Obama Care

[firstdown]

So now we have to pick up the tab for a womens birth control and Obama says the insurance companys cannot charge for this coverage. So everyone will pay the bill. I said the same thing about covering Viagra but we wonder why health ins is so F^cking expensive. He is just out buying the womens vote with the timing of this and the women in the military thing he just approved. Next is the black and latino votes he will try to buy.

NBC Politics - Obama revamps contraceptive policy

[dmek25]

no need for him to do that. no one on the other side has a snow balls chance of getting that vote

[12thMan]

Who the hell is "we"? This coverage is no different than the plan 28 states currently provide to their employees prior to this law.

Who is "we"?

[That Guy]

know what's more expensive than birth control? babies that nobody wants. This is only for women working for religious employers that do not believe/cover birth control. Seems like a pretty small set, but if you've got numbers proving otherwise, please do share.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

know what's more expensive than birth control? babies that nobody wants. This is only for women working for religious employers that do not believe/cover birth control. Seems like a pretty small set, but if you've got numbers proving otherwise, please do share.

They want to be afforded the choice of denying choice....how ironic.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Enforcement of existing laws by federal agencies would be a good start. The money saved by reducing illegal immigration far outweighs the cost of implementing any additional security measures.

THAT sort of Crazy talk will get you in trouble....blacklisted.....possibly stoned. I'm sure Kieth Olbermann will be contacting you shortly....

[12thMan]

The cost to provide contraception is revenue neutral, that's why there's no outrage from the insurance companies over the compromise. And as it's been pointed out, it costs significantly more to cover a pregancy.

It's a win win. Religious groups don't have to enforce a rule that goes against, according to them biblical teachings, and women aren't denyed coverage.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The cost to provide contraception is revenue neutral, that's why there's no outrage from the insurance companies over the compromise. And as it's been pointed out, it costs significantly more to cover a pregancy.

It's a win win. Religious groups don't have to enforce a rule that goes against, according to them biblical teachings, and women aren't denyed coverage.

Are we really arguing about birth control in 2012? This sort of crap makes you really hate organized religion. If they want to roll with this sort of nonsense we should take away their tax breaks. Fck'em.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are we really arguing about birth control in 2012? This sort of crap makes you really hate organized religion. If they want to roll with this sort of nonsense we should take away their tax breaks. Fck'em.

Essentially, the same arguments over Church v. State we have been having since Henry II asked the infamous question "Who shall rid me of this meddlesome priest"?

Some slough it off as an anachronistic religion - and I agree with the statement that it is this shit that makes religion seem like unicorns and flying pigs - BUT, the underlying question of when can the State regulate beliefs is ultimately a thorny problem and no simple answer exists. As I said of Henry II, the extent that secular regulations may intrude on religious belief is an old question faced by free societies and will not be going away anytime soon.

[RedskinRat]

A simple solution would be for each deity representing the particular faith to request their tax exempt status in person. That should narrow it down.

To zero.

[The Goat]

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

What's funny to me is that psychometrics in its entirety, and IQ scores in particular, would be tossed out the window by those skeptical of statistics, and often on the grounds of unfairness.

I'd like to know how many readers of the article ever heard of the g factor when reading this article and were not using mere intuitions of intelligence. Sure, those who are psychologists know, but what about everyone else?

Maybe these fellas can help explain why left-wing Quebec threw a hissy fit about Randy Cunneyworth not being able to speak French. They'll probably bring up the "averages" explanation.

[firstdown]

The problem is not really the BC issues its the fact that all these mandates are one reason health insurance is so expensive.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The problem is not really the BC issues its the fact that all these mandates are one reason health insurance is so expensive.

All I know is under the old system put in place by Bush I couldn't get the insurance I needed because of pre-existing conditions. Back then I couldn't find a job that fit my degree and the part time job I took on only offered 3 doctor visits a year for their insurance. AHCA gets passed and now I have quality insurance again, granted it's expensive at $400 a month with COBRA but certainly cheaper then having nothing.

Now part of me trust Romney to get this right because as Romney has said, as long as you continue getting some type of coverage companies won't be able to turn you down.

Still not sure though that deregulation (state lines)/regulation (preexisting conditions) will fix the problem. Sometimes deregulation works extremely well as seen with the airlines and other times its a disaster as seen with energy and Savings and loans.

Plus I all but expect plenty on insurance companies to abuse deregulation under the GOP.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

All I know is under the old system put in place by Bush I couldn't get the insurance I needed because of pre-existing conditions. Back then I couldn't find a job that fit my degree and the part time job I took on only offered 3 doctor visits a year for their insurance. AHCA gets passed and now I have quality insurance again, granted it's expensive at $400 a month with COBRA but certainly cheaper then having nothing.

Now part of me trust Romney to get this right because as Romney has said, as long as you continue getting some type of coverage companies won't be able to turn you down.

Still not sure though that deregulation (state lines)/regulation (preexisting conditions) will fix the problem. Sometimes deregulation works extremely well as seen with the airlines and other times its a disaster as seen with energy and Savings and loans.

Plus I all but expect plenty on insurance companies to abuse deregulation under the GOP.

well, energy got it wrong... they didn't account for limited transmission lines. So i guess its just 100% dependent on implementation.