federal judge sends racist anti-obama email
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
Which changes nothing about what I said. For Rush any publicity, especially negative publicity in the "Leftwing Media" is good. It makes him rich.
Yay for Rush.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
The only real argument is the Constitutionality- still, for Obama and his supporters to claim mandated contraception will lower health care costs? That is a stretch.
(Reuters) - The Obama administration maintains that its plan to have health insurers pay for birth control offered to employees of religious groups won't end up costing the industry. But insurers aren't so confident.
Last Friday, President Barack Obama sought to placate outraged leaders of the Catholic church, which opposes contraception, by making insurers responsible for providing the free birth control.
Obama's 2010 healthcare law mandates free contraception. The administration exempted houses of worship from the rule, but requires coverage be made available to employees of religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities.
The administration has said insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. But a new survey of 15 large health plans shows they are dubious of such savings.
Asked what impact the requirement will have on their costs in the year to two years after it goes into effect, 40 percent of the participants said they expect the requirement will increase costs through higher pharmacy expenses.
The survey of pharmacy directors at the health plans was conducted on Wednesday by Reimbursement Intelligence, which advises pharmaceutical, medical device and other companies on reimbursement issues. The firm did not name the insurance plans it surveyed.
Of the health plans, 20 percent said costs would even out because they already budget for contraception in the premium, 6.7 percent said it would drive up pharmacy costs but decrease medical costs, while 33.3 percent weren't sure. None said it would lead to net savings.
"They think it will raise pharmacy costs and won't lower medical costs," said Rhonda Greenapple, chief executive officer of Reimbursement Intelligence. "The idea that preventative care is going to reduce overall healthcare costs, they don't buy it."
Last week, insurers including Aetna Inc questioned the precedent set by Obama's plan that would force them to pay for coverage with no clear way of recouping the expense.
But insurers may still seek ways to pass through such costs, either by increasing premiums to the same employers or to other corporate clients.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said its concerns were not addressed by Obama's compromise, and noted that insurance plans would likely cover the birth control costs out of the larger pool of revenue they make from their contract with a religious employer.
link
(Reuters) - The Obama administration maintains that its plan to have health insurers pay for birth control offered to employees of religious groups won't end up costing the industry. But insurers aren't so confident.
Last Friday, President Barack Obama sought to placate outraged leaders of the Catholic church, which opposes contraception, by making insurers responsible for providing the free birth control.
Obama's 2010 healthcare law mandates free contraception. The administration exempted houses of worship from the rule, but requires coverage be made available to employees of religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities.
The administration has said insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. But a new survey of 15 large health plans shows they are dubious of such savings.
Asked what impact the requirement will have on their costs in the year to two years after it goes into effect, 40 percent of the participants said they expect the requirement will increase costs through higher pharmacy expenses.
The survey of pharmacy directors at the health plans was conducted on Wednesday by Reimbursement Intelligence, which advises pharmaceutical, medical device and other companies on reimbursement issues. The firm did not name the insurance plans it surveyed.
Of the health plans, 20 percent said costs would even out because they already budget for contraception in the premium, 6.7 percent said it would drive up pharmacy costs but decrease medical costs, while 33.3 percent weren't sure. None said it would lead to net savings.
"They think it will raise pharmacy costs and won't lower medical costs," said Rhonda Greenapple, chief executive officer of Reimbursement Intelligence. "The idea that preventative care is going to reduce overall healthcare costs, they don't buy it."
Last week, insurers including Aetna Inc questioned the precedent set by Obama's plan that would force them to pay for coverage with no clear way of recouping the expense.
But insurers may still seek ways to pass through such costs, either by increasing premiums to the same employers or to other corporate clients.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said its concerns were not addressed by Obama's compromise, and noted that insurance plans would likely cover the birth control costs out of the larger pool of revenue they make from their contract with a religious employer.
link
cawacko
Well-known member
He is nowhere near as influential today as he was in the mid '90's.
You both drinking up that Koolade, huh ?
wow....a link.....if its on the internet then it MUST be true......
and Obama saved or created a billion jobs last year, right.....
how naive can you get....
cawacko
Well-known member
To get SF out of the doghouse and put me in it I copied this post from the 'SC board from a real Libertarian.
Political theatre on all both sides
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limbaugh is basically a troll, but he is the most successful one out there. He single-handedly saved AM radio 25 years ago and his number one goal is to make himself money. I'll bet he is loving the attention he is getting from this! He will get a short term ratings boost, so he will be happy.
As for the whore who made the I want someone else to pay for my birth control meds comments, LMAO!!!! She is a liberal feminist who wants everyone to keep their hands off of her body, not tell her what she can and can't do with her body, yet has the balls to demand that the taxpayer fund her birth control needs that would cost her less than $10 bucks per month to take care of on her own. Now Obama is jumping in because someone on his reelection staff realized that this could be good publicity for him.
Back to Limbaugh. What a hypocrite anyway. A few years ago he was banging the Volt, until GM who is one of his biggest advertisers told him to back off a little bit. He did. Obama Motors and Rush in bed together, surprised?
Political theatre on all both sides
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limbaugh is basically a troll, but he is the most successful one out there. He single-handedly saved AM radio 25 years ago and his number one goal is to make himself money. I'll bet he is loving the attention he is getting from this! He will get a short term ratings boost, so he will be happy.
As for the whore who made the I want someone else to pay for my birth control meds comments, LMAO!!!! She is a liberal feminist who wants everyone to keep their hands off of her body, not tell her what she can and can't do with her body, yet has the balls to demand that the taxpayer fund her birth control needs that would cost her less than $10 bucks per month to take care of on her own. Now Obama is jumping in because someone on his reelection staff realized that this could be good publicity for him.
Back to Limbaugh. What a hypocrite anyway. A few years ago he was banging the Volt, until GM who is one of his biggest advertisers told him to back off a little bit. He did. Obama Motors and Rush in bed together, surprised?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
didn't obama lose last time he tried to take on limbaugh? why would a president try that once, let alone twice..?
Is that what Obama just did? He was "taking on Limbaugh"?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're such a silly hack. of course he is. only far, far, far left wingers would even try to deny that. obama is shooting right back at rush. that you would actually try to deny that really cracks me up.
Yeah - he's really putting himself out there. How controversial to take on Rush's incredibly strong, eloquent "slut" argument, which you seem to have no problem with.
Who's the hack, Yurtsie? Not a word about what Rush said. You guys always do the same thing w/ him - one of the top conservative voices of this generation, and you try to pretend he's barely anybody when stuff like this happens.
Very risky, Obama! So surprised he'd "take him on."
Well, that was a waste of my time and yours. I guess you will have to go and school him now.
cawacko
Well-known member
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
do you ever stop? look at you, bending over backwards to apologize for obama. rush is a shock jock, he says dumb things that get under YOUR skin to make money.
and obama has to respond?
You're really a dope. Still nothing about Rush calling Fluke a "slut."
Your conservative hero just galvanized women across America, Yurtsie. I'm sure the GOP is thrilled.
Disillusioned
New member
Wow, this has been blown way out of proportion. The guy sends one off color joke in an office email, and suddenly he should be fired? John Stewart makes Jewish and Catholic cracks every episode, most commedians attack every religion they can find, many make ethic and racial comments, but when a judge does it, in a NON-PUBLIC SETTING, suddenly everyone freaks out.
Grow up and move on guys.
Grow up and move on guys.
just plain wrong
if an employee uses the company email to send a sexual joke he may be fired, or at the least disciplined
more than one person makes it public when a taxpayer provided transmission is made
welcome to the real world - the judge may lose his job over this one - federal judges are appointed subject to good behavior
Disillusioned
New member
Define "good behavior" and most jokes jokes are offensive to somebody, that's kinda the point, they make fun of something. These days we've just locked down what is "ok" and what is "not ok". We get enraged when muslims protest of Mohammed jokes in the paper and tell them not to be so serious or take it so personally, but thenlash out against black jokes. Interesting double standard. It's pretty simple, grow a thicker skin, and be able to deal with certain things, easy example, if I let STY get to me with his raging anti-government sentiment I'd be quite a bit crazier.
So waht it comes down to is, blown out of proportion. This is just another sensationalized story designed to keep people from actually forgetting about racism and going on with their lives.
what you are overlooking is the fact that the joke is at the expense the president, the judge's boss
if someone sent an email on the company server that was posted at the boss's expense, then they would likely be fired
Disillusioned
New member
Actually the president is completely out of the judge's "chain of command". And as been mentioed before the requirements to toss out a judge are a little more strenuous. Clinton banged a secretary, the president, and we still didn't get rid of him.
Was it stupid? Yes. Is this gonna be with him for a long time? Probably. But really, aside from maybe taking a second look for sentence disparity there's not much that can or should be done. It was dumb, move on.