i can not believe that we are debating this in 2012 with near double digit unemployment.
It's a classic distraction tactic that's working not only against the real problems this country's facing but also takes focus off of the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem.
Actually, it was George Stephanopoulos who initially brought up the issue during one of the Republican debates. Yeah, the same guy who used to be a political advisor to Bill Clinton. Makes me wonder who exactly is using distraction tactics.
I agree that the Republicans can't win on the social issues...they can win on the economy alone. That is why the media is harping on social issues like birth control. Anything to help their chosen one get re-elected.
I remember when he did that, I was scratching my head. Now we know. He must've had a head's up or something. Otherwise, it's a very very strange coincidence. If only the media was fairminded and actually inspected "why" he asked that question. Won't happen, but would be interesting.
$40 per year. that's how much it increases premiums, and that doesn't include the amount of money is saved by not having unwanted pregnancies, which is HUGE. $40 per year isn't much when you consider it costs $5,049 for an individual employee and $13,770 for family coverage, on average;
SO, the whole sanscrosant bullshit moral argument doesn't work... AND your financial argument doesn't work...
what now?
throw poop at each other? THAT'S the level of intellectualism being displayed here.
Not sure who this directed towards, but...
...it's not a cost issue on either side, bro. BC is free in a lot of places and is not expensive without insurance. Those against this are against government saying they HAVE to cover items they morally are against.... which includes contraception AND additional services, maybe even including abortion.
great! so we agree it is not a cost issue and that is no reason to not provide it as part of a health insurance plan.
but, as for as the moral argument, it is complete rubbish. just total shite. who exactly is against contraception for moral reasons? Show me one person. 98% of American Catholic women have used some form of contraception, and the only people against contraception for moral reasons are Catholic Bishops and the Amish, as far as I can tell.
great! so we agree it is not a cost issue and that is no reason to not provide it as part of a health insurance plan.
First, this is not just birth control as I've said repetitively.
Second, what I agree with is that birth control is free in a lot places, and when you do have to pay it's not expensive (even without insurance). If the birth control aspect was not a "cost issue" (which you just said it's not) for Ms. Fluke, what exactly is her argument? Further, although this certainly raises costs (premiums), I don't really think the amount it raises premiums is the issue (which is my point). The issue is government intruding on private sector (in this case a religious institution).
but, as for as the moral argument, it is complete rubbish. just total shite. who exactly is against contraception for moral reasons?
The Catholic Church (or the employer) is (and has been forever) against abortion and contraception... the administration knows that. They knew they would make them angry, but they thought it was a wedge issue, and needed help with women voters. The problem is it's not just a contraception issue... That's what the media wants to make it because this was brought up on purpose for voting reasons. But, it's larger than that. It involves gov't overreach. It can include abortion services. I'd say it's not rubbish at all.... anymore than the government forcing PETA to pay for people to eat fish or steak. They are against that, yet, government needs to force it?
The government has no need to do this. No one was complaining prior to them reaching their slimy tentacles into another issue they have no business being involved in.
Providing birth control and condoms will lower overall health insurance costs.
However, it will also mean that women can have sex without getting knocked up and women and gay men not getting stds.
And we can't have that.
By the way... I'm a vegan and I don't drink wine but I won't force my own dietary choices on anyone even if I personally think they're the best choices to make.
Everyone pays for things they don't want to pay for. I, for instance, pay taxes that fund the war. My husband and I also pay taxes - higher taxes than straight married couples - and yet we don't have access to about 95% of all the resources and rights and protections that married couples get.
I pay for the coast guard when I don't ever go sailng and I pay for the FAA although I hardly ever fly.
I pay for the fire routes in rural areas to be kept safe and maintained even though I don't live in the forest and I also pay taxes that fund schools when -gasp- I don't even have kids.
So cry me a river... You have just woken up to the fact that the whole world doesn't revolve around straight, white, Christian men Who never get laid and now you got yo panties in a bunch.
Welcome to the real world, feel free to hAve a coffee.
While we're on the subject of having to pay for things you're morally against, I have to pay extra taxes to make up the shortfall from he catholic church and cult of Mormon not paying taxes.
That I need to support two racist, sexist, homophobic organizations whose biggest contribution to the country has been molesting children is something I'm morally against. Sadly, I haven't gotten a tax rebate for that.
Welcome to the real world that doesn't revolve around you. Please refill the water jug and put it back in the fridge after you use it.
Providing birth control and condoms will lower overall health insurance costs.
Let's not confuse ourselves here. The Catholic Church being forced to provide it's employees with birth control, condoms and other services (related to abortion) will not lower overall health insurance costs. It will raise them.
However, it will also mean that women can have sex without getting knocked up and women and gay men not getting stds.
And we can't have that.
Under the conditions prior to this overreach by government, women and men (of any sexual orientation) could also have sex without getting knocked up or STDs. They would simply have to pay for their own birth control or protection with their own money. Given most are salaried, they would need to pay the less than 25 cents per condom or roughly $15 for birth control/month out of their own pocket rather than forcing an institution against that to fund it through their healthcare program. There's not a big difference there other than the government trying to force a PRIVATE institution to do something.
The whole charade of acting like they can't obtain birth control in the private market without insurance at a low cost is silly. I've read that Ms. Fluke could have obtained it down the street for $9 a month in more than one location. $9/month. .... without insurance!
By the way... I'm a vegan and I don't drink wine but I won't force my own dietary choices on anyone even if I personally think they're the best choices to make.
That's fantastic. But, you're ok with the state telling religious institutions what to do. You know, sometimes people get so invested in their own political party, that they don't see when it's actually working against them. You are ok with the government getting bigger and telling what to do (in certain situations). But, not when roles are reversed. I simply say... wake up... there is a way to get government smaller so although you'll have less control over what Catholics do, they'll also have less control over you! Small government works that way.
Everyone pays for things they don't want to pay for. I, for instance, pay taxes that fund the war. My husband and I also pay taxes - higher taxes than straight married couples - and yet we don't have access to about 95% of all the resources and rights and protections that married couples get.
I pay for the coast guard when I don't ever go sailng and I pay for the FAA although I hardly ever fly.
I pay for the fire routes in rural areas to be kept safe and maintained even though I don't live in the forest and I also pay taxes that fund schools when -gasp- I don't even have kids.
This is not a tax issue. Every single item you just listed is involves taxes. I suggest you read about it, rather than immediately siding with Democrats. The issue is deeper than giving a moral ok to contraception (or even abortion). The administration is framing it like that, but that's not what it's about. It's about a private employer being forced to cover certain items they are against.
The absurd and dangerous argument of people having to pay for things they don't support isn't one you can win.
I'm morally against people having more than one child and yet I as an employer have to pay for the family health coverage of all my employees even if they have 3 kids. Or 8. And their pre-natal care.
I'm very against Christianity and yet I have to pay for my staff's federally-recognized religious holidays.
I sure didnt hear straight white men complaining that they were forced to pay for prostate exams or erectile disfunction treatments.
Or tennis elbow. I have to provide coverage for that and I think tennis is the lamest sport in the world. Honestly... They wear white... AFTER LABOUR DAY!!
If you provide health insurance or health care, you should have to provide all available health care, not just what you personally cherry pick as things you "morally support." if you don't like it... Don't provide health care. Nobody is forcing you to do that.
The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Sorry.
Catholics aren't against contraception. 98% of catholic women have used contraception (see earlier posted article as source)
Catholic BISHOPS are against contraception.
And anyway, who cares what a bunch of pedophiles think?
Furthermore, since apparently a groups' morality views or opinions allow them to not pay for things, can i stop paying the war portion (44%) of my federal tax bill now?
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Following that argument, any employer can claim that his membership in the KKK means that he doesn't have to pay his employees for Martin Luther King Day or Chanukah.
Or that I shouldn't have to allow staff time off on thanksgiving since its a celebration of carnivorous gluttony.
Can play ths game all day.
It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.
The absurd and dangerous argument of people having to pay for things they don't support isn't one you can win.
I'm morally against people having more than one child and yet I as an employer have to pay for the family health coverage of all my employees even if they have 3 kids. Or 8. And their pre-natal care.
I'm very against Christianity and yet I have to pay for my staff's federally-recognized religious holidays.
I sure didnt hear straight white men complaining that they were forced to pay for prostate exams or erectile disfunction treatments.
Or tennis elbow. I have to provide coverage for that and I think tennis is the lamest sport in the world. Honestly... They wear white... AFTER LABOUR DAY!!
If you provide health insurance or health care, you should have to provide all available health care, not just what you personally cherry pick as things you "morally support." if you don't like it... Don't provide health care. Nobody is forcing you to do that.
The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Sorry.
Like you said, no one is forcing you to provide those services. Ummmm... wait, now the government is. Whoops.
Bro, re-read your statements. I think it's you who needs a reminder that the whole world does not revolve around you. You act as though you (as an individual) are equivalent to one of the largest religious institutions in the world. It's rather hysterical.
Catholics aren't against contraception. 98% of catholic women have used contraception (see earlier posted article as source)
Catholic BISHOPS are against contraception.
And anyway, who cares what a bunch of pedophiles think?
Look it's pretty simple:
The Catholic Church establishes their religions dogma. For example, if you lie to a spouse, co-worker, friend, it's considered a sin. Follow me? Ok. The Catholic Church sets that rule, it's their religion afterall. People come and go from it. Yet, ironically, probably 100% of the followers violate that religious dogma on lying.
Catholics understand why the church is against contraception. They may not follow the policy, but they understand it, it has to do with abortion. Those followers can choose to abandon the religion if they choose. But, seemingly, they don't or haven't.
Moreover, you continue to avoid the FACT that this issue also can include abortion services, which most Catholics are against.
Furthermore, since apparently a groups' morality views or opinions allow them to not pay for things, can i stop paying the war portion (44%) of my federal tax bill now?
Once again, I suggest you read about this issue. It has nothing to do with tax money.
It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.
Thanks for clarifying the "some" part. That applies to pretty much every classification of folks, doesn't it?
"You have just woken up to the fact that the whole world doesn't revolve around straight, white, Christian men Who never get laid and now you got yo panties in a bunch."
I can see where your anger comes from (we all have issues) but in villifying entire groups, it makes me see you as no different than those you're protesting.
Following that argument, any employer can claim that his membership in the KKK means that he doesn't have to pay his employees for Martin Luther King Day or Chanukah.
Or that I shouldn't have to allow staff time off on thanksgiving since its a celebration of carnivorous gluttony.
Can play ths game all day.
It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.
It's not a game and your arguments are ridiculous.
First, I didn't know the KKK was such a big employer. ha ha.
If you don't want to allow your workers time off for Thanksgiving, then don't. I know a number of employers that work on that day.
Following that argument, any employer can claim that his membership in the KKK means that he doesn't have to pay his employees for Martin Luther King Day or Chanukah.
Or that I shouldn't have to allow staff time off on thanksgiving since its a celebration of carnivorous gluttony.
Can play ths game all day.
It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.
ah, most don't get MLK jr. day off. People are forced to work on thanksgiving as well.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
First, I didn't know the KKK was such a big employer. ha ha.
I doubt they employ many people but I'm sure their members run a lot of plantations, distilleries and cement mixer companies.
Employers are not forced to provide health insurance. I have worked for people who don't.
Sorry but trying to get around the issue of employers cherry picking which procedures they approve of and which ones they don't is going to lead to a lot of dead people. When your employer decides they won't cover heart surgery because you should't have eaten so many hot dogs, you'll understand why.
Health care is NO place for "morality" to come into play.
You act as though you (as an individual) are equivalent to one of the largest religious institutions in the world. It's rather hysterical.
Hardly.
I don't use all those tax-free donations to defend my child-molesting employees.
I'm quite a few steps above the Catholic Church on the "morality meter" and I have no qualms telling them what to do. It's like like they listen to us when we say "don't f*ck the kids" anyway.
Catholics aren't against contraception. 98% of catholic women have used contraception (see earlier posted article as source)
Catholic BISHOPS are against contraception.
And anyway, who cares what a bunch of pedophiles think?
Look it's pretty simple:
The Catholic Church establishes their religions dogma. For example, if you lie to a spouse, co-worker, friend, it's considered a sin. Follow me? Ok. The Catholic Church sets that rule, it's their religion afterall. People come and go from it. Yet, ironically, probably 100% of the followers violate that religious dogma on lying.
Catholics understand why the church is against contraception. They may not follow the policy, but they understand it, it has to do with abortion. Those followers can choose to abandon the religion if they choose. But, seemingly, they don't or haven't.
i'm sorry, but this is doublespeak if i've ever seen it. who gives a shit what a few Catholic Bishops have to say when even the followers of that religion ignore them? this whole thing is pointless because contraception is cheap for everyone and morally unobjectionable for 98% of the people in this country.
your argument doesn't make the least bit of sense, and if you can't see that you're just being obstinate.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Employers are not forced to provide health insurance. I have worked for people who don't.
Ok. I agree. This sides more with my point. If they can supply nothing or something, why can't they also choose packages as well? Remember - the employee can always walk away if they don't like the benefits the organization offers.
Sorry but trying to get around the issue of employers cherry picking which procedures they approve of and which ones they don't is going to lead to a lot of dead people. When your employer decides they won't cover heart surgery because you should't have eaten so many hot dogs, you'll understand why.
Health care is NO place for "morality" to come into play.
Well, let's get this straight: You argue that employers are not forced to provide health insurance above, but now you say that they can't cherry pick what offer health care in a particular package, because more people will die. Hmmm. This doesn't seem to add up. Sorry.
i'm sorry, but this is doublespeak if i've ever seen it. who gives a shit what a few Catholic Bishops have to say when even the followers of that religion ignore them?
It's not double speak. I gave you an example of a situation in which arguably 100% of Catholics violate their own teachings - via lying. You keep focusing on birth control (despite the fact that this issue is much, much broader than just birth control). I don't know if the 98% stat is right or not, but I'd argue that stat would be closer to 100% with lying. So, if you lie, you can't be Catholic? Further, you can't support the Catholic church or it's teachings?
No one is stopping anyone from using contraception.... it's freaking cheap - by your own admission.
They lying example provides an example on this. The Catholic Church has a right to enforce their own teachings in a private manner, regardless of who agrees. Just because you don't agree, or dislike Catholics or their teachings, doesn't make it ok for you to support the government forcing them to do something they don't want to do. This is broader than even the Catholic Church. Much, much broader. This is government invading private enterprise. No one who's against big government would ever support this.
None of your examples include the most important aspect of this debate--religious freedom. If the government starts forcing religous organizations to do things that go against the rules of the religion then they are violating the Constitution by infringing upon religious freedom.
Prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, etc. are not only NOT religious issues, they are health issues. A prostate exam can detect cancer or other issues. Erectile dysfunction could simply be just that or it could be a symptom of a more serious problem. Also, treating that is not a religious issue for the church because there is nothing that says someone taking Cialis has to be single. In fact, the target demographic for those types of pills is one that tends to be married already.
And for the record, the government IS forcing employers to provide health coverage. That's one of the problems here. They wanted to force churches to provide health care for their workers and prevent them from excluding things like birth control. It was something that was doomed to fail from the start because it was guaranteed to bring on lawsuits from religious groups based on the Constitution had Obama not backtracked and said he would exclude religious groups from that aspect of it.
The absurd and dangerous argument of people having to pay for things they don't support isn't one you can win.
I'm morally against people having more than one child and yet I as an employer have to pay for the family health coverage of all my employees even if they have 3 kids. Or 8. And their pre-natal care.
I'm very against Christianity and yet I have to pay for my staff's federally-recognized religious holidays.
I sure didnt hear straight white men complaining that they were forced to pay for prostate exams or erectile disfunction treatments.
Or tennis elbow. I have to provide coverage for that and I think tennis is the lamest sport in the world. Honestly... They wear white... AFTER LABOUR DAY!!
If you provide health insurance or health care, you should have to provide all available health care, not just what you personally cherry pick as things you "morally support." if you don't like it... Don't provide health care. Nobody is forcing you to do that.
The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Sorry.
None of your examples include the most important aspect of this debate--religious freedom.
And when someone's superstitions are considered more important than my health care... that is a problem.
Prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, etc. are not only NOT religious issues, they are health issues. A prostate exam can detect cancer or other issues. Erectile dysfunction could simply be just that or it could be a symptom of a more serious problem. Also, treating that is not a religious issue for the church because there is nothing that says someone taking Cialis has to be single. In fact, the target demographic for those types of pills is one that tends to be married already.
You're dreaming in technicolor. First.. I don't know where you get that most men taking Cialis are married. That's just silly. So is the erectile dysfunction... yes, it could be a symptom of a greater disease but giving you a boner pill won't cure that. I don't hear Rush Limbaugh whining that "He's having SO much sex that..."
And again, everyone has to pay for things they don't want to pay for.
Refund me for the war and refund me for the school lunch program and Refund me for the Gardening, Housekeeping, Golf, Children's and Christian networks on my cable bill that I'm forced to pay for when I'd rather gouge my eyes out... then we'll talk.
And again, everyone has to pay for things they don't want to pay for.
Refund me for the war and refund me for the school lunch program and Refund me for the Gardening, Housekeeping, Golf, Children's and Christian networks on my cable bill that I'm forced to pay for when I'd rather gouge my eyes out... then we'll talk.
First, I didn't know the KKK was such a big employer. ha ha.
I doubt they employ many people but I'm sure their members run a lot of plantations, distilleries and cement mixer companies.
Employers are not forced to provide health insurance. I have worked for people who don't.
Sorry but trying to get around the issue of employers cherry picking which procedures they approve of and which ones they don't is going to lead to a lot of dead people. When your employer decides they won't cover heart surgery because you should't have eaten so many hot dogs, you'll understand why.
Health care is NO place for "morality" to come into play.
It's good advice. If your employer has health insurance and your religion gets all upset at birth control... don't buy the work's health insurance, nobody is forcing you. Buy your own personal coverage and make sure it doesn't include birth control of any kind.
It's good advice. If your employer has health insurance and your religion gets all upset at birth control... don't buy the work's health insurance, nobody is forcing you. Buy your own personal coverage and make sure it doesn't include birth control of any kind.
If someone disagrees with a particular religion, there is nothing forcing that person to work for that religion or attend a school run by that religion. If that woman wants her school's student health insurance to cover birth control, she shouldn't have attended a school that she knew was run by Catholics. She got to choose where she applied, nobody forced her to apply there. She knew what she was getting into when she enrolled. I could've attended Boston College but I didn't even bother applying there once I learned that it was a religious school because I knew there was a strong possibility that there would be some rules there that I might not want to follow that other schools didn't have. I didn't attend the school and then whine about their beliefs and ask them to change to accommodate me.
Again, you're missing the point with the other issue. I never said that most people taking Cialis are married. I said the target demographic of the drug company tends to be married. The companies target middle-aged men and the ads tend to show them with their wives. There is nothing about Cialis that contradicts the church's teachings. Cialis doesn't do anything to prevent conception and it is not inherently sinful in nature in the church's eyes. If anything, it aids in conception because it helps guys perform when they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
You may think religion is a superstition, but the laws of this country grant people the right to practice their religion without interference from the government. Forcing a religion that believes contraception is a sin to pay for contraception could not be a clearer violation of that right.
None of your examples include the most important aspect of this debate--religious freedom.
And when someone's superstitions are considered more important than my health care... that is a problem.
Prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, etc. are not only NOT religious issues, they are health issues. A prostate exam can detect cancer or other issues. Erectile dysfunction could simply be just that or it could be a symptom of a more serious problem. Also, treating that is not a religious issue for the church because there is nothing that says someone taking Cialis has to be single. In fact, the target demographic for those types of pills is one that tends to be married already.
You're dreaming in technicolor. First.. I don't know where you get that most men taking Cialis are married. That's just silly. So is the erectile dysfunction... yes, it could be a symptom of a greater disease but giving you a boner pill won't cure that. I don't hear Rush Limbaugh whining that "He's having SO much sex that..."
Reading this thread is an education in how folks read only what they want to read. Inlet is making a clear argument why BOTH sides should be against the theory at work here.
And,then we have folks missing words like TARGET to get their point across (for example).
If everyone laid down their arms and focused on the REAL issue being discussed, we'd all be a lot better off.
I think the main point is - gov't stay out of it. If you want contraception, buy it. If you want health care coverage that covers particular items, find it. Regardless, it helps ALL sides when gov't is out of this sort of stuff.
This really isn't a religion issue. This really isn't even a health care issue. It's a matter of gov't mandating further things that is not only unnecessary, but designed to make political points for the sole objective of maintaining power. This is the sort of thing, that I think everyone on this thread detests. So, instead of fighting each other, let's get out the truth of what is going on here.
It seems like some folks don't want the gov't telling them how to live, but it's ok to tell other folks. If they stop telling everyone how to live (e.g. stop mandating AGAINST gay marriage, stop forcing folks to cover contraception, etc), and focused on safety and public good like they are supposed to, we'd all be better off.
When the hell did we fall of the rail, where we can't see we're fighting the same thing?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
I remember when he did that, I was scratching my head. Now we know. He must've had a head's up or something. Otherwise, it's a very very strange coincidence. If only the media was fairminded and actually inspected "why" he asked that question. Won't happen, but would be interesting.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
great! so we agree it is not a cost issue and that is no reason to not provide it as part of a health insurance plan.
but, as for as the moral argument, it is complete rubbish. just total shite. who exactly is against contraception for moral reasons? Show me one person. 98% of American Catholic women have used some form of contraception, and the only people against contraception for moral reasons are Catholic Bishops and the Amish, as far as I can tell.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/13/bi ... z1oRFAC33C
First, this is not just birth control as I've said repetitively.
Second, what I agree with is that birth control is free in a lot places, and when you do have to pay it's not expensive (even without insurance). If the birth control aspect was not a "cost issue" (which you just said it's not) for Ms. Fluke, what exactly is her argument? Further, although this certainly raises costs (premiums), I don't really think the amount it raises premiums is the issue (which is my point). The issue is government intruding on private sector (in this case a religious institution).
The Catholic Church (or the employer) is (and has been forever) against abortion and contraception... the administration knows that. They knew they would make them angry, but they thought it was a wedge issue, and needed help with women voters. The problem is it's not just a contraception issue... That's what the media wants to make it because this was brought up on purpose for voting reasons. But, it's larger than that. It involves gov't overreach. It can include abortion services. I'd say it's not rubbish at all.... anymore than the government forcing PETA to pay for people to eat fish or steak. They are against that, yet, government needs to force it?
The government has no need to do this. No one was complaining prior to them reaching their slimy tentacles into another issue they have no business being involved in.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
However, it will also mean that women can have sex without getting knocked up and women and gay men not getting stds.
And we can't have that.
By the way... I'm a vegan and I don't drink wine but I won't force my own dietary choices on anyone even if I personally think they're the best choices to make.
Everyone pays for things they don't want to pay for. I, for instance, pay taxes that fund the war. My husband and I also pay taxes - higher taxes than straight married couples - and yet we don't have access to about 95% of all the resources and rights and protections that married couples get.
I pay for the coast guard when I don't ever go sailng and I pay for the FAA although I hardly ever fly.
I pay for the fire routes in rural areas to be kept safe and maintained even though I don't live in the forest and I also pay taxes that fund schools when -gasp- I don't even have kids.
So cry me a river... You have just woken up to the fact that the whole world doesn't revolve around straight, white, Christian men Who never get laid and now you got yo panties in a bunch.
Welcome to the real world, feel free to hAve a coffee.
That I need to support two racist, sexist, homophobic organizations whose biggest contribution to the country has been molesting children is something I'm morally against. Sadly, I haven't gotten a tax rebate for that.
Welcome to the real world that doesn't revolve around you. Please refill the water jug and put it back in the fridge after you use it.
Let's not confuse ourselves here. The Catholic Church being forced to provide it's employees with birth control, condoms and other services (related to abortion) will not lower overall health insurance costs. It will raise them.
Under the conditions prior to this overreach by government, women and men (of any sexual orientation) could also have sex without getting knocked up or STDs. They would simply have to pay for their own birth control or protection with their own money. Given most are salaried, they would need to pay the less than 25 cents per condom or roughly $15 for birth control/month out of their own pocket rather than forcing an institution against that to fund it through their healthcare program. There's not a big difference there other than the government trying to force a PRIVATE institution to do something.
The whole charade of acting like they can't obtain birth control in the private market without insurance at a low cost is silly. I've read that Ms. Fluke could have obtained it down the street for $9 a month in more than one location. $9/month. .... without insurance!
That's fantastic. But, you're ok with the state telling religious institutions what to do. You know, sometimes people get so invested in their own political party, that they don't see when it's actually working against them. You are ok with the government getting bigger and telling what to do (in certain situations). But, not when roles are reversed. I simply say... wake up... there is a way to get government smaller so although you'll have less control over what Catholics do, they'll also have less control over you! Small government works that way.
This is not a tax issue. Every single item you just listed is involves taxes. I suggest you read about it, rather than immediately siding with Democrats. The issue is deeper than giving a moral ok to contraception (or even abortion). The administration is framing it like that, but that's not what it's about. It's about a private employer being forced to cover certain items they are against.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm morally against people having more than one child and yet I as an employer have to pay for the family health coverage of all my employees even if they have 3 kids. Or 8. And their pre-natal care.
I'm very against Christianity and yet I have to pay for my staff's federally-recognized religious holidays.
I sure didnt hear straight white men complaining that they were forced to pay for prostate exams or erectile disfunction treatments.
Or tennis elbow. I have to provide coverage for that and I think tennis is the lamest sport in the world. Honestly... They wear white... AFTER LABOUR DAY!!
If you provide health insurance or health care, you should have to provide all available health care, not just what you personally cherry pick as things you "morally support." if you don't like it... Don't provide health care. Nobody is forcing you to do that.
The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Sorry.
Catholic BISHOPS are against contraception.
And anyway, who cares what a bunch of pedophiles think?
Furthermore, since apparently a groups' morality views or opinions allow them to not pay for things, can i stop paying the war portion (44%) of my federal tax bill now?
Or that I shouldn't have to allow staff time off on thanksgiving since its a celebration of carnivorous gluttony.
Can play ths game all day.
It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.
Like you said, no one is forcing you to provide those services. Ummmm... wait, now the government is. Whoops.
Bro, re-read your statements. I think it's you who needs a reminder that the whole world does not revolve around you. You act as though you (as an individual) are equivalent to one of the largest religious institutions in the world. It's rather hysterical.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Look it's pretty simple:
The Catholic Church establishes their religions dogma. For example, if you lie to a spouse, co-worker, friend, it's considered a sin. Follow me? Ok. The Catholic Church sets that rule, it's their religion afterall. People come and go from it. Yet, ironically, probably 100% of the followers violate that religious dogma on lying.
Catholics understand why the church is against contraception. They may not follow the policy, but they understand it, it has to do with abortion. Those followers can choose to abandon the religion if they choose. But, seemingly, they don't or haven't.
Moreover, you continue to avoid the FACT that this issue also can include abortion services, which most Catholics are against.
Once again, I suggest you read about this issue. It has nothing to do with tax money.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"You have just woken up to the fact that the whole world doesn't revolve around straight, white, Christian men Who never get laid and now you got yo panties in a bunch."
I can see where your anger comes from (we all have issues) but in villifying entire groups, it makes me see you as no different than those you're protesting.
It's not a game and your arguments are ridiculous.
First, I didn't know the KKK was such a big employer. ha ha.
If you don't want to allow your workers time off for Thanksgiving, then don't. I know a number of employers that work on that day.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
ah, most don't get MLK jr. day off. People are forced to work on thanksgiving as well.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I doubt they employ many people but I'm sure their members run a lot of plantations, distilleries and cement mixer companies.
Employers are not forced to provide health insurance. I have worked for people who don't.
Sorry but trying to get around the issue of employers cherry picking which procedures they approve of and which ones they don't is going to lead to a lot of dead people. When your employer decides they won't cover heart surgery because you should't have eaten so many hot dogs, you'll understand why.
Health care is NO place for "morality" to come into play.
Hardly.
I don't use all those tax-free donations to defend my child-molesting employees.
I'm quite a few steps above the Catholic Church on the "morality meter" and I have no qualms telling them what to do. It's like like they listen to us when we say "don't f*ck the kids" anyway.
i'm sorry, but this is doublespeak if i've ever seen it. who gives a shit what a few Catholic Bishops have to say when even the followers of that religion ignore them? this whole thing is pointless because contraception is cheap for everyone and morally unobjectionable for 98% of the people in this country.
your argument doesn't make the least bit of sense, and if you can't see that you're just being obstinate.
What does that have to do with anything?
Ok. I agree. This sides more with my point. If they can supply nothing or something, why can't they also choose packages as well? Remember - the employee can always walk away if they don't like the benefits the organization offers.
Well, let's get this straight: You argue that employers are not forced to provide health insurance above, but now you say that they can't cherry pick what offer health care in a particular package, because more people will die. Hmmm. This doesn't seem to add up. Sorry.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
It's not double speak. I gave you an example of a situation in which arguably 100% of Catholics violate their own teachings - via lying. You keep focusing on birth control (despite the fact that this issue is much, much broader than just birth control). I don't know if the 98% stat is right or not, but I'd argue that stat would be closer to 100% with lying. So, if you lie, you can't be Catholic? Further, you can't support the Catholic church or it's teachings?
No one is stopping anyone from using contraception.... it's freaking cheap - by your own admission.
They lying example provides an example on this. The Catholic Church has a right to enforce their own teachings in a private manner, regardless of who agrees. Just because you don't agree, or dislike Catholics or their teachings, doesn't make it ok for you to support the government forcing them to do something they don't want to do. This is broader than even the Catholic Church. Much, much broader. This is government invading private enterprise. No one who's against big government would ever support this.
Agreed. Contraception is cheap. So, why are people demanding the church pay for it when they morally object? Just go out and buy it.
My argument does make sense, you just don't like my argument. I'm not being obstinate because I don't agree with you. That's childish.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, etc. are not only NOT religious issues, they are health issues. A prostate exam can detect cancer or other issues. Erectile dysfunction could simply be just that or it could be a symptom of a more serious problem. Also, treating that is not a religious issue for the church because there is nothing that says someone taking Cialis has to be single. In fact, the target demographic for those types of pills is one that tends to be married already.
And for the record, the government IS forcing employers to provide health coverage. That's one of the problems here. They wanted to force churches to provide health care for their workers and prevent them from excluding things like birth control. It was something that was doomed to fail from the start because it was guaranteed to bring on lawsuits from religious groups based on the Constitution had Obama not backtracked and said he would exclude religious groups from that aspect of it.
And when someone's superstitions are considered more important than my health care... that is a problem.
You're dreaming in technicolor. First.. I don't know where you get that most men taking Cialis are married. That's just silly. So is the erectile dysfunction... yes, it could be a symptom of a greater disease but giving you a boner pill won't cure that. I don't hear Rush Limbaugh whining that "He's having SO much sex that..."
Refund me for the war and refund me for the school lunch program and Refund me for the Gardening, Housekeeping, Golf, Children's and Christian networks on my cable bill that I'm forced to pay for when I'd rather gouge my eyes out... then we'll talk.
Don't buy cable.
Don't work for that employer
I don't anymore.
I now get all my TV a la carte off iTunes.
Good call
I work for myself, now.
But thanks.
It's good advice. If your employer has health insurance and your religion gets all upset at birth control... don't buy the work's health insurance, nobody is forcing you. Buy your own personal coverage and make sure it doesn't include birth control of any kind.
Problem solved.
Absolutely
Again, you're missing the point with the other issue. I never said that most people taking Cialis are married. I said the target demographic of the drug company tends to be married. The companies target middle-aged men and the ads tend to show them with their wives. There is nothing about Cialis that contradicts the church's teachings. Cialis doesn't do anything to prevent conception and it is not inherently sinful in nature in the church's eyes. If anything, it aids in conception because it helps guys perform when they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
You may think religion is a superstition, but the laws of this country grant people the right to practice their religion without interference from the government. Forcing a religion that believes contraception is a sin to pay for contraception could not be a clearer violation of that right.
And,then we have folks missing words like TARGET to get their point across (for example).
If everyone laid down their arms and focused on the REAL issue being discussed, we'd all be a lot better off.
I think the main point is - gov't stay out of it. If you want contraception, buy it. If you want health care coverage that covers particular items, find it. Regardless, it helps ALL sides when gov't is out of this sort of stuff.
This really isn't a religion issue. This really isn't even a health care issue. It's a matter of gov't mandating further things that is not only unnecessary, but designed to make political points for the sole objective of maintaining power. This is the sort of thing, that I think everyone on this thread detests. So, instead of fighting each other, let's get out the truth of what is going on here.
It seems like some folks don't want the gov't telling them how to live, but it's ok to tell other folks. If they stop telling everyone how to live (e.g. stop mandating AGAINST gay marriage, stop forcing folks to cover contraception, etc), and focused on safety and public good like they are supposed to, we'd all be better off.
When the hell did we fall of the rail, where we can't see we're fighting the same thing?