ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 17:07:56 GMT -5
There was no way Obama was going to win this one.Catholic Healthcare Association like the new wording, but their statement means nothing. Personally, I think republicans can still poke the nest to get some political honey from it, but they will have to be careful how they do it.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Feb 10, 2012 17:08:58 GMT -5
It lets both sides save face while providing the same coverage. It is just different wording and creation of some extra paperwork for the insurance companies.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 17:09:37 GMT -5
Same principal as giving a small voucher to seniors to buy their own healthcare. The real cost will be spread out among all premium payers.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 10, 2012 17:11:05 GMT -5
I'd check your sources again. The prez just announced he is withdrawing his stance. Your source says the same thing as ugonow. Pres say religious orgs don't have to directly provide free BC, but the insurance companies still need to provide free BC & therefore women employeed by religious orgs will still have access. I don't really get what changed??
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 10, 2012 17:12:47 GMT -5
Same principal as giving a small voucher to seniors to buy their own healthcare. The real cost will be spread out among all premium payers. So everyone else will pay a little more in premiums to cover the cost of church BC? Thanks church
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 17:13:02 GMT -5
The vast majority of people have no choice in insurance coverage.They take what their employer gives them. precisely why ensuring choice in the offered coverage is important.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 17:14:35 GMT -5
The Prez is showing some signs of personal growth. omg. that almost sounded like a compliment. nah. i have to be reading it wrong. probably sarcasm.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 17:18:12 GMT -5
In the grand scheme of things, the cost is not really that big of an issue, IMO. That is why I think if the GOP continues to use this issue as a wedge, they will have to be carefull how they frame it.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 17:25:15 GMT -5
I think the GOP jumping on it like a pit bull was a smart move.But if they are not careful, dems will link Santorums comments about Griswold v Connecticut, etc... and make it look more like a war on contraceptives than a war on religion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:45:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 17:31:36 GMT -5
The vast majority of people have no choice in insurance coverage.They take what their employer gives them. This is interesting. I can look online right now and find all kinds of health insurance coverage for just my wife and I at a cost that is on par with what my employer pays for my coverage. This insurance also has similar guidelines to my work provided coverage. So, I really think saying that the vast majority "has no choice in insurance coverage" is pure BS.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 10, 2012 17:31:39 GMT -5
I so don't understand this & I don't see how this is a "win" for the church. Whether directly or indirectly, their premiums still are going to pay for BC. It's not a win for the church. In practice this new agreement does exactly what the old agreement did. You can't force a business to pay for part of a service. They'll just raise rates slightly on the part the church related institutions cover to account for the birth control coverage the insurance company is "paying for". In the end church related institutions will still be subsidizing their employees birth control. Call it whatever the hell you want, in practice that's what just happened. Or, to put it in sports terms; Obama 1 / Catholic Church 0
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 10, 2012 18:32:00 GMT -5
The vast majority of people have no choice in insurance coverage.They take what their employer gives them. This is interesting. I can look online right now and find all kinds of health insurance coverage for just my wife and I at a cost that is on par with what my employer pays for my coverage. This insurance also has similar guidelines to my work provided coverage. So, I really think saying that the vast majority "has no choice in insurance coverage" is pure BS. A vast majority of those don't cover maternity or cost A LOT more if they do. They also don't accept just everyone nor necessarily cover pre-existing conditions. I also am not going to get more money from my employer for rejecting their coverage, so the cost all falls on me & may be unaffordable. So, while in theory I have a choice, in practice that choice is extremely limited.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Feb 10, 2012 18:38:06 GMT -5
The vast majority of people have no choice in insurance coverage.They take what their employer gives them. precisely why ensuring choice in the offered coverage is important. That wouldn't be a bad idea, I suppose. Let people pick and chose what they want: a little from column A and a little from column B. I just don't see how it's perserving choice to force an employer to carry coverage they deem immoral or force people to carry coverage they don't need or can even use. If your employer doesn't carry what you want, then you can either pay out of pocket, get another job, start your own business, etc... isn't freedom wonderful?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 10, 2012 18:56:06 GMT -5
I think the govt should mandate all health plans pay for regular visits to prostitutes for men over 40, who start experiencing prostate issues. Sexual frequency and prostate health are inter-related. www.nativeremedies.com/articles/prostate-health-sexual-frequency.htmlProstate Health and Sexual Frequency Michele Carelse Related Products: Prostate Dr. - Promotes prostate gland health, plus urinary tract and immune system functioning Sex has both physical and psychological connotations. It requires not only physical fitness but also a cool and calm frame of mind before and during the act. Psychologically speaking, most women would have you believe that men are too ‘sex crazy’. Men, on the other hand, have both psychological and physical problems, especially after they reach the age of forty and if they have an enlarged prostate. There is a strong belief among specialists that prostate health and the frequency of the sexual act are interrelated. The simple logic is based on these beliefs: The prostate produces a fluid that forms a major part of the semen. To produce the seminal fluid, the gland and the seminal vesicles take up citric acid, potassium and zinc from the blood and concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogenic substances that might be present in the blood are concentrated along with the fluid. Such carcinogens can potentially cause prostate cancer. The theory goes like this - Instead of letting cancer forming substances remain within the body, it is much better to ejaculate them frequently to avoid prostate cancer. Some studies have revealed that ejaculation for more than five times a week during your 20s, by whatever means, regular sex or masturbation, reduces the risk of developing prostate cancer during middle age. While this theory may be contested by some, there is another typical situation that connects frequency of sex and prostate health. click link for rest of article
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 18:57:55 GMT -5
Well then, you should drop your employer coverage and get the coverage that suits you best. Most of us though, could not touch comparable coverage for what we pay for group premiums. I really don't think the average worker could afford coverage on their own.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 10, 2012 18:59:57 GMT -5
Well then, you should drop your employer coverage and get the coverage that suits you best. Most of us though, could not touch comparable coverage for what we pay for group premiums. I really don't think the average worker could afford coverage on their own.
Sexually active couples can always use condoms, which also protect against STD's, birth control pills do not protect against std's.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 19:05:32 GMT -5
There was an amendment proposed to a states"personhood rights" bill--<<"Johnson submitted an amendment of her own to the bill, which would have added the language, "However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child." -- Good Lord what is the world coming to? Is there anything left?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 10, 2012 19:34:31 GMT -5
I think the govt should mandate all health plans pay for regular visits to prostitutes for men over 40, who start experiencing prostate issues. Sexual frequency and prostate health are inter-related.
--------------------- You've heard of the KISS Principle? One word. Onanism.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 10, 2012 19:49:06 GMT -5
There was an amendment proposed to a states"personhood rights" bill--<<"Johnson submitted an amendment of her own to the bill, which would have added the language, "However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child." -- Good Lord what is the world coming to? Is there anything left? Is hair on the palm and increasing blindness enough evidence to convict?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:45:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 20:12:59 GMT -5
"Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services."
Great. So there's no reason to pass a law mandating it, then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The vast majority of people have no choice in insurance coverage.They take what their employer gives them."
Bull. I can easily find great HDHPs and they don't cost much more than the $300 or so I pay towars my employer's plan. Total cost of my employer's plan is $2,000/mo. I'd love to have the $2,000 and then pay for a regular HDHP out of pocket.
There's a lot wrong with health "insurance" (I put it in quotes because it's generally not actually insurance). But ObamaCare addresses very few of the problems. It instead tries to take steps toward gov't run healthcare.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 10, 2012 20:35:53 GMT -5
There was an amendment proposed to a states"personhood rights" bill--<<"Johnson submitted an amendment of her own to the bill, which would have added the language, "However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child." -- Good Lord what is the world coming to? Is there anything left? "In an attempt to take a stand against Republican bill that would ban abortions in Oklahoma, State Senator Constance Johnson is trying to make “pulling out” illegal. “Any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child,” Johnson stated in a handwritten amendment to Oklahoma senate bill 1433. Her satirical proposal came as a response to a real draft-law sponsored by conservative legislators. The bill which is being dubbed the “Personhood” bill states that life begins at conception and declares that "unborn children have protectable interest in life, health and well-being."" rt.com/usa/news/oklahoma-ban-johnson-bill-041/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:45:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 20:49:31 GMT -5
"The bill which is being dubbed the “Personhood” bill states that life begins at conception and declares that "unborn children have protectable interest in life, health and well-being.""
What a crazy concept. That a "mass of tissue" that is clearly a biologically separate organism might actually be declared as such. If abortion is just an issue of a woman's privacy, why do we have to pretend that an abortion doesn't involve killing another living organism?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 21:00:39 GMT -5
"The bill which is being dubbed the “Personhood” bill states that life begins at conception and declares that "unborn children have protectable interest in life, health and well-being."" What a crazy concept. That a "mass of tissue" that is clearly a biologically separate organism might actually be declared as such. If abortion is just an issue of a woman's privacy, why do we have to pretend that an abortion doesn't involve killing another living organism? i personally don't deny that. there is no sense in it. but we kill living organisms all the time. that doesn't give organisms the same rights as adults. well, as far as everyone other than PETA and some religious folk are concerned, anyway.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 10, 2012 22:22:14 GMT -5
"The bill which is being dubbed the “Personhood” bill states that life begins at conception and declares that "unborn children have protectable interest in life, health and well-being."" What a crazy concept. That a "mass of tissue" that is clearly a biologically separate organism might actually be declared as such. If abortion is just an issue of a woman's privacy, why do we have to pretend that an abortion doesn't involve killing another living organism? When that clearly biological separate organism can survive as a separate from a woman's body, then I will consider it as such. Until that point it is really more of a parasite needing its host to survive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:45:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 22:48:58 GMT -5
"When that clearly biological separate organism can survive as a separate from a woman's body, then I will consider it as such."
OK, so every preemie baby on a ventilator in an NICU is dead, right? You do know that a parasite is a separate organism, don't you? So if an embryo is a parasite, it turns out you agree that it is a biologically separate organism....
Honestly, it doesn't matter what you think. The science of biology takes care of the definitions.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 10, 2012 23:22:35 GMT -5
When that clearly biological separate organism can survive as a separate from a woman's body, then I will consider it as such. Until that point it is really more of a parasite needing its host to survive. Clearly a fetus is a freeloader. If a fetus is a person then it should qualify for medicaid to pay for its own delivery- food and rent assistance too.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Feb 10, 2012 23:32:47 GMT -5
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Feb 11, 2012 0:58:04 GMT -5
I think the govt should mandate all health plans pay for regular visits to prostitutes for men over 40, who start experiencing prostate issues. Sexual frequency and prostate health are inter-related. Or Medicare could just pay for Bengay for those pulled shoulder muscles.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 11, 2012 1:25:17 GMT -5
Yikes-how can an abortion be screwed up 3 times? It isn't brain surgery. Hope he has a different mom or he is going to win every argument.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:45:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 8:07:54 GMT -5
"If a fetus is a person then it should qualify for medicaid to pay for its own delivery- food and rent assistance too."
LOL!
Sorry for the thread hijack....
|
|