|
How is it unconstitutional? I would be shocked if you can give any semblance of an explanation.
For the same reason the government has very limited rights in telling you as an individual what you can/can't do.
Do you understand what that means? You're arguing that if it was advantageous businesses would already be doing it. I'm telling you they can't because it would be illegal. That's what legislation is, it's in order to change the law so that they could do it.
Do you undersatnd what that means? Let me break it down for you in some words you might be able to understand. I'm telling you that you can't fucking read and are ignoring what I'm saying. There are ALREADY different levels of health coverage, pay, vacation time, perks, etc between different corporations between industries. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING. If it was advantageous for them to just cut these things, they would be hurting themselves because they would no longer attract the best employees. Since they want to make money, they SPEND MONEY to get the best employees.
Between two different school districts they have different health, dental, perscription, etc. Different pay scales, different vacation times, etc. The better school districts spend more money and get better teachers. This already exists in real life. Good teachers don't go to shitty schools.
|
On March 04 2012 04:18 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote:
Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them? What are you talking about?
Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs.
|
On March 04 2012 04:37 Bigtony wrote:
For the same reason the government has very limited rights in telling you as an individual what you can/can't do.
Specifically tell me what part of the constitution it violates. Something tells me you have absolutely no idea and just assumed it was unconstitutional.
Do you undersatnd what that means? Let me break it down for you in some words you might be able to understand. I'm telling you that you can't fucking read and are ignoring what I'm saying. There are ALREADY different levels of health coverage, pay, vacation time, perks, etc between different corporations between industries. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING.
Cupcake, you are so angry and lost. Take a couple of deep breaths and try to concentrate on what I'm telling you. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would allow any employer to deny coverage based on a 'moral objection'. That is the entire issue at hand, that is what all of us are discussing. Businesses are not currently denying in that way because they aren't able to, it would be illegal. Had the legislation passed they would be able to, but it didn't.
On March 04 2012 04:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 04:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote:
Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them? What are you talking about? Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs.
You're speaking about all other prescription drugs? A massive amount of them are also covered, it's not as if birth control is being given special status.
|
On March 04 2012 04:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Other than that, I dont really follow the debate, but religious views shouldnt have anything do with women's choices to keep or abort a fetus. That isn't the issue, the issue is compelling religious institutions to subsidize making recreational sex consequence-free. And compelling them to pay for medicine that causes an event they find morally abhorrent. Should insurance plans be compelled to pay for pornography for men? If you masturbate watching Big Butts Invasion 47 instead of having sex, you're also preventing unwanted pregnancies!
It's health insurance. Sex and pregnancy (or pregnancy prevention) are important aspects of health. My employer has absolutely no right to tell me what my health insurance should and should not cover. If my doctor thinks Bigg Butts Invasion 47 is what my life needs ---- then **** you, that's what the doctor recommended.
You guys claim health should be between "doctors and their patients". I heard that phrase in the debates ALL THE TIME, when they were discussing Obamacare. And yet you want to allow health insurances companies and every random employer in the country to be able to decide what health issues are "morally" acceptable for coverage? Why?
Keep it up Repubs. This issue seemed trite at first, but it's actually doing a great job of exposing the deep intellectual dishonesty that is so entrenched in the American right-wing. It's not okay for the government to get involved in your healthcare. But churches and employers want to deny their "flock" access to "immoral" health products that actually do a lot to save lives from hardship? Oh, that's just Capitalism and American Values at work.
|
On March 04 2012 04:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 04:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote:
Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them? What are you talking about? Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs.
No one is talking about "free" birth control, only that it be covered and offered in insurance plans. It isn't "free", you're paying for your insurance.
|
On March 03 2012 07:45 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:32 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 07:12 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:36 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:26 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote:
It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses. The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked. You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional. And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control? The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead. And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one. I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts. Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail? Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be. That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next. Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional. If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue. The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional? But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis. So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't. So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making. So, thanks, I guess. A law may be unconstitutional even before the judicial system agrees it is.. It's like saying someone isn't pregnant before they go to the doctor and prove they are pregnant... If no one points out laws are unconstitutional then they will never be heard by the supreme court in the first place and unconstitutional laws will be forced onto the people. The Blunt Amendment was trying to fix the constitutionality of the bill before it was heard by the judicial system. It's a matter of morals, someone who willingly tries to pass an unconstitutional law to see if it will go through has no right to be a legislator. Just throw a ton of BS laws and see what sticks is what is ruining this country. It is wasting time and it is taking away peoples rights given to them by the constitution when they actually to make it through.
So after all of your snide insults yesterday, this is where you end up? So actually Congress can decide what is constitutional -- glad we agree on that finally.
I bolded the important part, because despite all your apparent reverence for the constitution, it seems to me that ultimately this is a moral issue to you, and to the Republicans. I do not believe for a second that someone looking for things unconstitutional in this country would come up with this issue.
|
Cupcake, you are so angry and lost. Take a couple of deep breaths and try to concentrate on what I'm telling you. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would allow any employer to deny coverage based on a 'moral objection'. That is the entire issue at hand, that is what all of us are discussing. Businesses are not currently denying in that way because they aren't able to, it would be illegal. Had the legislation passed they would be able to, but it didn't.
Once again, just completely not understanding what I'm saying.
Let's try once more:
1. there are already differences between the coverage offered between companies.
2. If this change did happen AND companies started to make these kinds of objections, they would lose access to valuable talent.
3. This would hurt them
4. Therefore, this situation you imagine, where employers arbitrarily deny parts of coveraged just to save money, would not happen.
Like are you just trolling or you actually unable to undertand this concept?
|
On March 04 2012 04:59 Bigtony wrote:
If this change did happen AND companies started to make these kinds of objections, they would lose access to valuable talent.
And where would that talent go? To another business that also doesn't provide the coverage? We've been over this many times but once more can't hurt:
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
Therefore, this situation you imagine, where employers arbitrarily deny parts of coveraged just to save money, would not happen.
It's not arbitrary at all, it's extremely simple. The business could claim a moral objection to coverage that they were previously forced to fund. Thus they would be saving a massive amount of money.
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
|
On March 04 2012 04:59 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +Cupcake, you are so angry and lost. Take a couple of deep breaths and try to concentrate on what I'm telling you. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would allow any employer to deny coverage based on a 'moral objection'. That is the entire issue at hand, that is what all of us are discussing. Businesses are not currently denying in that way because they aren't able to, it would be illegal. Had the legislation passed they would be able to, but it didn't. Once again, just completely not understanding what I'm saying. Let's try once more: 1. there are already differences between the coverage offered between companies. 2. If this change did happen AND companies started to make these kinds of objections, they would lose access to valuable talent. 3. This would hurt them 4. Therefore, this situation you imagine, where employers arbitrarily deny parts of coveraged just to save money, would not happen. Like are you just trolling or you actually unable to undertand this concept?
I understand what you are saying, but in a country where employment isnt 100%, there are going to be others there to fill the role of those that couldnt take the job because of the health benefit issues. If an employer says they dont want to cover oral contraception, then all that does is eliminate females who need that and then a male or a post-monopausal woman could get the job. So yes they would maybe miss out on some high quality employees, but there would still be others to fill their role. This would just put some groups at a disadvantage in an employment market that isnt great to begin with.
|
I'm fine with religious institutions being able to deny coverage based on moral grounds because of separation of church and state.
But, all institutions cannot not do this. If I read correctly, it would allow them to say a big fuck you to anyone just because of their morals. I think that government needs some regulation in businesses or else they can really harm the people.
|
On March 04 2012 04:49 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 04:44 cLutZ wrote:On March 04 2012 04:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote:
Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them? What are you talking about? Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs. No one is talking about "free" birth control, only that it be covered and offered in insurance plans. It isn't "free", you're paying for your insurance.
You pay for coverage of statins as well, but the federal government isn't mandating that all plans cover statins without a deductible.
Also, the plans that are being debated are employer-provided plans where your employer pays for the insurance, this is because the tax code is written so you can get a really nice healthcare plan without you having to pay taxes on it that way and the employer deducts the cost just like it was wages.
|
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap
While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this.
Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex
This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
|
We need a universal health care system...
|
On March 04 2012 05:24 Housemd wrote:
I'm fine with religious institutions being able to deny coverage based on moral grounds because of separation of church and state.
But, all institutions cannot not do this. If I read correctly, it would allow them to say a big fuck you to anyone just because of their morals. I think that government needs some regulation in businesses or else they can really harm the people.
It's a slippery slope. I'm surprised more people aren't concerned by the precedent this sets.
|
|
|
man, i was hoping that he would continue to stay on that track as a possibility of getting him off the radio for good. Apparently, advertisers are still upset though.
|
On March 04 2012 10:01 LittleAtari wrote:man, i was hoping that he would continue to stay on that track as a possibility of getting him off the radio for good. Apparently, advertisers are still upset though.
Thank god the free(advertising)market he praises so much came to take his toll, and call him out on his BS by denying him cash.
|
On March 04 2012 05:08 Silvertine wrote:
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
Please familiarize yourself with it.
|
On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 05:08 Silvertine wrote:
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick. Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it. In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around. It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere. Please familiarize yourself with it.
How it currently works:
There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company).
http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/basics.html
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2012 10:55 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:On March 04 2012 05:08 Silvertine wrote:
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick. Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it. In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around. It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere. Please familiarize yourself with it. How it currently works: Show nested quote +There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company). http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/basics.html
Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
