American Politics

[skauble]

I don't think you can include gays in that statement given his own history and current platform. Granted, I'm suspicious on claims that the focus will really be jobs. After all, the party platform was Jobs, Jobs, Jobs in 2010 when so many congressional seats turned over, and in reality, we got 2000+ anti-abortion bills.

Running for president really doesn't suit Romney, IMO, because his views on most things, including gay rights, is generally more moderate than when he tries to toe the party line. Although, I don't think that anyone's orientation is the government's business, so his views are still too restrictive for me, but for a Republican, and a strongly religious one, his views were more liberal than one would expect. So I would guess that he actually does think he can make the country better for gay people, too.

 

But I totally agree with you on the abortion thing. I'm surprised every time they seemed so shocked that people believe there's a war on women.

 

ETA:

 

My personal take on this is, this is not fair for an employer to have to pay for someones's carelessness if they get pregnant. This is not a DISEASE. This is a choice that each one of us have, male and female to have sex, with protection or no protection. You should be responsible for your own action, do not blame someone else for your mistake. Even if you were taking precautions, you still know it can fail and you can get pregnant. Why should anyone other than the two parties who chose to have sex, fix this!!!

 

I also feel it is not fair for the government to "to violate their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines, penalties and lawsuits," on their view on sex

 

This is one law that should have been thrown out of Obama Care for sure. Sex is not a neccessary thing one has to have. Sex is something you choose to have for whatever reasons you choose.

 

I have heard many times on this forum, we should respect others religion.

 

So do we let religions choose everything they think that they shouldn't cover or just this one thing?

Edited September 21, 2012 by skauble

[~Kat~]

Everyone should have a right to choose whether or not to take birth control pills. So I personally believe every pharmacy should have them in stock. This whole religious based stuff is getting very old. Not everyone is religious and people should start accepting that. The bible talks about love and acceptance yet many don't do that.

I agree with you on birth control pills, but I do not feel it is an employer that should have to pay for it.

 

Yes, some are religious and some people are not. Again, I guess that is another choice we all make.

Edited September 21, 2012 by ~Kat~

[~Kat~]

So do we let religions choose everything they think that they shouldn't cover or just this one thing?

 

I can not answer that right now, as I do not know what all is in Obama Care. I guess as things surface, then I will know how I feel,

[demonicvampiregirl]

I agree with you on birth control pills, but I do not feel it is an employer that should have to pay for it.

 

Yes, some are religious and some people are not. Again, I guess that is another choice we all make.

Religion should be kept out of everything besides your personal life. Business, politics, marriage ect. it should not have any religion in it period.

 

You run a business supply what people need don't hold back because of a religious view.

 

Run for a political position keep your religion out of it. We shouldn't base a countries future on religion.

 

If you're straight, bi, lesbian, gay who cares, let them have every right a normal person does not one that is selective based on a religion.

[TikindiDragon]

Hobby Lobby Lawsuit Over Obamacare Morning After Pill Mandate Sparks Backlash [uPDATE]

 

Earlier this month, the Oklahoma City-based crafts retail chain Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit claiming the Affordable Care Act's mandate to cover the costs of the morning after pill for employees is forcing the company's owners "to violate their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines, penalties and lawsuits." Religious supporters and faith-based organizations may agree with the self-described "biblically-based” company’s complaint, but the lawsuit has sparked a backlash among others, according to Fox News.

 

But Hobby Lobby, which stands to lose $1.3 million daily in fines if it does not provide the contraception coverage, according to the lawsuit, has supporters. Many fans have praised the company on its Facebook page with posts reading, “I support Hobby Lobby,” while a separate “Boycott boycotters of Hobby Lobby” page garnered around 213 “likes” just 18 hours after it was made.

 

Hobby Lobby isn't the first company to fight back against Obamacare’s morning after pill coverage mandate on religious grounds. Catholic owners of Denver-based Hercules Industries won a temporary court injunction over the summer, which held the company wasn’t required to uphold the mandate, according to Fox News. Likewise, Catholic churches across the country have protested the Obamacare provision, urging parishioners to appeal to Washington directly.

 

Twenty-seven lawsuits against various provisions of Obamacare are currently pending, according to the Chicago Tribune.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/h...26pLid%3D208927

 

My personal take on this is, this is not fair for an employer to have to pay for someones's carelessness if they get pregnant. This is not a DISEASE. This is a choice that each one of us have, male and female to have sex, with protection or no protection. You should be responsible for your own action, do not blame someone else for your mistake. Even if you were taking precautions, you still know it can fail and you can get pregnant. Why should anyone other than the two parties who chose to have sex, fix this!!!

 

I also feel it is not fair for the government to "to violate their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines, penalties and lawsuits," on their view on sex

 

This is one law that should have been thrown out of Obama Care for sure. Sex is not a neccessary thing one has to have. Sex is something you choose to have for whatever reasons you choose.

 

I have heard many times on this forum, we should respect others religion.

Now, see, this right here is a good argument for a Universal Health Care system. Because if no one needed health insurance from their employers then no employer would have to worry about coverage for what their employees do in their private time.

 

Because, funnily enough, I don't support forcing religious based organisations to do things that go against their morals. That fact that this whole thing is even an argument says more, to me, about how broken the American health care system is more than anything else.

[~Kat~]

Religion should be kept out of everything besides your personal life. Business, politics, marriage ect. it should not have any religion in it period.

 

You run a business supply what people need don't hold back because of a religious view.

 

Run for a political position keep your religion out of it. We shouldn't base a countries future on religion.

 

If you're straight, bi, lesbian, gay who cares, let them have every right a normal person does not one that is selective based on a religion.

I can agree if you are if you're straight, bi, lesbian or gay, it should have nothing to do with you getting a job or much else.

 

But, an employer should not have to pay for anyones birth control, the morning after pill, or anything to do with your sexual pleasure is what ticks me off with Obama Care.

[demonicvampiregirl]

I can agree if you are if you're straight, bi, lesbian or gay, it should have nothing to do with you getting a job or much else.

 

But, an employer should not have to pay for anyones birth control, the morning after pill, or anything to do with your sexual pleasure is what ticks me off with Obama Care.

The thing is unless we get a health care system in that supports everyone and no employer needs to provide one we need things like Obama Care.

[KageSora]

But, an employer should not have to pay for anyones birth control, the morning after pill, or anything to do with your sexual pleasure is what ticks me off with Obama Care.

Aaaaand what about those who use birth control for medical reasons, completely unrelated to sex?

[skauble]

Just wated to mention that the morning after pill is emergency birth control, it's not an abortion pill.

 

Also, there are a lot of things that religions don't believe in. Should they be exempt from paying for any care related to those things?

[PointOfOrigin]

Lot of women take birth control for medical reasons.

 

My personal take on this is, this is not fair for an employer to have to pay for someones's carelessness if they get pregnant. This is not a DISEASE. This is a choice that each one of us have, male and female to have sex, with protection or no protection.

 

Getting pills isn't being careless - it's taking precaution and being responsible.

 

Religious freedom is human right, and no country should favor one religion over another.

[Vhale]

I agree with you on birth control pills, but I do not feel it is an employer that should have to pay for it.

 

Yes, some are religious and some people are not. Again, I guess that is another choice we all make.

In every job I've worked health insurance fees are taken out of my paycheck. This isn't all one-sided. This is something the workers themselves are paying for too. They ARE paying for it. It's their bodies. My place of work has no business deciding what care I get.

[TikindiDragon]

But, an employer should not have to pay for anyones birth control, the morning after pill, or anything to do with your sexual pleasure is what ticks me off with Obama Care.

I still can't understand why you guys think an employer should be paying to keep you healthy at all.

[brairtrainer]

I can agree if you are if you're straight, bi, lesbian or gay, it should have nothing to do with you getting a job or much else.

 

But, an employer should not have to pay for anyones birth control, the morning after pill, or anything to do with your sexual pleasure is what ticks me off with Obama Care.

Like KageSora what about people who use BC for a medical reason?

 

My sister has high testosterone and for a while was on BC to try and adjust the hormone levels in her body. The BC in question was expensive (despite being a generic version of a name brand) because of how powerful it was. My family would have had a difficult time paying for it and financing for me to go to school. My dad's health care covered the BC, should that be taken away from girls who can't lose weight to get their BMI to a healthy level because they can't pay for it?

 

I also had a friend who was on BC because without it she was extremely mood, irritable, and her flow was heavy. My friend would not be able to pay for BC on her own because of her family's situation. Should she be denied BC?

[demonicvampiregirl]

I still can't understand why you guys think an employer should be paying to keep you healthy at all.

Because right now it's the only option a lot have.

[Vhale]

It does help a lot to hear from other countries about how their health care works. Most of the time people get caught up in the politics of it all. But being able to say, I know someone that got open heart surgery for 500$. That hits home fast. I really appreciate people sharing those stories.

[skauble]

So, Mitt released a tax return and it showed he paid around 14%. A while back he said the following about his taxes:

 

“I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”

 

So if Mitt thinks that it would be foolish and fiscally irresponsible to pay something the law didn't require, why did he say that the 47% of people, who weren't paying anything because that's what the law said they owed, believed they were entitled and could never be convinced to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives”?

 

Instead of all of that frowny facing, you think that he'd be happy that 47% of Americans are qualified to be president.

 

Glass half full, Mitt!

[WereJace]

It does help a lot to hear from other countries about how their health care works. Most of the time people get caught up in the politics of it all. But being able to say, I know someone that got open heart surgery for 500$. That hits home fast. I really appreciate people sharing those stories.

Plural of Anecdote is a great site that contrasts stories from American patients with others around the world, including their treatment, wait time and their cost.

[~Kat~]

When I was taking BC pills, no one paid for mine either, but I am not complaining because I had to pay for mine.

[WereJace]

When I was taking BC pills, no one paid for mine either, but I am not complaining because I had to pay for mine.

Aren't they already paying for their BC, though? Isn't that why there's a payroll deduction for insurance?

[skauble]

When I was taking BC pills, no one paid for mine either, but I am not complaining because I had to pay for mine.

Of course, by that logic, the business suing about Obamacare shouldn't do so because there are other business that pay for birth control pills and they don't complain.

[~Kat~]

Of course, by that logic, the business suing about Obamacare shouldn't do so because there are other business that pay for birth control pills and they don't complain.

Well, personally, I think those who use birth control, need to pay for it themselves. Should companies help to pay for anything we enjoy doing on our own time?

[Vhale]

Then why is the argument about Birth Control and not Viagra?

 

Also, does that mean conjugal visits should be illegal to those in prison? I'd be especially interested in that for those few bankers that are locked up. Yes I would. And yes, I am biased.

[~Kat~]

Then why is the argument about Birth Control and not Viagra?

 

Also, does that mean conjugal visits should be illegal to those in prison? I'd be especially interested in that for those few bankers that are locked up. Yes I would. And yes, I am biased.

Why should prisoners get those kind of rights ... no they should not. They messed up in society, and now they are paying for their crimes.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ~Kat~

[demonicvampiregirl]

Why should prsioners get those kind of rights ... no they should not. They messed up in society, and now they are paying for their crimes.

Murderers, rapists and people like that shouldn't have any rights. They caused harm to human beings.

 

People who were sentenced for fraud or something like that that is minor they should still have rights. They are still human as greedy as they are.

 

(If anyone asks no I don't consider murderer, rapists or anything of that sort human. They are sick in my eyes. I don't see how someone can murder another.)

[brairtrainer]

~Kat ~ you still didn't answer whether BC for other issues should be covered. If it should but the main reason is not covered than it requires a lot of fighting to get it.