Why is birth control coverage such a contentious subject? (salaries, Reagan, solutions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like every couple weeks, I'm getting an e-mail from Planned Parenthood about the ongoing battle to get birth control covered in health plans. Why? What is the big deal about covering the pill?
Because Rush "I'm a good drug addict" Limpbutt says it is.
No, it's not. The owners are separate from the business. For instance, the business can be sold. Owners can't be sold. When the owner incorporates that business, he is legally severing himself from the business. So, if the business sells defective merchandise, and a customer sues the business, that customer can't sue the owner. The owner protects his assets by severing his relationship with the business. The owner cannot legally assert his relationship with the business when it suits him, and deny that relationship with the business when it suits him. He makes a decision, that the business is separate, and that means the business is a separate entity. So the question is which church does the business go to. And the answer is none. The business, a thing, doesn't have a religion, doesn't go to church.
So even after posting the above three times, people can't understand.
Or do they choose not to.
Because Rush "I'm a good drug addict" Limpbutt says it is.
And all the sheep go baaaa.
Can't you lefties ever discuss anything without the insults? I am not a fan of Rush but is that really necessary? I am sure there are plenty of sheeple on the left also.
Because many religions including catholics want to force you to do as they do in Rome
Yes, this is the reason. The reason BC gets coverage is because it's ridiculous that religion still tries to play such a large part in our society and our government. Slowly but surely our society will push the religious head out of the way and proceed with the morals that America actually possesses based on our conduct, not beliefs. The rules based on equality and the constitutional right of equality free from religious input.
Our funding is not based on individual morals or I wouldn't be funding the heart medication needed because someone ate to many Micky D sandwiches. We pay for all, or we pay for none. We are governed. We are seen equally regardless of religion. The pope doesn't run America. Get over it. IMO, of course.
I've just addressed the same issue on gay marriage. People of certain religious beliefs need to re-read the constitution of the United States. IMO. You don't rule America, only try.
Can't you lefties ever discuss anything without the insults?
Ironic statement. insults fly from both sides.
Quote:
I am sure there are plenty of sheeple on the left also.
Sure, there are. Politics are all about who's on what team.
Quote:
I am not a fan of Rush but is that really necessary?
Rush made it an issue with his "****" remark. The conservatives took that and ran with it, making the entire issue about lifestyle.
Simply stated, you can't have it both ways. You either have accessible birth control covered by insurance or you have rising abortion rates or babies in the welfare system.
I thought the controversy was that certain religious groups had their knickers in a wad because insurance companies were covering BC prescriptions and BC was against their moral high ground.
My insurance package covers BC with a co-pay like any other prescription. I believe most insurance does.
So the question is should our private employers be permitted to decide what our insurance package covers based on their personal beliefs. Should they be able to omit particular prescriptions or medical conditions from everyone’s coverage?
On one hand employers pay ½ of the premium as a benefit.
On the other hand, with Obamacare, they will be required by federal law to provide insurance coverage. If every individual is required by federal law to be covered by health insurance then all health insurance should cover all prescriptions.
I thought the controversy was that certain religious groups had their knickers in a wad because insurance companies were covering BC prescriptions and BC was against their moral high ground.
It started out that way, then people made it about the woman's lifestyle.
Quote:
So the question is should our private employers be permitted to decide what our insurance package covers based on their personal beliefs. Should they be able to omit particular prescriptions or medical conditions from everyone’s coverage?
Good question, but I don't think you can pick and choose what prescriptions that are covered.
Quote:
On one hand employers pay ½ of the premium as a benefit.
On the other hand, with Obamacare, they will be required by federal law to provide insurance coverage. If every individual is required by federal law to be covered by health insurance then all health insurance should cover all prescriptions.
Only those with 50+ full time employees are mandated to have health insurance for their employees, and they were always mandated to do so. That didn't start with Obamacare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
