moosetracker 132 Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Mandatory Coverage of sterilization, is not the same as Mandatory sterilization.. If it was mandatory sterilization, well then I would agree with you!But, it was a molehill way out of proportion.. That's like here in New Hampshire.. If you force me to wear my seatbelt what else is next? Are you going to force me to brush my teeth by law, mow my lawn weekly by law, join the army by 18?.. Tell me where I can and can not work? Tell me who my frieds are? etc. etc. etc. We can all get carried away playing the "What if" game.. You just need an active imaginations, to paint a picture that the sky is falling. Anyway, I am happy and you should be happy with Obamas solution. Catholic affiliated businesses don't have to pay, workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies. (Who is picking up the tab was unclear, if the taxpayers, then the Churches are free & clear.. If it will be picked up by all customers of the insurance company, they will still pick up a portion, just wont see it that way as it will not be an itemized item. But from the article, looks like not all religions sided with the Catholics. The sentiment on the other side, though, was also fierce. Women's groups, liberal religious leaders and health advocates pressed Obama not to cave in on the issue. http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10371870-obama-revamps-contraceptive-policy So maybe the priests and bishops can slow down on their political retoric long enough to do a decent sermon or two.. (Except they (with a few other religions) still have to wage war about those d*mn same sex marriages).. No rest for the weary. Link to post Share on other sites
Tampa Turtle 1011 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Beavah, How do feel about Obama's "compromise" today. So a Catholic employer doesn't have to cover contraceptives but the insurance company must. Seems to miss some of the point. Funny thing is that "The Church" doesn't want to support contraceptives while 85% of Catholics support their use. Link to post Share on other sites
JMHawkins 15 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 That's like here in New Hampshire.. If you force me to wear my seatbelt what else is next? Are you going to force me to brush my teeth by law, mow my lawn weekly by law, join the army by 18?.. Tell me where I can and can not work? Tell me who my frieds are? etc. etc. etc. We can all get carried away playing the "What if" game.. You just need an active imaginations, to paint a picture that the sky is falling. Y'know, it's pretty funny when you look back. Over the years there have been a lot of laws passed that caused those folks with active imaginations to predict dire consequences, saying it was "the camel's nose under the tent" and the same people who just passed this law will try to (insert dire exaggerated prediction) next. Kinda like Kudu predicting the next traditional element of scouting to be banned by G2SS. What's funny about it is the Chicken Littles have been almost 100% right. And that's not funny in a ha-ha way, but funny in a better to laugh than cry way. Maybe they're not actually saying the sky is falling. Maybe they're really saying "Hey, some guy is throwing rocks at us from up there on the roof!" Link to post Share on other sites
acco40 95 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 In our society we give money to crack addicts, welfare to single mothers, have no-fault insurance (at least where I live) and a host of other laws that take from my pocket when other individuals act irresponsibly. Thus we get proposed laws to test welfare recipients for drugs (idiotic in my view, we don't test folks who receive tax write-offs for their mortgage for drugs), mandate seat-belt laws, tax so called vices (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) and other "behavior enhancer" type mandates. Where does it stop? I don't want a complete libertarian society nor do I want a 1984 society so I try to remain a somewhat engaged citizen, vote and try to keep the political pendulum somewhat centered. I feel as if I'm failing in that regard. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 If you force me to wear my seatbelt what else is next? Forcing you to not exceed a set blood-alcohol content when you drive; both seatbelts and limits on BAC mean you are less likely to lose control of your car, which protects other people. Yah, as da article indicates, the objections aren't about contraception, eh? They're about religious freedom. I haven't seen anything stating that Jehovah's Witnesses can refuse to pay for insurance coverage of blood transfusions. If this was REALLY about religious freedom, transfusions, vaccinations, transplants, and a host of other medical procedures would also have religious exemptions for all kinds of religious groups. Any sane insurance company would give away contraception for free, since that's a ton cheaper than the alternatives (assuming the insurance company would have to cover those costs). Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Yes but forced brushing of teeth, saves others from my stinky breath! And forces me to save the insurance from the cost of having to fix my cavities or worse yet, pay for my false teeth.. It's all about the squeeky wheel (in this case the wheel that bellows at the top of their lungs.) Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses saw the molehill for what it was. Well after all this, don't know if the health care will go through, or if it will be better or worse, or not make a lick of difference, or be recinded a few months later when the next President gets into office. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Your insurance co. can certainly charge you higher premiums if you don't brush your teeth. As for driving on public roads, there are dozens of less-safe things that can get you a ticket, like having a headlight out, or, yes, not using your seatbelt. I prefer having fewer idiots on the road. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2779 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I would be happy with just seat belt laws if they would get rid of the airbomb law, I'm sorry I mean airbag law. While the airbag might save a few more lives over the seat belts (and I'm not convinced they do), the number of injuries that require medical attention caused by airbags has multiplied by more than ten. If your airbag goes off even while the car is not moving, you will likely need medical treatment, especially if you are wearing glasses. And that doesn't include the cost of fixing damages to the car caused by just the airbags. And who gets sued for these damages, the car makers who are forced to bend at the governments will. Nobody in there right mind would force a person to drive with a loaded bomb pointing at their face except the government. You have to remember the original intention of the air bomb was to replace seat belts. So it's original data was compared to a no seat belt car. we should at the very least have a choice of switching the bomb off if we willingly give in to wearing the seatbelt. Barry Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Well this is the goofiest squirrel to hit this thread yet.. It was just an example of making a mountain out of a molehill.. Apparently you agree the seatbelt law is a molehill. EagleDad - I agree.. It was aggrivating when son was little too. If husband & I was in the car well kid went in back.. But, rarely did kid go in back if just driver & kid.. And yes that was serious risk to the kid with the airbombs, but I have rarely seen any kid sit in the back when there was an empty seat in the front.(This message has been edited by moosetracker) Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 Well looks like the Bishops are still beating their tom-toms.. So Beavah probably is also. I can see their molehill is still there if they are self-insured. (But, I thought I read something that indicated self-insured would not be an option with this new plan). But from what they also say, it is a definite they want to stomp out this policy for everyone and be the moral religious conscious of the world.. ...Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether... ...and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage.... ...and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions... Deeply held convictions of religious people? Are they talking about the 2% of Catholics that still follow this outdated nonsense? Or do they put on rose-color glasses and choose to ignore the fact that 98% of their parishioners have chosen not to follow them. They would have to take the extra steps to get this part of the insurance, so they would have to go to the devil, the devil will not come to them. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/catholic-bishops-obamas-solution-unacceptable Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now