Ron Paul says Rush's apology was about $

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Rune said:
Damn, you are a fucking moron. No woman is working and living in NYC on 200% of the federal poverty level.Furthermore, where is Darla asking anyone but herself to pay? You do realise that health insurance is a part of her wages?
Click to expand...

Many of the women who this mandate will cover, would not be eligible, no. And other states have even more egregious guidelines. 200% is a generous, liberal blue state guideline.
 
Last edited:
Under the current rule, only churches and other houses of worship are exempt from having to cover contraception at no co-pay for the women they employ. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the Hawaii model as a viable alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception.

"All the Founding Fathers saw that, and how far are we removed when we're sitting around talking about, well, maybe the Catholic church could make a referral to a service that it regards as intrinsically immoral," Bishop William Lori, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, told the National Catholic Reporter. "We're pretty far way from the genius that inspired the founding of this country."

The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.
 
Derp Derp said:
Well yea....yea you do have the right to force insurance companies to provide this for you. That's a false assumption on your part. This isn't a gift. This isn't welfare, this isn't a handout. Employer provided insurance is a negotiated compensation for your work. It's part of a persons wages they have EARNED and they have every right in the world to specify specific coverage for this PURCHASE! Just as you have a right to specify that the car you purchase has specified safety standards and fuel economy and meets specified performance criteria. this isn't the social welfare state your talking about this is a womans purchase and women have the right to specify what that purchase entails.
Click to expand...

Yea and a private insurer has the right to have which ever coverage in THEIR plans that they choose to. The government has no rights. A woman can go purchase whatever she chooses- that is where her rights end. She does not have any constitutional right to demand free birth control- period.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Yea and a private insurer has the right to have which ever coverage in THEIR plans that they choose to. The government has no rights. A woman can go purchase whatever she chooses- that is where her rights end. She does not have any constitutional right to demand free birth control- period.
Click to expand...

No, they don't and that's nothing new. States have long mandated certain preventative care, including birth control, be covered by insurers. Insurance companies have always been regulated.

It's important again to remember, for people who care about women, and aren't ideological knee-jerkers, one of the reasons why this mandate came about.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...-reproductive-health-care-under-health-reform

Other reports have also determined that when women do not have their birth control fully covered by insurance, they are more likely to do without it some months, due to the financial burden it poses to some women.
 
Darla said:
You know, I knew you'd know! Even though you changed your image here to that of a career woman who has to do extensive work-related travel (LOL) I am way too familar with your previous incarnation as the stay at home mom married to a man of little means who used to love bragging about all the "Free stuff" she got on the taxpayer's dime. Like a free computer and computer access paid for by taxpayers.

Healthy NY is an excellent program, and people like me pay higher taxes here for it. I'm happy to do so. But it only covers New Yorkers, and we are a liberal, high-tax state, which you cons always deride us for, and we have a larger safety net than many other states.

Working women do not have to go to a Medicaid program however, and ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for their birth control. You are egregiously wrong when you claim this is "free". Just like your computer was "free". Taxpayer money is not "Free". It's paid for by people like me. Working women are entitled to the dignity their work earns them, and this includes not being forced into asking for a taxpayer handout. Further, the same taxpayers who object to the mandate, would naturally object to their tax dollars being used to provide "free" (on the taxpayer teat) birth control. This position is deeply incoherent.

Your second egregious error is in claiming that this mandate "forces" anyone to pay for birth control. It does not. Health care benefits are paid for by the employee, through a combination of money deducted from their gross pay, and their labor. The women pay for this. It is a truly radical redefinition of the employee/employer relationship to attempt to claim that the employer owns an employee's wages and other compensation. That's one of the reasons the radical Blunt amendment failed.

Finally, you assume religious "liberty" is absolute. As pointed out and backed up above, it is not and it never has been. You want it to be absolute only in the case of Christian teachings that YOu agree with, and only over a woman's rights.

And I do have a right to "force" insurance companies to fully cover birth control. It's now the law of the land.
Click to expand...

As much as I know you want to make this personal and dig into my life- I will endeavor to keep this on topic.

I provided NY, I can provide info for every state- Birth control is free and or very inexpensive. What part of 200% of the poverty threshold did you miss? That said, free birth control is not a right guaranteed to women.

That's right nothing is free, in the sense that someone somewhere has to pay. If a woman goes to work at a company that does not have "free" birth control in their plan- she is "free" to go to work for someone who does have such a plan. The Obama health care intrusion into what people have to pay will likely be overturned- The argument right now is about a government forcing someone to pay for something. Private insurance companies regularly pass costs off via higher premiums- that is how the free stuff gets paid for by others.

You have a right to attempt to force an insurance company to pay for something, you are not guaranteed success except under a tyrannical government that has overstepped its authority. In this instance, regarding the Catholic Church, Obama overstepped- that is why he has tried to rework his mandate- but it is still an abuse of power.

Under the current rule, only churches and other houses of worship are exempt from having to cover contraception at no co-pay for the women they employ. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the Hawaii model as a viable alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception.

"All the Founding Fathers saw that, and how far are we removed when we're sitting around talking about, well, maybe the Catholic church could make a referral to a service that it regards as intrinsically immoral," Bishop William Lori, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, told the National Catholic Reporter. "We're pretty far way from the genius that inspired the founding of this country."

The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.
Click to expand...
 
icedancer2theend said:
Under the current rule, only churches and other houses of worship are exempt from having to cover contraception at no co-pay for the women they employ. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the Hawaii model as a viable alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception.

"All the Founding Fathers saw that, and how far are we removed when we're sitting around talking about, well, maybe the Catholic church could make a referral to a service that it regards as intrinsically immoral," Bishop William Lori, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, told the National Catholic Reporter. "We're pretty far way from the genius that inspired the founding of this country."

The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are all aware that the Bishops are hostile to women and not even remotely reasonable. Posting their incoherent position is not evidence of anything. The Hawaii compromise allows all religious organizations to choose health insurance without birth control coverage, period. There is no further argument that is even remotely sane.

Of course, Sister Carol Keehan, the head of the Catholic Health Association, supports the compromise. But you refuse to mention her because she's a woman. You privilege the insane opinions of male Bishops even over women nuns. That's female misogyny in action folks, look no further.

“The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions,” Keehan said. “The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed. We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished. The unity of Catholic organizations in addressing this concern was a sign of its importance. This difference has at times been uncomfortable but it has helped our country sort through an issue that has been important throughout the history of our great democracy.” Sister Carol Keehan
 
Darla said:
No, they don't and that's nothing new. States have long mandated certain preventative care, including birth control, be covered by insurers. Insurance companies have always been regulated.

It's important again to remember, for people who care about women, and aren't ideological knee-jerkers, one of the reasons why this mandate came about.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...-reproductive-health-care-under-health-reform

Other reports have also determined that when women do not have their birth control fully covered by insurance, they are more likely to do without it some months, due to the financial burden it poses to some women.
Click to expand...

Regulation is fine- demanding things be "free" is not.
 
icedancer2theend said:
As much as I know you want to make this personal and dig into my life- I will endeavor to keep this on topic.

I provided NY, I can provide info for every state- Birth control is free and or very inexpensive. What part of 200% of the poverty threshold did you miss? That said, free birth control is not a right guaranteed to women.

That's right nothing is free, in the sense that someone somewhere has to pay. If a woman goes to work at a company that does not have "free" birth control in their plan- she is "free" to go to work for someone who does have such a plan. The Obama health care intrusion into what people have to pay will likely be overturned- The argument right now is about a government forcing someone to pay for something. Private insurance companies regularly pass costs off via higher premiums- that is how the free stuff gets paid for by others.

You have a right to attempt to force an insurance company to pay for something, you are not guaranteed success except under a tyrannical government that has overstepped its authority. In this instance, regarding the Catholic Church, Obama overstepped- that is why he has tried to rework his mandate- but it is still an abuse of power.
Click to expand...

No, not "in the sense that someone has to pay" in the sense that claiming that taxpayer funded services for the indigent are "Free stuff" is an offensive position. Your personal life is very relevant since you used to openly brag about getting what you called "Free stuff" from the state because you home schooled. You used to laugh and brag about your free computer and free internet access. For some reason you thought it would piss off liberals, but all it did was expose your mindset, which you double down on here; taxpayer dollars are "free stuff"...if you're clever enough to work the system. That's offensive. Most working people do not share your morals on this, and most would find it demeaning to apply for Medicaid.

Here's the good news: They don't have to!

Women earn their compensation just as men do. It would be a radical redefining of the employer/employee relationship to claim that the employer owns an employee's compensation and can apply their moral judgements to how that is spent. This is why the radical blunt amendment failed. Sane people do not want that precedent.


"Free birth control is not a right guaranteed to women".

No one has argued that it is. Her benefits are not "free". She pays for them with money deducted from her paycheck and her labor.

See, you can keep writing the same nonsense over and over, but I will keep responding with the facts.
 
Rune said:
Do you even read what you are responding too?
Click to expand...

Nope, they are robotic. Again, it took three days before the last of them (and btw this stupid asshole was the last one to do it, ID here) stopped writing what Rush told them to write "she wants taxpayers to pay for her birth control!"

Ice wrote that herself even after I finally got SF and Damo to stop saying it by pointing out, 107 times, that this was about insurance benefits for working women and had nothing to do with taxpayers. Finally, on the fourth day, even ID stopped making that claim.

NOW, she's in here making the claim that working women who pay for their health insurance through a combination of money deducted from their gross income, and their labor, should be forced to go to taxpayer and get "Free" birth control from that taxpayer.

Is this coherent?

Not at all.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Yea and a private insurer has the right to have which ever coverage in THEIR plans that they choose to. The government has no rights. A woman can go purchase whatever she chooses- that is where her rights end. She does not have any constitutional right to demand free birth control- period.
Click to expand...
Again, You are operating from a false premise. There is nothing "free" about the insurance coverage. It is paid for by the woman, where do you get this notion that this is free? No one is getting anything for free. The woman pays for her insurance. She has the right to require specific preventative health care coverage from that health insurer, including birth control, as is required by law. You are sadly mistaken here.
 
Rune said:
Damn, you are a fucking moron. No woman is working and living in NYC on 200% of the federal poverty level.

Furthermore, where is Darla asking anyone but herself to pay? You do realise that health insurance is a part of her wages?
Click to expand...
Come on Rune. ID is more entitled to an opinion on this topic than we are. Let's not drag this conversation down to Super Freaks level.
 
BTW, protestations here otherwise, this is such a losing issue for the GOP that the Senate Republicans have backed down and also told Roy Blunt if he doesn't stfu they are going to take him into the chamber closet and bash his head in with a baseball bat:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/senate-republicans-backing-off-contraception-wars.php

From one top GOP senator openly lamenting the fallout of the ongoing fight over contraception, to the author of the controversial legislation at the heart of that fight effectively conceding defeat in the upper chamber, signs mounted Tuesday that suggest Senate Republicans want to put the birth control controversy to bed.

“You know, I think we’ve got as many votes as I think there were to get on that,” Senate GOP Conference Vice Chairman Roy Blunt told TPM Tuesday afternoon after a weekly Capitol briefing. “I think the House side may take some further action. That debate will go on for a long time, though I don’t know that there’s anything else to happen in the Senate in the near future.”

The concession marks a departure for the GOP leadership, which as recently as last week insisted that Republicans were on the right side of the issue and would fight on. "

Now, did the House R's get the memo? That would require them to be sane - you can be sure Boehner got it, he's a drunk, he's not crazy. But he's shown a marked inability to keep his party in line, and most of the R's congressmen are actually batshit crazy and could not pass a mental health examination.

I hope they do keep it up - keep it up Congressional repubs! You'll make Pelosi Speaker again! Please keep it up!

But one thing is for sure -the saner (barely) Senate Republicans got the memo delivered by American woman which read: Shut the fuck up and keep your disgusting hands off my uterus!

And they said "Yes ma'm, ma'm" and they folded.

Score one for American women! Yay!
 
Rune said:
Damn, you are a fucking moron. No woman is working and living in NYC on 200% of the federal poverty level.

Furthermore, where is Darla asking anyone but herself to pay? You do realise that health insurance is a part of her wages?
Click to expand...

You stupid insipid troll- The figure means a woman can be 200% ABOVE the poverty line! If the poverty line for a family of 4 is 24k then she can earn 48k! Got it? Good!

For every dollar your employer pays you, he pays roughly .75 in taxes to employ you. If he pays health care costs that is another 1.75 or so an hour. If his costs get too high, he lays people off, stops hiring or hires more part time employees. Obama passing off healthcare costs to insurance providers via mandates causes those increased costs to be passed off to the individual or the employers- and round and round it goes. Birth control is NOT a right- period!
 
icedancer2theend said:
You stupid insipid troll- The figure means a woman can be 200% ABOVE the poverty line! If the poverty line for a family of 4 is 24k then she can earn 48k! Got it? Good!

For every dollar your employer pays you, he pays roughly .75 in taxes to employ you. If he pays health care costs that is another 1.75 or so an hour. If his costs get too high, he lays people off, stops hiring or hires more part time employees. Obama passing off healthcare costs to insurance providers via mandates causes those increased costs to be passed off to the individual or the employers- and round and round it goes. Birth control is NOT a right- period!
Click to expand...

If she lives alone it's 20K.
Good luck with that.
 
Rune said:
If she lives alone it's 20K.
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah if she earns 22k she can get free birth control- Most all clinics where you do not qualify for free, use a sliding scale. If you have insurance most pills are a 15.00 co-pay. The POINT is that birth control is not a right- it's a choice, an affordable choice.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Why? Is it to spar back and forth? Anyway, that's fine, that's your private business Mott. I am not SF's wife! Just out curiousity which do you really believe, what you say to your wife or what you said here? Are you doing this just to piss SF off Mott?!
Click to expand...
Oh what I have been posting in here is what I believe and I'm not saying a damned thing just to piss off Freak.....well not intentionally. :)

I say the sexist pig stuff to my wife cause it pisses her off and the sex is always waaaaaaay better when she's mad as hell at me (She's the passionate type and loves the drama.).

On the down side I've spent a lot...and I mean A LOT of money on bling bling in way of apologies for being a jerk....but hey...a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do. As they say, "alls fair in love and war." :)

So no...I'm not a sexist pig but I am a shameless oppurtunist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top