Obama and birth control

[Mike.357]

Leroy, I liked your post. But I am not sure Obama can overstep his bounds enough to make the freeloaders stay home on election day and certainly not vote against him.

But $5 a gallon gas will not work in his favor at all. At least not until the lib's figure out a way to give the welfare class free gasoline.

And I really see no differences between republicans and democrats that are in office ,very few if any care about anything other than re-election.

[dralarms]

I only have one thing to say, too bad his mom didn't practice birth control.

[Guest Bassman17SC]

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

Dude, the Senate is the only entity that can approve treaties.

[jtmaze]

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.

That is what I was referring to.

JTM🔫

Sent from my iPhone

[jtmaze]

Dude, the Senate is the only entity that can approve treaties.

Believe me I know that but BHO doesn't. You missed the point. Let BHO get re-elected and see what goes to his front burner. UN treaty.

JTM🔫

Sent from my iPhone

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All those waivers are temporary, a year or so.

I doubt they are any more legitimate than the

original legislation, constitutionally, that is.

Most of his political supporters got them almost

immediately.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mr. Willard, you may be missing my point. Nothing

wrong with helping your fellow man, but when you

utilize the government to make me pay for something

you're not helping anyone. When an individual or

group wishes to help some person or other, they

"ask" for donations. The government doesn't ask,

they take. As for the right to purchase contraceptives,

all is well and good for an individual to do what they

wish, but don't try to make someone who doesn't

believe in selling it sell it to them. Insurance is a

private venture, not something else for the gov

to mandate.

As to the side of the road remark, I would "give"

any aid I can in the case of an accident. Different

from some kind of mandate. Altruism is what causes

dumb laws. Kinda like emotion instead of reason.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blitzen]

I think when policy gets written after any law is passed a waiver system is established. It's crazy. "No Child Left Behind" pushed by Ted Kennedy and Bush was mandated to the States. Gov Bredensen (TN Dem Governor) requested and was granted Obama's "Race To The Top" money. All Obama did was give TN and a few other States a waiver to NCLB because RTT requires higher standards than NCLB. States that are still under NCLB did not accept Obama's RTT money and are held to standards under NCLB. Obama's waivers basically did nothing. The news media did not give us the full story and used the waiver granting to the president's benefit once again.

[mikegideon]

oversexed, baby makers.

Those are two really different things. I've always been quite fond of ovesexed women. I successfully avoided the baby maker thing like the plague.

[Moped]

I got to say the Obama Administration stepped on it, with this issue. They couched it in the wrong terms. Now they have reversed the issue and are now going about it on another track. One that will win in the long run. I have to agree with you Mike, regardless of how they do it, we will being paying the price for it. But I would rather pay that price, than spend the money over 18 years paying for a child someone really didn't want. It's a lot cheaper in the long run. Will it end all unwanted pregnencies? Nope, I think we all know the answer to that. But it will eliminate a lot of them.

I'm not happy with Obama Care, but something needs to be done in this country about health care. The company I work for pays NOTHING towards health care now. They do get us some sort of discount, because we have 65,000 employees and the insurance companies are slobbering over themselves to get to all that money. For my family and I, we are spending $11,400 for insurance a year, plus another $2000 for a health savings card for drugs, co-pays, glasses, etc. If you are in business for yourself and your spouse doesn't have coverage where they work either, then you know the costs of insurance. But for the vast majority of those that work were a company provides some or most of their insurance coverage, then I wonder if you really do know the cost. I pay more in health care coverage a month than I do for my freakin' house! And the cost keeps going up. We had a 15% raise in rates over 2011. I expect it to be the same next year.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Moped

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep, wonder if anybody really knows why medical costs have exploded? Not that there is a shortage of reasonable-sounding explanations.

Starting 1977 thru most of the 1980's had a self-employed major medical thru the musicians union. IIRC it was something like $1000 per year. $1000 deductible, 80 percent of doctor bills and drugs, one million dollar cap on benefits. It was slow-pay, but always eventually paid. At the time I thought it was kinda expensive. Foolish me.

Before that when I had a real job working for the gov, the state's BCBS plan really wasn't much better, if better at all, and was about $100 per month, which was slightly more expensive than the musicians union group major medical. I suspect the union policy was a little more expensive than average because maybe musicians are not generally "clean living" people and might tend to have more medical bills overall.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok, lets look at this from the economic perspective of the Insurance Companies.

Cause, really, they are the ones quietly pushing for this.

Economically, Contraception is way cheaper than an Abortion. Abortion is way cheaper than covering a birth. Just that simple.

Why then would the insurance companies cover the cost, or even better, get the government to cover some cost? Well, contraception is so inexpensive, they will have big cost savings giving it away, compared to covering abortions or births. Bottom line, the insurance company's profit will benefit.

Mike.357, I think he will have to have the the law amended. Or, it could be written where the executive branch got to hash out the details. I havent read the law.

Oh, yeah, one more thing to get the rage going, the leading group of abortion receivers in the U.S.? Catholics. So, live what you believe, and see an impact.

Edited February 14, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ok, lets look at this from the economic perspective of the Insurance Companies.

Cause, really, they are the ones quietly pushing for this.

Economically, Contraception is way cheaper than an Abortion. Abortion is way cheaper than covering a birth. Just that simple.

Why then would the insurance companies cover the cost, or even better, get the government to cover some cost? Well, contraception is so inexpensive, they will have big cost savings giving it away, compared to covering abortions or births. Bottom line, the insurance company's profit will benefit.

Mike.357, I think he will have to have the the law amended. Or, it could be written where the executive branch got to hash out the details. I havent read the law.

Oh, yeah, one more thing to get the rage going, the leading group of abortion receivers in the U.S.? Catholics. So, live what you believe, and see an impact.

Catholics? Really? I would love to see that data.

You're also blaming the insurance companies

when the government is the culprit in the health

care cost increases by being one of the largest

payers and regulators of health care. I know it

may not seem like much to you but all those

regulations, the gov being a payer and legal

liabilities the medical system is crammed with

has made the costs go through the roof.

I remember when it didn't cost so damned

much before Medicare and Medicaid plus

another thousand or so regs that restrict

the health care system.

I guess Catholics run to Planned Parenthood

all the time. I have never seen any data that

shows abortions broken down by religious

affiliation. Curious to see this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kieefer]

As heard on Rush today - http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/contraception-obamas-real-motivation-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

I can agree with this and feel it's just another step towards socialism.

Could also be the start of social-issue attacks on Rick S. and the GOP.

[Guest nicemac]

What i am saying is that these women are being denied medical options that they should not be.

Tell me why the woman down the street is entitled to reach into my wallet to make me pay for her birth control? There is no "free" anything. The insurance companies will not eat this expense. Why should they? They will just raise everybody's premiums (despite the warning not to-they have no choice) If My premiums go up, I pay for it. Why is she more entitled to my money than I am? If the government pays for it, I pay for it. Why is she more entitled to my money than I am?

What if BHO decides to start telling all kinds of businesses what they will provide for "free?" Corporations will just close up shop. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Edited February 15, 2012 by nicemac

[Guest mlcompound]

I have yet to find a single person that doesn't have "access" to these services. The problem is they don't want to have to pay for them. My wife and I have been married for 10+ years with no kids and no contraceptive insurance coverage. It is only a matter of personal responsibility.

Sent from my HTC using Tapatalk

[Guest HvyMtl]

Anyone else notice this has already been codified? In Massachusetts? Under RomneyCare?

Yup, I am quoting Newsmax, they even get it: "Mitt Romney is vociferously attacking a provision in Obamacare requiring religious employers to cover birth control in employee health plans — but the healthcare bill he enacted as governor of Massachusetts also contained that requirement." Romneycare Required Anti-Catholic Regulations Like Obamacare Does

"Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of attacking religious freedom because of a federal mandate requiring insurers to cover contraception. But Romney, who overhauled the Massachusetts health care system, did not change an almost identical mandate in Massachusetts."

http://www.boston.co...XMhO/index.html

So, if Mitt gets the nod to be the next President, I do not see any change to the law.

6.8 AR: "Catholics? Really? I would love to see that data."

As for the Abortion stats, here you go:

This group, an ANTI-Abortion group, lumps all Protestants together, without really showing what their definition of "Protestants" are: And claims are this: Protestants 37.4% to 31.3% Catholics. http://www.abortionn.../fastfacts.html

"Catholics were found to be the worst offenders, with abortion rates higher than the national average." http://www.edwardtba...y_abortion.html

And the PRO-Choicers: "27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics" http://www.prochoice.../women_who.html

"According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions (full study*). The rate is even higher--33%--if Hispanics are factored in. Another way of looking at it: while Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions."

http://www.beliefnet...x#ixzz1ma7HAIxu

So, basically put, Catholics, if you practiced what you preached you would eliminate around 30% of abortions.

Edited February 16, 2012 by HvyMtl

[QuietDan]

I know there are a lot of Catholics that make their own decisions about birth control, even after hearing about and understanding the Church's point of view and teachings. And, the Bishops are the teachers of the Church, and what they say is the official position of the Church, and they aren't going to back down.

That being said, Catholics, even Catholics who use birth control, for the most part will fight the Obama Administration rulings. There are some things that are between us and our religious leaders, even when we argue with the Priest or ignore the Bishop -- and is none of the government's damn business. You'll find a lot of Catholics that might be really irritated with their Bishops that will defend them utterly when the Bishop's attacked or challenged by the government. Treading on Freedom of Religion is a very dangerous thing, and one of the early warning signs that all potential Dictators trip up on. We are in very dangerous territory here.

After the government gets finished going ofter the First Amendment, they'll come after the Second Amendment. Sure as you can count from One to Ten.