• 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

VanceMack said:
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).
Click to expand...

So now you're going to claim that the insurance provider are nuns?

Nuns do not have to pay for contraceptive coverage as you dishonestly claimed.

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.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about the individual mandate.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

How does the employee get birth control covered if the policy that he has doesn't cover that?
 
fmw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both parties seek to secure more power, which is why republicans didn't work with democrats. The people, or the few partisans who put on the most pressure, have created an environment where compromise is a dirty word.

But, that doesn't mean real work stops. Reform us necessary. So, either play to your base, which democrats didn't and republicans did, or roll up your sleeves and try. Agenda or no.
 
Anthony60 said:
How does the employee get birth control covered if the policy that he has doesn't cover that?
Click to expand...

If the minimum requirement us that insure has it, just as we have a minimum wage. Minimal requirement.
 
Boo Radley said:
Both parties seek to secure more power, which is why republicans didn't work with democrats. The people, or the few partisans who put on the most pressure, have created an environment where compromise is a dirty word.

But, that doesn't mean real work stops. Reform us necessary. So, either play to your base, which democrats didn't and republicans did, or roll up your sleeves and try. Agenda or no.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think having one party go after reform is useful. It all ends up as a partisan mess. If the country really needs something and will really benefit from it, then both parties should support it. Otherwise it isn't something we need or will benefit from. If the members of congress can't get past partisan greed for power then they need to be removed from office. Unfortunately Americans think congress is a dysfunctional mess and continue voting the cretins into office. We should have our collective heads examined. We could well have the worst government among all the democratic first world countries.
 
fmw said:
I disagree. I don't think having one party go after reform is useful. It all ends up as a partisan mess. If the country really needs something and will really benefit from it, then both parties should support it. Otherwise it isn't something we need or will benefit from. If the members of congress can't get past partisan greed for power then they need to be removed from office. Unfortunately Americans think congress is a dysfunctional mess and continue voting the cretins into office. We should have our collective heads examined. We could well have the worst government among all the democratic first world countries.
Click to expand...

Useful or not you can't make the other side play, especially when the way to power (agenda) is to make sure there is failure.

And yes, we have the power to remove from office, but mostly fail to exercise it. And our problem isn't the system as much as it us.
 
sangha said:
So now you're going to claim that the insurance provider are nuns?

Nuns do not have to pay for contraceptive coverage as you dishonestly claimed.



This thread is not about the individual mandate.
Click to expand...
The private insurers in this case are not the nuns...but they are a religious based organization. It is the nuns contention that for them to request a waiver it merely forces someone else to take on what they believe to be a sin. You wont steal as long as you can make the next guy steal for you...that sort of thing.

but mostly...a lot of folk just resent being forced to pay for coverage they dont want or need. Funnily enough...even a lot of the initial supporters of the ACA would rather pay a fine than have to sign up for it.
 
Paperview said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thing is though....

Many (perhaps most?) people only pay attention to sound bites and headlines, perhaps reading an article further if a particularly attention-grabbing one shows up.


That's news these days...not what's going on, but what people can be led to BELIEVE is going on.

****, it's a religion.

:2razz:
 
VanceMack said:
The private insurers in this case are not the nuns...but they are a religious based organization. It is the nuns contention that for them to request a waiver it merely forces someone else to take on what they believe to be a sin. You wont steal as long as you can make the next guy steal for you...that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

IOW, your claim that "nuns have to pay for contraception coverage" is untrue, and you know that it is untrue

So how is that not a lie?
 
sangha said:
IOW, your claim that "nuns have to pay for contraception coverage" is untrue, and you know that it is untrue

So how is that not a lie?
Click to expand...
Look how cute you are with your angry little 'lie' comments. One of your fav's, right?

"Requiring nuns to pay for contraceptive insurance. Thats funny. Whats next...requiring gay men to get insurance covering pregnancy?"

Read that and tell me you cant see the sarcastic nature of it. And when you DO tell me that you cant see it for what it was, I will make sure we put slip on shoes on your Christmas wish list for next year along with a nice shiny new helmet.
 
VanceMack said:
Look how cute you are with your angry little 'lie' comments. One of your fav's, right?

"Requiring nuns to pay for contraceptive insurance. Thats funny. Whats next...requiring gay men to get insurance covering pregnancy?"

Read that and tell me you cant see the sarcastic nature of it. And when you DO tell me that you cant see it for what it was, I will make sure we put slip on shoes on your Christmas wish list for next year along with a nice shiny new helmet.
Click to expand...

So now you're going to dishonestly deny that you said that ACA is forcing nuns to pay for contraceptive coverage. :roll:
 
sangha said:
So now you're going to dishonestly deny that you said that ACA is forcing nuns to pay for contraceptive coverage. :roll:
Click to expand...
Nope...Im going to say exactly what I said-in fact, I not only said it, I posted it again...and you are going to make it mean that I lied and I am an eeeevil corrupt horrible liar. Its your 'schtick'.
 
sangha said:
IOW, your claim that "nuns have to pay for contraception coverage" is untrue, and you know that it is untrue

So how is that not a lie?
Click to expand...

You are right. They were offered a compromise to sign a wavier to let others pay for it.

Btw, Jon Stewart just made same argument I've been making, only with more humor.
 
well this one is easy, the nuns dont have to pay they can fill out paperwork making this so based on them being a direct religious org, they are choosing not to do the paper works so its thier fault :shrug:
Nobody is forcing anythign on them.
 
washunut said:
What I don't get is that Sotomayor voted that the law is constitutional. How does that square with this ruling??
Click to expand...

She has the Allotment for the 10th circuit, so to request a STAY, they must Petition her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom