Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Boehner: Congress to overturn birth control policy

Wed Feb 8, 2012 1:48 PM EST
politics, us, birth-control, house-speaker-john-boehner
Donna Cassata , Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012,  following a GOP strategy session. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)</p>

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012, following a GOP strategy session. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner accused the Obama administration Wednesday of an "unambiguous attack on religious freedom," promising that Congress will reverse a new policy requiring religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with free birth control if the president doesn't.

Escalating a fight that has roiled the presidential race, Boehner demanded that President Barack Obama overturn the policy that Boehner called a violation of First Amendment rights. The administration's mandate has angered religious groups, especially Catholics, who say the requirement would force them to violate their beliefs against contraception, and congressional Republicans.

"This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand," Boehner, a Catholic and Ohio Republican, said in a rare floor speech.

On the other side of the Capitol, the Republican onslaught continued, with GOP senators vowing to push ahead with legislation to undo the requirement.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., stood with other GOP lawmakers, and called the new rule "an unprecedented affront to religious liberty. This is not a women's' rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said the issue wasn't contraception but "whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be done. It's that simple. And if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all kinds of other absurd results."

The contentious issue has pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that has been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama's health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans' conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.

The White House, facing a public and political outcry, signaled on Tuesday that a compromise is possible. Options could include granting leeway for a church-affiliated employer not to cover birth control, provided it referred employees to an insurer who would provide the coverage.

Another idea, previously rejected by the administration, calls for broadening the definition of a religious employer that would be exempt from the mandate beyond houses of worship and institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith. That broader approach would track a definition currently used by the IRS, bringing in schools, hospitals and social service agencies that deal with the general public.

Republican White House hopefuls Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have been relentless in assailing the administration, criticizing the president at campaign stops. Romney has accused Obama of an "assault on religion" and Gingrich called the rule an "attack on the Catholic Church."

But Romney has drawn criticism from his GOP rivals and the White House over policies when he was Massachusetts governor.

In late 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. Some Catholics say the so-called morning-after pill is a form of abortion.

Romney said he did not support the Massachusetts law, which passed despite his veto. But he also said at the time, "My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information."

White House spokesman Jay Carney seized on that policy at his daily briefing Wednesday.

"The former governor of Massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given that the services that would be provided to women under this rule are the same services that are provided in Massachusetts and were covered when he was governor," Carney said.

He called it "ironic that Mitt Romney is criticizing the president" for a policy that Carney described as identical to the one in place in Massachusetts.

Boehner said that if the administration fails to reverse the policy, then Congress will act. He said that in the coming days, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will move ahead on legislation.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Donna Cassata 's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Down With Tin Horn Dictators
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (206)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Monkey99

Hey, Bonehead, what happened to all those JOBS?

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

F***ing Do-Nothing POS.

  • 37 votes
#1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:18 PM EST
Jeff-3469909

Don't you know? Preventing easy access to birth control for women is MUCH more important than real problems such as a struggling economy.

  • 31 votes
#1.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:22 PM EST
Miss_Diagnosed

That is a terrible picture.

Had to say it...

and now... I wish that everytime the partisan circus came to town it brought some jobs with it... and I dont mean those awful TV pundit jobs...

*sigh*

  • 9 votes
#1.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:36 PM EST
LasVegasRocks

I agree Monkey99. Where are the JOBS JOBS JOBS?

  • 14 votes
#1.3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:43 PM EST
Spike Evans

That is a terrible picture.

I concur. That photo needs much wider distribution to illuminate the failed leadership of the Speaker of the House.

Man....that image.....shake it off, shake it off.

  • 6 votes
#1.4 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:48 PM EST
cannonballer

Monkey, never fear, Obama said he was focused like a laser on jobs.

Jeff, I thought the econonmy was booming now due solely to the President.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:51 PM EST
John Bayner

The picture describes a mad drunk who is losing the grip on his party.

Have a couple more drinks Mr. Speaker, then start to cry and cry and cry.

Watch out, that back stabber Cantor doesn't have your back, he wants to stab you in the back.

The evil doings of the GOP Money, Greed, Power.

  • 9 votes
#1.6 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:51 PM EST
CCArm

It's really really simple

If the Catholic church makes a profit running a hospital, then it is NOT a charity but like every other BUSINESS has to abide by the rules for healthcare. THE CHURCH should not have ANY say in what their employees do regarding their health. THAT is religious persecution.

This is like Terri Schiavo revisited.....lame lame lame congress.

  • 15 votes
#1.7 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:52 PM EST
bonos_rama

That picture is cringe inducing. The pubs have their nerve talking about Pelosi's or Hilary's looks. What an ugly, creepy looking bastard! And with the personality to boot.

If the Catholic church makes a profit running a hospital, then it is NOT a charity but like every other BUSINESS has to abide by the rules for healthcare. THE CHURCH should not have ANY say in what their employees do regarding their health. THAT is religious persecution.

I agree completely. If they can't handle abiding by U.s. employment laws, they need to stop doing business in the U.S.

  • 14 votes
#1.8 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:57 PM EST
MartyMoose

Waste of time. It would never get past the Senate or the President. Stop wasting time and work on something you can actually get done.

Now here's what will happen. The country will need money to keep the government going or some catastrophe will happen and then the House will say that we have to fix this contraception in health care thing or they won't vote to keep the country functioning. Then the stock market will fall 2000 points and all of our 401k's will go to Hell again.

All because these tools in Washington can't keep their eyes on the ball.

  • 6 votes
#1.9 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:00 PM EST
CPOSharkey

Jeez - how many martini's did he have for lunch? What's the matter John, can't seem to focus on the teleprompter? Lush!

  • 6 votes
#1.10 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:03 PM EST
Disturbedlibrarian

The Catholic church has absolutely no say over whether or not their employees use birth control. Let them leave it up to the individual to decide for themselves. It is religious persecution in reverse order. There are many, many women who work for Catholic institutions who are not Catholic. That means they are imposing their views on non-Catholic women as well. So they say that the women can go to some other low-cost provider to get their prescriptions filled, let's say Planned Parenthood... anybody get the irony there?

  • 9 votes
#1.11 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:03 PM EST
IndependentVoter

Monkey99

You mean Congress did not find you a job? Poor baby...

  • 1 vote
#1.12 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:05 PM EST
Jim44

That has to be a record .... The very first Reply to a Seed is Off topic? Seed Subject congressional action on Birth control issue ...

First Reply avoids that subject and derails toward Jobs.... Jeeeezzz that was wicked fast to get off tpic!

  • 4 votes
#1.13 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:09 PM EST
mountainmike-1199289

Did I miss something here?

"unambiguous attack on religious freedom"

People still have the FREEDOM to turn down birth control. No one is going to pop out and force condoms onto people! I would think would be a step a wee bit further than pat downs at the air port.

The conflict is when church based hospitals are serving the public and getting government funding. If they ran the hospitals themselves on their own funding they would have to the right to not offer birth control.

The same people are against abortion, and why isn't effective birth control a prevention of abortion? I would rather people use real birth control strategies instead of using abortion as birth control.

  • 6 votes
#1.14 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:09 PM EST
tcaddle

Looks like Johnny is drunk again. Nothing like a good drunk rant - then wake up the next day an ask: "WTF, did I say that?" Where do the republicans find these gobblers?

  • 5 votes
#1.15 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:12 PM EST
GaryColumbus

Democrats counter move. All tax subsidies for pharmaceuticals and big oil especially are out the door! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Boehner!

  • 2 votes
#1.16 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:14 PM EST
CPOSharkey

Jim44 - almost as fast as Jobs, jobs, jobs turned to abortion, abortion, religion, abortion, etc. ;-)

  • 7 votes
#1.17 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:15 PM EST
greck

Waste of time. It would never get past the Senate or the President. Stop wasting time and work on something you can actually get done.

prediction:

it will get passed, or some version that will let the church off the hook will; but it'll have some "goodie" for the dems attached. this has the makings of one of those legislative compromise victories that pisses everybody off at when it's passed, but gives everyone something to campaign on come election time.

  • 1 vote
#1.18 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:22 PM EST
justoneguy

So now a good leader has to be sexy or attractive or even young to be effective??

Good Grief

    #1.19 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:27 PM EST
    bonos_rama

    So now a good leader has to be sexy or attractive or even young to be effective??

    No. Who said that? We are just critiquing his looks - Pelosi's and Hilary's are often critiqued. Why is it suddenly a problem to critique Boehner? Because he's male?

    • 7 votes
    #1.20 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:33 PM EST
    Angry Left-532262

    sexy or attractive

    Is that why the first thing her minions bring up about Palin is how "beautiful" she is??!! (gross)

    • 7 votes
    #1.21 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:37 PM EST
    CPOSharkey

    bonos - I thought he was a menopausal or pregnant female (sorry ladies) he's always crying!

    • 2 votes
    #1.22 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:41 PM EST
    Miss_Diagnosed

    I never meant to imply Boehner was ugly...

    What I did say was that was a terrible picture... what I mean is that even supermodels can look butt ugly if they are caught in a bad picture.

    And that is one BAD picture... did I mention it was a bad one?

    :P

      #1.23 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:41 PM EST
      Jack TX

      The Catholic church has absolutely no say over whether or not their employees use birth control. Let them leave it up to the individual to decide for themselves. It is religious persecution in reverse order.

      THE CHURCH should not have ANY say in what their employees do regarding their health. THAT is religious persecution.

      I will never understand how relatively sane, educated, literate, seemingly intelligent people cannot differentiate between prohibiting something and refusing to pay for it.

      • 2 votes
      #1.24 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:44 PM EST
      Happily BLUE in Ohio

      So now a good leader has to be sexy or attractive or even young to be effective??

      No, but sane and sober would be a start--for Boehner and the rest of the rethuglicons!

      • 4 votes
      #1.25 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:51 PM EST
      RobPlumley

      I'm going to keep on saying this. Quit voting for these f###ing idiots.

      And yes, where are the F###ing JOBS!

      • 2 votes
      #1.26 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:01 PM EST
      Rhazes

      “Respect for people’s religious beliefs does not mean that your boss gets to decide what kind of health care you get,”

      • 3 votes
      #1.27 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:01 PM EST
      John Bayner

      What a handsome devil, GQ should be calling soon.

      • 1 vote
      #1.28 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:02 PM EST
      bonos_rama

      I will never understand how relatively sane, educated, literate, seemingly intelligent people cannot differentiate between prohibiting something and refusing to pay for it.

      And the rest of us can't see how people can't differentiate between their own right to follow the tenets of their religion privately and believing that paying for healthcare benefits EARNED by employees stomps on THEIR rights.

      Nobody is forcing the pope to swallow birth control pills or put on a condom.

      Next thing you know the pope and his minions will be claiming that employees can't use their own salary to pay for contraceptives. Give an inch and they will always demand a mile.

      • 4 votes
      #1.29 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:11 PM EST
      bonos_rama

      GQ

      Gargoyle's Quarterly?

      • 4 votes
      #1.30 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:12 PM EST
      Jack TX

      And the rest of us can't see how people can't differentiate between their own right to follow the tenets of their religion privately and believing that paying for healthcare benefits EARNED by employees stomps on THEIR rights.

      You do not "earn" free birth control. You earn a wage, and can buy with it what you will. Every employee who took a job at one of these institutions did so with no free birth control offered. Continuing the program they signed up for does NOT stomp on their rights, no matter how much melodramatic rhetoric you roll out.

      Nobody is forcing the pope to swallow birth control pills or put on a condom.

      And nobody is prohibiting it. See how liberty works?

      • 3 votes
      #1.31 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:40 PM EST
      Monkey99

      Independentvoter,

      I am retired military, just so you know. I don't need a job. I speak for those fellow Americans who don't have one.

      Who do YOU speak for, hmm?

      • 2 votes
      #1.32 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 5:19 PM EST
      Jim44

      The Catholic church has absolutely no say over whether or not their employees use birth control.

      Very true.... And they don't question that ...

      Let them leave it up to the individual to decide for themselves.

      And they do, seem to be confused IMO what this issue is about!

      It is religious persecution in reverse order

      I could not disagree more...

      And they do, they maybe against it but they know they can not force that upon people

      There are many, many women who work for Catholic institutions who are not Catholic.

      True..

      That means they are imposing their views on non-Catholic women as well.

      Ah well it took you long enough to get here ..(smiles) !! In a way your right, but the question is can they and should they?

      The SCOTUS just ruled last month 9 - 0 that .....

      In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

      "The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity. "But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission."

      http://www.dailybreeze.com/family/ci_19738116

      But I am sure all of you knew about that.... But that ruling aside... back to the question of can they and should they... This ruling suggests they can...

      You say they are imposing their view on non - catholics correct? How about we think about a few things that are common sense...

      You want a job at a catholic Church ... and your a non- Catholic do you really think that being they (the Church) are morally against Birth control and Abortions should be forced by the Federal government to Pay for those personal service for you just because they gave you a JOB?

      You really think that the Rights of the Church to separation from the state, should be be ignored and the church subjected to a law that requires them to aid in medical area's that are really about personal choice!

      As much as so many want to make this all about Birth Control and Abortion...Its really not IMO! Its also about government overstepping its authority and violating the 1 St Amendment! The separation of church and state...

      The first amendment was intended not just to keep the church out of government business but to also keep the government out of church business... It is in fact a 2 way street !

      This issue may well tell you a lot about yourself ... So many Liberals seem to want to keep religion completely out of all government or public activities... Correct? Now if you really want to be intellectually Honest then you might want to realize that there are just as many area's that the government should and must stay out of church affairs... Kind of separation of State from Church so to speak...

      For the government to inject itself into church policy, operations and business is reaching beyond its constitutional powers... To force a religious organization to provide medical services (abortions) and medications (birth control pills) free of charge to its employees that are against their moral and spiritual teachings and tenements... Is just what it appears to be ... Wrong !

      You can claim that women have some "right" to this reproductive medical care... And on some of it we may agree on some we will disagree but that is a different issue to be discussed another day...

      At issue here is can the federal government require with the threat of monetery fines a relious based organization protected by the 1st Amendment to PAY for services that it finds morally objectionable and against their teachings . And whether Catholic church members use birth control is not at issue and really has nothing to do with this issue!

      The issue is clear ...can the Feds mandate that the employer... religious based organization to act by purchesing a insurance policy that will pay for acts and medications their their beliefs and constitutionally protected rights to not involve itself in Birth Control or Abortion ?

      I suggest it does not... No one is required to seek or take employment with a religious based organization... So it should be no surprise to someone that takes employment with one that the organization would be against providing those medical drugs and procedures.. And to add insult to it require they pay the entire cost ( no co-pay) ...

      The SCOTUS has already ruled that religious organizations can not be held as discriminating based on their faith based preferences in regard to hiring and firing... This protection I believe will also be affirmed in court to extend to commerce (forced buying of insurance plans to include at no cost Birth control pills And abortion services).. and the right of the church to refuse a requirement that forces them to conduct actions in direct conflict with their religious beliefs... If the administration follows through with it it will be challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional and will lose in court! As it should be if we in fact do have a fair and objective form of government.

      Our Constitution protects the atheist and agnostic from being forced to adhere to the will and desires of the Religious against their will ...Correct

      Just as .....

      Our Constitution protects the religious from being forced to adhere to to the will and desires of the atheists and agnostics...

      As it should be...

      Solution ... If you want a health insurance plan payed for by your employer that provides Female Reproductive Services that includes Birth Control and Abortion ...Don't look for work with a Faith based organization that's tenants and teachings forbid the use of Birth Control and Abortions...

      You as someone searching for a job have a CHOICE... accept the employment and the benefits that come with it or FIND A JOB ELSE WHERE that's benefits meets your needs!

      So they say that the women can go to some other low-cost provider to get their prescriptions filled, let's say Planned Parenthood... anybody get the irony there?

      Not Ironic or even valid... There are many many many places that those services are provided for FREE other than PPH... And I suspect you already knew that...But couldn't help yourself to say that...(smiles) !

      I personally do not think that the Federal government should be able to tell any employer what type of insurance they MUST provide... Health insurance is not a Constitutionally protected Right! Its a BENEFIT which has always been used as a way of employers giving to employees something above what they had to do, making employment at one company more desirable that at a company that didn't provide anything or a Plan that was not as good!

      That incentive has been taken away, in the search for the mythical FAIRNESS in the World!

      But when this Law id overturned by SCOTUS as unconstitutional, so its a moot point!

      • 4 votes
      #1.33 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 6:46 PM EST
      whatthetruth52

      Why is this an issue... 28 states already have laws like this. should the federal law then circumvent state law when it is passed??? Isn't that exactly what the republicans said they didn't want to do??? you can't have it both ways.

      • 1 vote
      #1.34 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:26 PM EST
      Jim44

      28 states already have laws like this.

      HAHAHAH No they don't .. This statement is misleading...

      Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/01/health-reform-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions

      You know what the difference is ? The States require something of the Insurance companies ...Under the new Health Care Act the Federal Government requires action (the purchase of a product or service) the employer to buy the Insurance that has that mandate in it ...

      See the difference?

      States require Insurance Companies ..To include it in their policies... And that is fine under state law to regulate the Insurance industry..

      Federal requires Employers... To Purchase the Insurance (a product or service) with the mandate in the polices... Which is a problem under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States... Forcing its purchase by law with punishment of a fine for not complying... Looks a lot like the law suits that are working their way up to the SCOTUS...And this is the issue that has been upheld as unconstitutional...

      Honestly do you think the federal government should have the power to force you buy something and if you don't they can fine you? Really you folks believe that?

      Today its the Religious being made to buy something against their will that they find immoral or against their values... What happens when they decide its you that has to buy something ?...Just because they SAY you have to..!

      Somehow this just doesn't seem very LIBERATING ! Or really American for that matter...Our country has gotten to the point where we are now using the full force of the Federal government to force people and organizations to buy things just because the government says we must...

      And our 1st amendments protection of the free exercise of our religious freedom can be taken away.. By forcing someone to pay for a service that is against their religious beliefs... And its amazing that when you read this from the HHS website you would think they would agree with ME ... Yet they either lied or .........................

      An interim final rule was released alongside the women’s prevention guidelines to give religious organizations the choice of buying or sponsoring group health insurance that does not cover contraception if that is inconsistent with their tenets.

      http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.html

      Doesn't that say organizations NOT just churches and say they don't have to buy contraceptive coverage? Imagine that?

      And I am not even Catholic (smiles) ....

      • 2 votes
      #1.35 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:09 AM EST
      thelopes

      You know what the difference is ? The States require something of the Insurance companies ...Under the new Health Care Act the Federal Government requires action (the purchase of a product or service) the employer to buy the Insurance that has that mandate in it ...

      Honestly do you think the federal government should have the power to force you buy something and if you don't they can fine you?

      But what's interesting is that people currently aren't whining about being required to buy insurance in general - they're whining about the contraception requirement.

      There is a difference - but the focus isn't on what you're identifying as the problem.

      Doesn't that say organizations NOT just churches and say they don't have to buy contraceptive coverage? Imagine that?

      I'm wondering - did you read the actual text of it (linked at the bottom of the article)?

      (B) For purposes of this subsection, a ``religious employer'' is an
      organization that meets all of the following criteria:
          (1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the
      organization.
          (2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the
      religious tenets of the organization.
          (3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the
      religious tenets of the organization.
          (4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in
      section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the
      Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

      And the relevant IRS code

      (3) Exceptions from filing.
      (A) Mandatory exceptions. Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
      (i) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of
      churches,

      • 2 votes
      #1.36 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:13 AM EST
      Angry Left-532262

      Honestly do you think the federal government should have the power to force you buy something and if you don't they can fine you? \

      Does that mean we can stop buying into their crappy retirement plan???

      • 1 vote
      #1.37 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:54 AM EST
      Jack TX

      Does that mean we can stop buying into their crappy retirement plan???

      I wish.

      • 1 vote
      #1.38 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:01 AM EST
      Jim44

      Does that mean we can stop buying into their crappy retirement plan???

      No Angry because the were a bit smarter then ...They mad it a TAX (FICA) .....

      Did you know that the SCOTUS has already rules we are not "entitled" to one penny of SS?

      The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". In that case, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant to the United States who made contributions for covered wages for the statutorily required "quarters of coverage" was nonetheless denied benefits after being deported in 1956 for being a member of the Communist party.

      The case specifically held:

      2. A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 608–611. (a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608–610. (b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 610–611. 3. Section 202 (n) of the Act cannot be condemned as so lacking in rational justification as to offend due process. Pp. 611–612. 4. Termination of appellee's benefits under 202 (n) does not amount to punishing him without a trial, in violation of Art. III, 2, cl. 3, of the Constitution or the Sixth Amendment; nor is 202 (n) a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, since its purpose is not punitive. Pp. 612–621.[65]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_in_the_United_States

      So remember that maybe what they come for next.... Sorry no money and then remind us that HEY IT WAS A TAX .....

      • 1 vote
      #1.39 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:14 AM EST
      Jim44

      But what's interesting is that people currently aren't whining about being required to buy insurance in general - they're whining about the contraception requirement.

      There is a difference - but the focus isn't on what you're identifying as the problem.

      Wait... one in the same ...the complaint is having to buy the Contraception ...

      And just because some people don't know why they are right doesn't make them wrong or give others the right to force something upon them! Does it....

      Its wrong to do this and I think more people than want to admit it know it...

      So the question is if we know something is wrong ....What do we do?

      NOT TO STAND IS TO STAND

      NOT TO SPEAK IS TO SPEAK

      History is littered with fallen societies that stood by and allowed things to be done they knew were wrong, but since it wasn't happening to them...They sat quietly... Untill they came for them... And in the end they always do !!!!!!

      You may not be a Christian or really even like them... But do you allow our constitution to be trashed and say nothing?

      I guess we shall see. !

      • 1 vote
      #1.40 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:22 AM EST
      thelopes

      Wait... one in the same ...the complaint is having to buy the Contraception ...

      The complaint about having to buy any insurance came and went a while ago. I can't remember when last I saw someone arguing about it.

      Now the focus is on a contraception requirement that was added 6 months ago. It's pretty clearly just an election year issue.

      And just because some people don't know why they are right doesn't make them wrong

      It makes their case unfocused and weak.

      give others the right to force something upon them!

      I don't believe any of these organizations are forced to do business.

      • 1 vote
      #1.41 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:56 AM EST
      Jack TX

      I don't believe any of these organizations are forced to do business.

      Nor are they forced to offer employee benefits.

      • 1 vote
      #1.42 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:08 PM EST
      Jim44

      I don't believe any of these organizations are forced to do business.

      No but if they want to do business in America... they will be forced to buy Insurance and specifically insurance that provides services they find against their religious beliefs ....

      Now how about something from a different angle ....

      I thought the democrats were the party of CHOICE ? It seems Choice only applies to the choices Lbierals/Progressives agree with...

      A woman has a CHOICE to have sex or not (RAPE IS AN EXCEPTION)

      A woman has a CHOICE to use or not use contraceptives..

      A woman then has a CHOICE should she become pregnant to have the Child or abort the child ...

      This same woman when searching for a Job she has a CHOICE to work for a religious or non - religious organization....

      That woman is told before excepting employment The conditions of that employment and the rules She then has a CHOICE take the job or not...

      She also learns of the health care plan that the organization provides to its employees..To which she than has the CHOICE to except the job or not!

      From beginning to end the woman has a CHOICE !

      But on the Employer Side

      An organization forms and it is told that under the New Heath care act they have NO CHOICE but to provide Insurance to its employees or face a fine...

      The organization is told it has NO CHOICE of the minimum coverage that the policy must cover..

      The organization is told it has NO CHOICE but to provide services for female reproductive services EVEN if they are against their religious beliefs and teachings... NO CHOICE or face a fine!

      When do Americans stop being Republicans and Democrats and support even those you might not agree with ...Because that is the right thing to do ! Because we understand that today they take the rights of one group and tomorrow I maybe in the next group the single out...

      So as Americans we stand together against injustice, even when it doesn't effect us directly other than it harms my fellow Americans... And I want to blieve were it me they would stand by my side and support me ..

      Because Its JUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO! and I know ...

      Not to Stand is to Stand ...And Not to Speak is to Speak !!!

        #1.43 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:26 PM EST
        thelopes

        No but if they want to do business in America... they will be forced to buy Insurance

        The business is not forced to buy insurance.

        and specifically insurance that provides services they find against their religious beliefs ....

        The government has no business playing favorites to an individual's beliefs. The government should remain neutral.

        An organization forms

        You forgot this choice ;)

        it is told that under the New Heath care act they have NO CHOICE but to provide Insurance to its employees or face a fine...

        An organization only has to pay 2,000 per person (after the first 30) if a person goes to a governmental-assisted insurance exchange.

        The organization is told it has NO CHOICE of the minimum coverage that the policy must cover..

        An organization is currently told it has NO CHOICE of the building code, fire code, tax code, etc, of their business. This is no different.

        EVEN if they are against their religious beliefs and teachings...

        The government has no business playing favorites.

        Also, around 28 states CURRENTLY DO THIS.

        • 2 votes
        #1.44 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:01 PM EST
        Angry Left-532262

        they find against their religious beliefs ..

        I wonder how many of the fundamentalists screaming about being forced to do things against their religious beliefs crap all over the conscientious objectors who refused to go kill for the government??

        • 3 votes
        #1.45 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:06 PM EST
        Jim44

        thelopes

        Sorry . I don't want to waste your time or mine... I have found when the conversation has gotten to Well... it depends what is ...is !!!! its over ...

        The business is not forced to buy insurance.

        Knowing full well that there are but 2 alternatives... Don't stay/go in business or pay a fine....

        The government has no business playing favorites to an individual's beliefs.

        whats that supposed to even mean?

        The government should remain neutral.

        But are they? I say no because they are forcing citizens to go against their beliefs!

        An organization only has to pay 2,000 per person (after the first 30) if a person goes to a governmental-assisted insurance exchange.

        So what are you saying pay a fine to keep to you morals and values? You support that? Really you think is right to make someone pay a fine to keep from having to go against their religious constitutionally protected RIGHTS?

        An organization is currently told it has NO CHOICE of the building code, fire code, tax code, etc, of their business. This is no different.

        Please point out which one of those might require them to go against their religious beliefs?

        The government has no business playing favorites.

        Kind of like one of your other replys ...a reply that says nothing and takes no position... Who are they playing a favorite toward?

        Also, around 28 states CURRENTLY DO THIS.

        Not exactly those 28 States require Insurance companies to do certain things which they can do because they can lawfully require it do to so because of their regulatory duties...

        No States require employers to purchase anything they know its unconstitutional .... That is a word game being played by politicians...

        Contraception Mandate, Five Reasons Why Obama Is Losing The Fight

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/obama-contraception-losing-fight_n_1263919.html?ref=barack-obama

        Something for all Obama supporters that think this is all about nothing...

        Rick Warren knocks Obama over contraception

        Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren, who gave the invocation at President Obama's inauguration and moderated a forum between the Obama and Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential election, took to Twitter to voice his displeasure with the administration's contraception decision.

        "I'm not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure," Warren wrote.

        Warren's chiding is a telltale sign of how quickly opinion has shifted against the White House on the contraception decision, with erstwhile allies like Hill Democrats and generally supportive religious figures inveighing against the decision. The White House is currently signaling that they are open to a compromise where the option of contraception without a copay is preserved — but it's unclear what such a compromise would look like or when a decision will be made.

        http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/rick-warren-knocks-obama-over-contraception-113891.html

        This is an Obama religious adviser.....

        • 1 vote
        #1.46 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:57 PM EST
        thelopes

        The government has no business playing favorites to an individual's beliefs.

        whats that supposed to even mean?

        Giving an exception because Catholics claim it "infringes belief" would be playing favorites.

        The law applies universally to be fair to all.

        having to go against their religious constitutionally protected RIGHTS?

        This is not a first amendment issue.

        Please point out which one of those might require them to go against their religious beliefs?

        Making this different for some because they "believe" different would be playing favorites to a certain religion. It would not be government neutrality.

        Merely because someone 'believes' something is worthless.

        Kind of like one of your other replys ...a reply that says nothing and takes no position... Who are they playing a favorite toward?

        Again - if anything was made special for a Catholic hospital over any other hospital - it would be playing favorites.

        This is why it ignores religious belief.

        No States require employers to purchase anything they know its unconstitutional

        And the federal government isn't going to require employers to purchase anything.

        If they *do* purchase something - there are regulations in place.

        This is an Obama religious adviser.....

        All Rick Warren has done for Obama was an inaugural prayer. Rick Warren's opinion on the law has no special value.

        • 2 votes
        #1.47 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:13 PM EST
        Jim44

        Giving an exception because Catholics claim it "infringes belief" would be playing favorites.

        And you don't think that happens all the time...

        This is not a first amendment issue.

        Because you say so? I think I have given reasons how it can and should apply and all you say is NO !

        Not exactly a compelling argument ... Sorry I disagree.... There we're even ... The only difference is I actually explained my position ... And gave reasons ...

        Later ....

        • 1 vote
        #1.48 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:18 AM EST
        thelopes

        And you don't think that happens all the time...

        Example?

        Because you say so? I think I have given reasons how it can and should apply and all you say is NO !

        And I discuss why it doesn't apply, and all you do is repeat your opinion that it is.

        The only difference is I actually explained my position ... And gave reasons ...

        I'm fairly certain I've done nothing *but* explain my position - point out how it isn't a first amendment issue because it is a business regulation issue.

        It is applied as a blanket across all organizations except for actual churches and their associations of churches.

        The individual beliefs of people running those businesses are irrelevant to their regulations at all level of government. All businesses must still report the same way to the government, still abide by the same rules.

        Nothing is forcing these people to run these businesses if they disagree with the regulations - thus their freedoms are not infringed.

        Your freedom of religion doesn't mean, "I can do whatever I want and override any laws because I believe differently."

        • 2 votes
        #1.49 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:31 AM EST
        Jim44

        I think we have reached the point that is often reached on the Vine.... You are set in your position and I in mine... We both believe we have presented our position and the other thinks they have not...

        So while its still Civil .... We agree to disagree ...You think your right, I think I am right !!!

        And now we sit back and see how it plays out .... And one of us will get to gloat and one will complain about how wrong the decision was ....

        See ya on the next topic ....

        • 1 vote
        #1.50 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:40 AM EST
        CPOSharkey

        Jim44 - always the gent. Here's my take from the little I have read and heard on the subject.

        The Obama admin made a mistake in this and is relooking the issue, I think some bad advice was given to him on this.

        My understanding though is it would only apply to those religious organizations who take federal subsidies and whos workforce is not all of that religion. I think I heard that some 300,000+ organizations have been given a pass because of this.

        I think the whole thing is being overblown by the right as a means to attack the President for conducting a war on religion. Even you can admit that aspect of it. Last poll numbers I saw had a majority of Catholics saying this was not an issue to them. I find it funny that Italy which is 90% Catholic pays for contraception.

        Look, the right reallycan't attack Obama for his ability to lead as the CinC anymore, he has more than proven himself in that area.

        The economy and jobs have been making steady improvement for 23 months now so they really have a very weak argument there.

        Only thing they got is to try and stir up the religious right (and left) on an issue that should really be a non-issue IMHO. Do these religious groups have an issue with paying for Viagra? It is covered under most insurance policies these days. So, they will pay for a man to get a hard-on (the thought being so he can use it) but won't pay to help a woman defend against the potential results of the use of said hard-on!

        • 4 votes
        #1.51 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:44 AM EST
        thelopes

        My understanding though is it would only apply to those religious organizations who take federal subsidies and whos workforce is not all of that religion. I think I heard that some 300,000+ organizations have been given a pass because of this.

        This is true - the 300,000+ organizations are churches, auxiliaries of churches, or associations of churches.

        • 2 votes
        #1.52 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:54 AM EST
        Jim44

        Chief

        Good morning my friend, its always to get a fresh view of a subject... Thank you!

        The Obama admin made a mistake in this and is relooking the issue, I think some bad advice was given to him on this.

        I agree and at this point I still am giving the president the benefit of the doubt...

        My understanding though is it would only apply to those religious organizations who take federal subsidies and whos workforce is not all of that religion. I think I heard that some 300,000+ organizations have been given a pass because of this.

        To many area's in the grey area right now ... What has been exempted what might be exempted... The last proposal from the administration was a kick the can down the road thing...Of lets start talking about it and we will extend the deadline for a year... To which the Catholic seem to have said NO lets not wait till AFTER THE ELECTION lets settle this right now... My friend I think there is a trust factor here !!!!!

        I think the whole thing is being overblown by the right as a means to attack the President for conducting a war on religion.

        Hummmmm " Over blown " now that my friend is something that is truly a opinion that is in the eye of the beholder... I believe there have been several, many, quite a few or numerous Pick you adjective... I believe that most anyone that has a basic level of religious upbringing... The way many of our generation have... there is a reason that 70 % of Americans call themselves Christians... yet our society is a bit on the decitent side and why 90% of Catholics use birth control... We call ourselves Christians we know what we were taught and we were taught Right an Wrong...As per the religious teachings... BUT ..... Do we live it? Not so much...

        But here is the Rub my friend.... It to goes back to something I think we all can relate to ...

        You said ...."I think the whole thing is being overblown by the right" and I think you maybe right but for the wrong reasons... I think it has become a big deal to more people than you think... But the reason is not to attack Obama ....It IMO has come down to so many believe that Religion is slowly being forced out of our society... And so many believe that this president (right or wrong) does not and is not protecting the rights of the religious majority... Its gotten so bad ...Think about it...the level of mistrust has gotten so high that him not saying "under God" or mentioning "creator" are seen as signs of him being against religion.

        I am not sayin the feelings are right I am just identifying that they are there... But what it has come down to and why all the religious leaders of different faiths are coming to support Catholics is uplifting for Christians and I believe something that should be of concern for those that are actively attempting to remove religion from America... I believe it all comes down to on thing and the religious peoples of America have come to this as a breaking point...

        I can call my mamma fat .. But if you do.... Those are fightin words....

        Chief you say ...

        as a means to attack the President for conducting a war on religion.

        I don't know that its about President Obama ... I think he gets the brunt because he is the defacto leaer of the Democrat party and most of the actions perceved to be against the expresion of religion is seen to becoming from the left and the democrats and by association THE PRESIDENT...

        Even you can admit that aspect of it

        I can admit that the president is or has become the focal point ...but like I just said he is the head of the Democratic party... So who else do you point you anger or disapproval at? He is their LEADER and the buck stops with him...

        Right or wrong people of faith feel their freedoms being slowly chipped away and we see crazy things like this ...every day ....

        On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it.

        http://www.conservapedia.com/Classroom_prayer

        Ya know what happened to this judge? Most people don't ...

        HOUSTON (June 2, 2009)--A 59-year-old convicted Texas federal judge informed President Barack Obama Tuesday that he will resign next June.

        U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, who served in Galveston, will step down nearly one year after he goes to prison for lying about the sexual abuse of two female assistants.

        http://www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvotes/stateheadlines/46757047.html

        I see so many things that I question... I see a Crucifix with Christ on the cross submerged in a jar of Human PISS .... And its protected by the 1st Amendment as Art... I see religious symbols attack across America ...Symbols that have been in place for many many years... And being attacked by using the 1 st Amendment as Separation of Church and State... I seems that only the Church can encroach into government ...In the minds of Liberals ... But not the other way around... And any logical person know that it can also go the other way...Those that wrote the Amendment KNEW IT COULD that is why they also placed a restriction on ..."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

        I find it both amazing and disheartening that Americans have come to the position that the 1st amendment seems to be to protect society from the evils of RELIGION... But is not meant to protect religion from those that actively are out to remove it as part of our nations core belief system....

        Last poll numbers I saw had a majority of Catholics saying this was not an issue to them.

        What the polls say are

        I have seen this and 90% of Catholic women use birth control.... But sorry for me the issue is not if catholic women use birth control... Its if the Federal Government can make them pay for something for any person that is expressly against their teachings and faith... It is not about abortion or birth control per-say its about forcing an organization to use its funds to provide a service that they are against because of their religious faith ! The Choice thing seems to only apply selectively as of late.... I see many Catholics that are saying Yes I support a woman's right to use birth control and Yes I myself use Birth Control...But do I believe the government can or should make my Church or any religious organization do things that are against their faith and teachings... NO !!!!!

        That is crossing the line of allowing for the free expression of their religion...

        I find it funny that Italy which is 90% Catholic pays for contraception.

        Why? But more important why are people even bringing this up its not relevant to this issue? Our Bill of Rights and Our Constitutions Commerce Clause does not apply in Italy (smiles) ...

        Look, the right reallycan't attack Obama for his ability to lead as the CinC anymore, he has more than proven himself in that area.

        (smiles) OK ... Not worth nit picking ... I give ya that one!

        The economy and jobs have been making steady improvement for 23 months now so they really have a very weak argument there.

        (biting tongue) I refuse to get into a numbers game with a friend ... So if you believe that ... I will not ruin it for you....

        I also .... at the same time will withhold Intelligence I currently have in regard to Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy... Its not up to me to inject my beliefs into these things that you believe... (Grins )

        However I would suggest you confer with others whom you trust, however might have a different view of things...

        Do these religious groups have an issue with paying for Viagra?

        I don't think so, But why would they? Its not about stopping people from having sex...Its about not paying to Kill a (fetus) unborn child... Or Preventing a pregnancy that would have brought a child into this world... Seems to me Viagra would assist on the Making Babies thing....

        So, they will pay for a man to get a hard-on (the thought being so he can use it) but won't pay to help a woman defend against the potential results of the use of said hard-on!

        Chief I see your logic and in a secular sense if makes sense ... However is it fair to judge peoples thoughts or actions based on your morals or theirs? To the Catholic Church Sex is for the creation of Life... And Birth control inpededs that purpose, does it not? So in their mind birth control is wrong! I don't have to agree I just have to respect that its their decision! And the use of Viagra would aid in " makin babies" so it would be inline with church teachings.,.. Make sense?

        Chief ... I do believe that there are many people in this country that are actively working to remove all aspects of religion from this nation... And 10 minutes on the Vine would prove that so... as the saying goes ....

        “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”

        Of all people for me to quote Kurt Cobain ...


        • 1 vote
        #1.53 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:52 AM EST
        CPOSharkey

        Face it my friend, there is a lot of stuff that is FUBAR in this country and we can blame no one but ourselves!

        Peace!

        • 2 votes
        #1.54 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:13 PM EST
        Jim44

        100 % in agreement ...

        What we can do is what you and I do ... Keep the lines of communication open... Respect each other agree when we can... disagree when we must...

        • 1 vote
        #1.55 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:26 PM EST
        CPOSharkey

        Why is that so hard to understand?

        • 1 vote
        #1.56 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:54 PM EST
        Jim44

        Its Not !!!!!

        Looks like its over (kind of).... But its really not!

        And its kind of amusing how the outcome is being spun ....

        Since I had taken the position that my issue with the rule was over the 1 st amendment and Commerce Clause ...

        From what I have read, the rules have been changed to allow the organizations that had issue with the rule over their religious beliefs, will be excepted from the rule and not have to pay for the contraceptives... And that the Insurance Companies will foot the bill...

        So I see it a win for the religious organizations and a win for the woman that want the contraceptive coverage...

        I see on the Front Page where Progressives are claim that the Catholics "got Punked" ... because contraception is still available... Which was only an issue because they didn't want to have to pay for it...

        Well all I can say is ... they didn't want to have to pay for it or get fined for not providing for it.... They now do not have to pay for it and are not going to get fined for not...

        SO THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED! For the organizations themselves the issue is solved.

        I am not much for the spin game so I after reading the feeding frenzy on that seed I thought I would come back to where we had been have a civil discussion ...

        I am pleased that woman will receive the services they need... I am happy that most Insurance Companies are fine with it and believe it will still save them money... And I am very pleased that the Administration has decided to not continue a policy that I and many believed to be Unconstitutional !!!

        But what happened ? I think the president had been ill advised and ended up with more crap than it was worth, his people got with the insurance people and came up with this solution...

        My only question .. Why not before ? This could have been done before all the bull@!$%#...

        What was the purpose of having this frickin fiasco? The President could have done this from jump street... So why didn't he?

        Right now my only answer is because of what I see on the other seed...For some reason he is being hail as a hero and that he made the Republicans and Religious people look bad...

        I guess I am getting to old..I remember when the President of the United States was the president of ALL THE PEOPLE... And to go out of his way to cause this much trouble for such a large group of Americans...

        I know I am a Conservative .. but I see no victory in this for our president! And it has the possibility to become a loss for faith based organization too..

        I fear there is still another shoe to drop... I think I know what is about to become the fly in the ointment ...So lets see!

        • 2 votes
        #1.57 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:17 PM EST
        CPOSharkey

        You know the President is a smart guy and either it played out like you have stated or, (and this has been a premise of mine for quite some time) he is a master tactician and played it just the way he wanted to. I'm sure you are familiar with Sun Tsu, make yourself look vulnerable, draw your enemies (GOP) out and then when the moment is right strike your blow for the win.

        Face it the GOP really revved up their War on Religion rhetoric on this issue. Now they really look foolish and women across the country, left, right, independent saw the President reach a compromise that benefits them while at the same time see the GOP proposing legislation all over the country that they see as hurting them.

        He has shown that he understood the problem and approached it in a thoughtful, respectful manner and compromised, showing his flexibility in negotiating, something the GOP has not shown.

        An all around political victory for Obama Jim. I'll warm pre-heat the oven and start preparing your feeast, I want the vulture to be just right for you come Nov.

        ;-)

        • 3 votes
        #1.58 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:11 AM EST
        mstanley2265

        Any woman that doesn't understand what you are saying CPO, doesn't read. :)

        • 2 votes
        #1.59 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:21 AM EST
        Jim44

        he is a master tactician and played it just the way he wanted to.

        You know what ...Your right !

        So for a week or so he had the American people at each others throats... For his political gain !

        He fabricated a crises so he could step in use it to his advantage and save the day! Never let a good crises go to waste...sound familiar ?

        Chief .... I have 2 things I want you to read when you get some free time...

        Read the PDF file lower left...

        http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/27/obama%E2%80%99s-rules-for-revolution-the-alinsky-model/

        http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm

        I would be interested in your thoughts on the vine or in e-mail ...Up to you ...Heavy reading about Tactics!

        I wouldn't get that bird ready just yet... If two old war dogs can figure it out so will many many more between now and Nov 7th (smiles).... Americans don't like to get manipulated... Its going to be a long hot summer my friend ... Stay Safe !

        • 2 votes
        #1.60 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:28 PM EST
        mstanley2265

        uhhh, no one Made the Catholic bishops etc and the Republican Boehner go ballistic on Birth Control for women..well, except for the Fact that they are against Women wanting or getting Birth Control. It's Another Control the Women deal. /snark as all get out.

        Dang, I Wish Men could have babies. Make our Lives soooo much simpler sighhhhh

        • 1 vote
        #1.61 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:47 PM EST
        Jim44

        Does the 1st amendment mean anything to You? If so then it applies to everyone not just those you agree with!

        And no matter how many times you say something that is not true it doesn't make it true..,.

        The issue was forcing someone against their religious beliefs to PAY FOR something they disagree with!

        • 1 vote
        #1.62 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:02 PM EST
        mstanley2265

        Jim I hate to bust your bubble, But the Catholic Church is run by Men, not women. It's a birth control method for Women, simple. All women don't have the means to pay for an office visit, lab work to get a prescription for birth control but they have Health Insurance so since it Doesn't add to the Cost of a policy no problem. But Maternity Does add to the cost of a policy

        Or the means to pay for caring for the Child. geez..It's like $100 for day care for 45 hours a week or better...Have you Priced the stuff a baby Needs. Diapers for instance, bottles, baby gowns, even booties are like $5 bucks. And most of the Care of a child falls on the mother.

        ergo, pay for the dang prescription or pay for the kid. Simple...Or Don't have sex...Now if women Quit having sex during their child bearing Years, that would work also, well except You guys might not like all those young ladies saying No. LOL

          #1.63 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:05 PM EST
          Jim44

          There are free clinics and there is that age old theory ...that has worked since the beginning of time...

          Keep your cloths on and don't have sex.... Its 100 % effective and has never failed and is FREE... (well only once, but only Christians believe that)

          And avoiding my point doesn't make it go away ....

          The issue was forcing someone against their religious beliefs to PAY FOR something they disagree with!

          But the Catholic Church is run by Men, not women

          And being a Catholic is a choice .... You know that word ...CHOICE ... Just like having sex...its a choice (except in the case of rape) And if you choose to have sex and you do not wish to create a child... You are having sex for pleasure...just the fun of it! One might say RECREATIONAL SEX ...

          Do you actually believe that the citizens of America should be required to provide you with contraceptives so you might enjoy RECREATIONAL SEX..???

          Or if you because you do not provide for your own protection that those same citizens should pay the price to Abort the product of your RECREATIONAL SEXUAL ENCOUNTER?

          It appears so !!!!

          So ...lets see, we don't get to have sex with you but you want us to pay for the contraception.. And if you get pregnant and even though we were not there to provide the orgasm that created this child you believe we should pay to abort it and not its actual father?

          That is truly an interesting concept...

          A man and a woman have consensual recreational sex ... the woman gets pregnant and neither of them pay a penny for the abortion... They believe and expect that society should use the tax dollars of other citizens to pay for it!

          Tax dollars that could have fed the hungry, provided for the sick, housed the homeless..... are to be directed from those noble uses to buy RUBBERS and BIRTH CONTROL PILLS so some people can SCREW FREE OF CHARGE! Or abort a mistake from a fun filled REC/SEX encounter...

          I understand what is most important ..... almost literally SCREW them... I want what I want and I don't care what happens to anyone else... I have the right to have recreational sex and demand the tax payer provide me contraception FREE OF CHARGE so I can !

          And how dare anyone speak out against my receiving my Free Rubbers and Birth Control Pills....

          • 1 vote
          #1.64 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:31 PM EST
          mstanley2265

          Free hardly, though I have to agree, the sex could be, unless you count the cost of dinner etc...:)

          Let's see, $400 per basic private health insurance policy--cost to employee plus $500 a year deductible plus 20% co pay of everything there is a co-pay for medications, office visits, outpatient surgery, laboratory work, CAT scans, MRI's and x-rays.

          Cost to Employer - $300 per month. Total cost of policy $700 per month. And that's the lowest.

          Birth Control Free?...Hardly Not for the Woman.....Office visit to doctor (contract with a private health insurance company-$150, laboratory work-$100 - $250 out of pocket to employee $250 (because the $500 deductible has to be met first) prescription for BC $20 to $50. Cost to Female employee $270 to Not get pregnant...(recreational sex being a part of being Married).

          Know What.....you guys get birth control on the cheap...it doesn't Cost you anything unless the Man buys the condom. average price about $12 for what? 20? :)

          Maternity- minimum 14 office visits -@ each- $150 $1,600 Cost of normal delivery Avg $10,000. Post natal care- $350...Pediatric care- in the first six months...avg $650.00 Say another $1,500 for baby furniture and accessories. Day-care $400 a month. :) Average $14,000 for starters.

          I can understand choosing to have a baby and bearing the cost, but having a baby because of a lack of birth control? Not

          Again, women in the US ignore for the most part, even though they are Catholic, the doctrine of birth control by the Catholic Church (a decision made by men). However, those Same men don't also take into consideration the Cost of having a child and raising a child.

          So you see the question is Really Mote, since private health insurance companies Don't pay for birth control Even for the ones that have insurance Because of the deductible's and the co-pays. The woman does. The situation is designed to put the responsibility both financial and otherwise on the woman. Even though there is science that proves that a man is Required to perform that act of conception. :)

          My point, the cost of health insurance is Lower when there are fewer employee's making claims for the cost of maternity.

          As far as 'unmarried recreational sex', even the Catholic Church through the Centuries hasn't been able to stop that process. It's a Human Flaw or not depending on who you ask. :)

          • 2 votes
          #1.65 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:11 AM EST
          Jim44

          My point, the cost of health insurance is Lower when there are fewer employee's making claims for the cost of maternity.

          My point ... You refused to address why tax payers should pay for contraception so other people get to have sex for free!

          Its really a simple question...

          What gives any American by any standard of fairness any belief that someone else should pay to accommodate their sex life...

          Simple question.... Ya got a answer?

            #1.66 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:30 PM EST
            mstanley2265

            Well, taxpayers have been paying all along...for birth control and maternity...It's called Medicaid and WIC. Personally, Medicaid paying for birth control, tubal ligations and vasectomies is a Whole lot cheaper than paying the maternity and WIC fees and usually food stamps goes along with that too. Then there are the free lunches at school. Lots of freebies for having a child and being poor.

            but the Topic is addressing those Employers who want to apply Their moral values via having the private health insurance companies Drop the birth control coverage from a policy. It doesn't concern them that All of their employees are not of the same faith and do believe in birth control. It is denying those of their employees their rights in order to control the other employees.

            Which is an Still Issue For and Of Women and Not men since men can't get pregnant but men do Pay for it. :) for All women that are on Medicaid as in men make higher wages and pay more in taxes. I would think that men would be more than Happy to see women have More access to birth control ....not less.

            Major religions Thoughout History have preached morals, set standards and as anyone who has studied history knows, it failed. :) Humans are Sexual mammals, all the preaching and trying to fit them in some kind of ethical and moral code designed by someone else is going to Fail. It is a personal choice insofar as the hormones and phenomens don't outclass smart thinking that is.

            • 1 vote
            #1.67 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:54 PM EST
            Jim44

            HAHAHA and you still never answered the simple questions...

            1) What gives any American by any standard of fairness any belief that someone else should pay to accommodate their sex life...?

            2) Do you actually believe that the citizens of America should be required to provide you with contraceptives so you might enjoy RECREATIONAL SEX..??? (YES or NO will do)

            You give many reasons but not one simple answer...

            Why should anyone else pay for you to have sex? Its not that hard a question

            • 1 vote
            #1.68 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:26 PM EST
            mstanley2265

            Jim you're really on that track about paying for sex...How did the topic of a private health insurance company having coverage for contraceptives (which is under the Insurance Commissioner's of each state unless there is a Federal Directive because the employer receives Federal dollar in the course of doing business) ......go to ..

            ..Why should anyone else pay for you to have sex?

            • 1 vote
            #1.69 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:55 PM EST
            Jim44

            Never mind !!!

            This entire seed has been about requiring people to pay for contraceptives and you want to pretend its an alien subject?

            And no I am asking about paying for contraception and Abortions ... Neither of which are needed without people having SEX ... And why someone would expect another to pay for it...But You know that .... And the answer I assume is an unpleasant on ... Therefore you avoid it... Which I understand... So we might as well end this conversation and agree that you either could not or would not answer these two simple questions...

            1) What gives any American by any standard of fairness any belief that someone else should pay to accommodate their sex life...?

            2) Do you actually believe that the citizens of America should be required to provide you with contraceptives so you might enjoy RECREATIONAL SEX..??? (YES or NO will do)

            And the reason I might ask really should have no bearing on your answers , now should it? One has no relationship to the other!

            • 1 vote
            #1.70 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:45 PM EST
            mstanley2265

            Except for wanting my Personal views on sex, which I don't think I know you well enough to answer...LOL but we could make arrangements, since I am a widow and way past child bearing days. :)

            • 1 vote
            #1.71 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:48 PM EST
            Jim44

            Personal views on sex

            hummmmmmm ... Now that might be considered off topic (grins)

            (smiles) and I am A feisty 50's and fixed that's divorced and never happier...

            But I will press the issue no further... and allow you your leave my lady ...

            • 1 vote
            #1.72 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:09 PM EST
            mstanley2265

            You're welcome, always remember, it is a ladies perogative....:)

            • 1 vote
            #1.73 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:14 PM EST
            CPOSharkey

            Perhaps a formal intro is needed: MStanley (my friend) meet Jim (my friend also). I warn you though Jim's appetites run a little extreme, loves Crow, especially in Nov! LOL.!

            • 1 vote
            #1.74 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:57 PM EST
            Jim44

            I currently only have your word for what that delicacy tastes like Chief... Being I had the pleasure of serving it to you in Nov 2010...

            • 1 vote
            #1.75 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:24 PM EST
            Angry Left-532262

            What was it you had in 2008 then Jim???, When the grizzled old war hero with one last chance got beaten by a young liberal black man???

              #1.76 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:30 PM EST
              Jim44

              Not a bet with CPO ...hahahaha

              Damn ....

              And it was fun until it had to become a race thing.... Thanks for ruining something between friends... Please feel free to not drop in on personal conversations... In the future unless you can leave the deck of race cards at the door... Thank You!

              • 1 vote
              #1.77 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:36 PM EST
              Angry Left-532262

              Then take it private, this is a public forum and can comment on ANYTHING!!!!!

                #1.78 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:43 PM EST
                CPOSharkey

                Yeah, but leave the race card behind anyway, there was absolutely no need to draw it.

                Jim44 - if you would learn to boil water might not have been too bad! ;-)

                • 1 vote
                #1.79 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:27 PM EST
                Reply
                Tyler Durden-330839

                Unless the GOP is planning on an organ harvest, then they really need to stfu.

                What's the plan for all these unborn you want to save, Boehner?

                • 17 votes
                #2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:38 PM EST
                John Bayner

                Boehner and his warmongering cohorts: want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers

                George Carlin

                • 19 votes
                #2.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:47 PM EST
                Ggap

                What's the plan for all these unborn you want to save, Boehner?

                "F@#k'm, that's the lib's problem. Now cry me a river"!

                • 1 vote
                #2.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:52 PM EST
                stally

                Well since providing food and medical care is considered an entitlement, it's to let them be born and then die a year later from famine and disease.

                • 12 votes
                #2.3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:53 PM EST
                Miss_Diagnosed

                If only we could get all the poor people to have millions of babies that work from age 9 to age 35 making widgets for 0.25 an hour or toting a gun to win back the American dream over seas, then die so we dont have to spend a cent on healthcare or retirement...

                All of our economy issues would be over...

                Damn entitlement programs... sucking away all of the money...

                /s

                • 6 votes
                #2.4 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:53 PM EST
                cannonballer

                So, the OWS drama was all about the 1st Amendment but this is isnt?

                Why should an organization be forced to provide FREE birth control when it goes against their beliefs?

                That would be like the Governemnt saying American Muslims need to provide bacon to anybody that works for any of their organizations.

                Some people are anti birth control, some are pro birth control, if you are pro birth control you are free to go to the pharmacy and get it your damn self, quit expecting free @!$%# every time you turn around.

                • 4 votes
                #2.5 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:58 PM EST
                Disturbedlibrarian

                Miss_Diagnosed, Right! I didn't even think of that. The Catholic church is in cahoots with Newt. They want to make sure he doesn't run out of poor kids to clean the bathrooms at school.

                • 1 vote
                #2.6 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:08 PM EST
                TomALT

                Because we are a secular country. If you don't want to do business on that basis, than don't do business.

                • 2 votes
                #2.7 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:12 PM EST
                Steve-574461

                Cannonballer- It's not "free @!$%#", its something covered by insurance premiums. Every catholic or any other person who feels birth control is amoral is free to not use it! No ones religious freedoms are being imposed on!

                • 2 votes
                #2.8 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:23 PM EST
                N.C. Thornton

                More foodstamps. more unemployment , more of nothing in the way of hope, that's the plan. We shall all go marching to the beat of non-existant family values, procreating starving babies to the tune of Catholicism will set us (Frei) to partially quote a German slogan used on the Jews going ino the gas chambers. Polls show that 62 percent of young to middle age Catholic women use birth control. They do not wish to be the baby making factories as envisioned by the Third Reich nor the Pope. No one is asking people to violate the tenets of their religion, if they don't want to abort no law can make a woman abort. If a woman wants contraceptives no religion should prevent her from obtaining them. Catholic Hospitals are free to stop suppyling contraceptive, if they decide to stop accepting Federal money for all medical procedures they perform. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to practice any form of religion. It does not read the religion shall impose its tenets or belefs on the people of America through a Congressional law. When the Republican speaker says the law is an affront to the Catholic religion by reverse implication he is saying that Catholicism is the official religion of the United States of America, which IS barred by Constitutional decree.

                • 3 votes
                #2.9 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:27 PM EST
                cannonballer

                Steve-574461

                Cannonballer- It's not "free @!$%#",

                Congress will reverse a new policy requiring religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with free birth control if the president doesn't.

                I bolded it for you in case it was missed.

                Why should a religious organization be forced to provide something that goes against their beliefs?

                • 2 votes
                #2.10 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:34 PM EST
                Jack TX

                Why should a religious organization be forced to provide something that goes against their beliefs?

                Because their beliefs do not matter as much as the liberals who disagree with them.

                • 2 votes
                #2.11 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:42 PM EST
                Jim44

                Every catholic or any other person who feels birth control is amoral is free to not use it! No ones religious freedoms are being imposed on!

                That's not the issue... The issue is can the Federal Government force the Catholic Church to against its own teachings and against how it instructs its followers to PAY for a service ....it finds immoral ?

                It has nothing to do with someone using or not using birth Control ..

                Its the government overstepping its powers and against the separation of church and state requiring the church to provide a service and pay for it against its teaching...And moral convictions...

                Just as the church can't force its beliefs on you ... What makes you think you get to force your beliefs on it?

                This law is a direct violation of the first amendment..

                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                Congress shall make no law........prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

                This portion of the health care act DID JUST THAT... by forcing the church to pay for something the find against their teachings and restricts their ability to exercise their faith in their own way !!!

                An I believe if looked at in that way ...Honest people will have to agree ! To force them is to not allow them to exercise their guaranteed freedoms, And violates their 1st amendment protection !

                • 4 votes
                #2.12 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 7:00 PM EST
                whatthetruth52

                we are not talking about churches here, we are talking about employers that happen to be faith based... Schools that receive federal funds, institutions that take grant money... they are bound by the law just like any other employer..

                This is not about churches or religion it is about employers

                get your heads out of your asses and know what you are talking about....

                • 1 vote
                #2.13 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:31 PM EST
                Jim44

                This is not about churches or religion it is about employers

                Do those "employers" not have constitutional rights?

                get your heads out of your asses

                And my head is right on top of my shoulders ...Thank you for your concern !!!!

                • 1 vote
                #2.14 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:37 PM EST
                thelopes

                Do those "employers" not have constitutional rights?

                They have the constitutional right to adhere to laws regulating business or not running a business.

                • 3 votes
                #2.15 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:03 PM EST
                Jim44

                They have the constitutional right to adhere to laws regulating business or not running a business.

                And the constitutional right to express their grievance that the law is unjust... Do they not?

                Watch as the administration beings the ever slow not so much in the news back peddle away from the huge mistake they have made... They began to believe the same things you do that the majority of the country doesn't matter .... The are a silent majority ...

                But even Obama's own Religious adviser ...Says he will stand against the law and He is a Progressive ... The man that stood by President Obama on election day and gave the benediction...

                It will I believe be fun to revisit this issue as the administration crumbles under the weight of this MISTAKE...

                http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/rick-warren-knocks-obama-over-contraception-113891.html

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/obama-contraception-losing-fight_n_1263919.html?ref=barack-obama

                  #2.16 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:08 PM EST
                  thelopes

                  And the constitutional right to express their grievance that the law is unjust... Do they not?

                  I still wonder why none of them came up when this was made public 6 months ago.

                  Says he will stand against the law and He is a Progressive ...

                  Rick Warren is certainly NOT a progressive. He's pro-life and anti-gay-marriage.

                  • 2 votes
                  #2.17 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:16 PM EST
                  Jim44

                  I still wonder why none of them came up when this was made public 6 months ago.

                  Maybe because it was not finalized until last month ....And

                  Cardinal-Designate Dolan: Obama Reneging On Birth Control Provision

                  Sources: President Promised Dolan That He Would 'Get Most Of What He Want

                  http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7khQtTRPBVYAWHlXNyoA?p=obama%20contraception%20mandate%20promises&fr2=sb-top&fr=chr-greentree_ff&type=937811&type_param=937811

                    #2.18 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:28 AM EST
                    thelopes

                    Maybe because it was not finalized until last month

                    Nothing seems to have changed about it since last August.

                    Cardinal-Designate Dolan: Obama Reneging On Birth Control Provision

                    That guy's a little funny to me - the way he words things in the various interviews - the way he avoids topics and outlines things. In one interview, he said he "had high hopes" out of a previous meeting - in another he said he was told he'd "get most of what he wanted" but he never outlines what that list was. He had an interview in which he said Obama called him in January and it left him with questions... that he apparently didn't ask of the President.

                    • 3 votes
                    #2.19 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:43 AM EST
                    Reply
                    AL-1735815

                    My question is "Does the Catholic Church health program pay for Viagra????"

                    • 8 votes
                    Reply#3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:42 PM EST
                    arozen

                    probably not. sexual drugs and weightloss drugs can be covered separately under insurance policies. my plan doesn't cover either. i'm surprised birth control isn't handled the same way.

                    • 1 vote
                    #3.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:47 PM EST
                    John Bayner

                    Besides, pedophiles don't need viagra.

                    • 2 votes
                    #3.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:06 PM EST
                    Miss_Diagnosed

                    They can get it up until they die?

                    • 1 vote
                    #3.3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:10 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Constitutional Patriot

                    Where at the jobs, John? We've been waiting for 2 years now, where are the jobs? Where's the jobs legislation? Could it be that you don't have any? Or that you know what you do have is pathetic and incapable of withstanding public scrutiny?

                    What a bunch of maroons. I've voted for Republicans in the past, but with every shriek I hear from them anymore, my mind rebels at the thought of doing so again, at least, at the state or national level. If they manage to push this through, it would be fitting if every penny of tax money that gets sent to religious institutions for "social work" is sent back to the general coffers, and is used to pay down our national debt.

                    By the way, that picture reminds me of the one of Michelle Bachman that was on the cover of Time.......and equally crazy....

                    • 10 votes
                    Reply#4 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:44 PM EST
                    RobPlumley

                    You are on target. I have too voted for Republicans in the past, but now they have become so anal, they're nutsl.

                    Democrat 2012 Slogan: We're not perfect, but they're nuts.

                    • 3 votes
                    #4.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:04 PM EST
                    gillanator

                    I agree. I think it's time and justified that Churches pay taxes. The separation of church and state seem to be a one way street paved with gold.

                    • 3 votes
                    #4.2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:08 AM EST
                    Jim44

                    The separation of church and state seem to be a one way street paved with gold.

                    OK ... then ....its time to use that one way street .... for the religious Right ... So how about we take back a few things that have been taken over the years...

                    Prayer is now back in schools ...

                    Religious symbols back in and on all government building...

                    Evolution is back to a Theory and Creation or Intelligent Design will also be taught as another alternative Theory....

                    Sex education in public schools will now be overseen by a LOCAL board of School administrators, Health professionals, Teachers and Parents....

                    That's just for today .... I'll have a few more things to add to the list tonight..

                    Thanks gillanator....

                      #4.3 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:09 PM EST
                      thelopes

                      So how about we take back a few things that have been taken over the years...

                      So you want to make us a theocracy.

                      Prayer is now back in schools ...

                      Children can pray. School lead prayer infringes on the freedom of belief of other children.

                      Religious symbols back in and on all government building...

                      ... so you want overt establishment of religion?

                      Evolution is back to a Theory and Creation or Intelligent Design will also be taught as another alternative Theory....

                      Evolution has always been a scientific theory. It has never been anything else.

                      Intelligent Design isn't science. I'd support teaching it in a Modern Mythologies/World Religion course.

                      Sex education in public schools will now be overseen by a LOCAL board of School administrators, Health professionals, Teachers and Parents....

                      ... this has something to do with the first amendment?

                      • 1 vote
                      #4.4 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:30 PM EST
                      Jim44

                      No thelopes

                      My fiend you need to see sarcasm when its out there... The poster made a outlandish statement and I responded with a outlandish statement...

                      Try to smile or laugh from time to time...

                      Peace

                      • 1 vote
                      #4.5 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:34 PM EST
                      Angry Left-532262

                      will also be taught

                      I'm just wondering what you "teach" about intelligent design??? How do you have more than a single day in class on the subject???

                      What would an "intelligent design" textbook look like...besides the bible???

                      • 3 votes
                      #4.6 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:55 PM EST
                      gillanator

                      The poster made a outlandish statement and I responded with a outlandish statement...

                      Because you are unaware of the facts, or you chose not to accept them, doesn't mean that the statement referring to those facts are outlandish. Faith Based Organizations are not required to file reports with the IRS or any other authority. They don't have to report how much they bring in, they don't pay property taxes under IRS Section 501 (c). As long as they do not engage in political or legislative activity. But yet Focus on the Family sent out more than a million voter registrations forms, and letters to churches to read to their congregations telling them to vote republican. How that doesn't violate section 501 (c) I don't know. But the real reason I made my comment that you called "outlandish" was because of the Billions of tax payer dollars that faith based organizations have received in grants, vouchers, and other types of support. This is tax payer dollars (in very large amounts) handed out to churches and other types of faith based organizations. And the right complains about entitlements.

                        #4.7 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:34 PM EST
                        Jim44

                        . But the real reason I made my comment that you called "outlandish" was because of the Billions of tax payer dollars that faith based organizations have received in grants, vouchers, and other types of support.

                        And what is the difference between a faith based 501 getting these "grants, vouchers, and other types of support" and a non faith based organization other than you having a personal dislike for the faith based organization...

                        Do those tax dollars going to secular 501 C ' chap your ass as much? Do you have a problem with organizations like ACORN ?

                        I guess your answer will tell if its just a personal I hate faith based organizations or not ....

                        And the interesting thing about your reply ... you are complaining about things these organization are getting ... I thought your problem was about what they were not paying... What you changed your mind about what bothered you?

                        Not to mention it still appears you folks don't know how to take a Joke .... Later Gator!

                          #4.8 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:28 PM EST
                          gillanator

                          I really don't care what happens to ACORN. I don't see how ACORN could be 501 C if they are registering voters. But isn't ACORN closed?

                          And the interesting thing about your reply ... you are complaining about things these organization are getting ... I thought your problem was about what they were not paying... What you changed your mind about what bothered you?

                          The tax comment was only part of my post. The part you did not copy and paste and reply about. I normally don't have an issue with Churches being exempt as long as the comply. But I don't think that FBOs should be involved in politics...period.

                            #4.9 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:57 PM EST
                            Jim44

                            But I don't think that FBOs should be involved in politics...period.

                            And I almost agree ..... However they are made up of tax paying citizens and are entitled to 1st amendment protection...To a degree ...

                            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                            And this issue covered

                            Freedom of religion, Speech and the redress of grievances...

                            Should they be actively involved in promoting political candidates No !!! Do they have a right to speak out against policy ...I believe yes...

                            Less we forget Democrat candidates Speak in churches along the campaign trail, just as Republicans! With no pretense of fairness to the opposing party...

                            And for what its worth historically the Church in America has been the center piece of political activity has it not been?

                              #4.10 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:43 PM EST
                              gillanator

                              And I almost agree ..... However they are made up of tax paying citizens and are entitled to 1st amendment protection...To a degree ...

                              Citizens are one thing the organizations are something else. I don't think that either FOF or ACORN should be involved in registering voters.

                              Less we forget Democrat candidates Speak in churches along the campaign trail, just as Republicans! With no pretense of fairness to the opposing party..

                              Should be off limits regardless of party.

                              And for what its worth historically the Church in America has been the center piece of political activity has it not been?

                              How so? Before or after the Moral Majority?

                                #4.11 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:57 PM EST
                                Reply
                                watchbird-is-watching

                                bonehead has always BEEN a F U C K I N G IDIOT. This is merely further PROOF

                                • 5 votes
                                Reply#5 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:45 PM EST
                                RobPlumley

                                Good one watch bird.

                                While using the spell-checker, I was curious what Boehner would pull up, and I'm not kidding - Boner. LOL

                                  #5.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:05 PM EST
                                  Reply
                                  FactOfTheMatter

                                  This is stupid. Providing it and using it are two entirely different issues.

                                  Some people are against all medicine regardless of what it's treating, no one is forcing you to use medicine.

                                  • 8 votes
                                  Reply#6 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:46 PM EST
                                  Angry Left-532262

                                  Hey Boehner,

                                  Where are the "jobs" douche bag??

                                  • 8 votes
                                  Reply#7 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:46 PM EST
                                  N.C. Thornton

                                  You are missing the point, this is a diversionary tactic designed to polarize the Country around the State and religion. That way you are not supposed to remember that you don't have a job. The whole Republican rigamarole is designed to keep your focus on none issues, they hope that somewhere in the onslaught against Obama they will reach an audience large enough to sway a few votes their way. Let me explain something, a Priest, an Imam or a witchdoctor may prophecy some impending doom unless the people make a great sacrifice and pray. If the doom doesn't happen he takes credit for averting it, if it does happen he says the people did not pray hard enough. He is in a win, win position. The Republicans see a re-election as the doom scenario. If you vote Obama out via the prayers, (sic) they will gladly take credit for it, but if they don't, they will say the Catholics, the moral majority, the Bible Belt and the Tea Party didn't pray hard enough.

                                    #7.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:57 PM EST
                                    justoneguy

                                    Great diatrab ....fine distraction: fact, Obama has been an epic fail.

                                      #7.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:32 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      yellowdog-1220329

                                      Another tempest in a teapot for the Republicans to get their panties in a wad about so that they will not have to address the real problems we have like unemployment, income inequality, and the national debt. I wish those pos conmen would earn their salary for a change. If i were that unproductive, I know for damn sure I'd be unemployed by now.

                                      • 6 votes
                                      Reply#8 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:47 PM EST
                                      Philip Grant

                                      Here's a guy who so full of horse pukky that his eyes are brown. He could not care less about how the Bishops feel, this is just good fodder for a fight.

                                      • 6 votes
                                      Reply#9 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:47 PM EST
                                      raymond-392453

                                      I wish "Birth Control" was in place when these Boneheads were Conceived ! Typical Repugs, Throwing out Irrelevant Red Herring "Social" issues to distract their clueless base when they themselves are Clueless about how to restore the Economy !

                                      • 5 votes
                                      Reply#10 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:48 PM EST
                                      bonos_rama

                                      Headline should read: "Boehner promises to force Catholic Sharia law on the citizens of the United States."

                                      • 11 votes
                                      #11 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:48 PM EST
                                      MartyMoose

                                      How so? By not paying for condoms?

                                      • 2 votes
                                      #11.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:52 PM EST
                                      CCArm

                                      Headline should read: "Boehner promises to force Catholic Sharia law on the citizens of the United States."

                                      That is soooo perfect!!! ^^

                                      • 11 votes
                                      #11.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:58 PM EST
                                      bonos_rama

                                      How so?

                                      By telling their employees, who are American women with rights - not Iranian Muslim females - what they can and can't do with their bodies and with the healthcare benefits they EARNED.

                                      • 13 votes
                                      #11.3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:59 PM EST
                                      CCArm

                                      How so? By not paying for condoms?

                                      Marty your strawman has a limp dick

                                      • 7 votes
                                      #11.4 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:59 PM EST
                                      MartyMoose

                                      By telling their employees, who are American women with rights - not Iranian Muslim females - what they can and can't do with their bodies and with the healthcare benefits they EARNED.

                                      It doesn't do anything like that. They are saying they don't want to participate in that process or pay for it. Those employees are still free to go down to the pharmacy and buy themselves some contraception. No one from the Church is going to stop them.

                                      I think the Church is over reacting, but when you say stuff like "Catholic Sharia" or that someone's rights are being violated, that's just absurd.

                                      CCArm. Is it necessary to be that offensive? Do you think your comment will be perceived as thoughtful? Do you imagine it makes you appear clever?

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.5 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:03 PM EST
                                      CPOSharkey

                                      Ohhhhh! Viagra emergency! Viagra, the little magic republican pill that gives them two seconds worth of courage!

                                      • 6 votes
                                      #11.6 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:09 PM EST
                                      FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS

                                      I'm trying to type but am having difficulty because I am laughing .

                                      Can I borrow that line?

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.7 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:22 PM EST
                                      CCArm

                                      CCArm. Is it necessary to be that offensive?

                                      Sorry Marty

                                      Marty your strawman has a limp dick penis

                                      Better?

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.8 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:22 PM EST
                                      bonos_rama

                                      It doesn't do anything like that. They are saying they don't want to participate in that process or pay for it.

                                      They aren't paying for it. They are giving employees health benefits as part of the employment agreement. They EARN those benefits, just as they earn their salary. What's next; the church is going to claim that b/c they give a salary to their employees t heir can't even spend their OWN money on contraceptives? They can go to hell.

                                      • 3 votes
                                      #11.9 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:36 PM EST
                                      WTBGlobalCommonSense

                                      How so? By not paying for condoms?

                                      By trying to force public legislation to follow their religious laws in an area outside of the church. We are talking about a public business here, not the local church. They need to be held to the same laws and regulations as other business owners.

                                      • 2 votes
                                      #11.10 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:00 PM EST
                                      N.C. Thornton

                                      How else can you explain the Catholics interpretation of a legal right of the people. This same people who scream we are forcing them to violate their tenets, when their tenets are violating my rights Separate but equal didn't work when it came to schools, Now the Catholic wants us to believe that Medical coverage should be separate but equal so long as we keep Federally funding Catholic Hospitals. The Pope has enough money to completely fund any Catholic Hospital and they can hire all Catholic doctors and nurses and all other Catholic help and treat only Catholic patients if they desire. This woud be true Catholicism and I would march for them. What about Catholic sponsored schools, they teach Catholic doctrine and gladly accept State and Federal funds, should we look into this as an abridgement of State and religion.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.11 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:13 PM EST
                                      Jack TX

                                      They aren't paying for it.

                                      Yes they are. Most plans for hospitals are at least partially self funded, so the employer pays claims directly to providers and only taps into insurance for catastrophic events.

                                      They are giving employees health benefits as part of the employment agreement.

                                      An agreement that has existed quite happily for years without birth control.

                                      • 3 votes
                                      #11.12 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:46 PM EST
                                      Jim44

                                      Do you people think that the company pays NOTHING for the Health Insurance plans they provide to their employees ...

                                      If so no wonder people say things like ...

                                      They aren't paying for it.

                                      And Because the better the insurance the more it costs... So to make this oh so much more costly ... AS far as the Fe,ale reproductive services ...There can be NO out of pocket expenses and no Co-pays .... Just having to put that in the law , should make it CLEAR THAT SOME ONE PAYS!

                                      • 2 votes
                                      #11.13 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 7:08 PM EST
                                      mstanley2265

                                      Yeah, if she gets pregnant for 18 years plus...and then here comes the grandkids...it's a duh!!! thing, either men shut up and let women have control of their reproductive ability or men start taking some responsibility for Their part in it.

                                      Besides, Women pay taxes Too. Our Government is suppose to ensure our rights, not just the rights for Men. geez

                                      • 2 votes
                                      #11.14 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:40 PM EST
                                      Jim44

                                      Besides, Women pay taxes Too. Our Government is suppose to ensure our rights, not just the rights for Men. geez

                                      Isn't it against the Law to use that woman's TAXES to pay for an abortion? I believe it is ..

                                      So what is your point exactly?

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.15 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:28 PM EST
                                      mstanley2265

                                      Obvious, men that are elected aren't paid by only tax dollars paid by men but by women also. They are also not Only elected by other men but by women too.

                                      So their objective has turned into Not looking out after the interests and rights of women in the US. A woman reproductive process is a Big Issue? Not if they don't include a Man's reproductive Assistance in the process in the discussion. Can't have one without the other... obvious Biological Process.

                                      But then men lately seem to have taken an Inordinate amount of time at 'looking' at and Legislating How, the women's part is in the process. Mayhap, their part is severly dimished. hmmmm :)

                                        #11.16 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:53 AM EST
                                        Jim44

                                        ????

                                          #11.17 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:10 PM EST
                                          mstanley2265

                                          Like men that elected are going to do Everything they can to ensure Women's rights...sure in a pig's eye. Always looking for a way around it. No birth control pills paid for by insurance, sure, that has a Whole lot to do with Men. Do you see anything about Daddy's role in a woman getting pregnant and deciding to have an abortion...The only thing is the woman's part of it, nothing about Oh maybe we need to do Something about Daddy's that get women pregnant and don't care about her.

                                          Like in a rapist? Nope can't have an abortion...incest..nope can't have an abortion. geez So the woman gets to raise the child well the state and federal gov't, because like those dudes are in jail if she's Lucky for 20 years.

                                          Don't ask the woman or if you do, sorry We decide for you Just like the rapist or your familial kin did. Cruel and Unusual punishment for a woman, Because she's able to birth a child. Too bad Men can't then it'd be real clear and understandable to them.

                                          Besides, like bonos rama wrote, Don't like Abortion, Keep you DNA inside your body, and the woman Won't get pregnant. How hard is that to understand?

                                            #11.18 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:48 PM EST
                                            CPOSharkey

                                            As a man I would rather see women on birth control, more targets of opportunity!

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #11.19 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:56 PM EST
                                            mstanley2265

                                            Only if they think your 'arrow' is worthy of their target...ROFLOL

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #11.20 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:10 PM EST
                                            CPOSharkey

                                            Too true!

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #11.21 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:13 AM EST
                                            FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS

                                            Good one mstanley. LOL.

                                              #11.22 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:48 PM EST
                                              Reply
                                              Howard Miller

                                              Boner is an idiot!

                                              • 5 votes
                                              Reply#12 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:49 PM EST
                                              bestquest

                                              john is passing along empty words. he hasn't got the votes. Obama needs to find a face saving back down quickly. Looks like he has about 24 to 48 hours left to do so.

                                              Other, this argument may take on a life of its own and cost him Catholic votes, both active and fallen away, this coming November.

                                              A very serious error on white house staff's part. After 3 years, why are they still amateurs? Daley left as chief of staff, so they lost the Catholic input??

                                              • 1 vote
                                              Reply#13 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:49 PM EST
                                              Steve-574461

                                              this argument may take on a life of its own and cost him Catholic votes, both active and fallen away, this coming November.

                                              I doubt it, most american catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives & feel the churches position on birth control is backward & antiquated. Conservative catholics who follow all of the churches tenants are likely to be republicans & were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #13.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:30 PM EST
                                              bestquest

                                              I am not referring to the private choice of method of birth control. But rather that the regime can easily lose the larger war of loyalty held by catholics to the democratic party.

                                              Yes, there are conservative Catholics. There are communist Catholics.

                                              I am trying to sit on the 50 yard line and view the entire 12 sigma field. And the white haouse just had a safety. Now, they gotta save face and appreciate the entire Catholic contribution to society or ignore that and allow the opposition to gain votes and power.

                                              I still think the prez has been snookered too many times by pentagon, Tim - Paul -Ben, and his czars.

                                                #13.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:57 PM EST
                                                Jim44

                                                I still think the prez has been snookered

                                                And from the looks of things just got caught tryin to kick the can on this subject till after the election... With the lets take a year and talk about it...

                                                But the Religious community has seen this tactic before from both D and R politicians... are are having none of it. I suspect the administration will find a reason to save face and back their ass up to get out of this ...

                                                I think they overplayed their hand ... And didn't expect this kind of backlash...

                                                Remember never let a crisis go to waste.... I think they thought the people were distracted enough now was a time to do something they could never get away with normally...

                                                And they guessed wrong and now the President will PAY and I bet he is PISSED at an adviser or TEN for this gaff .... Because he looks anti - religion Again...

                                                And his actions whether real or perceived, that are seen as not being friendly to Christians and God are piling up and I actually see people that never question the president ...QUESTIONING THE PRESIDENT!

                                                Chris ...TINGLE down my leg Matthews...

                                                Birth Control Coverage Is a Step Too Far for Catholic Supporters of Obama

                                                Last night, Chris Matthews devoted a segment to the issue, describing how churches are exempt from the Health and Human Services policy, but charities and hospitals, which employ non-Catholics, do not qualify for an exemption. "This is a sad thing," said Matthews. "I'm very proud of the work my wife and I have done ... with Catholic charities, but i'm very proud of it and ... it's open to everybody. Everybody gets the advantage of these things."

                                                Matthews, who isn't shy about referring to his Catholic identity, invited on The Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger, a liberal Catholic, who also spoke forcefully against the HHS decision. "I'm trying to figure out how it could be handled more poorly but I can't," she said. "Religious freedom is built into the First Amendment so this is not, to me, a tough call."

                                                Another guest was Melissa Rogers, former member of President Obama's White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "I think they had a good goal in mind, which is in my view, expanded contraceptive coverage is a good thing," she said. "The problem is they struck the wrong balance here on religious liberty. We shouldn't, in my view, require objecting religious employers to pay for and offer their employees a plan that they preach against."

                                                http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/02/birth-control-coverage-step-too-far-catholic-supporters-obama/48203/

                                                Doesn't look so good, when ya lose Matthews and Rodgers on the same subject!

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #13.3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 7:23 PM EST
                                                Reply
                                                MartyMoose

                                                I don't really see this as an attack on religion. If the Church owns a gas station and hires a bunch of atheists to staff it, then why would they care about what goes in to their health care? You'd think the very fact that their employees are non-believers would bother them more. It's not a consistent position to be willing to employ people of other faiths and then get all high and mighty about their personal lives.

                                                I have other problems with all of this. Like I don't think employers should have to provide health care to begin with. And I think mandating contraception in a health care plan is a bit of a reach. Pregnancy is not an unhealthy condition. Sunburn is bad for you, but is my health care provider obligated to pay for my sunscreen? or a hat? Shouldn't they be?

                                                • 1 vote
                                                Reply#14 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:51 PM EST
                                                bellingham-1004062

                                                You lost me on the last part.

                                                Not all employers are required to provide health care. I don't remember exactly what the law says but I know that small business does not. Suburn prevention is through and available with a cheap over the counter drug. However, if you actually got skin cancer then your health insurance plan should pay for it. Birth Control is distributed through going to the doctor. Preventing pregnancy should be promoted by insurance and our government to reduce unwanted pregancies that are a huge cost to tax payers. It also should be promoted by religious institutions since it reduces the need for women to get an abortion which they revile. Mandating contraception is not about religious freedom it is about doing away with the goverments involvement of deciding which medical services are valid for the individual and which are not.

                                                Republicans want to make this about religious freedom but they don't want to talk about the oppression which they are engaging in by preventing your own dollars that you pay through premiums to insurance companies to provide medical insurance that is available to everyone else.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #14.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:06 PM EST
                                                Jim44

                                                I don't really see this as an attack on religion. If the Church owns a gas station and hires a bunch of atheists to staff it,

                                                But they don't and they don't ...So your point is?

                                                Because if monkeys could fly then ........

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #14.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:46 PM EST
                                                MartyMoose

                                                Bellingham, I guess I'm just wanting to be consistent. I would like it if everyone that wanted it had cheap and easy access to contraception. But I have a hard time conceptualizing contraception as anything other than elective. It doesn't prevent disease. It prevents pregnancy. If an insurer wants to cover it, I have no problem with that. Requiring such coverage seems like it might start a slippery slope of coverage for all sorts of things that we want, but maybe don't need.

                                                But they don't and they don't ...So your point is?The point is this ruling isn't applied to ordained priests or people working in specifically religious institutions run by the Church. So it's like my gas station example. A hospital, for example, functions primarily as a medical facility. They don't check your religious status when they hire you to be a nurse. They check your RN license. So there isn't necessarily this expectation that employees will be living up to the standards of the Church.

                                                I understand why the Church wants no part of it, but I also don't see it specifically as an attack on their religion. In America, we have to deal with people of many faiths and many different behaviors. But, as I also wrote above, I don't see why this particular benefit needs to be a mandated part of any health plan.

                                                  #14.3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 10:17 PM EST
                                                  Angry Left-532262

                                                  It doesn't prevent disease.

                                                  Condoms don't prevent disease???

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #14.4 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 10:18 PM EST
                                                  MartyMoose

                                                  Condoms don't prevent disease???

                                                  Really what I should have said was condoms don't cure disease.

                                                  But to address that point anyway, many things help to prevent disease. Taking vitamins can help prevent disease but my insurance doesn't pay for them because eating right accomplishes the same thing. To prevent STDs, you can wear a condom - which may break anyway - or you can choose to not have sex with diseased people. As I pointed out above, sunscreen is a chemical prophylactic that helps prevent skin cancer. Or you can wear a shirt and a hat when you go outside. You don't have to have sunscreen on. So why should insurance be compelled to buy it for you?

                                                  Insurance companies don't typically just pay for any old thing. I'm not trying to be anti-contraception here. I'm just pointing out that your insurance is not a bottomless pit of money.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #14.5 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:33 PM EST
                                                  Angry Left-532262

                                                  my insurance doesn't pay for them

                                                  Have you tried asking for a prescription??? Then you can have a pharmacy fill the script and use your co-pay.....and it's a deduction at the end of the year now.

                                                  Hell, I get "prescription" ibuprofen.....a 1000 pill jug....

                                                  Just ask!

                                                    #14.6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:18 AM EST
                                                    bellingham-1004062

                                                    @Marty

                                                    I would like it if everyone that wanted it had cheap and easy access to contraception.

                                                    This is not about cheap and easy access to contraception. Insurance premiums are not cheap. Even with insurance premiums most prescription have a copay on top of it. Most employers do not have an opt-out of health insurance since this could reduce their risk pools which would increase the cost of premiums to the pool. If you have to pay over $1000 per month or $12,000 per year for insurance then you should be entitled to the same benefits as everyone else which includes birth control -- especially when it will benefit you and your employer since you will not be pregnant. Now we have a government mandate which streamlines the minimum benefits you receive; since it is government mandated then it is necessary for everyone to have the same minimum guarantee of benefits.

                                                    This issue is about oppression. Employers such as the Catholic Church through Catholic Community Services hire many professional employees who are not "Catholics" and don't have the same religious sensitivities. Forcing them to obide by the same religious constraints as they impose on themselves is not fair especially when they are receiving government funding for their services.

                                                      #14.7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:42 AM EST
                                                      MartyMoose

                                                      This issue is about oppression.

                                                      This is why employers shouldn't be providing the coverage. Employees should have the option of shopping for the best coverage that suits them instead of settling for whatever their employer provides. Maybe you want something extra beyond the mandate. So now you get Congress to declare that you have a right to insurance that covers, I don't know, boob jobs or something.

                                                      Employers shouldn't be in the health care business at all. Just pay people more and then they can go buy insurance on the open market. The "basics" could be covered by a Medicare program that takes care of everybody and if you want more, you can go buy it. The current system and the Obamacare reform law are both inefficient disasters.

                                                      As long as employers are in the health care business, they will be making decisions about your health care and somebody will see it as oppression.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #14.8 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:17 AM EST
                                                      Jack TX

                                                      Employees should have the option of shopping for the best coverage that suits them instead of settling for whatever their employer provides.

                                                      They do. There is nothing stopping them.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #14.9 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:28 AM EST
                                                      bellingham-1004062

                                                      Marty

                                                      Most people cannot get benefits as good on the open market. They depend on risk pools. The risk of poor health is spread over many people. They wont get that with individual plans. That's why it costs more to get an individual plan with the same benefits as it does in an employer plan. Why should employers not be in the business of providing health plans? Isn't that part of the free market? Don't you want them to have the freedom to offer a health plan if they choose to?

                                                        #14.10 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:22 AM EST
                                                        MartyMoose

                                                        Wait a second. You want them to have the freedom to offer a health plan? So then presumably they would have the freedom to not offer a health plan, right? But if they have freedom, shouldn't they be able to say what goes in to the health plan they offer?

                                                        Most people cannot get benefits as good on the open market. They depend on risk pools.

                                                        And this is precisely why everyone should just be on Medicare. The "public option" as they say (what Democrats wanted). Then you should be able to supplement it with a plan that you can shop for across state lines or get involved in some other kind of collective risk pool (what Republicans wanted).

                                                          #14.11 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:42 PM EST
                                                          bellingham-1004062

                                                          You won't get much argument from me about being on Medicare except one. Hopefully one day we will get there. Doing such would destroy our economy due to the number of health insurance folks that would get laid off. It might seem like the right thing to do but how many people do you want to put out of work when we already in the middle of a large recession.

                                                            #14.12 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:27 PM EST
                                                            Reply
                                                            bellingham-1004062

                                                            especially Catholics, who say the requirement would force them to violate their beliefs against contraception, and congressional Republicans.

                                                            Obama is going to ram that pill down your throat.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            Reply#15 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:52 PM EST
                                                            mstanley2265

                                                            Better than a rapist ramming an unwanted pregnancy on a woman.

                                                              #15.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 10:26 PM EST
                                                              Reply
                                                              mossberg

                                                              Boehner is a major reason for this:

                                                              Congressional Approval Sinks Even Lower

                                                              A new Gallup Poll finds a record-low 10% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, down from the previous low of 11% set in December 2011.

                                                              "It is difficult to pinpoint any specific recent actions that may have led to the continuing deterioration in Congress' image, particularly because much of the political attention in January and early February has focused on the Republican presidential race. Congress at this point is again wrangling over the extension of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits -- both of which were temporarily extended late last year in a short-term fix that expires at the end of February. It is notable that President Obama has continued to make criticism of Congress a part of his broad presidential re-election strategy."

                                                              (from politicalwire.com)

                                                              • 5 votes
                                                              Reply#16 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:52 PM EST
                                                              mstanley2265

                                                              How Low can it go? Past zero if they keep it up.

                                                                #16.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 10:29 PM EST
                                                                Reply
                                                                Howard Miller

                                                                Boner plans to repeal his face!

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                Reply#17 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:52 PM EST
                                                                fronco

                                                                The craper of the house, what an ugly ugly looking robot the tea party radicals control, when the tea party tells the craper Boehner to jump Boehner replies; how high.

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                Reply#18 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:01 PM EST
                                                                Josh Ames

                                                                He looks like he is in serious need of some moisturizer.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                Reply#19 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:04 PM EST
                                                                WatersMoniqueDeleted
                                                                Ed-2160927

                                                                The speaker looks like a man staring a train wreck in the face and knows its to late to get out of the way. The Republicans are on their last legs the stock market is up. jobs are coming back slowly. the wars are ending, the popularity of the congress they control is in the can. And the only thing they have left is trot out the old waging war on religion. How lame the Catholic church is all about the money. And if they don't want to offer coverage they could cure the problem by supporting a single payer system taking them and all other faith based groups out of the argument.

                                                                t

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                Reply#21 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:19 PM EST
                                                                Miss_Diagnosed

                                                                Does anyone else feel like politicians these days sit next to twitter and wait to see some sort of rhetoric show up about some recent proposal... then dodder out toward a camera crew and instantaneously make it into this horrible "going to destroy all of civilization" stance that requires immediate action??

                                                                I feel like everything is an emergency... and none of the emergencies are actually focused on something relevant or helpful...

                                                                I'm becoming too jaded... oh optimistic youth... come back to me....

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                Reply#22 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:20 PM EST
                                                                IndependentVoter

                                                                There is no doubt that a state-sponsored war on Catholicism is actively underway.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                Reply#23 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:23 PM EST
                                                                mstanley2265

                                                                Naw, it's still the War On Women..so men don't have to take responsiblity for their part in ProCreation

                                                                • 6 votes
                                                                #23.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:29 PM EST
                                                                Steve-574461

                                                                IV, as a catholic I strongly disagree!

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                #23.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:32 PM EST
                                                                IndependentVoter

                                                                Really? You see no problem the U.S. Army trying to strong-arm military chaplains into not reading their bishops' letters of condemnation of the recent HHS contraception mandate.

                                                                That is okay with you?

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #23.3 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:49 PM EST
                                                                Reply
                                                                mstanley2265

                                                                In the meantime, some More deflection so people won't see that the House is still trying to backdoor Internet legislation to 'protect' their donors.

                                                                  Reply#24 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:26 PM EST
                                                                  NC Slim

                                                                  When will the Catholic Church really rise up in anger over rape and molestation of children by pedophile priests? Still sweeping the abuse under the rug. Rome continues to lie to itself. Parishioners have and continue to use contraceptives and then go to confession, do a few Hail Marys'.

                                                                  What is an affront is the tax-exempt status the Catholic Church enjoys even though it's against the law for it to advocate politically.

                                                                  Boehner could lower the debt by making the Catholic Church pay taxes. In 1984, $1.3 billion went missing in a Vatican bank scandal. Certain the church is worth more today. Someone call the IRS.

                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  Reply#25 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:27 PM EST
                                                                  David-1830107

                                                                  As much as I hate to agree here..... Forcing a religion to do something is no different then forcing a Muslim not to ware a Scarf. Im Pro Choice as I am a Man. But there are other ways of getting this stuff without forcing religous people to do it.

                                                                    Reply#26 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:30 PM EST
                                                                    bellingham-1004062

                                                                    No one is forcing Religious people to do anything. You are free to take birth control or not. Freedom is being taken away from individuals because employers are telling their employees that their hard earned premiums cannot be used to cover a common medical service.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #26.1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:43 PM EST
                                                                    David-1830107

                                                                    Employers are religious foundations that run off their religion. There is no difference at all. Not one. I wouldn't want the government making it mandatory for me to where a cross cause it was good for me as an atheist. There is no difference what so ever in forcing anything on another beliefs. Thats why people came to this country in the first place. Puritans didnt like england forcing stuff on them. Jesus people just need to let others be and get your head out of other peoples asses. America has turned in a sniveling hes got what I want and i want it so he needs to pay more so i can get it is nosy ass bunch of troglodyte morons that cant let people be them. We have become so PC that you cant fart if the winds blowing in the wrong direction.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #26.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:51 PM EST
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                    Leave a Comment:
                                                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                    FUN STUFF:
                                                                    • Leaderboard |
                                                                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                    • Top of the Vine |
                                                                    • Newsvine Live |
                                                                    • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                    • The Greenhouse |
                                                                    COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                    • Code of Honor |
                                                                    • Company Info |
                                                                    • Contact Us |
                                                                    • Jobs |
                                                                    • User Agreement |
                                                                    • Privacy Policy |
                                                                    • About our ads
                                                                    LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com