ObamaCare loses to Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

And now from "Great Moments in Rhetorical Overreaction" I give you Mike Kelly.

"I know in your mind, you can think of the times America was attacked," he said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "One is Dec. 7, that's Pearl Harbor Day. The other is Sept. 11, and that's the day the terrorists attacked. I want you to remember Aug. 1, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

Yes, Alex, I'll take "Completely irrelevant statements" for 200.

[Ixzara]

Are they really serious about this??? Let me start off by saying I'm glad I don't live in USA.

But let me also ask, isn't contraception kinda non-optional in any form of insurance packages? Even from what I understand, if a woman has medicaid, after her 2nd or 3rd child is born she is required to get her tubes tied. I'm not sure what the stance on private insurance companies are, and better I not pretend to know.

[Neo Art]

What's the point? I'm saying that people can't control everything, but what they can control they should. If Bob owns a business, Bob does not get to decide govt. budgets, he get's to decide what happens at Bob's business.

If Bob wants to open his business in the wildnerness, produce his entire supply and distribution networks solely on his property, and get paid in goats and chickens and shiny rocks, then fine, Bob can do what he wants, free of governmental intervention.

But if Bob wants to to ensure that the people who build his storefront comply with safety regulations, if Bob wants to have his heat, hot water, electricity and natural gas lines hooked up to public utilities, if Bob wants his supplies to also meet safety standards, if Bob wants those supplies delivered to his store on public roads, if Bob wants to have his contracts with his supplies, distributors, and associates supported by the court system, if Bob wants to have his store's reputation protected by intellectual property laws, if Bob wants to have his property protected against fire, theft and natural disasters by the police and fire departments, if Bob wants to conduct business with governmentally backed and supported legal tender, then Bob can suck it the fuck up.

[Wikkiwallana]

Except that with regular contraceptive use, neither of those would be happening at anything near the same frequency as under a celibacy plan. Thus, they are part of the costs of celibacy and subject to your "ten million times the costs" policy.

Insurance does not distinguish between rape pregnancy, and you keep ignoring the "one pill a month" compromise offered.

Oh shiz, my interpretation that was easy to argue against is wrong. Now I have to argue against the real point! Funny, that sounds a lot different from what you were saying when you originally made the claim. Almost as if you got called on your bullshit and don't want to admit it.

Fixed.

Interesting, from someone who shouts "strawman" all the time.

And I addressed that point, stop lying:

I already gave you the compromise where Catholics pay for one pill the woman uses after each ovulation to prevent the empty follicle.

They have already demonstrated unwillingness to give them to women who need them due to high risks of cysts, so I don't see them being willing to give them to women at only average risk.

[Libertas Liber]

Harming people? An employer does not want to offer contraception to their employees, that is not "because you work for me you can't use contraception."

No it is saying you know that service that you also pay into and recieve in exchange for your labor? Yeah, despite that all you cannot make your own decision on what you want.

Unless, the Catholic is paying the entire thing they have no right to demand that the employee's share not cover their needs.

Maybe then they should drop coverage and just pay out the benefits they would have received in cash and people can get their own coverage. Oh, wait, if your a small Catholic business with a certain amount of employees then that's illegal now (or will be when that kicks in).

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

if a woman has medicaid, after her 2nd or 3rd child is born she is required to get her tubes tied.

Because of course, when the government pays for your insurance, they can say what procedures you must have. But when religion pays for your service, bar the door and get the shotgun if they don't pay for exactly the treatment you want.

[Wikkiwallana]

And now from "Great Moments in Rhetorical Overreaction" I give you Mike Kelly.

Yes, Alex, I'll take "Completely irrelevant statements" for 200.

It's an interesting news item related to the topic at hand. We do that here.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

They have already demonstrated unwillingness to give them to women who need them due to high risks of cysts, so I don't see them being willing to give them to women at only average risk.

Sources. I wantz them.

[Libertas Liber]

What's the point? I'm saying that people can't control everything, but what they can control they should. If Bob owns a business, Bob does not get to decide govt. budgets, he get's to decide what happens at Bob's business.

If Bob wants to open his business in the wildnerness, produce his entire supply and distribution networks solely on his property, and get paid in goats and chickens and shiny rocks, then fine, Bob can do what he wants, free of governmental intervention.

But if Bob wants to to ensure that the people who build his storefront comply with safety regulations, if Bob wants to have his heat, hot water, electricity and natural gas lines hooked up to public utilities, if Bob wants his supplies to also meet safety standards, if Bob wants those supplies delivered to his store on public roads, if Bob wants to have his contracts with his supplies, distributors, and associates supported by the court system, if Bob wants to have his store's reputation protected by intellectual property laws, if Bob wants to have his property protected against fire, theft and natural disasters by the police and fire departments, if Bob wants to conduct business with governmentally backed and supported legal tender, then Bob can suck it the fuck up.

The government does not pay Bob. Bob pays the government. It's like walking into a restaurant, paying for a meal, then asking the waiter, "Can you turn the heat up? It's a bit cold in here." And the waiter responding, "What did you just say to me?!"

[Ixzara]

if a woman has medicaid, after her 2nd or 3rd child is born she is required to get her tubes tied.

Because of course, when the government pays for your insurance, they can say what procedures you must have. But when religion pays for your service, bar the door and get the shotgun if they don't pay for exactly the treatment you want.

So what would the private sector have to do with the issue? From what I know from my times in the USA (About 2 maybe 3 weeks of visiting a year), I would think that the private sector would also want you to get some sort of contraceptives, regardless of your employers opinion, to save themselves some money.

[TomKirk]

They have already demonstrated unwillingness to give them to women who need them due to high risks of cysts, so I don't see them being willing to give them to women at only average risk.

Sources. I wantz them.

Because there was not a peep about it in the media.

[Wikkiwallana]

What's the point? I'm saying that people can't control everything, but what they can control they should. If Bob owns a business, Bob does not get to decide govt. budgets, he get's to decide what happens at Bob's business.

If Bob wants to open his business in the wildnerness, produce his entire supply and distribution networks solely on his property, and get paid in goats and chickens and shiny rocks, then fine, Bob can do what he wants, free of governmental intervention.

But if Bob wants to to ensure that the people who build his storefront comply with safety regulations, if Bob wants to have his heat, hot water, electricity and natural gas lines hooked up to public utilities, if Bob wants his supplies to also meet safety standards, if Bob wants those supplies delivered to his store on public roads, if Bob wants to have his contracts with his supplies, distributors, and associates supported by the court system, if Bob wants to have his store's reputation protected by intellectual property laws, if Bob wants to have his property protected against fire, theft and natural disasters by the police and fire departments, if Bob wants to conduct business with governmentally backed and supported legal tender, then Bob can suck it the fuck up.

You are so awesome.

[Samuraikoku]

If Bob wants to open his business in the wildnerness, produce his entire supply and distribution networks solely on his property, and get paid in goats and chickens and shiny rocks, then fine, Bob can do what he wants, free of governmental intervention.

But if Bob wants to to ensure that the people who build his storefront comply with safety regulations, if Bob wants to have his heat, hot water, electricity and natural gas lines hooked up to public utilities, if Bob wants his supplies to also meet safety standards, if Bob wants those supplies delivered to his store on public roads, if Bob wants to have his contracts with his supplies, distributors, and associates supported by the court system, if Bob wants to have his store's reputation protected by intellectual property laws, if Bob wants to have his property protected against fire, theft and natural disasters by the police and fire departments, if Bob wants to conduct business with governmentally backed and supported legal tender, then Bob can suck it the fuck up.

The government does not pay Bob. Bob pays the government. It's like walking into a restaurant, paying for a meal, then asking the waiter, "Can you turn the heat up? It's a bit cold in here." And the waiter responding, "What did you just say to me?!"

Since public services aren't akin to going to a restaurant (you don't decide on what you pay for), your analogy is flawed.

[Wikkiwallana]

Sources. I wantz them.

Because there was not a peep about it in the media.

Gracias.

[Revolutopia]

No it is saying you know that service that you also pay into and recieve in exchange for your labor? Yeah, despite that all you cannot make your own decision on what you want.

Unless, the Catholic is paying the entire thing they have no right to demand that the employee's share not cover their needs.

Maybe then they should drop coverage and just pay out the benefits they would have received in cash and people can get their own coverage. Oh, wait, if your a small Catholic business with a certain amount of employees then that's illegal now (or will be when that kicks in).

Pretty sure you just have to pay a fine, thus they can have that option.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Sources. I wantz them.

Because there was not a peep about it in the media.

Rush Limbaugh does not speak for the Catholic Church. He's a methodist. Good try though.

[Libertas Liber]

The government does not pay Bob. Bob pays the government. It's like walking into a restaurant, paying for a meal, then asking the waiter, "Can you turn the heat up? It's a bit cold in here." And the waiter responding, "What did you just say to me?!"

Since public services aren't akin to going to a restaurant (you don't decide on what you pay for), your analogy is flawed.

The government provides a service because Bob and other like him (but not solely him) because they pay taxes. Govt. does not just offer these things to Bob. Bob did not make his success because of the govt., the govt. is there because of him.

[Revolutopia]

Because there was not a peep about it in the media.

Rush Limbaugh does not speak for the Catholic Church. He's a methodist. Good try though.

Actually read the context of the article.

[Libertas Liber]

Maybe then they should drop coverage and just pay out the benefits they would have received in cash and people can get their own coverage. Oh, wait, if your a small Catholic business with a certain amount of employees then that's illegal now (or will be when that kicks in).

Pretty sure you just have to pay a fine, thus they can have that option.

Historically, fines are deterrents and not options. It is unlikely it will be "affordable" for a company of at least small-medium size to do that.

[Samuraikoku]

The government provides a service because Bob and other like him (but not solely him) because they pay taxes. Govt. does not just offer these things to Bob. Bob did not make his success because of the govt., the govt. is there because of him.

Yes, and how does that contradict my point? Did Bob decide on what he wanted to pay for?

[Neo Art]

The government does not pay Bob. Bob pays the government. It's like walking into a restaurant, paying for a meal, then asking the waiter, "Can you turn the heat up? It's a bit cold in here." And the waiter responding, "What did you just say to me?!"

Since I'm utterly at a loss as to what in hell you're trying to say, I can't even really respond to it. It's not like I even disagree with your point, it's that I truly can not fathom what it is.

it's like you took two incongruent ideas and mashed them together in one sentence.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

What's the point? I'm saying that people can't control everything, but what they can control they should. If Bob owns a business, Bob does not get to decide govt. budgets, he get's to decide what happens at Bob's business.

If Bob wants to open his business in the wildnerness, produce his entire supply and distribution networks solely on his property, and get paid in goats and chickens and shiny rocks, then fine, Bob can do what he wants, free of governmental intervention.

But if Bob wants to to ensure that the people who build his storefront comply with safety regulations, if Bob wants to have his heat, hot water, electricity and natural gas lines hooked up to public utilities, if Bob wants his supplies to also meet safety standards, if Bob wants those supplies delivered to his store on public roads, if Bob wants to have his contracts with his supplies, distributors, and associates supported by the court system, if Bob wants to have his store's reputation protected by intellectual property laws, if Bob wants to have his property protected against fire, theft and natural disasters by the police and fire departments, if Bob wants to conduct business with governmentally backed and supported legal tender, then Bob can suck it the fuck up.

And when Bob pays taxes, he pays for all those things. His debt to the government, which does not exist, is furthermore discredited by the fact he pays for those things and pays for lazy dolts to sit on their butts. Furthermore, his business and other businesses are the reason those roads exist. Furthermore, Bob does not need the government to make his products safe. If Bob does not make safe products and people value safety, nobody will buy his products.

[Wikkiwallana]

Because there was not a peep about it in the media.

Rush Limbaugh does not speak for the Catholic Church. He's a methodist. Good try though.

She then shared the stories of friends affected by such policies, citing a friend with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fluke said this friend needed contraceptive hormones costing over $100 per month to treat this disease, and that while PcOS was "covered by Georgetown insurance", the insurance company repeatedly denied contraceptives, because they suspected the purpose of the medication was contraception.[16][17][18]

[Libertas Liber]

The government provides a service because Bob and other like him (but not solely him) because they pay taxes. Govt. does not just offer these things to Bob. Bob did not make his success because of the govt., the govt. is there because of him.

Yes, and how does that contradict my point? Did Bob decide on what he wanted to pay for?

That wasn't the point of my argument. The point was is that Bob pays for services the govt. provides. He may not decide that the govt. protects his companies intellectual property (though I'm sure he wants it), but the point is, is that he pays for that. The poster I was addressing was somehow insinuating that the govt. merely provides these services to Bob and Bob owes them, not the other way around.

[TomKirk]

Because there was not a peep about it in the media.

Rush Limbaugh does not speak for the Catholic Church. He's a methodist. Good try though.

Sigh... you were demanding a source for the well-known, indeed notorious, fact that Georgetown University refused coverage for hormonal treatments to a woman suffering ovarian cysts. It made the papers and everything.