Here's the relevant section of Blunt's bill:

"Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider's religious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services under this title (or any amendment made by this title) or to fulfill any other requirement under this title because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider pursuant to this paragraph."

Smith's region = Smith's religion

Interesting read:

CEOs the power to do away with any medical benefits they dislike.

That would be all of them, except their own.

WTF - instead of hiring someone to help out a few hours a potential business must now contend with the maze of NEW government laws.

I was just reading about another legal initiative from the DOT that effects my own current business ventures. The new program inflicts drug-testing all the professional drivers and mandates insurance for all the brokers in addition to the trucking companies. Its anti-business and its bullshit. People aren't complying and the DOT is in the "enforcement phase" rounding up 1000s of new "criminals" for not having "licenses" to do business. hmmmm that's far from "free trade".

Laws that create the pay-to-play situations, licensing, and crap like that are FOR THE CRONIES to keep competition out, not for the people.

The new program inflicts drug-testing all the professional drivers

How dare they restrict the right of the driver of a 22 ton vehicle to be hopped up on narcotics!

The nerve!

The free market will take care of it! A few dead families will put that trucker right out of business.

An employer should have no right to dictate what part of health coverage an employee is able to access.

Repubs are eager to substitute the imposition of "Big Business" death panels in place of "Big Govt" death panels?

Look, I trust the government much more than I trust corporations, with respect to health care. I can always vote government out. I can talk to my representatives in government. As a n employee, I have no mechanism with teeth enough to counter a small minded CEO.

Access to coverage is not something I want to see given over to the whim of every boss' personal pet peeves.

Go ahead and try to do this Reptards, make my day. The voters will kill you for it.

Obama's unnecessary and hamfisted stance caused a backlash and the GOP is trying to use that backlash to the advantage of corporations.

Makes sense. Follows the law of American two-party politics:

Every stupid action has an opposite yet equally stupid reaction.

Access to coverage is not something I want to see given over to the whim of every boss' personal pet peeves.

#10 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR AT 2012-02-15 10:32 AM

It does not work that way princess, take a deep breath and calm down.

"Access to coverage is not something I want to see given over to the whim of every boss' personal pet peeves."

Like paying more to allow for a 70 year old women to have access to contraception? Or paying for some 22 YO with her tubes tied to have access to the pill?

Back in the 70's there were about what, 40 Gov mandates insurance companies had to follow? Today it is what? A couple of thousand?

Like paying more to allow for a 70 year old women to have access to contraception?

Because companies only hire 70 year old women to work for them.

Because companies only hire 70 year old women to work for them.

#14 | Posted by 2008 at 2012-02-15 11:21 AM

And because all 70 year old women use contraception. All the time.

"And because all 70 year old women use contraception. All the time."

Between you and the other 10 watt 2008, maybe one can figure out the sillyness of YOUR premiums paying for access to contraception if a 70 YO woman wants it.

Pretty soon your premiums will pay for quadra-palegic's to have access to viagrin...

the sillyness of YOUR premiums paying for access to contraception if a 70 YO woman wants it.
#16 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2012-02-15 11:42 AM | REPLY | FLAG

You fail to understand the basic concept of insurance.

Between you and the other 10 watt 2008, maybe one can figure out the sillyness of YOUR premiums paying for access to contraception if a 70 YO woman wants it.
#16 | Posted by crispee_oc

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest... uhm.... I don't know.... STD avoidance? Seems like a legitmate public health concern to me.

Pretty soon your premiums will pay for quadra-palegic's to have access to viagrin...

#17 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-15 11:44 AM

I'd be happy if my insurance premiums paid for medicating sad and damaged people like yourself as well.

"You fail to understand the basic concept of insurance."

By all means tell us the basic concept of why the Gov mandates insurance companies pay for the "ACCESS" to contraception for some woman in her 50's, 60's, or 70's? Even if NONE use or want it, you still pay...

"I'd be happy if my insurance premiums paid for medicating sad and damaged people like yourself as well."

Sadly your insurance company doesn't know you are a fucking retard who needs meds...

"I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest... uhm.... I don't know.... STD avoidance? Seems like a legitmate public health concern to me."

The pill doesn't prevent STDs.

Obama is shilling for Big Pharma and the GOP responded by shilling for big everyone else. This is why it was idiotic of Obama to unnecessarily open this can of worms in the first place.

This whole deal is retarded. Religious reasons? Since when were they allowed to trump society in this nation? Freedom to practice has always only gone so far. Try pulling someone's still-beating heart out of their chest to make sure the sun god still rises tomorrow, and say it's ok, you're an Aztec priest freely practicing your religion.

Denying medical care/services based on a different antiquated superstition is different how?

I'm all in favor of everyone getting wonderful healthcare. I don't mind if the government oversees it. Whatever. Just don't make me pay for it. Do whatever you want, just don't raise my taxes. I have private top notch insurance so I don't care what you guys create for the masses, just don't steal from me.

"Denying medical care/services based on a different antiquated superstition is different how?"

The pill isn't medical care in for over 99% of women who take it. Its a nice to have. Like vitamins or a personal gym or a swimming pool or a dog (all of which can help people live longer but shouldn't be covered by insurance).

We're not talking about insulin for people who can't live without it. One of the major problems with this debate is that its framed under the false premise that birth control pills are medication.

The Obamites won't rest until everything is "free", and the quality is exactly what you would expect.

On to the next $15,000,000,000,000! Gobama!

#26 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2012-02-15 01:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

A valid argument that already, for better or worse, lost. The current discussion under this posting was about whether if the law is all insurance companies have to do something, whether they can claim a "moral" exemption based on religion. Regarding a health matter.

It's not as immediately important as, yet equivalent to the argument about whether parents should be allowed to deny life-saving treatments for their terminally ill children based on religion.

My argument is that when dealing with healthcare, people shouldn't get to include their stupid superstitions anymore than I get to if I want to sacrifice someone to Quetzalcoatl.

Actually, this is even worse in a way, as it is more loosely based than on religion even. Just whatever that company decides is "moral."

Nothing quite like trusting a for-profit organization with reams of fine-print everywhere in their policies to decide what constitutes "morality."

Even if NONE use or want it, you still pay...

#21 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2012-02-15 12:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

That is the point OF insurance, to spread the cost over all the subscribers. Why else does your health insurance cover mammograms?

This whole deal is retarded. Religious reasons? Since when were they allowed to trump society in this nation?

As a private employer they are subject to a variety of employment laws, this should have been no different.

But the GNOP had to try to shift the focus off of their cave in on the payroll tax cut and gin up another issue to dominate the headlines. Even if it is a make believe issue that is already law in many states.

Contraception isn't insurance, in the medical sense.

Next up--a plan to force health insurance companies to pay for gym memberships. And why not? It's "preventative medicine" too.

Oh, I know. Because it's mainly men who would be taking advantage of that, and in the feminized, metrosexual Obama administration, nobody would take that seriously.

Why else does your health insurance cover mammograms?

Posted by 726 at 2012-02-15 03:19 PM | Reply

Mammograms are preventive dumb fuck. Granted, the pill does in fact offer protections, and I have dated women in their 40's who have to stay on it for medical reasons. That is not the argument though, is it? It is putting money aside for women who have no intentions of needing it, and the stupidity of the reasoning.

But the GNOP had to try to shift the focus off of their cave in on the payroll tax cut and gin up another issue to dominate the headlines. Even if it is a make believe issue that is already law in many states.

#31 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-15 03:22 PM

The stupid is thick with this one....

Former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was the first to express concern, then according to Politico this week, the White House began losing Democratic support. Former Democratic National Committee chairman and Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine; the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey; House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson; Democratic Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois; and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia all came out against the ruling. (Manchin, in fact, called the HHS ruling "un-American." The outrage also widened beyond just Catholics: more and more religious leaders were signing one in op-ed pages, on morning television shows, not to mention all the Shabbat and Christian services and Sunday masses this weekend. The White House knew it was losing ground quickly and they're hoping this will stop the outrage.

So if I don't believe in war and violence, because, you know, that Jesus guy said to turn the other cheek and all, do I no longer have to pay taxes that support the military?

And I'm not Biblical scholar, so I'm not saying it's not in there somewhere, but can anyone point to any part of the Gospels where Jesus directly addresses contraception? Just curious.

And where will I get my contraception if my boss doesn't buy it for me???

Obama's unnecessary and hamfisted stance caused a backlash and the GOP is trying to use that backlash to the advantage of corporations.

Sully-there is a growing suspicion that Obama deliberately set up this issue to sucker the GOP into jumping on it. I'm not willing to say Team Obama is that smart but they did get the GOppers to go hard right on it and Obama's quick and successful Plan B seems to have been written in advance. The GOppers going after contraception was one of their more brilliantly stupid moves, following on their hissy fit over the payroll tax.

"Sully-there is a growing suspicion that Obama deliberately set up this issue to sucker the GOP into jumping on it."

Of course post #34 makes you look stupid as sand, but hey nothing less is expected from you Northy...

Former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was the first to express concern, then according to Politico this week, the White House began losing Democratic support. Former Democratic National Committee chairman and Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine; the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey; House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson; Democratic Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois; and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia all came out against the ruling. (Manchin, in fact, called the HHS ruling "un-American."

This article is a succinct example of how liberals fear other people's freedom.

Basically they are trying to scare you into believeing that if your boss has more freedom you are fucked.

Basically they are trying to scare you into believeing that if your boss has more freedom you are fucked.

that's sort of like trying to scare you into believing that if you're sitting on a nuclear bomb and it goes off, you are fucked.

In other words, reality.

Fear is the most powerful motivator but interestingly we make our worst decisions when they are based on fear.

Yup crispeepee, the GOP are right on top of things:

An average of 46 per cent of Catholics told the pollster they approved of Obama's job performance, compared to 49 per cent the previous week. That's within the poll's margin of error.

"Catholics are typically an important swing voting group in U.S. elections, so a president is at some political risk if he pursues a policy that could anger Catholics," Gallup's Jeffrey Jones wrote of the findings on the pollster's website.

"So far, though, it appears the controversy over religious group employer health plans and contraception has not had a significantly negative effect on how rank-and-file Catholics view the president."

A CBS News/New York Times poll released Wednesday also suggests that most Americans, including Catholics, support the Obama administration's original birth control mandate.

Sixty-one per cent of those surveyed said they back federally mandated contraception coverage for employers with religious affiliations, while 31 per cent were opposed.

Among Catholics, the numbers were almost identical â€" 61 per cent in favour and 32 per cent against. Support was strong even among Catholics who went to church every week, perhaps unsurprising given a recent study that found 98 per cent of Catholic women have used birth control over the course of their lives.

What's even more disturbing for Republicans? Fifty per cent of those who identified themselves as party faithful backed the mandate, compared to 44 per cent who were opposed.

Support was particularly strong among women of all demographics.

Fear is the most powerful motivator but interestingly we make our worst decisions when they are based on fear.

#41 | Posted by Huguenot

Historically, that means voting Republican. Whether it's the rooskies, the coloreds, the radicals or the muslims, the GOP has managed to capitalize on those imaginary boogie men.

Funny thing is, the GOPpers also traditionally align themselves with the real scary folk-Hitler, al queda, rightwing domestic terrorists, religious crazies like Koresh....

LMAO
Then why did Obama backpedal, Norty? It seems it's a winner for him.

@43
LOL
I'm not going to say that the Republicans have never used fear, but fear is the ONLY thing that the Democrats use.

funny stuff.

Republicans want to give CEOs the power to do away with any medical benefits they dislike, Mother Jones reports.

In other news, condom's are about $8 for a 12 pack of 'Magnums'.

Purchase your own you stupid sob's.

#43 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-02-15 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag

Just more BS from a lying sack of shit.

Then why did Obama backpedal, Norty? It seems it's a winner for him.

A winner for him and a disaster for the GOP. Win-win.

One of the major problems with this debate is that its framed under the false premise that birth control pills are medication.

What would you call it then, a nutritional supplement?
The Pill is Rx'd by a doctor and dispensed by a pharmacist.
Any attempt to make it OTC causes religious types to shit a brick.

It's medication, if only because society cannot come to grips with the reality that women are different than men... down there.

It was funny to watch Odumbo claim that he could just change the Obamacare law. His stupid base will fall for that but Obungler will have to have it changed through Congress first.

No he don't, not the Obamaman.

It's a "WAR ON CONTRACEPTION!"

You guys are funny. Is there anything you're willing to pay for yourself? What a bunch of freeloading pussies.

But in another amusing twist, what the Dems want is different. They want employers and health plans to know who is taking birth control pills. Isn't that funny? It's one thing to be in line at the pharmacy and overhear a woman arguing that her copay has already been met for her Valtrex. It's another to be able to see it in her file at HR.

"Right to privacy!" Uh huh. But not if I'm paying.

It's medication, if only because society cannot come to grips with the reality that women are different than men... down there.

#49 | Posted by snoofy

Well, if it's medication, what is the disease? What's the ailment?

How about iron and calcium supplements? Docs advise that women get more of that than men. Is that medication too? How about a bowl of Total?

Well, if it's medication, what is the disease?

#53 | Posted by rightisright at

Who taught you that definition of medication?

Anyone catch Limbaugh's remarks about contraception? Just incredible. Damn, I'm glad he's one of your and not one of ours.

Medication is a drug used to treat or prevent disease. That's my definition. What's yours.

And unfortunately, Barack Hussein Obama is on all of us. When Limblob spends $5 trillion in kited Chinese money in three years, I'll start worrying about him. Meantime, we have the biggest idiot in the history of the world living in the White House, and retards like you are going to vote to keep him there.

'Limbaugh was indignant about the hype around the issue. "Why is contraception so important that it must be paid for by somebody else?" he demanded to know. He asked why contraceptives are "a must-have" in comparison to toothpaste, hotel rooms or a car.

"Why are so many people afraid of birth?" he wondered.'

The really interesting thing about this issue is how easily it's flushing out crap like this from the Right-wing. Er, what's the point? This advances GOP chances in what way, exactly?

That's my definition. What's yours.

#56 | Posted by rightisright at 2012-02-15 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Medications are chemicals that adapt biology in desired directions.

"Limbaugh then asked why the Democratic party would want to limit pregnancies, arguing that it makes money from abortions. He alleged that Planned Parenthood is part of "a money-laundering operation for the Democrat party" and that the organization "is rolling in dough" from providing abortion services. "So why would the Democrat party want to make sure that there aren't any pregnancies?" he challenged".

This is some of the creepiest stuff I've ever seen coming from a man with a national audience. Honestly, how should an ordinary person interpret this?

Uh oh. By throwing "desired" in there, you've just made a lot of things elective. Why, then, should contraceptives be treated any differently by insurance companies than, say, growth hormones for athletes?

I like your definition. Let's go with it. After all, why should anyone else's desires supersede my own, and vice versa? Get out your checkbook, leeches. Gonna be some changes around here, because Zed was trying to be a little too clever.

It's not unusual for conservatives on this blog to disavow Limbaugh. But it's also not unusual for prominent Republicans to come literally crawling to the man to kiss his ass publically.

Many people, including many Independents, are going to come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is simply stating what the Republican Party thinks on this subject when it is being perfectly honest with the world.

Any of you GOP types out there think this is any sort of a problem? Because I personally am getting blown away with this, and stuff like this, that comes from the mouths of powerful conservatives.

I started being blown away four years ago. You guys will say anything. ANYTHING. I've thoroughly lost your point. Do you want to win or do you crazy people want to diddle yourselves?

I don't care what Rush says. He doesn't make up the law as he goes along, like Obama does. If you want to listen to him, go ahead.

You liberals are bankrupting the country, through your selfishness, and through your total, slavish devotion to this idiot in the White House. It staggers the imagination, how you guys pretended to be principled about things as recently as 2006. Now, a colossal $8 trillion in deficit spending later, and you want more free stuff.

Take it all. Things will be better once we bankrupt ourselves, and can start all over. Sooner the better.

RiR,

Since when is insurance in this country free? We have the most god awful, time wasting, expensive health care system on the planet, 37th in terms of outcomes. This is all part of "planned failure", which never applies to the planners, only the other 99%. The fucking Rethuglicans are doing most of the planning by mouthing their donors wishes. And Obama rolls over every time they scream, which is an hourly event, if you can stand to watch it.

The fucking Rethuglicans are doing most of the planning by mouthing their donors wishes.

oh please, obamacare was signed by and loved by the dems, voted against by most of the GOP and the health insurance industry paid off obama and the dems to GET it.

the GOP has just stood by and voted "no".

don't get me wrong, I don't credit the GOP for voting against this for any other reason than to oppose obama no matter what.

but the "planning"???

the gop hasn't planned anything except to be against something.

what the Dems want is different. They want employers and health plans to know who is taking birth control pills. Isn't that funny? It's one thing to be in line at the pharmacy and overhear a woman arguing that her copay has already been met for her Valtrex. It's another to be able to see it in her file at HR.

Can HR see that in the 28 states that already mandate birth control, including churporations?

I would say an employer would be happy to see employees using BC, they know they won't have to deal with maternity leaves and replacements, increased HC costs for pregnancies,or women quitting to be like Mrs. sanitarium. Not to mention the cost of replacing someone, either temporarily or full time.

You want to tell us something otherwise, oh wise and smart RIR?

This is some of the creepiest stuff I've ever seen coming from a man with a national audience.

I suspect his references to money laundering are there to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of listeners.
Listeners who are constantly reminded that Planned Parenthood has been accused of using Federal funding to pay for abortions.
Which is both horribly immoral, and against the law.
Which plays nicely to the authoritarian mindset of those who are conditioned to fear, say, a wrathful G-d.
(So, as Obama said, they cling to their G-d and their guns.)
(They didn't like being told that.)

You have to understand the way it is, Zed. Such as, most people just believe in G-d because they were brought up that way. They haven't put much thought into things. They haven't left the country or learned another language or gone on to college. They're dumb as rocks, Zed. Even if they are smart, the breadth of their life's experience is insufficient to form an informed opinion.

So Rush does that for them.

Anyway, It's good that you can notice the brain-washiness of the rhetoric. Make brainwashing feel good, and people will do it voluntarily. Keep reinforcing the same messages over and over and people will begin parroting them voluntarily.

It's monkey-see monkey-do, Zed.

Uh oh. By throwing "desired" in there, you've just made a lot of things elective. Why, then, should contraceptives be treated any differently by insurance companies than, say, growth hormones for athletes?

Yes, desired.
The administration of medicine is always elective.
You can refuse any undesired treatment.
You can for example refuse to be anesthetized during your next colonoscopy, and just take it raw.
So I guess that means that pain medication isn't medicine, by your definition of medicine.
Which illustrates nicely why your definition of medicine is incorrect.

One thing I've noticed during this "health care debate" that started with Obama's election is that a lot of the people don't really know much about the field at all. Haven't worked in health care, don't have family that are nurses, doctors, etc.

Fear is the most powerful motivator but interestingly we make our worst decisions when they are based on fear.

#41 | Posted by Huguenot

Running away from a tsunami might be an exception.

You liberals are bankrupting the country, through your selfishness,

#63 | Posted by rightisright at 2012

My "selfishness" is not why this country is in economic trouble. The primary reason we have money issues is because of the actions of what cannot be more than a few thousand men and women. People who got their way to have their way to create themselves from the megarich to the hyperrich.

Honest people can disagree about contraception. Honest people are in no position to disagree about this. The history has been too clearly established.

You say you don't give a damn about Limbaugh, but you appear to have picked up on one of his prime narratives, one of those stories that he makes up while taking a shit in the morning and wiping his ass, because he has fifteen minutes of air time to fill.

When one of the major, perhaps THE major Republican presidential candidate, has made an obscene fortune in part by raiding the pensions of people whose only crime is to have worked for a living, that's a problem.

When pointing out that there's a negative dimension to that SELFISH behavior is described as an attack on free enterprize, that's a problem also.

what the Dems want is different. They want employers and health plans to know who is taking birth control pills. Isn't that funny? It's one thing to be in line at the pharmacy and overhear a woman arguing that her copay has already been met for her Valtrex. It's another to be able to see it in her file at HR.

66 | Posted by northguy3

All the employer would know is that the coverage is in the plan along with all the other various coverage options associated with the plan.
That's kind of why they call it a "plan".

The employer won't even know you WENT to the Dr, let alone what you are getting treatment for, unless you sign a release of information or tell them yourself.

The "health plans" has to know for the obvious reason that they're responsible for paying the bill and need the DX and billing codes to process the claim.

Also, just an FYI, Valtrex isn't birth control, it's for treatment of herpies and shingles (a varient of herpies AKA adult chickenpox...hurts like a mother fucker too).

Only mentioning it because of the inclusion of it in the comment.

"Republicans want to give CEOs the power to do away with any medical benefits they dislike, Mother Jones reports. In their latest move in the battle over contraception coverage, top Republicans in Congress are pushing a bill that would allow employers and insurance companies to pick and choose which health benefits to provide based simply on executives' personal moral beliefs."

Leave it to doc to find idiot-logic like this. He wants one-size-fits-all morality which, if it does not agree with HIM and HIM alone, would be 'unconstitutional.'
I defy doc to find one Republican, moreover, who has said he would push for making contraception illegal, and in those exact words, not a quote of personal disapproval of the practice.

"He wants one-size-fits-all morality"

Whereas the church wants all things at all times, and cries it's "war" if they don't get their way. They didn't want to expose the church to nasty stuff like medical malpractice, so they formed a corporation to distance the two entities.

Then, when a law applies to corporations, the corporation suddenly wants the religious exemptions reserved for churches.

well I see this bullshit lying headline is still here as the concern is not about contraception and of course it would work...20 or so years ago, but not now.............

CANT WAIT for the next gop President to step through that "WALL" of seperation of church and state like this fuck and you on the left are going to just be convulsing in anger and outrage...

GAS AT FOUR BUCKS NOW IN PARTS OF THE EAST...

bye bye barry....

*****GOP Expands War on Contraception******

.......I wonder if they are working from a blueprint for "How To Lose An Election"...or if they are just winging it ?.......

"
GAS AT FOUR BUCKS NOW IN PARTS OF THE EAST...

bye bye barry...."

I bet the oil companies appreciate folks like you who don't seem to mind when they manipulate gas prices to make it difficult to Obama to win reelection. My God, don't you resent it just a little that they can use such underhanded tactics which hurt millions of Americans?

The GOP: finding new ways to alienate women voters.

In their latest move in the battle over contraception coverage, top Republicans in Congress are pushing a bill that would allow employers and insurance companies to pick and choose which health benefits to provide based simply on executives' personal moral beliefs.

So, basically, if I was a "Christian Scientist" who believed exclusively in the healing power of prayer all I have to offer my employees for insurance is a prayer book.

Nicely done R-tards.

CANT WAIT for the next gop President to step through that "WALL" of seperation of church and state like this fuck and you on the left are going to just be convulsing in anger and outrage...

#74 | Posted by afkabl2

Well, the good news Babbler is you'll have to wait at least FOUR MORE YEARS for a GOP president again!

You all stocked up on Paxil and Xanax? You gonna need it.

LOL!

Mammograms are preventive dumb fuck.

#33 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2012-02-15 03:45 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

How many mammograms have you had Derpee?

My God, don't you resent it just a little that they can use such underhanded tactics which hurt millions of Americans?

#77 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2012-02-16 12:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

If it means "their guy" wins, no.

Now if the other side did it, they would be having a holy shit fit.

Just like Mittens allowed the state law to require religious organizations to provide contraception when he was governor, now he is have a holy shit fit over it.

Quote of the Day:

"This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so... inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives... The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly," he [Santorum supporter Foster Friess] told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell.

GAS AT FOUR BUCKS NOW IN PARTS OF THE EAST...

You do realize the reason for the Iraq war was to ratchet oil prices from $20-30/bbl to $80-100/bbl, right?

I'm guessing you don't. You seem like one of the buffoons who thought invading Iraq would get us cheap oil.

#84

Rcade, we really need a tinfoil flag.

Well, the result was certainly that oil went way up.
You saying that's the opposite of what they wanted?
Wouldn't that make the war... a failure?

Wouldn't that make the war... a failure?
#86 | Posted by snoofy

.......war is always a failure.......a failure of diplomacy....

I bet the oil companies appreciate folks like you who don't seem to mind when they manipulate gas prices to make it difficult to Obama to win reelection. My God, don't you resent it just a little that they can use such underhanded tactics which hurt millions of Americans?

#77 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-16

I know its off topic but the man had done NOTHING to keep prices down and EVERYTHING to drive them up

thousands of oil and gas jobs..the gulf moratorium...keystone..and on and on..

THIS is one of the fights coming up in election that the left will NOT be able to keep the narrative where they want it..

GAS AT FOUR BUCKS NOW IN PARTS OF THE EAST...

You do realize the reason for the Iraq war was to ratchet oil prices from $20-30/bbl to $80-100/bbl, right?

I'm guessing you don't. You seem like one of the buffoons who thought invading Iraq would get us cheap oil.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2012-02-16

oh my god...really?????

we SHOULD be driving billions of gallons of oil out of iraq....to the victor belong the spoils...but that was never the intent, and I think you know that too...

ps..I just threw in the gas at 4 bucks thing to remind everyone that when barry took over a gallon of gas was less than two bucks..

ps..I just threw in the gas at 4 bucks thing to remind everyone that when barry took over a gallon of gas was less than two bucks..

#90 | Posted by afkabl2

yes completely off topic but since you went there...

I think you forgot to mention why the price of crude oil was collapsing. Here let me help remind you.

Let's recap shall we?

May 21, 2008--Oil price skyrockets to $130 a barrel.

June 9, 2008---Retail gas prices rise above $4 per gallon.

June 15, 2008---Speculators continue to push the price of crude oil. Consumers begin to literally run out of gas attempting to stretch their dollar. (remember the Speculators?)

July 7, 2008---Crude oil prices settled-in at a new record of $147 per barrel. The U.S. average price for regular gasoline climbs to an all-time high of $4.11 per gallon. Road trip style vacations are put on hold for many summer travelers. (much like now)

Aug. 5, 2008---Oil prices fall below $120 a barrel.

Sept. 15, 2008---The barrel continues to drop below $100 a barrel for the first time in six months. The idea of a serious financial industry recession is discussed as the market literally begins to melt down!

Oct. 16, 2008---Oil prices fall below $70 a barrel, which is less than half of its July peak. Signs of $1.99 a gallon gas brings celebration to the masses.

Dec. 17, 2008---OPEC removes 2.2 million barrels from its daily production. Crude oil collapses to $40 a barrel, becoming the lowest price in almost 4 years.

Dec. 19, 2008---After weeks of negotiation, Bush approves the emergency bailout of the U.S. auto industries big three, giving them $17.4 billion in rescue loans.

Dec. 31, 2008---Crude oil prices plummet below $37 a barrel while the U.S. average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline falls to an amazing 5-year low of $1.61.

ps..I just threw in the gas at 4 bucks thing to remind everyone that when barry took over a gallon of gas was less than two bucks..

When Obama took over gas prices had just seen their biggest nose dive in prices in over a decade because the economy was farking CRASHING.

Remember that?

Remember John "I've got to stop my campaign and get to DC and solve this crisis... quick ...to the GOPher-mobile, ...no time to lose" McCain?

In the summer of 2008 the price of gas peaked at over 4 dollars after rising steadily for years but by the time of Obama's inaugural they had fallen to about 1.90.

The fact that the right so obviously, so disingenuously and so selectively parses out those details in all the charts* they draw and in their talking points tells you a great deal about how they play with the truth.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Be Well.

/*Yeah looking at you, Hermitage.org.

If you take a look at states the put mandates on insurance they all have the most expensive premiums, and they also have higher cost for those good/services that where in the mandate.

Inflation is the biggest drag on the working poor, and this is inflationary.

The devil sure is in the details huh Blabber?

#91 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Damn, yer post is better and you got it in first!

I trust the government much more than I trust corporations with respect to health care. I can always vote government out ..
I have no mechanism with teeth enough to counter a small minded CEO
#10 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

~ folks with a shred of dignity, self-worth, & a skill wouldn't place themselves in a bad work environment .. under a small-minded CEO
it-sucks-2-B-U

If you take a look at states the put mandates on insurance they all have the most expensive premiums, and they also have higher cost for those good/services that where in the mandate.
Inflation is the biggest drag on the working poor, and this is inflationary.

#93 | POSTED BY 90C2CAB

If you take a look at the countries that have tax-paid universal health care, they have lower cost for goods/services and better outcomes.

FTFY

#96 | Posted by WhoDaMan

If you take a look at the countries that have tax-paid universal health care, they have lower cost for goods/services and better outcomes.

FTFY
---------------
It's already been disguessed on this board that comparing small healthy homogenus countries to ours is like comparing apples to oranges.

You have to compare apples to apples.

So a more accurate comparison would be like the state of Mass has government health care and they have the most expensive health care compared to other states.

But if you beleive that pigs fly then there is no hope for you.

It's already been disguessed on this board that comparing small healthy homogenus countries to ours is like comparing apples to oranges.

......health spending is done per capita...so your analogies are false.....

#98 | Posted by skizziks

It's already been disguessed on this board that comparing small healthy homogenus countries to ours is like comparing apples to oranges.

......health spending is done per capita...so your analogies are false.....
-----------------
Someone who doesn't understand numbers. Comparing Denmark to the US is not an accurate comparison, so your analogies are false.

#98 | Posted by skizziks

It's already been disguessed on this board that comparing small healthy homogenus countries to ours is like comparing apples to oranges.

......health spending is done per capita...so your analogies are false.....
-----------------
If you compare MASS to a state with similar per capita they still have the most expensive health care premiums.

Mandating oil changes to car insurnace will make oil changes and car insurnace cost more.

Comparing Denmark to the US is not an accurate comparison, so your analogies are false.
#99 | Posted by 90c2cab

....health care spending is calculated on a per capita (per person)basis, so it does not really matter whether a country is large or small, the per person comparison is still valid.....

.....the Euros, Australians, Canadians all spend half of what U.S. spends per capita and get much better outcomes.......

......the "we are too large to compare" arguement is plainly false....

Mandating oil changes to car insurnace will make oil changes and car insurnace cost more.
#100 | Posted by 90c2cab

.....wrong again.....

....the health care mandate means that more people will be contributing payments to healthcare that covers the same number of people.....in other words payments will drop, as more money will be coming in to cover the same number of people.......

.....that's just basic math.......

PopQuiz
list the cost of
1. Birth Control
2. Unwanted pregnancy

which would insurnce copmanies prefer to pay for

#101 | Posted by skizziks

health care spending is calculated on a per capita (per person)basis, so it does not really matter whether a country is large or small, the per person comparison is still valid.....

.....the Euros, Australians, Canadians all spend half of what U.S. spends per capita and get much better outcomes.......

......the "we are too large to compare" arguement is plainly false....
-----------------
Healthy people will have lower health care cost than unhealthy people that's a no brainer. We are one of the most unhealthy nations on the planet so yes you are correct we spend a lot on health care, but that has nothing to with health care itself and everything to do with life style.

#102 | Posted by skizziks

wrong again.....

....the health care mandate means that more people will be contributing payments to healthcare that covers the same number of people.....in other words payments will drop, as more money will be coming in to cover the same number of people.......

.....that's just basic math.......
----------------
So why does MASS have the most expensive health care premiums?

I'll tell you why. It's not math it's humman behavior, when you mandate that every one has to buy somthing, then the provider of that good or service has less incentive to lower the cost.

If you mandated that every by Pepsi than the cost would go up not down.

Be Well.

#94 | Posted by dethspud

Cheers!

The Babbler makes it just too ez sometimes.

You mean they want to ABORT contraception?

yes you are correct we spend a lot on health care, but that has nothing to with health care itself and everything to do with life style.
#104 | Posted by 90c2cab

......now that your "per capita is not per capita" argument is shown to be false, you move on to the "we are not a healthy people" debate......

......it may cost some extra money to be McDonald-sucking fatties, but the real reason our healthcare costs twice as much is because the insurance companies, and health-care cartels, are allowed free reign to gouge Americans.....they buy off the politicians and milk America........

......ten years from now, you will see that Obamacare is the best thing to happen to America in a long time......

If you mandated that every by Pepsi than the cost would go up not down.
#105 | Posted by 90c2cab

Let's say that a bus pulls up to a diner with ten passengers.
They all decide to pee and buy a pepsi for their trip.
They send one of them to buy ten Pepsis at one dollar each.
He pays ten dollars and boards the bus, and they are on their way.
Each passenger pays one dollar, and the bill is paid.

A second bus pulls up to the same diner with ten passengers.
They all decide to pee and buy a Pepsi for their trip.
They send one of them to buy ten Pepsis at one dollar each.
He pays the ten dollars and boards the bus, and they are on their way.
Each passenger checks his pocket, and five of them have no money at all.
The one who bought the Pepsis, says that those who do have money, should split the cost evenly.
How much does each of the five passengers with money pay ??

it may cost some extra money to be McDonald-sucking fatties, but the real reason our healthcare costs twice as much is because the insurance companies, and health-care cartels, are allowed free reign to gouge Americans.....they buy off the politicians and milk America........

I disagree.. We could remove everything you mentioned and replace it with some "dream" system you can invent and we would STILL be the unhealthiest and fattest (developed) nation on the planet and our costs would still be the highest.

......ten years from now, you will see that Obamacare is the best thing to happen to America in a long time......

How can you make that argument? Obamacare, while it has some positive components, has also put the insurance companies and health care cartels and their respective bought off politicians in MORE power than before.

you apparently can't be convinced to see most of obamacare for what it is.

1. attempts to criminalize NOT doing business with an insurance company
2. increases the relationship between the insurance and health care lobby and congress
3. drives us further away from a single payer system.

So why does MASS have the most expensive health care premiums?
#105 | Posted by 90c2cab

I have included a link to a chart of health care premiums, and while Massachussetts is among the higher costs, it is not the highest, and most states hover around the same range, within a few hundred bucks of each other per year. In fact,
the highest is Alabama-6085,
Delaware-5644,
DC-5653,
and then Mass at 5554.

#111 | Posted by eberly

......I agree that a single payer system would be better, and I regret that he did not ram it through when he had majorities in congress and the Senate.......

.....Obama tried to be non-partisan, and instead was made to look like a fool by a gaggle of carpetbaggers.......

....still, it's a big improvement over what we had, and has already started bringing costs down.......

We could remove everything you mentioned and replace it with some "dream" system you can invent and we would STILL be the unhealthiest and fattest (developed) nation on the planet and our costs would still be the highest.
#110 | Posted by eberly

....perhaps we would be......

......but if you removed the insurance companies, and gouging by health care, then the cost would be more affordable.......

What's next? Calling for married couples to practice abstinence as one NH GOP pol suggested?

I'll be casting my vote for Rick Santorum in the GOP primary. It was not a decision I came to easily: liberal/moderate/severely conservative flip flopper or sneering right wing wacko who voted 12 times against raising the minimum wage, consciously voted for deficits, and brings dead babies home to snuggle with? I was going to vote for Newt, but he's done a terrific job of self destructing all on his own.

The GOP are going to find themselves in a world of hurt come November regardless of who the nominee is. What a show!!

.
I have lived in Europe for 8 years, and was transferred to Canada for spells also....and the best thing about single pay system, is not so much the health care, but it's effects on families.
.
Here in America, over a million families a year ( who have health insurance ) go bankrupt over health care bills. That does not happen over there, when people get sick, they take out their health cards, which looks like a drivers license, and just pay. No sweat, no worries.
Here, people that are covered get dropped when they are sick, or if they are between jobs, of maybe their whole work place gets dropped when one of them gets cancer....it's just not right. The anguish that insurance coverage causes here is a huge stress, that does not exist there. Pro-family ? Really ? Then provide them with medicare for all, otherwise stop the blabber about family values.
.
They have their health care problems over there too, with waiting lines for non-urgent operations, and health care budgets. But the individual families are not made to suffer as they do here.

Obama tried to be non-partisan, and instead was made to look like a fool by a gaggle of carpetbaggers.......

Obama is a big boy. stop painting him as some "Mr. Smith".

He is a player of the system and his hands were and are OUT.....

Obama is one of two things:

1. Complicit with the GOP plans

OR

2. Ineffective to standing up to them

Either way, he is too weak to remain as President IMHO.

But the individual families are not made to suffer as they do here.
#116 | Posted by skizziks

Nicely put, skiizziks.

Making sure there are always a certain amount of people visibly suffering in this country is the engine that keeps our economy running, according to a certain point of view. The greater the degree to which a society seeks to alleviate suffering, the greater the decrease in productivity, so the song goes. Now, to be fair, that argument is not entirely without merit; there will always be those who seek to game the system to their own unfair advantage. But I think the practice of not helping, the tough-love approach, is appealing to us more because it speaks to our inner sadism, than because it works, arguments about the appropriate degree and/or quality of our paternalism aside.

Either way, he is too weak to remain as President IMHO.
#118 | Posted by kanrei

......I agree.......then......I look at the alternatives........

#116 | Posted by skizziks

Here in America, over a million families a year ( who have health insurance ) go bankrupt over health care bills. That does not happen over there, when people get sick, they take out their health cards, which looks like a drivers license, and just pay. No sweat, no worries.
------------
So why do wealthy Europeans come here for health care, why did the Prime Minster of Neufondland come here for health care, why did 40 thousand Europeans die during the 2003 heat wave?.

Obviously there is sweat and some worries or else they wouldn't have come here, and 40 thousand people wouldn't have died during a heat wave.

If it's not so great for the wealthy than how can it be great for the middle class.

Your version of Utopia is not mine.

#116 | Posted by skizziks
Here in America, over a million families a year ( who have health insurance ) go bankrupt over health care bills.
------------
In Europe those people would die waiting in line.

The wealthy don't come here just because the doctors are better, they come here because the wait times are to long.

I posted link a while ago on this site from a Candian who had a two here wait to see a specialists, 2 years. That's why the Candian hockey players move here, because it's not the utopia you claim it to be.

#116 | Posted by skizziks

Here in America, over a million families a year ( who have health insurance ) go bankrupt over health care bills. That does not happen over there, when people get sick, they take out their health cards, which looks like a drivers license, and just pay. No sweat, no worries.
------------

Skizziks here is another way of looking at this argument. Your a used care salesman trying to sell me a car and the Prime Minister of Newfoundland just bought his car from the dealer ship across the street. Why should I buy what your selling, he is wealthy and bought his car across the street, and I can do the same.

The same doctor that he had I can have to, why would I give that up for the doctor he gave up.

Another reason why wealthy people come here for health care is we have the lattest technology, and Europe and Canada has to wait till we make it available to the world.

My family is from Eruope, and they left there for a reason, not the utopia you people are painting it.

So why do wealthy Europeans come here for health care,

......you have all your talking points, but not all of the facts.......

.......medical tourism is a global practice, and while people come to the U.S. for treatment, ten times as many Americans go elsewhere......

.......if you are a multi-millionaire, this may be the best system in the world for you.....for the rest of us, it's a toss of the dice.....

A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[78] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[

My family is from Eruope, and they left there for a reason, not the utopia you people are painting it.
#124 | Posted by 90c2cab

......it's not Utopia for sure......

.....but I've lived the stress-free healthcare system, and that is better than what we have here......

#126 | Posted by skizziks
......it's not Utopia for sure......

.....but I've lived the stress-free healthcare system, and that is better than what we have here......
----------
I respect that, I don't have the health care stress that you have.

I can drop my insurance and if I get sick go to India and save a lot of money, but I wouldn't do that I fine with what I have

((Like paying more to allow for a 70 year old women to have access to contraception? ))

If contraception for birth control is taken away from women, can you guarantee men of all ages will keep the "little brain" in their pants? I doubt it!

Hey, a 70-year-old man can have access to Viagra or ED drugs, so maybe those should be restricted, too. Isn't a vasectomy covered already? Why aren't men "rising up" against that cost?

People who come to America for health care are not comming here to save money, but Amercians who go to like India are going to save money. If you don't want to carry insurance, and you need surgery you can get it pretty cheap in India, and a lot of Americans are doing thta.

"War on contraception". You guys really are a bunch of hysterical pussies.

"War on contraception". You guys really are a bunch of hysterical pussies.

#130 | Posted by rightisright at 2012-02-17 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Says the pussy who whines 'War on Christmas' the loudest every Christmas season.

The issue is NOT the availability of contraceptives which are all over the place and cheap. And many Catholic women are on birth control! What the issue is forcing sterilization and abortion coverage on organizations against their moral fiber. IT IS ABOUT CONTROL!

What the issue is forcing sterilization and abortion coverage on organizations against their moral fiber. IT IS ABOUT CONTROL! -- #132 | Posted by patriotwoman23

Welcome to civil society. I don't get to quit paying taxes b/c I object to the War in Iraq.

Says the pussy who whines 'War on Christmas' the loudest every Christmas season.

#131 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

Never even said it one time. Nobody dislikes Christmas more than I do.

So let us remember this time in space. A Conservative becomes the next president (just saying in case the King doesn't decide to eliminate the 8 year limit and is unfortunately reelected), and you run a non-religiously based medical facility that receives government funds. This particular government then decides to eliminate Obamacare, forces demands religious books in every room, nook, and cranny, and bans all forms of abortion by decree?? How is that for you! Only then will we hear the sycophant liberals crying "get government out of our lives". I could go on with this one.

@132

No one is being forced to do anything other than be able to provide.

@135

Your hypothetical already happened you clueless moron. It's fondly referred to as the dark ages. I know you have no grasp of history, or reality for that matter, but do try to keep up.

Makes no sense.....GOP supporting birth of more libs....however, we Westerners certainly will need more Infidels - R or L...IMHO.

Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.

The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent.

Here is the link: