Supreme Court Rules Some Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control

[JohnR! 5,495]

and then it appeared the priest poured them all together and drank all the backwash and lip juice

They wiped it with a nasty hanky between people as if that did anything but concentrate/swan the germs into one package

I just can't understand that, with all we know about Microbiology and transmission of diseases

You might as well be drinking off a public toilet.

[Teddy B 17,252]

No sir I embrace different views and support freedom of views for all. I don't think you are crazy at all.

Now when you views start impacting my right to exercise mine, that's when it becomes an issue. I respect your belief in a woman's freedom to choose her own reproductive paths as do I. what I don't respect is you thinking our Govt should force someone else to pay for it.

I respect the religious rights option that abortion is murder. does not make them crazy at all. I do not support their actions to force that belief on someone else.

NB, my post that you replied to was intended for LIB.

As for respecting what someone should and should not have to pay for is completely subjective based on one's beliefs and morals. Which is why the only common ground that all people can find is if something is done for the greater good. If something serves a valid purpose for the majority of the people involved, then that's what should be done, religious and personal beliefs aside.

Why should someone like myself with no children, be forced to pay property taxes that in turn pay for our educational system? What's so different from that to paying into a healthcare system that in turn pays for birth control?

[mota bhai 2,675]

There is a clear societal benefit to having an educated populace. The benefits of that go to everyone, those with children and those without.

But what is the clear societal benefit when educated women from privileged backgrounds don't have babies?

I would think we'd want them to have babies because unlike the crack hoe who spits out half a dozen before she turns 25, those babies are more likely to grow up to be smart and productive.

In fact, I would apply a means test to free contraceptives and abortifacients. If you're the kind of woman who needs to be contributing to the gene pool because you're smart and pretty and your parents have a nice house in the suburbs, then you don't get a taxpayer funded incentive to not contribute. Sorry.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

NB, my post that you replied to was intended for LIB.

As for respecting what someone should and should not have to pay for is completely subjective based on one's beliefs and morals. Which is why the only common ground that all people can find is if something is done for the greater good. If something serves a valid purpose for the majority of the people involved, then that's what should be done, religious and personal beliefs aside.

Why should someone like myself with no children, be forced to pay property taxes that in turn pay for our educational system? What's so different from that to paying into a healthcare system that in turn pays for birth control?

I messed up the flow of a post. Imagine that LOL

Because a persons reproductive choices should be a personal choice and funded accordingly. I don't have a problem a public health system that provides contraception. I have a problem with a government telling a business owner, he has to provide it as part of his employment package

[Peikko 1,575]

There is a clear societal benefit to having an educated populace. The benefits of that go to everyone, those with children and those without.

But what is the clear societal benefit when educated women from privileged backgrounds don't have babies?

I would think we'd want them to have babies because unlike the crack hoe who spits out half a dozen before she turns 25, those babies are more likely to grow up to be smart and productive.

In fact, I would apply a means test to free contraceptives and abortifacients. If you're the kind of woman who needs to be contributing to the gene pool because you're smart and pretty and your parents have a nice house in the suburbs, then you don't get a taxpayer funded incentive to not contribute. Sorry.

The benefit is that the population doesn't continue to explode exponentially. Also, despite the popular idea amongst the ignorant that being poor and dirty makes your offspring stupid, it doesn't

[mota bhai 2,675]

Wasn't nobody sayin' nothin' to you, little lady.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I messed up the flow of a post. Imagine that LOL

Because a persons reproductive choices should be a personal choice and funded accordingly. I don't have a problem a public health system that provides contraception. I have a problem with a government telling a business owner, he has to provide it as part of his employment package

So ditch the insurance and nationalise the healthcare industry.

[Boiler 46,232]

Let Contraception be covered by Food Stamps

Win win

[mota bhai 2,675]

So ditch the insurance and nationalise the healthcare industry.

That would have to happen on a state by state basis. There is no constitutional authority for a national takeover.

Let Contraception be covered by Food Stamps

Win win

So either:

eat and get pregnant

OR

starve and don't get pregnant

What could go wrong?

[Peikko 1,575]

I messed up the flow of a post. Imagine that LOL

Because a persons reproductive choices should be a personal choice and funded accordingly. I don't have a problem a public health system that provides contraception. I have a problem with a government telling a business owner, he has to provide it as part of his employment package

It would be nice however, if business is in the business of offering health care coverage for its employees, it doesn't use a personal agenda to discriminate against those employees who want to use their coverage to access perfectly legal and appropriate care because, perhaps, they do not share the beliefs of said business, no? It's a slippery slope to impose the personal views of a business owner on the running of a business entity. Also, as it seems to be true, the company in question does seem to have a very selective view on what is and isn't in accordance with its christian beliefs (business can't believe in anything by the way, as they are not actually a person even if the US government have deemed them to be an individual). Purchasing commodities from China seems to be perfectly ethical, but allowing employees to access all legal drugs is not. That seems at least slightly, what shall we say, hypocritical to me, not to you?

So ditch the insurance and nationalise the healthcare industry.

Which, all things considered is a very sound plan. Did you read the article that said that the National Health service was the best care provider in the industrial world?

Wasn't nobody sayin' nothin' to you, little lady.

I know, just so much screeching in your ears isn't it AJ?

Edited July 1, 2014 by The Truth™

[Boiler 46,232]

That would have to happen on a state by state basis. There is no constitutional authority for a national takeover.

So either:

eat and get pregnant

OR

starve and don't get pregnant

What could go wrong?

Food Stamps are used for lots of thing, last time I had my hair cut I was told that they wanted her to get a machine.

[Peikko 1,575]

Food Stamps are used for lots of thing, last time I had my hair cut I was told that they wanted her to get a machine.

English only

Who's her and what machine? The mind boggles!

[Boiler 46,232]

So ditch the insurance and nationalise the healthcare industry.

The US Government has shown itself to be inept at running pretty much anything, so nationalisation would not work.

I am not sure what term to use to describe the current situation, certainly Insurance is not one.

Seems to be a conglomeration of the worst aspects many different systems.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US Government has shown itself to be inept at running pretty much anything, so nationalisation would not work.

I am not sure what term to use to describe the current situation, certainly Insurance is not one.

Seems to be a conglomeration of the worst aspects many different systems.

I'd say that's more because you have competing levels of government and some states which have basically gone bankrupt. You would have a post code lottery where where you live determines your likelihood to survive cancer or a heart attack.

The German system works pretty well IMO. Basic level of public health care with supplemental insurance.

Of course this is the US we're talking about here, where even modest proposals (on any subject) get mired down in hyperbolic, politically charged rants.

That's why there's no progress. Your elected representatives are all crooks.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Peikko 1,575]

The US Government has shown itself to be inept at running pretty much anything, so nationalisation would not work.

I am not sure what term to use to describe the current situation, certainly Insurance is not one.

Seems to be a conglomeration of the worst aspects many different systems.

+1, the poster is not wrong!

We should have a US ground zero and start again. Clearly we need a more manly constitution, where presidents can't be elected who do not hold solid American principals