Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

kenvin · Feb 17, 2012

buck said:
What brought me into the discussion was my agreement with Mr. Vichio's comment that the conversation isn't about women's rights. The conversation is about religious freedom. The media and democrats are trying to switch the conversation to one they would rather have, since they can't possibly win the debate about religious freedom.

Oh so the religion is free to tell women what the insurance women pay for will provide them outside the law while at the same time taking tax money from women. That's some ****ing freedom.

Henrin · Feb 17, 2012

kenvin said:
Well You mean the women who earn the insurance as compensation through their job and thus should be considered the people actually paying the premium shouldn't have a say in what their premium pays for. Oh

If they pay into it or not is not relevant, it is who is offering it and what they wish to cover.

Henrin · Feb 17, 2012

kenvin said:
Oh so the religion is free to tell women what the insurance women pay for will provide them outside the law while at the same time taking tax money from women. That's some ****ing freedom.

You should really look into what the law actually says about this argument and WHY Obama won't be using it in the court.

buck · Feb 17, 2012

kenvin said:
Oh so the religion is free to tell women what the insurance women pay for will provide them outside the law while at the same time taking tax money from women. That's some ****ing freedom.

Yes, the church that is offering and paying for the insurance are free to opt out of coverage that directly contradicts their teachings. I suspect that if Obama actually keeps this mandate, the churches will fight it in the courts and win. It's simply an infringement on the rights of reigion. It is not an infringement on the rights of women. As hard as democrats often try, you can not create new rights by just calling them rights. Free birth control is not protected in the constitution.

kenvin · Feb 17, 2012

buck said:
Yes, the church that is offering and paying for the insurance are free to opt out of coverage that directly contradicts their teachings. I suspect that if Obama actually keeps this mandate, the churches will fight it in the courts and win. It's simply an infringement on the rights of reigion. It is not an infringement on the rights of women. As hard as democrats often try, you can not create new rights by just calling them rights. Free birth control is not protected in the constitution.

Women pay the premium as its their compensation. Women also pay taxes the church take in their businesses

Henrin · Feb 17, 2012

kenvin said:
Women pay the premium as its their compensation. Women also pay taxes the church take in their businesses

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Putting up the same argument does not get a new argument in return. The service is provided by a free individual or group and as such they have the right to decide what that service is and provides. Come up with a new argument if you want something different in return in the future.

kenvin · Feb 17, 2012

Henrin said:
IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Putting up the same argument does not get a new argument in return. The service is provided by a free individual or group and as such they have the right to decide what that service is and provides. Come up with a new argument if you want something different in return in the future.

No the service is provided by the health care provider. The premium is paid by the insured. The church is just a middlemen or grifter in this case.

Henrin · Feb 17, 2012

kenvin said:
No the service is provided by the health care provider. The premium is paid by the insured. The church is just a middlemen or grifter in this case.

Makes no difference. The middle man is not ignored in this formula like you desire and what they wish to do is in play. The same works for the health care provider unless you really think that want from customers somehow warrants the government to decide to force members in society to give them whatever they wish which IS NOT supported by the constitution, or anything the founders said on the matter.

kenvin · Feb 17, 2012

Henrin said:
Makes no difference. The middle man is not ignored in this formula like you desire and what they wish to do is in play. The same works for the health care provider unless you really think that want from customers somehow warrants the government to decide to force members in society to give them whatever they wish which IS NOT supported by the constitution, or anything the founders said on the matter.

Well since the church is acting as a business and middlemen they should follow the law all other insurance companies do ir perhaps get out of the insurance business.

buck · Feb 17, 2012

Henrin said:
Makes no difference. The middle man is not ignored in this formula like you desire and what they wish to do is in play. The same works for the health care provider unless you really think that want from customers somehow warrants the government to decide to force members in society to give them whatever they wish which IS NOT supported by the constitution, or anything the founders said on the matter.

I would add, that the employer pays a bulk of the insurance premium. The employee only pays a small portion. The church, in this case, is offering the compensation. To not offer compensation that directly contradicts their teachings, is allowed.

Henrin · Feb 17, 2012

kenvin said:
Well since the church is acting as a business and middlemen they should follow the law all other insurance companies do ir perhaps get out of the insurance business.

Already countered that argument. There is nothing to support rules of business affecting churches so even if the courts do decide the purpose of the commerce clause(to settle disputes among states) somehow allow the government to force people in society to do what others desire in commerce that would still not mean that a church is treated like a business.

kenvin · Feb 17, 2012

Well let's see who wins

Henrin · Feb 17, 2012

kenvin said:
Well let's see who wins

If you win I hope you never decide to offer a service and decide you don't wish to sell something that people want. You might just find this freedom is valuable.

kenvin · Feb 17, 2012

Henrin said:
If you win I hope you never decide to offer a service and decide you don't wish to sell something that people want. You might just find this freedom is valuable.

I will start a religion first so laws don't apply to me.

Henrin · Feb 18, 2012

kenvin said:
I will start a religion first so laws don't apply to me.

Laws do apply to religion. I went over this.

taxigirl · Feb 18, 2012

buck said:
Yes, the church that is offering and paying for the insurance are free to opt out of coverage that directly contradicts their teachings. I suspect that if Obama actually keeps this mandate, the churches will fight it in the courts and win. It's simply an infringement on the rights of reigion. It is not an infringement on the rights of women. As hard as democrats often try, you can not create new rights by just calling them rights. Free birth control is not protected in the constitution.

No one is asking for FREE birth control. People pay premiums and co-pays. The problem is not just contraception but the fact that some women need to take birth control for medical reasons. No one is asking for a handout.

Renae · Feb 18, 2012

taxigirl said:
No one is asking for FREE birth control. People pay premiums and co-pays. The problem is not just contraception but the fact that some women need to take birth control for medical reasons. No one is asking for a handout.

Funny, Obama's ordered a hand out...

taxigirl · Feb 18, 2012

MrVicchio said:
Funny, Obama's ordered a hand out...

I said no one is asking for a handout.

buck · Feb 18, 2012

taxigirl said:
No one is asking for FREE birth control. People pay premiums and co-pays. The problem is not just contraception but the fact that some women need to take birth control for medical reasons. No one is asking for a handout.

Obama has ordered that there can be no co-pays for contraception, so you are wrong.

j-mac · Feb 18, 2012

taxigirl said:
I said no one is asking for a handout.

Sure there are, in more areas than this one too.

j-mac

taxigirl · Feb 18, 2012

I said no one is asking for a handout. Why are you both ignoring the other part of my comment that some women need the birth control for medical reasons.

buck · Feb 18, 2012

taxigirl said:
I said no one is asking for a handout. Why are you both ignoring the other part of my comment that some women need the birth control for medical reasons.

Because the three of us realized it was irrelevant. The primary use of contraception is for preventing pregnancy. Obama isn't requiring free birth control just for the rare individual that needs it for a medical reason. He is requiring free BC for all women, and most of them will be using it for reasons outside of the church's beliefs and teachings.

j-mac · Feb 18, 2012

taxigirl said:
I said no one is asking for a handout. Why are you both ignoring the other part of my comment that some women need the birth control for medical reasons.

Are contraceptions available now for medical uses? BTW, what are the medical uses of the pill outside of regulating some women's periods?

j-mac

j-mac · Feb 18, 2012

buck said:
Because the three of us realized it was irrelevant. The primary use of contraception is for preventing pregnancy. Obama isn't requiring free birth control just for the rare individual that needs it for a medical reason. He is requiring free BC for all women, and most of them will be using it for reasons outside of the church's beliefs and teachings.

Plus, he is arguing that some women can't afford to get the contraceptions they need, so that means the poor, and even though Health Dept's, and Planned Parenthood use a sliding scale all the way to free already, I would have to ask of libs, why they are trying to limit the poor from having children....Sanger would be proud.

j-mac

buck · Feb 18, 2012

j-mac said:
Plus, he is arguing that some women can't afford to get the contraceptions they need, so that means the poor, and even though Health Dept's, and Planned Parenthood use a sliding scale all the way to free already, I would have to ask of libs, why they are trying to limit the poor from having children....Sanger would be proud.

j-mac

He's also arguing that providing free birth control will be cheaper for the insurance companies due to less unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately recent surveys have indicatd this isn't true. Obama has taken to just making things up to support his weak argument.

Insurers see costs in Obama birth control rule - Yahoo! News

40 percent of the participants said they expect the requirement will increase costs through higher pharmacy expenses.

20 percent said costs would even out because they already budget for contraception in the premium, 6.7 percent said it would drive up pharmacy costs but decrease medical costs, while 33.3 percent weren't sure. None said it would lead to net savings.