states this one particular group is part of 500 different groups enjoined in numerous suits. The 'waiver' offered by the government says the religious group doesn't have to provide contraception but their insurance company does. In this case...the government would still be forcing a religious organization to provide contraception (as the insurance provider is itself a religious based organization).

Personally...I don't altogether care about the religious exemptions. My problem is with the government forcing people to get health care period, and forcing them to pay for coverage they don't and will never need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom