Obama and birth control

[Mike.357]

I just read a piece on MSN where Obama says religious type employers, churches, hospitals etc will not have to include birth control as part of their health plans, but those employees can still receive it for free through his Obamacare plan. . WTF! Free? Someone will be paying for it!

Does this freaking prima donna just make things up as he goes? Wasn't Obamacare legislated? Were there not details in that legislation? Assuming so, how does he just up and change something that Congress voted on and passed?

I don't give two craps about birth control really. Does this all mean that when the wind shifts he can just up and decide something else can be changed?

Someone explain to me how this works.

I gotta be missing something. And if I am not missing something I am really pissed.

[BrasilNuts]

Does this freaking prima donna just make things up as he goes?

Yes.

Wasn't Obamacare legislated?

Yes.

Were there not details in that legislation?

Yes.

Assuming so, how does he just up and change something that Congress voted on and passed?

Because he knows no one will do anything about it.

Does this all mean that when the wind shifts he can just up and decide something else can be changed?

Yes.

Someone explain to me how this works.

He does it and it works.

[Guest RichieRich]

I just read a piece on MSN where Obama says religious type employers, churches, hospitals etc will not have to include birth control as part of their health plans, but those employees can still receive it for free through his Obamacare plan. . WTF! Free? Someone will be paying for it!

This "free" healthcare is going to bankrupt us--both financially and morally.

[hipower]

This "free" healthcare is going to bankrupt us--both financially and morally. quote]

Unfortunately, I believe you are right on all counts.

Pres. Obama has shown a very marked and consistant disregard for the rule of law concerning just about everything. He is president, therefore, whatever he says is just

going to be done. Regardless of the consequenses.

[c.a.willard]

Ill take the lesser of two evils, if they cant afford birth controll they cant afford a child. Id rather pay for the Birth Control than spend my tax money helping someone else with a child they probably shouldnt of had. Healthcare in this country is seriously messed up and prohibitively expensive even with private insurance. I consider birth control preventative medicine is almost always cheaper than treating afterwards. The cost of Birth control over a womans entire reproductive lifetime is probably less than the cost of a hospital birth. You realistically only have a few choices with birth control without being hypocritical. Either force insurance providers to cover it, Cover it with government funds, or allow slightly private organizations like Planned parrenthood to cover it. I say slightly more private organizations as i do realise they receive some government funding.

[jtmaze]

You just asked and answered all of you questions with yes. What do you think he is going to do once he gets re-elected and signs the UN peace treaty and then come to dis-arm us. You and I and everyone who reads this needs to write there Congressman/woman and have Congress stand up to him before we are in all out revolution.

JTM🔫

Sent from my iPhone

[Smith]

If

Ill take the lesser of two evils, if they cant afford birth controll they cant afford a child. Id rather pay for the Birth Control than spend my tax money helping someone else with a child they probably shouldnt of had. Healthcare in this country is seriously messed up and prohibitively expensive even with private insurance. I consider birth control preventative medicine is almost always cheaper than treating afterwards. The cost of Birth control over a womans entire reproductive lifetime is probably less than the cost of a hospital birth. You realistically only have a few choices with birth control without being hypocritical. Either force insurance providers to cover it, Cover it with government funds, or allow slightly private organizations like Planned parrenthood to cover it. I say slightly more private organizations as i do realise they receive some government funding.

If they don't have the judgment or self control to be responsable without government intervention, do you really think birth control will fix anything? Bailouts don't work for corporations, banks, or irresposable, oversexed, baby makers.

[c.a.willard]

I dont see trying to have access to birth control as irresponsible, i see it as very responsible. What i dont think is likely is that those without it would remain abstinant. Thats just not going to happen we all know it, some of us just cant admit it. To have sex is a natural animalistic urge, one that we are hardwired to have difficulty fighting. Young men and women wont stop having sex just because they dont have access to birth control. Welfare is a bailout, helping to provide birth control is preventative to the bailing out that we all want to avoid. And this artical is not talking about people that have absolutely no health coverage its talking about people whose private health insurance has chosen to deny birth control. So i see responsible working women who already pay into health insurance, more than likely without this fact being disclosed up front, wanting an alternate source and the freedom to choose their own methods of contraception.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

First, if they read the legislation and if their constitutents knew about it,we

wouldn't be having this discussion. Second, if people paid attention to who they're

voting for and why, we wouldn't have this problem. don't you remember some of

our topics discussed about Obamacare. some folks didn't seem to mind getting

another handout from you and I. Elections have consequenses and I know I

sounded the alarm. I know others did, too.

Ain't a damned thing in life free. It comes off of someone else's back. But it's always

someone else's problem when Mary and Jim have sex. No, it's Mary and Jim's.

Abortion is not an answer, it's a convenience for morally bankrupt people and

morally bankrupt politicians like those communists taking our country away.

Some might want to argue the merits of abortion, say, in the situation of rape.

That's not even an argument. When you use an excuse for the excuse you become

an excuse next, when they decide you're a problem and come for you.

Play's the race card any time anyone disagrees with him. The Catholics got a

reprieve today, I heard someone on the radio say. Only temporary, just for his

re-election bid.

Mr. Willard, why should you pay anything for someone else's misdeeds? Or,

are you assuming everyone else's responsibility belongs to you? There is no

"lesser than two evils". There is only good and evil. Have you ever asked yourself

why you are paying for everyone else's problems in the first place?

Mike, you should give two craps for it, since it will be one more in the pile that

is bankrupting us. It's part and parcel to communism. These criminals add a bit

here and a bit there, except in the case of Obamacare. They dumped a bombshell.

[Blitzen]

I think the issue is more about usurping the constitution than birth control. When a president wields power that is not given to the office by the constitution (and the other two branches do nothing to stop it) then it is up to the people to bring the three branches of Gov't back in line which is what happened in the congressional races of 2008. The Presidential office does not have the power under the constituion to demand what we have seen over the past several days. If the position does have that kind of power then any presidential administration could demand that we all buy LED TV's and battery cars for energy conservation. Voting is the best way to ensure we have checks and balances.

[Garufa]

Voting is the best way to ensure we have checks and balances.

Obama, along with every other member of Congress was elected. Until they must answer to the people for their actions there is no stopping them. Elections just don't cut it and are becoming a farce. They get away with the vast majority of what they do with ridiculous "rules", not laws, put in place by both parties. The people select representatives on the basis of trust. That trust is broken day after day.

Now, that being said I have no solution to propose.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Garufa

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Even though you're right about his usurpations, he was given authority by a corrupt

and unconstitutionally acting Congress. That's why the Supreme Court will hear the

arguments about the mandates. He does get the blame for what you mention because

it was his goal all along. BTW, welcome to the board!

[c.a.willard]

6.8 I dont believe that i have an idividual responsibilty for them, i do however beleive that we all have a responsibility towards our fellow man. Thats what makes us a civilized society, take away feelingsw of responsibilty towards others and you have anarcy. Also you are assuming that i want to pay for their misdeeds, since when did seeking out birth control become a misdeed, Im not saying i agree with Obamacare or him as an idividual or politician. What i am saying is that these women are being denied medical options that they should not be. If i told you tthat you were at a high risk for contracting a parasite. One that would make you ill for several months and limit your ability to work. Then told you hey theres a proven treatment from preventing you from catching this parasite, but we choose not to cover that with our health care plan. What would you think then. Im not advocating Abortion, i am advocating a womans right to say what is right for her body and choose her own methods for preventing pregnancy. I reiterate, these are not women whom are completely dependant on the government, these are women who are employed paying insurance premiums and being denied basic preventive medicine. You see this about being about obama, i see it as being about the women in the article. As far as constitutionality of the crap hes done and tried to do, i agree I think obama has over reached and should be impeached. I also thought that bush over reached and should have been impeached. And just FYI ive read alot of the Obamacare legislation most of it is actually likely to reduce tax dollars spent on it in the long run (as much as i hate to say that). If i see you bleeding on the side of the road am i morally obligated to stop and help you even if this would cost me time or money. I say yes, you may say no now. However when you truely need the help i think you would want it available

[1pointofview]

as I told a friend, if you want birth control then buy it. My opinion is that health care is a responsibility of the individual. Birth control is not something that you need to address a disease, Birth control is for those looking to avoid the responsibility of a child. it is your call but no where should that be on the tax payer or the group of people that pay collective premiums.

where democracy always goes wrong is when the lack of responsibility turns into a voting bloc

Edited February 11, 2012 by 1pointofview

[Mike.357]

the point of my post really has nothing to do with birth control. The point was we have a president who seems to do what he wants when he wants with total disregard to the constitution on the order of the laws we all are supposed to follow.

I did not and still don't understand how he can all the sudden say that churches don't need to adhere to a law(?) that is to be enacted, that he signed off on. I am sorry I may not have the words to get my thought across.

Are there other laws or bills that have been passed and signed off on by him that he can just up and change on a whim?

For this birth control thing shouldn't congress have to pass an ammendment on his Obamacare thing?

Personally I do not think I should have to pay for health care, birth control, for anyone else. As a human being I have no problem with helping those truly in need of help. I am not in favor of the never ending laundry list of things I must pay for for other people. Especially when those people have no intention of getting off of my tit, ever.

Someon mentioned Obama and the UN treaty that would ban private ownership of guns. Well he can't do that, Treaties must be approved by the Senate IIRC. But what is to stop him from deciding he can enact treaties on his own, and if he does who will stand up to stop it?

WTF is going on with our government?

[Guest bkelm18]

Someon mentioned Obama and the UN treaty that would ban private ownership of guns. Well he can't do that, Treaties must be approved by the Senate IIRC. But what is to stop him from deciding he can enact treaties on his own, and if he does who will stand up to stop it?

WTF is going on with our government?

Treaties need a 2/3 Senate approval before the President can ratify it. Who knows what would happen if he decided to usurp the Senate. I think there are enough people in the gov't that care about the conservative vote that they'd do something about it.

Edited February 11, 2012 by bkelm18

[kieefer]

WTF is going on with our government?

It's the people we have elected...

....and yet many can't bring themselves to vote for ABO to try and stop this madness.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Voting is the best way to ensure we have checks and balances.

Now that's a really scary thought considering how many idiots voted for Obama in 2008.

Welcome to the forum.

[Oh Shoot]

...I did not and still don't understand how he can all the sudden say that churches don't need to adhere to a law(?) that is to be enacted, that he signed off on. I am sorry I may not have the words to get my thought across.

Are there other laws or bills that have been passed and signed off on by him that he can just up and change on a whim?

Over 1200 waivers to various companies/orgs have been granted, allowing opting out of various parts of Obamacare. Unions seem to get one without even asking.

- OS

[Mike.357]

But are these waivers legal? Is it somewhere in the bill that he can grant these waivers willy nilly without any ammending of the original bill?

I guess thats what I am wanting to know.

[Garufa]

But are these waivers legal? Is it somewhere in the bill that he can grant these waivers willy nilly without any ammending of the original bill?

I guess thats what I am wanting to know.

I want to know that as well. He's granting waivers to many states, like 2/3's of them including TN, for "No Child Left Behind" requirements they cannot meet.

Obama's been very busy this week.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Garufa

[Guest ThePunisher]

"We have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill". Famous words of former idiot Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. All the face lifts have cut off all oxygen to her brain. But then, I just realized that all of the Dems are brain dead.

They still don't know what is in the bill.

[Oh Shoot]

But are these waivers legal? Is it somewhere in the bill that he can grant these waivers willy nilly without any ammending of the original bill?

I guess thats what I am wanting to know.

Dunno for sure. There are definitely opt-out provisions in it, though. Religious conscience, etc. Who knows what all. Fast food places got out of it for the most part.

Not sure any one person still is fully versed with all that's in it; not even sure one person could. According to some things I've read, there are quite a few contradictory provisions in there also, that will have to be "decided" when they arise.

Just leave it to Kathleen Sebelius I guess. She'll eventually find a way in it to make you sacrifice your guns for health bennies, too.

- OS

Edited February 11, 2012 by OhShoot

[leroy]

Mike:______________

We are seeing the great Nobama whitehouse seeing just how far, how stupid, and how overbearing and autocratic they can be. I think that the autocratic socialist idealism has taken over this whole bunch. They see themselves as above the law. They think they rule by decree, just like a despot (...which they are at heart...). I see all this as a blessing. Lots of otherwise reasonable folks are finally seeing what people like Nobama and lots of other polititians and bureaucrats are really about. I also believe that the real strategists in his cabinet are trying to find out just how far they can go without their hand being called by congress or the courts as well.

I aint sure that Nobama is real afraid of the McConnell or Bohner congressionalites either. My guess is that he thinks that McConnell and Bohner either wont try to call his hand; my guess is that his calculation is that they are political cowards (...and i happen to think he is right on that...). I believe that he (...and others...) thinks that they will wait until after the 2012 elections to fix anything they dont like. As AR and others have said many times, elections have consequences. The biggest consequence of the last couple or three of them is less and less liberty. We are gettin a good look at what the future holds if we dont throw these socialist traitors out this fall (...Demorats and some republicans as well...).

The good news is more and more people that usually dont pay attention to politics are being offended by this high-handed overbearing usurping of our rights and liberties. Let's hope and pray that they keep on doin what they are doin. Remember, there is an election this fall. Vote early and often.

leroy

[Mike.357]

I don't doubt at all there is some provision to make you turn in guns to have insurance, and of course you will HAVE TO HAVE the insurance.

I just wonder when it will all end.

If he gets four more years and a few more SCOTUS selections there is no telling if anything will be left of the constitution by the time they die off.