Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 03-05-2012, 07:40 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
When freedom is being trampled I like a reminder of its cost: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=xSQ3sbL1DXI
You play us a song espousing virtues like duty, honor, integrity, tradition, family, country, sacrifice...

And you tell us that an employer's religious freedom means that he has the right to walk into the doctor's office with his employee and order the doctor to treat his employee without regard to medical necessity, but at the whim of the employer.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:21 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
What's happening to Rush Limbaugh now is what will be happening to the GOP nominee who supports the "right" of employers to dictate their employee's medical treatment.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-from-limbaugh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000008
http://pinterest.com/thinkprogress/c...rush-limbaugh/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffberc...?feed=rss_home
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/154...ng_extremists/

Society is waking up, realizing it *does* have a voice. The effectiveness of social media in synchronizing and organizing mass efforts has lead to the Arab Spring and the global Occupy movement. The political landscape has changed. The people are speaking on it continuously now, not just during the months leading up to a presidential election.

Limbaugh has always been a vile blowhard. A year ago, Limbaugh's comments on Fluke would have been ignored as his usual bull****. No longer.

While every individual is entitled to his opinion, every voter is also entitled to theirs. You don't win elections by trying to alienate (literally) 99% of women and the men who agree with them.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 06:42 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
I don't appreciate anyone degrading women as sluts or bimbos and that includes Maher, Letterman and Limbaugh.
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 06:47 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
You play us a song espousing virtues like duty, honor, integrity, tradition, family, country, sacrifice...

And you tell us that an employer's religious freedom means that he has the right to walk into the doctor's office with his employee and order the doctor to treat his employee without regard to medical necessity, but at the whim of the employer.
Nope, I stand for freedom as opposed to "nanny state" mandates. A government strong enough to tell you what is to be covered by insurance is strong enough to tell you what is not to be covered (as in death panels).
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:45 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Nope, I stand for freedom as opposed to "nanny state" mandates. A government strong enough to tell you what is to be covered by insurance is strong enough to tell you what is not to be covered (as in death panels).
You stand for the idea that nanny-employers should dictate medical decisions to their employees. That's not "freedom" in any sense of the word. The mandate means that anyone can practice their own religion, but no individual's religion can interfere with the health care decisions of a person under their employ. THAT is freedom.

Go read Sandra Fluke's statement. Students at Georgetown pay for their own student healthcare. The school doesn't pay a dime to subsidize this healthcare. Yet, these students can't get contraceptive coverage through the healthcare they pay for due to interference in the form of the school's religious policy on health insurance. Is this the "freedom" of which you speak? The freedom to tell the 94% of students who purchase this insurance and oppose this religious policy that they can go **** off?


Now, you're suggesting that the mandate that insurers provide coverage for a specific range of coverages means that the government will also be allowed to make it illegal for insurers to offer coverage for other medical conditions? Really? The government is going to say that elective surgery doesn't need to be covered, so it will become illegal for insurers to offer coverage that includes elective surgery? Bull****, Eddie_T. Pure, unadulterated bull****.

The situation you describe is exactly what we had before Obama was in office. Insurance companies could take your money for years, then when you made a claim, they might review your medical history and reject your claim as a "pre-existing condition" or some other bull**** - they'd tell you "what wouldn't be covered."

Eddie_T, please quote me the text of a bill or law that suggests death panels would be created or employed. Tell me what exactly what the law says a death panel would do. I'm not looking for your opinion; I'm not looking for Sarah Palin's opinion. I'm looking for what the law says, and/or what a proposed bill says. Show me these death panels. Until then, I'm going to rely on what Politifact had to say about Sarah Palin's "Death Panels": It's a pants-on-fire lie.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...a-death-panel/
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 09:46 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Here's the latest press release from the Catholic side of the issue:
Quote:
USCCB>Media > News Releases >

Cardinal Dolan Voices Dismay at Handling by White House in Letter Updating Bishops on HHS Mandate Controversy

March 2, 2012
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York voiced dismay in the Administration’s handling of the church as the White House and the church seek to work out religious freedom problems found in a mandate in the new health care reform bill.

The mandate drew church ire when it required that all employers, including religious ones, pay for contraceptives – including abortifacients – and sterilization for employees despite church teaching against them.

He also promised to provide educational materials to parishes and to pursue legislative and judicial efforts to restore respect for religious freedom in the nation.

The letter can be found at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...ishops-HHS.pdf.

Given church concerns about religious freedom, Cardinal Dolan wrote, “the President invited us to ‘work out the wrinkles.’ We have accepted that invitation. Unfortunately, this seems to be stalled: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is scurrilous and insulting, not to mention flat out wrong.”)

Cardinal Dolan also said that “The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry ‘without change.’ He added that “The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, ‘Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets.’ That doesn’t bode well for their getting a truly acceptable 'accommodation.'"

Cardinal Dolan also described a recent meeting at the White House between bishops’ conference staff and White House staff, and said “our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for ‘working out the wrinkles.’ Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the ‘enlightened’ voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America.”

“The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.”

Cardinal Dolan also said “We will continue to accept invitations to meet with and to voice our concerns to anyone of any party, for this is hardly partisan, who is willing to correct the infringements on religious freedom that we are now under. But as we do so, we cannot rely on off the record promises of fixes without deadlines and without assurances of proposals that will concretely address the concerns in a manner that does not conflict with our principles and teaching.”

He added that “Congress might provide more hope, since thoughtful elected officials have proposed legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. Meanwhile, in our recent debate in the senate, our opponents sought to obscure what is really a religious freedom issue by maintaining that abortion inducing drugs and the like are a ‘woman’s health issue.’ We will not let this deception stand. Our commitment to seeking legislative remedies remains strong. And it is about remedies to the assault on religious freedom. Period.”

Cardinal Dolan added that “Perhaps the courts offer the most light."

Cardinal Dolan warned the bishops that “given this climate, we have to prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (in an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to ‘give up for Lent’ our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some, like Bishop Robert Lynch wisely noted, wonder whether we might have to engage in civil disobedience and risk steep fines; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.”

Cardinal Dolan added that “we know so very well that religious freedom is our heritage, our legacy and our firm belief, both as loyal Catholics and Americans. There have been many threats to religious freedom over the decades and years, but these often came from without. This one sadly comes from within. As our ancestors did with previous threats, we will tirelessly defend the timeless and enduring truth of religious freedom.”
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 05:24 AM  
Senior Member
 
Sideways's Avatar

Houston, Texas
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 980 | Kudos: +33
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T
Here's the latest press release from the Catholic side of the issue:
Nothing new here. After all you would not expect the Catholics to support contraception and birth control. Would you? Seems to me that this issue is somewhat misleading in the way it's presented. It has nothing to do with religious freedom except to GIVE people an option. If the option was being TAKEN away you would be correct. So who is being offended here? The individual who would have the option or the religious institution?
__________________
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Never forget that everything the Founding Fathers did was not." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 10:28 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.”
That's actually a pretty good option. To keep the positions attractive, you'll have to pay more than an employer who would just get a group policy. Employees will be required by law to obtain insurance anyway, and that insurance will include coverage for contraceptives if the employee chooses to use them. So in the end, the Catholic church will be basically spending the same amount of money on the employees of Catholic-affiliated hospitals and schools, and the employees will have more choice in health coverage.


Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome is one of the most common endocrine abnormalities. PCOS affects 6% to 10% of girls and women 12 to 45 years of age. Untreated, PCOS can cause cancer, infertilitiy, and spontaneous abortion. PCOS is frequently treated with hormonal contraceptives.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 11:27 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
This from freedomworks.org
Quote:
Mandating Contraceptives, Violating Conscience
By Daniel Anderson on February 06, 2012

The trouble with legislation today is that the devil is in the details, and those details are usually created by the federal bureaucracy. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare, was signed into law on March 23rd, 2010. So, why is it a surprise that some religious institutions, particularly Catholic hospitals and universities, will be required by law to provide contraceptives in their employee health care plans? Surely the outcry over this mandate would have come out nearly two years ago when the bill became a law, right?

Well, no. Modern legislators specialize in writing vague, pleasant-sounding laws that in effect delegate their lawmaking power to the federal bureaucracy. In other words, Congress writes a law demanding an ?end? and tells the bureaucracy to decide what ?means? will be necessary in order to achieve that end. In itself, this process is entirely unconstitutional due to its breach of the separation of powers doctrine. The federal bureaucracy is at least nominally a part of the executive branch, so when Congress allows an agency such as Health and Human Services to decide exactly how crucial components of bills such as ObamaCare will function, the power to make law shifts from the legislative to the executive branch.

This is a win-win for Congressmen. They get to claim the credit for passing a health care reform bill while passing off the blame for unpopular details like this contraception decision to the bureaucracy. Better yet, once the provisions of the bill are finally enacted, a new bureaucracy will be created or an existing one will expand dramatically. Citizens will undoubtedly get caught in the web of regulations spun by this bureaucracy, and they will then go to their Congressman for help cutting through the red tape. As a result, the Congressman not only receives credit for passing a pleasant-sounding law, but also gets to look like a hero to his constituents after confronting the bureaucracy on their behalf. He garners votes both ways.

Let?s examine the contraception controversy a little more carefully. It began soon after the January 20th decision from Health and Human Services that only churches and other houses of worship would be exempted from the new ObamaCare requirement that employee health care plans include contraceptives. The Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, has defended the mandate by arguing that because Catholic hospitals and universities usually aren?t primarily staffed by Catholics, that they ought to be treated like any other employer. Frankly, this argument completely misses the point.

At its heart, this is a debate over principles and the First Amendment to the Constitution. The relevant portion of the amendment is, ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.? In other words, people have the right to follow their conscience when it comes to religious matters. For the Catholic Church, contraceptives and other forms of birth control such as sterilization are very much so a moral matter and Catholic doctrine opposes their use. The ?free exercise? of religion is not limited to worshipping in a church. Following a doctrine or set of beliefs is integral to every faith and clearly falls under the ?free exercise? of religion.

Forcing Catholic employers to offer contraceptives as part of their employee health care plans fundamentally violates their First Amendment right to follow their conscience with regard to contraception. The popular liberal refrain to this argument is that many American Catholic women have used or at least condone the use of contraceptives, but is that really the point? First, the issue at hand is a mandate on employers to provide contraceptives, not a mandate on women to use them. Second, regardless of disagreements within the Church over contraception, Church doctrine still prohibits its use. Those who stray from doctrine on this issue can just go out and purchase contraceptives without a government mandate forcing their employers to violate their beliefs on the matter. This mandate is just another case of our intrusive federal government completely disregarding Constitutional restrictions on its power.

The blowback from this decision is powerful and coming from all over the country. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida wrote that, ?As Americans, we should all be appalled by an activist government so overbearing and so obsessed with forcing mandates on the American people that it forces such a choice on religious institutions.? Monsignor Robert McClory, the vicar-general of the Archdiocese of Detroit, is quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, ?It?s dangerous and threatening? We're being told to violate our conscience or be in violation of the law.?

Catholics understand that a dangerous precedent will be set if this decision goes by unchallenged. Even Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association and an important supporter of ObamaCare, called the decision a ?jolt?. Catholic doctrine teaches that life begins at conception, so for Catholics this ruling is no different than one that would require Catholic employers to provide for abortions in their employee health care plans. If those of us who believe in the free exercise of religion from federal government interference don?t protest this decision, regardless of whether or not we?re Catholic, then where do we draw the line?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney argues, "We need to make sure that those employees of all different faiths have access to contraception? That's why we sought what we believe is an appropriate balance." Given the choice between how to balance our right to the free exercise of religion against our ?right? to contraceptives, the Obama administration came down in favor of contraception. Contraceptives can be bought almost anywhere in the country at an affordable price. Our religious freedom is priceless and must be safeguarded.

The Obama administration and much of the Democratic party fundamentally do not understand this line of thinking. One senior aide to a Senate Democrat was quoted by Politico as commenting, ?Who are we going to really lose over this? Ron Paul voters? ?Catholics who don?t believe in condoms aren?t going to vote for Barack Obama anyway. Let?s get real.? In other words, it?s all about votes, not principle.

The controversy over this Obama administration mandate is a perfect example of why this system of legislative delegation works for politicians and not for the American people. Despotism lurks beneath the surface of a system that places the legislative power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats instead of our elected representatives. Over the coming years, there is little doubt that more decisions like this will come down from the Obama administration. The only true and lasting solution is to repeal ObamaCare and to replace it with clear, honest health care reform that places power in the hands of patients and their doctors instead of federal bureaucrats.
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 12:50 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
At its heart, this is a debate over principles and the First Amendment to the Constitution. The relevant portion of the amendment is, ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.? In other words, people have the right to follow their conscience when it comes to religious matters. For the Catholic Church, contraceptives and other forms of birth control such as sterilization are very much so a moral matter and Catholic doctrine opposes their use. The ?free exercise? of religion is not limited to worshipping in a church. Following a doctrine or set of beliefs is integral to every faith and clearly falls under the ?free exercise? of religion.
Sure. Because in this nation, when someone has a conscientious objection to employing Blacks, Irish, Women, or Jews, he is exempt from Equal Employment Opportunity mandates. Oh wait - No, he's not.

Nice try, but an employer DOES NOT have the right to "follow their conscience" and impose their version of morality on their employee.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.