Sex-Crazed Co-eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control

[Lemur]

Your possibilities are, frankly, absurd and disconnected from rational discussion of this law.

And saying something doesn't make it so. The Blunt Amendment, as written, would give any employer exemption from any medical coverage based on his or her "faith." And who decides what constitutes faith? If the Board of Walmart declares that their religion forbids dental care, what recourse would anyone have? It's a matter of faith and religious freedom, thanks to the GOP. You can declare that my hypotheticals are "absurd" all you like, but you also cannot construct a logical argument to defend the Blunt Amendment.

Actually Lem, this whole thing is a strawman, contrived theater, and started by by the Obama administration to scare women into believing that if the Republicans win the Whitehouse their access to birth control will be taken away.

So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving Marxist president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!

So what ever happened to the President's promise that you could keep your current health care coverage if you wanted it?

I'm sorry, have you been forced to change your health plan? Has anyone you know?

This administration wants to eliminate all except for what the government provides.

Yes, I've really noticed the forced collectivization lately, the elimination or private enterprise, the millions of people forced onto collective farms where they starve because of misallocation of resources. Clearly Obama is JUST LIKE the Khmer Rouge, except with a little less mass murder. (OR MAYBE NOT!)

The issue isn’t about birth control — it’s about the federal government’s power to force a religious institution like Georgetown University to bend to its will and take actions that are fundamentally at odds with its core values.

Hosa, I love you man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere, and you haven't even read this thread. I have responded to this point at length. (Hint: What's the difference between a religious institution and a business subsidiary of a religions institution?)

[Xiahou]

So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!

This is horribly offensive, and frankly tiresome. Could you please stop implying that people who criticize Obama are somehow racist? I'm really sick of it.

[Vuk]

This is horribly offensive, and frankly tiresome. Could you please stop implying that people who criticize Obama are somehow racist? I'm really sick of it.

Those who support Obama cannot help it. It is much more effective than their weak arguments just to scream racism. Of course if he was a white woman you would be a sexist. They use any excuse they can to dismiss your argument instead of answering it.

[Centurion1]

This is so annoying.

We should all be ignoring Lemur. He is throwing around arguments using "evidence" and examples which are frankly absurd and worthless. He ignores certain basic facts in defense of his ideas. And now he throws race into the equation. Absolutely classless approach.

[Lemur]

Could you please stop implying that people who criticize Obama are somehow racist?

I'm sorry, I should have gone with Marxist-Leninist anti-capitalist closet muslin who hates America and can't speak without a teleprompter because he is stupid. If only to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.

It is much more effective than their weak arguments just to scream racism.

I've yet to see you address a single argument put forward in this debate, so you're not really in a position to hyperventilate.

We should all be ignoring Lemur. He is throwing around arguments using "evidence" and examples which are frankly absurd and worthless. He ignores certain basic facts in defense of his ideas.

And you're going to enumerate and clarify on those "basic facts" when, exactly?

Oh looky, I was so wicked as to mention the President's race, so every rightwing Orgah can now scream "victim" at the top of their lungs. We were saying something about crass and tiresome?

[Vuk]

I've yet to see you address a single argument put forward in this debate, so you're not really in a position to criticize.

I have not made an argument in this thread except about your posting behavior. Again you demonstrate your mastery of diverting attention from what is inconvenient to you.

And you're going to enumerate and clarify on those "basic facts" when, exactly?

How about I throw one out. You seem to completely ignore the separation of church and state. Religious institutions are tax exempt because of the belief in separation of church and state, and yet you use that as an argument for why churches should do whatever the government wants them to do. Citizens and their government have a give and take relationship, but churches and the government do not. You don't tax 'em, and you don't tell them what to do. Otherwise they turn into a control mechanism for the government.

Oh looky, I was so crass as to mention the President's race, so every rightwing Orgah can now scream "victim" at the top of their lungs. We were saying something about crass and tiresome?

Translation: I was crying victim (for Obama) and people complained that I was doing it, so now I am going to accuse them of crying victim.
Serious Lemur, you need to try some different tactics, because it is getting old.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And saying something doesn't make it so. The Blunt Amendment, as written, would give any employer exemption from any medical coverage based on his or her "faith." And who decides what constitutes faith? If the Board of Walmart declares that their religion forbids dental care, what recourse would anyone have? It's a matter of faith and religious freedom, thanks to the GOP. You can declare that my hypotheticals are "absurd" all you like, but you also cannot construct a logical argument to defend the Blunt Amendment.

What recourse? Gee, not working for Walmart, not shopping at Walmart, and encouraging other people to not shop at Walmart. I don't see how you can say there's no recourse.

The Blunt amendment defends religious people who don't want to pay for what they consider immoral. Don't like it? Don't work and/or shop there. It should be a free country.

Your possibilities are absurd because they all go far beyond what were talking about; insurance for a willful action by paying for contraception.

Again, the whole reason this is an issue is because of government regulations restricting people's choice of insurance and forcing them to get insurance through their employer. That's the root cause of this.

EDIT: Lemur - just what is the point of saying this, then;

And the conniving president

CR

[Lemur]

Your possibilities are absurd because they all go far beyond what were talking about

I'm not conducting a slippery slope exercise; there is no legal definition of who can and cannot claim whatever they like when it comes to religion. Part of being a free country is that your religious beliefs are whatever you say they are. By linking a permanent insurance waiver to religion, and not restricting it to religious institutions such as churches, synagogues or temples, you're opening up a world of possibilities. See the law of unintended consequences. By supporting this sort of broad waiver, you're inviting the law into the question of what constitutes your religion, what constitutes a legitimate tenet of your religion, etc. It's cracking open an angry wasp's nest of state and religion, and all to score a cheap political point.

If a religion owns a business (exemplum gratum, Rev. Moon and News World Communications), that business should play by the same rules as everyone else. Religious exemptions should only apply to directly religious institutions, as is already enshrined in law. CR, I think part of the issue is you just don't like the current or previous structure of healthcare in this country, and you'd like to see the whole thing re-ordered. Which is a very legitimate perspective, but confusing in the current debate about Catholic Unis and hospitals.

You seem to completely ignore the separation of church and state. Religious institutions are tax exempt because of the belief in separation of church and state, and yet you use that as an argument for why churches should do whatever the government wants them to do.

And you seem to have not read the thread. Quick, what is the practical difference between a church and a business owned by the church?

Lemur - just what is the point of saying this, then;

Since the professional victim class is getting 200 miles per gallon out of the word "," I edited it to read "Marxist." Which will not slow the terminal velocity of their outrage, but may give us some small chance of discussing something besides how victimized and oppressed they are when anyone has the temerity to mention the race of the President.

[Vuk]

I'm not conducting a slippery slope exercise; there is no legal definition of who can and cannot claim whatever they like when it comes to religion. Part of being a free country is that your religious beliefs are whatever you say they are. By linking a permanent insurance waiver to religion, and not restricting it to religious institutions such as churches, synagogues or temples, you're opening up a world of possibilities. See the law of unintended consequences. By supporting this sort of broad waiver, you're inviting the law into the question of what constitutes your religion, what constitutes a legitimate tenet of your religion, etc. It's cracking open an angry wasp's nest of state and religion, and all to score a cheap political point.

If a religion owns a business, that business should play by the same rules as everyone else. Religious exemptions should only apply to directly religious institutions, as is already enshrined in law. CR, I think part of the issue is you just don't like the current or previous structure of healthcare in this country, and you'd like to see the whole thing re-ordered. Which is a very legitimate perspective, but confusing in the current debate about Catholic Unis and hospitals.


And you seem to have not read the thread. Quick, what is the practical difference between a church and a business owned by the church?

I did read the thread Lemur, and while you made that distinction for other parts of your argument, you did not for that.
What you said came dangerously close to throwing the separation of church and state right out the window.
That said, I would like to point out several things. First of all, I agree with you Lemur that the Blunt amendment would have had unintended consequences and should only apply to religious institutions. That said, as far as religious institutions are involved, the government should have no right to force them to provide health care at all. The government should stay completely out of religion, and an amendment should be made to exempt churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions from the mandate.
The real heart of the problem here is Obamacare and the individual mandate, which should not exist. That said, though it does, there should definitely be exemptions for religious institutions. (whether those exemptions should carry over to the businesses those institutions run or not I really am not sure. I can see the arguments on both sides, and have been convinced either way)

[Lemur]

What you said came dangerously close to throwing the separation of church and state right out the window.

I'm not clear on how I did that. I support tax exemption and all sorts of exemptions for religious institutions. I do not support any exemptions for businesses they happen to own. Nor have I expressed otherwise in this thread.

The real heart of the problem here is Obamacare and the individual mandate, which should not exist.

Well, there are lots of alternatives, but that's what we've got right now. And within that framework, I think having exemptions for religious institutions, but not for their business subsidiaries, is pretty damn fair.

[Vuk]

I'm not clear on how I did that. I support tax exemption and all sorts of exemptions for religious institutions. I do not support any exemptions for businesses they happen to own. Nor have I expressed otherwise in this thread.


Well, there are lots of alternatives, but that's what we've got right now. And within that framework, I think having exemptions for religious institutions, but not for their business subsidiaries, is pretty damn fair.

I would agree with you concerning every business that is meant to make a profit (I am not sure, are religious institutions allowed to run those). If what you mean by business though is a charity, such as a relief organization or non-profit hospital, then I disagree with you, as that is just an extension of that religious institution.

[Lemur]

I would agree with you concerning every business that is meant to make a profit (I am not sure, are religious institutions allowed to run those).

They most certainly are. And it's entirely legal.

If what you mean by business though is a charity, such as a relief organization or non-profit hospital, then I disagree with you, as that is just an extension of that religious institution.

Yeah, that definitely gets a lot trickier. On the one hand, a hospital's business is healing people, so it can be seen as a direct extension of a religious mission. On the other hand, most hospitals generate profits and take serious coin from the state and the Feds. Moreover, most doctors and nurses are not Catholic, so the majority of their staff are not there for religious reasons, and do not operate as an extension of the church. Tricky.

I fall on the side of, "If it ain't a church, it doesn't get a church's special treatment."

[Vuk]

What recourse? Gee, not working for Walmart, not shopping at Walmart, and encouraging other people to not shop at Walmart. I don't see how you can say there's no recourse.

The consumer is the greatest enforcer of the people's will. People seem to think the government needs to step in and regulate things, when often times the consumer is by far the best regulator. (which is not to say that there is not need for some government regulation, or that consumer regulation does not have its limits)

[Hosakawa Tito]

So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!


I'm sorry, have you been forced to change your health plan? Has anyone you know?


Yes, I've really noticed the forced collectivization lately, the elimination or private enterprise, the millions of people forced onto collective farms where they starve because of misallocation of resources. Clearly Obama is JUST LIKE the Khmer Rouge, except with a little less mass murder. (OR MAYBE NOT!)


Hosa, I love you man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere, and you haven't even read this thread. I have responded to this point at length. (Hint: What's the difference between a religious institution and a business subsidiary of a religions institution?)

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to. Even the Republican leadership play along and don't have the guts to call the media propaganda machine on it. There are many cheap options out there for birth control. It's not the issue, just a smoke screen to scare women voters to vote Democrat. No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything. Nor the authority to mandate a private business sell a product/service, nor set the price for it. This power grab and end run with the Commerce clause is illegitimate as stated in the link I provided. Do people actually believe that an insurance company is going to provide, at no cost, any service? Where do insurance companies get their money from?

When does this health mandate start for everyone to be required to buy health insurance? 2014 is the correct answer. Get back to me then about changing your health-care provider.

Lem, love ya man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere.

[Lemur]

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to.

Making hysterical, apocalyptic claims about the end of private property, free enterprise and capitalism seems to be the typical response from those who have no real argument to put forward. Does it work? Not really.

No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything.

Does the state have a right to demand that you purchase car insurance? Does the state have the right to mandate seat belts in cars? Does the state have the right to demand that you put your child in a car seat? By what right can the Feds build interstate highways?

You say, as though it were an absolute truism, that the state cannot mandate purchase of health insurance. (Even though that was the core of Romneycare and every proposal put forward by the Heritage Foundation until there was a Dem president.) This seems to be the root of your objection, rather than the bogus 1st A religious freedom argument that has been out in front.

This confirms what I have been arguing, that the "assault on religious liberty" is so much hokum and smokescreen, that the real objection on the part of rightwingers is Obamacare itself.

Which casts this all in a rather different light.

[Strike For The South]

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to. Even the Republican leadership play along and don't have the guts to call the media propaganda machine on it. There are many cheap options out there for birth control. It's not the issue, just a smoke screen to scare women voters to vote Democrat. No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything. Nor the authority to mandate a private business sell a product/service, nor set the price for it. This power grab and end run with the Commerce clause is illegitimate as stated in the link I provided. Do people actually believe that an insurance company is going to provide, at no cost, any service? Where do insurance companies get their money from?

When does this health mandate start for everyone to be required to buy health insurance? 2014 is the correct answer. Get back to me then about changing your health-care provider.

Lem, love ya man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere.

The state manadates you buy many things. It's amazing how many stuanch consitiutionalists have come out of the wordwork post 2008 and by amazing I mean pitiful.

Every president since Washington has pissed on the constitution at one time or another the only logical position of a constitutional absolutisit is liberalterianism

[Vuk]

Being a constitutionalist is a bad thing? Man, you're in the wrong country!

[Strike For The South]

Being a constitutionalist is a bad thing? Man, you're in the wrong country!

That's not what I said