Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Oh oh!; Justice Blocks Obamacare Birth Control Mandate
Topic Started: Jan 2 2014, 07:51 PM (1,495 Views)
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jan 3 2014, 12:03 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 2 2014, 11:47 PM
Brewster
Jan 2 2014, 11:46 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:40 PM
I don't write the laws Brew, and I didn't put forth the mandate to temporarily shelf it. I just linked an article of information and added some of my own thoughts on Ms Flute and the fuss she created.
But promise you'll complain when all these extra rules and exceptions increase the cost of running the system?

What has that got to do with the original link and the comments I wrote?

And please tell me you'll blame Obama for the overruns.

And that?

And make sure you point out the difficulties when somebody needs the pills, and isn't covered. - You can blame that on Obama too.

Tell that to the judge. She made the "mandate," not me.

As I've said before, the US Right complains about the cost of Government and Regulations, but it doesn't prevent them from insisting on more when it suits their ideology.

Maybe if the left wouldn't create so many half backed laws that had to be done, we'd save a little money there. But, judges have to make a living too.

:toasting:

And this is just another example of the cohesive banding of the "Liberals Without Borders" organization so prevalent in our society today.
:bounce: Talk about (colo) strawmen) :33:
I think I'll coin a new term to counter Ban's Libs without borders phrase. I'll call it "Cons without consciences".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Jan 2 2014, 10:59 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 10:57 PM
What's untrue about it?
It's not forced contraception coverage. It's medically necessary drug coverage. You know that, but continue to post the untruth, knowing it's untrue.
From my perspective, if a person has a medical condition that requires an ingredient in a birth control capsule and that ingredient has been prescribed, then provided the birth control pill had been altered in such a way... that it does not artificially prevent pregnancy... there should be no reason to deny coverage.

If the doctor prescribes a normal birth control formula, then the woman and her doctor should not expect those individuals or organizations who oppose clinical methods to prevent pregnancy, to participate in any manner.. including providing insurance polices that cover the purchase of the methods. I'm confident that any appeal of this decision will be turned back by the higher court.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Jan 2 2014, 11:56 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:50 PM
colo_crawdad
Jan 2 2014, 11:45 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:41 PM
colo_crawdad
Jan 2 2014, 11:38 PM
Wow, am I slow or hat. I just realized that Ban said the law requires coverage pf contraception FOR WOMEN. The whole issue about condoms raised by Ban is just a straw man since condoms are contraception devices for MEN.
You're distorting again Colo. But you are allowed to do that.
What am I "distorting." Ban? I ask this because I do not understand your comment. If I misunderstood you and "distorted," please explain how I did so. You did tell us the law only required contraception FOR WOMEN, didn't you? You also raised the straw man of Ms. flute purchasing her own condoms, didn't you?

If you reread my original post you should see that the "condom" suggestion for Ms Fluke was a way around her temporarily being denied contraception for women by requiring her lovers (male presumed) to provide them (thus the suggested contract) or her provide them for them, depending on how urgent she was at the time.
But, as you and now others have pointed out, her testimony was not about contraceptives for the MALE, condoms, but rather about medically necessary pills sometimes known as "birth control pills." As sosmeone else pointed out on this thread it is apparently you and the cons, not me who is "distorting." But as you said about me: "But you are allowed to do that."

Bottom line.

Was the law including insurance coverage a means of birth control or not?

Is the present issue about the law requiring institutions, including religious affiliated institutions, to include it in their insurance coverage or not?

Does the mandate temporarily put a hold on that section of the law or not?

And, is the recent mandate issued by the judge a result of the required contraception enforcement, as one form of birth control, concerning religious affiliated institutions or not?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Jan 3 2014, 12:06 AM
Banandangees
Jan 3 2014, 12:03 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 2 2014, 11:47 PM
Brewster
Jan 2 2014, 11:46 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:40 PM
I don't write the laws Brew, and I didn't put forth the mandate to temporarily shelf it. I just linked an article of information and added some of my own thoughts on Ms Flute and the fuss she created.
But promise you'll complain when all these extra rules and exceptions increase the cost of running the system?

What has that got to do with the original link and the comments I wrote?

And please tell me you'll blame Obama for the overruns.

And that?

And make sure you point out the difficulties when somebody needs the pills, and isn't covered. - You can blame that on Obama too.

Tell that to the judge. She made the "mandate," not me.

As I've said before, the US Right complains about the cost of Government and Regulations, but it doesn't prevent them from insisting on more when it suits their ideology.

Maybe if the left wouldn't create so many half backed laws that had to be done, we'd save a little money there. But, judges have to make a living too.

:toasting:

And this is just another example of the cohesive banding of the "Liberals Without Borders" organization so prevalent in our society today.
:bounce: Talk about (colo) strawmen) :33:
I think I'll coin a new term to counter Ban's Libs without borders phrase. I'll call it "Cons without consciences".
I don't understand, how is my conscience related to this thread?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jan 3 2014, 12:03 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 2 2014, 11:47 PM
Brewster
Jan 2 2014, 11:46 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:40 PM
I don't write the laws Brew, and I didn't put forth the mandate to temporarily shelf it. I just linked an article of information and added some of my own thoughts on Ms Flute and the fuss she created.
But promise you'll complain when all these extra rules and exceptions increase the cost of running the system?

What has that got to do with the original link and the comments I wrote?
Nice tapdance, Ban, but you're the one who posted so approvingly what a good idea this was. You like it, you gotta like the consequence$

And please tell me you'll blame Obama for the overruns.

And that?
Yup, that too. You approve of the change in Regs, you approve of the overruns.

And make sure you point out the difficulties when somebody needs the pills, and isn't covered. - You can blame that on Obama too.

Tell that to the judge. She made the "mandate," not me.
But you're the one crowing about it.


As I've said before, the US Right complains about the cost of Government and Regulations, but it doesn't prevent them from insisting on more when it suits their ideology.

Maybe if the left wouldn't create so many half backed laws that had to be done, we'd save a little money there. But, judges have to make a living too.
Perhaps the laws wouldn't have to be so "half backed" if the Right would stop their senseless obstruction and instead propose sane improvements.

:toasting:

And this is just another example of the cohesive banding of the "Liberals Without Borders" organization so prevalent in our society today.
:bounce: Talk about (colo) strawmen) :33:


You'll note there's no such thing as "Righties without Borders". Nobody outside the US would put up with their nonsense.
Edited by Brewster, Jan 3 2014, 12:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mike
Jan 3 2014, 12:14 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 2 2014, 10:59 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 10:57 PM
What's untrue about it?
It's not forced contraception coverage. It's medically necessary drug coverage. You know that, but continue to post the untruth, knowing it's untrue.
From my perspective, if a person has a medical condition that requires an ingredient in a birth control capsule and that ingredient has been prescribed, then provided the birth control pill had been altered in such a way... that it does not artificially prevent pregnancy... there should be no reason to deny coverage.

If the doctor prescribes a normal birth control formula, then the woman and her doctor should not expect those individuals or organizations who oppose clinical methods to prevent pregnancy, to participate in any manner.. including providing insurance polices that cover the purchase of the methods. I'm confident that any appeal of this decision will be turned back by the higher court.
That's the typical religious argument against providing contraceptives to people who are students or work for a religious institution. IMO, it constitutes discrimination against the non-religious or anybody who wants the birth control. If the church groups want to discriminate, then they should give up their "non-profit" status", pay taxes like every other entity and do as they choose. What it boils down to, imo, is hypocrisy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jan 3 2014, 12:17 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 3 2014, 12:06 AM
Banandangees
Jan 3 2014, 12:03 AM
Mountainrivers
Jan 2 2014, 11:47 PM
Brewster
Jan 2 2014, 11:46 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:40 PM
I don't write the laws Brew, and I didn't put forth the mandate to temporarily shelf it. I just linked an article of information and added some of my own thoughts on Ms Flute and the fuss she created.
But promise you'll complain when all these extra rules and exceptions increase the cost of running the system?

What has that got to do with the original link and the comments I wrote?

And please tell me you'll blame Obama for the overruns.

And that?

And make sure you point out the difficulties when somebody needs the pills, and isn't covered. - You can blame that on Obama too.

Tell that to the judge. She made the "mandate," not me.

As I've said before, the US Right complains about the cost of Government and Regulations, but it doesn't prevent them from insisting on more when it suits their ideology.

Maybe if the left wouldn't create so many half backed laws that had to be done, we'd save a little money there. But, judges have to make a living too.

:toasting:

And this is just another example of the cohesive banding of the "Liberals Without Borders" organization so prevalent in our society today.
:bounce: Talk about (colo) strawmen) :33:
I think I'll coin a new term to counter Ban's Libs without borders phrase. I'll call it "Cons without consciences".
I don't understand, how is my conscience related to this thread?
How is Liberals without borders related to this thread?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jan 3 2014, 12:16 AM
colo_crawdad
Jan 2 2014, 11:56 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:50 PM
colo_crawdad
Jan 2 2014, 11:45 PM
Banandangees
Jan 2 2014, 11:41 PM
colo_crawdad
Jan 2 2014, 11:38 PM
Wow, am I slow or hat. I just realized that Ban said the law requires coverage pf contraception FOR WOMEN. The whole issue about condoms raised by Ban is just a straw man since condoms are contraception devices for MEN.
You're distorting again Colo. But you are allowed to do that.
What am I "distorting." Ban? I ask this because I do not understand your comment. If I misunderstood you and "distorted," please explain how I did so. You did tell us the law only required contraception FOR WOMEN, didn't you? You also raised the straw man of Ms. flute purchasing her own condoms, didn't you?

If you reread my original post you should see that the "condom" suggestion for Ms Fluke was a way around her temporarily being denied contraception for women by requiring her lovers (male presumed) to provide them (thus the suggested contract) or her provide them for them, depending on how urgent she was at the time.
But, as you and now others have pointed out, her testimony was not about contraceptives for the MALE, condoms, but rather about medically necessary pills sometimes known as "birth control pills." As sosmeone else pointed out on this thread it is apparently you and the cons, not me who is "distorting." But as you said about me: "But you are allowed to do that."

Bottom line.

Was the law including insurance coverage a means of birth control or not?

Is the present issue about the law requiring institutions, including religious affiliated institutions, to include it in their insurance coverage or not?

Does the mandate temporarily put a hold on that section of the law or not?

And, is the recent mandate issued by the judge a result of the required contraception enforcement, as one form of birth control, concerning religious affiliated institutions or not?

Yes, to all of those questions. What's your point?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I rest my case.

All the rest you libs created were "strawmen."
Edited by Banandangees, Jan 3 2014, 12:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Okay, Ban. As long as you keep condoms for males out of your case. The inclusion of that straw man definitely weakens rather than strengthens your case.
Edited by colo_crawdad, Jan 3 2014, 12:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis