What all this boils down too is the government will eventually control everyone, everything and be everywhere. Can you say "China"?

This insurance is provided by the owners of Hobby Lobby for their employees. That should give them the right to do anything they choose. And since you also insist on the separation of Church and State, then you can't have it both ways and insist the State can force things upon the Church.

George Wilson wrote on
10:33 am on Tuesday, November 20, 2012:

"No, this insurance is for the employees not to fulfill the belief system of the owners of Hobby Lobby.This also should apply to churches and religious institutions as well."

Amen!

The government offered deferred service or conscientious objector status concerning MILITARY service, it therefore CAN and SHOULD offered exemptions to religious based organizations or BUSINESSES.

Sorry SEPARATION of church and state means both that the state will not sponsor NOR interfere with the exercise thereof. Putting GOVERNMENT on the throne as a religion itself INTERFERES in the exercise of the religion of OTHERS.

Or should Hobby Lobby just CLOSE and forward all its current workers to the various Dept of Labor offices?

Its Twinkie time in the country...

Okay Tammy, how does the constitution support killing unborn children?

Tammy...
Care to cite the "conscience clause" in the Constitution for me?

FWIW Hobby Lobby is NOT a "religious business" , they sell cheap Chinese garbage to people...The owners supernatural beliefs cannot be imposed upon his employees , their medical treatment is none of his business. The judge got this one right

If the owners are FORCING beliefs on anyone, those feeling FORCED can certainly personally choose to terminate the employee relationship and go elsewhere…

Should these stores be forced to support covering everything? Bibles - Family Christian Stores
www.familychristian.com/bibles.html

Conscience? Congress? obama? Now that's what I call an oximorn!

Thanks for clearing that up, Tammy. Sorry I missed your point the first time. Actually, later yesterday, when I was thinking about your comment, it did occur to me that you were being sarcastic.

IMPEACH obama bin lyin!

Its sad that you other people to pay for someone's health care.

A majority of American elected Obama twice!.. and he done nothing that is impeachable.. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached.

Jack, get off your high horse. Women CAN control THEIR bodies. No one is saying differently. They control who and when they have sex. They control what birth control they can take to prevent pregnancy. What you ignore is that a pregnancy involves TWO bodies. People with morals understand you can't kill another body just because you are provided stewardship over that body. A woman can control her body but she shouldn't be allowed to kill another body (except of course in self-defense); no matter where that other person is located. Legal or not, abortion is killing your own child.

Very good distinction Chris. Legal vs. Moral. Legally, the Supreme Court has determined there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a person from killing an unborn child. (A point settled almost 40 years ago although the liberals keep harping on it constantly.) But does that make it morally right? No religious connection, just moral values. How hard hearted does a person have to be to go through life knowing they killed a baby? I couldn't do it.

And for Jack, why does a company have to be agnostic about anything. There is no separation of church and business statutes in the Constitution. Many businesses are built on a persons faith. They don't have to stop being faithful now that the business is a reality. As a working husband that provides for your family, would you stop being faithful to your wife at the office? Bad question, anyone that can morally accept killing a baby probably has no morals when it comes to being faithful in a marriage.

Women don't have to obtain permission from insurance companies or Congress to purchase oral contraceptives now. Stop by any college infirmary and get a prescription, no questions asked. Ask your primary care physician or your gynecologist. Your statement is just for inflammatory purposes.

As for costs, OTC usually doesn't change prices of branded drugs significantly but opens the market for generic brands which does provide lower cost options.

Mr. B. I said, "obtain permission <or> insurance coverage from their employers, their insurance companies or Congress". Read that as permission from <doctors>, now required, to purchase the meds. I realize my error in not including the word doctors, but I doubt that would have made a difference in your comprehension. The rest of the sentence stands alone, "insurance coverage from . . . " I included Congress because of the many bills wastefully put forth in their theatre this year to restrict or outlaw oral contraceptives. Also, this activity has occurred in many state legislatures recently. That's why liberals are still talking about Roe v Wade, as it has been an acute and chronic R wedge issue.

It's settled. If something is constitutional, it can't be unconstitutional unless an amendment is added.

And a doctors permission is not needed for oral contraceptives. The morning after pill is available at pharmacies without a prescription. And daily dosed oral contraceptives are available at any campus infirmary.

Mr. B, it doesn't look like anything is settled, hence the debate herein. Oral contraceptives must be prescribed by a medical professional - doctor, not sure if NPs can write. Again, not all women are college students. Only students can use college clinics, if their tuition includes the service. Do you think only college students have sex? True the morning after pill is available OTC, but expensive.

So your employer gets to decide how you manage your family and personal life.. talk about intrusion into your personal life. As far as the bullet analogy goes... it makes no sense.. shooting someone vs birth control? not equal in any sense.

Should the company you work for be able to tell you what you can spend your wages on? After all, they're "paying" for it, right? Maybe your CEO's religious beliefs are against consuming alcohol... does that mean you should be prohibited from buying a beer or a bottle of wine with the money you earn, even though it's otherwise completely legal to do so?

Do you not remember a few years ago when insurance companies were dropping people from coverage when they got sick and needed the coverage they had paid for? Suddenly they were too expensive so they got the boot. Do you not understand that that destroyed families, savings, futures? The federal government stepped in b/c private insurance companies put profits far ahead of people.

No company succeeds without hardworking employees who are willing to believe in the company and work hard for it. I guess you would rather have people w/o coverage showing up at emergency room for preventable issues and getting service on the public's dine.. or would rather have uninsured sick people spreading disease to other people..insured or not...

HL doesn't have to offer insurance to its employees unless they want to be big, over 50 employees IIRC. They can always be smaller and let that share of their business go to someone/ some business who doesn't mind providing insurance to their employees. It's HL choice.

We're not talking miscarriages, we're talking abortions. HUGE difference. One nature, the other a conscience decision to end a life.

If the fertilized egg isn't implanted on the uterine wall, life isn't sustained. If it is, and is intentionally ended, then it is murder from my view.

HL isn't deciding how their employees practice their healthcare, they're paying for it. The only issue here is whether HL can decide not to pay for things they don't believe in. (Let's assume I work for you and you don't believe in armed robbery. Do I have the right to use my company car to rob a liquor store with a gun?)

Mr. B, you confuse the issues. I don't get to decide what is legal.. at least not directly. Armed robbery.. not legal... abortion (even if you don't like it) is legal.. and an employer should not be able to tell you how to manage something that is legal and very private.
I pay for things I don't believe in all the time. Roads we don't need, tax breaks for oil companies, wars in Iraq, pay raises for congressman..
So no you don't have the right to use my company car to rob a liquor store with a gun.

You do have the right to buy liquor, which some people don't believe you should be able to do, but it is legal.

Mr. B,
As an employer should I be able to decide I don't believe in cancer, thus decide to not cover anything associated with cancer?

What about antibiotics, could I decide that I don't believe in evolution thus decide I will not cover anything but the first generation of antibiotics, thus not cover any of the new antibiotics that have been developed since bacteria have evolved resistance to the first generation of antibiotics. I'm paying for those antibiotics, I don't want to be forced to cover something I don't believe in.. those old antibiotics should be just fine for my employees.

JWo, you're making no sense at all. I can't even understand most of this rambling. I don't want cancer either but I don't see the correlation between that and an abortion pill. Is there a pill that cures cancer that you are being denied?

Mr. B, my point is that its absurd let my personal whims/ beliefs/ etc. decide my employee's health care options.

As for the evolution part which you did not address.. bacteria is evolving resistant to antibiotics, therefor many of the first antibiotics that were developed are no longer useful against infection because they no longer kill bacteria b/c bacteria has evolved resistant to drugs. Thus science has developed another generation of antibiotics which are currently working against bacteria, but bacteria are evolving resistance to them, search for MRSA. It would be ridiculousness for an business owner let their personal belief (ie not believing in evolution) filter into how their employees manage their personal health care. Evolution or birth control... and there are big difference between birth control and full blown abortion... but neither should be the employers business.

I understand and agree with the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This was caused by over use of antibiotics, both prescription strength and in products like anti-bacterial soaps, etc. But the issue isn't whether to pay for a medicine that kills bacteria, not even the issue of paying for birth control pills. The issue is paying for a pill that ends a human life. Since the employed is paying for it, then the employer has a say in it. Pay for your own morning after pill. It's available over the counter at your local pharmacy. Next time, use a condom or other method, even birth control pills which isn't at issue.

"The issue is paying for a pill that ends a human life. Since the employed is paying for it, then the employer has a say in it. Pay for your own morning after pill. It's available over the counter at your local pharmacy. Next time, use a condom or other method, even birth control pills which isn't at issue."

I guess the biggest issue is how and we define "life". Is a fertilized egg life.. not really but its not out of the question. At that point its has 46 chromosomes, but nothing more, no faculties, no anything other than a cell membrane. It is not an independent life in anyway. I think we can agree that it's in a gray area of possibilities but no guarantees.. including genetic viability or implantation. At this point, when it is only gray, should the employer be deciding the course of action. It's b/t the patient, the Dr. and God, not the employer... and other forms of contraception are not 100%. I don't get to decide all the things I pay for... see Iraq war.. many good people died there..

I believe birth control pills are part of the issues, at least in some of the cases.. but not directly mentioned here. If HL doesn't like the law, they can downsize and not have to provide any coverage to anyone. Then no one has to pay for something they don't want to.

J WO, yes, the employer can have whatever beliefs they want. If they don't want anybody in their company getting breast enlargements on their dime, then they have that right. If they decide that they don't believe in healthcare, that it is up to God to provide treatment (there are people that think this way) then they shouldn't have to provide healthcare. The market will take them out of business first, as they won't get any decent employees, but it should be up to them.

The issue is who has a bigger legal right, the business or the individual. I side with the individual. It's not the businesses decision how I manage my personal life. The business owner can manager their personal life how they see fit.
The national law is for people to have health care (so the public can stop paying for the uninsured), so if you own a big business you need to pull your weight and offer insurance, not get involved in how individuals manage their personal health care. My individual right trumps the businesses, and individuals can manage themselves they way they and their Dr. sees fit.

One options that would solved the issue is a national health care system. That way no business owner would have to pay for something they don't believe in.

Another option would be for everyone to pay for their own healthcare and not be reliant on your job or the government. That's the way we do it in my house and it works very well.

Mr. B,
Your family must be doing very well. Congratulations. As a single male about 30, I could barely afford health care coverage, with a very low maximum amount they would pay. Much of the problem comes from what I mentioned before... without government intervention, insurance companies were gouging people and denying them coverage as well as over charging them for the care they received. Simply put the rates for individuals are too high for most middle to low income people to afford on their own.

Try Humana. $362 per month for wife and me (both in our early 60's), both with pre-existing conditions (her: stroke, me: Bladder cancer.) Includes dental or it would be $24/month less. The limits were $2MM lifetime but were dropped to unlimited based on new healthcare laws. Includes free wellness exams (annual physicals, mammograms for her, colonoscopy, etc.) $20 co-pay on everything else. No co-pay for generic prescriptions, co-pay varies based on meds (schedules). Not cheap but really not bad considering both of us have had illnesses in the past. There were cheaper options but not from big brand name companies. BC/BS was a little higher, Kaiser was a little less but had no dental option.

The only changes that were negative were based on Obamacare changes. I am on a regular med, prescribed by doctor and taken daily. After Obamacare began to kick in, the government plan restricts brand name meds to 60 pills every 90 days. Luckily my pharmacist works around this and sells the additional 30 days directly to me at full price.

If a business is paying you, then they call the shots. Pretty simple. So no, the individual has no rights with respect to what the business will or won't provide - it's that easy. HL is not saying that people that work for them can't get abortions or take the morning after pill - they're saying that they shouldn't have to provide the coverage that pays for that. It's not a difficult concept. You're going off on so many unrelated tangents I'm getting really confused here....

The only changes that were negative were based on Obamacare changes.
Does the negative involve the unlimited coverage?

While that's less than many places I've looked, it is still more than I could afford working full time.

$2MM, unlimited...what's the difference?

The negative was not covering meds I need.

There's hope for you yet Mama. Join us for Thanksgiving dinner and you may just decide to stay in the light.

Right Athens....

Hobby Lobby's people as well as many in the Republican party have a real issue with science especially that pertaining to human reproduction ...It's like their science teachers just "shut that whole thing down"

It's a simple issue, the religious beliefs of one's employer have no bearing on an individual's personal health care. Just another example of Christians attempting to force others to abide their beliefs of give them special treatment due to their personal superstitions.
Next it will be some bugnutty religious freak whose religion doesnt believe in medicine at all he''l be attempting to insure only "faith healing"

Grant, please read the title of the article. It has nothing to do with forcing anyone to do anything. Its all about paying for something you don't believe in.

Didn't you tell us you're gay? If so, you have nothing to worry about.

Interesting article. They don't know how it works, just that it does 89% of the time.

My mistake. I really thought I remembered from a past thread that he was gay.

errr...Rock Hudson was married too........

I really made a mistake. I thought I remembered from a previous article that you were gay. I didn't mean to imply anything from it.

He doesn't want to force them into anything. He merely doesn't want to pay for it and doesn't feel he should. Neither do I.

Tammy, the law allows for these types of birth control. They are legal.

Would you leave that door open to a business being able to hire anyone they want? Where would we draw the line in terms of discrimination? Would a "Women need not apply" be ok with you?

Wouldn't the free exercise part be violated by the government requiring the employer to provide health insurance as ObamaCare requires of all employers with 50+ employees?

And just for clarification, most large companies are self insured meaning they pay all the health coverage out of their pocket. They may use an insurance company to administer it but the companies actually provide the money.

And KW, to answer your question, yes, if the company is owned by Christian scientists and they have a religious problem with health insurance, then they shouldn't have to provide it. It's their company. Of course, they're going to get the bottom of the barrell in relation to the quality of employees, but it should be their choice.

And like Mr B said, the article is not incorrect in stating the the company is forced to provide the pill. They're footing the bill and providing the coverage, so they're providing it. Now, if that employee wants to work for that company and go out and get their own insurance that is not through the company, even if the company is giving them an allowance to do so, if it's not flowing through the employer's hands directly to the insurance provider, then they have no say. But yeah, as long as they're writing the checks to the insurance company, then they're providing it.

I agree and nor should the Federal Government have the right to force WE THE PEOPLE to buy something we don't want.

If you won't buy your own health care, don't expect me to cover you when you get sick, or get hurt. I get really tired of hearing people talk about being forced to buy something they don't want... when all they are doing is forcing someone else to pay for them.. stop being a free loader and pay for your own health care... talk about the an entitlement society.

Apparently more than half in this country prefer to be spoon fed and told how to live.

Perhaps we're tired of paying for other people's health care... and we (I assume you mean those who voted for Obama and live in Blue states) pay more to the federal government in taxes and get less in return. Red states TAKE much more from the federal government and pay less. I work 60+ hr week... I'm not spoon fed and I've never been on federal or state assistance.... and after having lived in Red and Blue states.. there is alot more being told how to live in a red state... I don't want my employer to decide I live or manage my life... maybe you do.

Goober, nobody uses tin foil anymore.

With everything going on in the Middle East, you would think Americans would be smart enough to protect our freedom. Instead, we have idiots worshiping Obama and pissing on our constitution.

Talk about Nazis, communism, Americans losing their freedoms, "p'ing" on the Constitution, worshiping Obama (big diff in worshiping and supporting/voting for) etc, etc., etc., from your people is what has divided the US. Your name calling and disrespect for anyone who has opposing viewpoint shuts down any constructive discourse. Eisenhower had a 65% approval rating, so I guess he was worshiped in the 50s. He wouldn't make it into the R party these days - and neither would your god, Reagan. I'm thankful that the folks like you who bring nothing but darkness, doom and gloom to the conversation are in the minority, or Romney would be Pres-elect. So very thankful!

People are loosing their jobs because of this healthcare bill. People will continue to loose their jobs due to this terrible infringement. Healthcare will be higher under this bill. That IS doom and gloom right in front of us. It isn't hype.

Grief, Will you be having fries with your words you will be eating soon?

You mean lose, I think. Yes, it is hype, generated by Fox Channel, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, et al, hence the tin foil hat reference; they're like Pied Pipers to people who are easily led and believe what they want to believe. Healthcare and insurance have been increasing continually, consistently and dramatically for at least a decade. There was no end in sight. Without the healthcare law, do you think they would stay the same or go backwards? The law, when fully effective, will put the brakes on. If the R governors wanted to improve the situation in their own states, they had the opportunity through their own state's (rights) exchanges. Y'all think the law is so bad, well your governors should improve it. That's the standard - better than the existing and Supreme-Court upheld law. Every year my premium was going up by close to $200/mo - why? I was told that it was across-the-board, no matter whether you had claims or not. Everybody's premiums were going up because they could. America is predominantly moderate. Extremism on either end is bad for individuals and bad for the nation. Extremism is doom and gloom.

No fries, Mr. B. Not good for you. Would you and T.O. care for some humble pie? I know you're probably still full from the recent campaign and Thanksgiving, but your appetite for it may improve in a year or so. You both really, really need to have some now, though.

It would be difficult for you to meet anyone more humble than me. Let's chat again in a year. I'll appreciate your views then.

It may be too late Tammy. We now have 5th generation welfare families. Giving them opportunities to succeed means a whole new approach...they would actually have to work for a living.

@Tammy Osier (Rubio Visionary ?)
A potential presidential nomination, Mr. Rubio was asked how old the earth is. After declaring “I’m not a scientist, man,” the senator went into desperate evasive action, ending with the declaration that “it’s one of the great mysteries.”
Rubio's inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over the Republican political party.
Researchers have matched political views to personality types. They have shown, modern American conservatism is highly correlated with authoritarian inclinations — and authoritarians are strongly inclined to reject any evidence contradicting their prior beliefs. Today’s Republicans cocoon themselves in an alternate reality defined by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh ,WSB, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and only on rare occasions — like on election night — encounter any hint that what they believe might not be true. Rubio is not ready for prime time and with continual denial of reality neither is the Republican Party.

Still judging people, Tammy? Saying that people who voted for Obama are idol worshipers? You're a Bible Scholar, a mind reader and a prophet, a philosopher, a psychiatrist, a social worker plus an expert on government, security, foreign affairs, economics, education, politics and social issues? More like a narcissist - idol worship of yourself and your views. You say you went to college - which is no indicator of intelligence or education, but c'mon. My grandmother would say that's a vain person who loves herself a bit too much. Yeah, Rubio falls right in with Romney and Ryan and their fictional honesty. Rubio, the guy who prettied up his parents' history for political expedience. Rubio was smart enough to know he's not ready for the national stage. He would be squashed like a bug. Keep making those excuses for the R loss instead of facing reality. It's good for Democrats.

George, how old is the earth?

@Chris
Over 4 billion years old! Why?

Why is it important for a potential presidential candidate to know how old the earth is?

George, specifically how old is the earth. If you're going to criticize someone else for not knowing, then YOU tell us how old the earth is and then prove it. Your answer is no different than saying it's over a week old.

@Chris
4.56 billlion years 12 hours 32 minutes amd 20 seconds...yes, I was around in another form!

George, finally a straight answer. I commend you sir. WOW! That's a long time.

I'm afraid to ask what form you were in. : )

Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old. If you believe in empirical evidence.

I think that most kids want more from life than what Welfare offers them. Education is their ticket out of poverty and it take HARD WORD. The other side of the equation is that many jobs just don't pay a living wage. That makes the cycle hard to break, nearly impossible without a good education.
The cycle isn't the fault of wellfare, its a societal issues with underfunded school and kids not seeing a way to make it out the major issue.

You must remember that George is from NC, a state that is obviously populated by people that are (in his mind) much smarter than the people in Georgia. Ergo, we are "a bunch of losers."

George only knows one thing...that Republicans aren't intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions. They can only repeat what is told to them by Fox News, Rush, Limbaugh, etc. I've personally NEVER listened to any of them, however, I have watched NBC, ABC, CBS, and once I even watched MSNBC. Guess what I heard from those outlets? Republicans are stupid, Liberals are smart, Unions are the greatest thing ever devised, and North Carolinians are superior to Georgians, even those not smart enough to go back home. I often wonder who among us is really brainwashed.

Ahhh . . . now we know why you post so much, your claim to fame. Don't kid yourself, people don't go to the trouble to look back over old stuff. Still, you must use sense, reason and facts if you want to be taken seriously. You call Obama supporters idol worshipers and throw out the snark at Democrats on nearly every post - nearly every post. The above is just a sample. What's the difference, mocking/sarcasm/facetiousness? You have employed all and more. You keep it up, others will call you out. George didn't call anyone specifically a loser who posts here - just a general reference to the state leaders. I think you're referring to me - ggc? - what I said about the woman who WAS classless with HER name calling - so bad Patch thought so and deleted her remarks (don't tell half truths, Tammy, that's just too republican), including d----b--, moron and idiot. That's not name calling? Oh, right, doesn't count if it's against the RWs, huh? You confuse personal insults and counterpoints because you have no answer for those. Unlike you, I'm not posting for popularity. Like you, I am not a he. Hey, and thanks for the compliment.

Well Rick Santorum had that good quote "We'll never have the smart people on our side.".

Have you seen George, Tammy? He may have been here.

What was that you were saying about insults and personal attacks?

Science: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained . . . "

It's not so important for the president to know exactly how old the earth is, but not to have any idea shows they have very little understanding of science or worse yet, a lack of respect for it. I don't want a science illiterate president.

The answer changes in order to make themselves look better. Envy is a liberal attribute.

Denial is a liberal attribute as well. I would rather face facts. The facts are that the government on the left and right have totally hosed up our economy and our children are stuck with it. Our congress has no issue granting themselves freedoms that don't apply to We The People and they impose penalties on We The People that don't apply to themselves. Meanwhile they vote themselves pay increases and take vacation while leaving our present and future in shambles.

You have idiots like Nancy Pelosi who can’t quote the Constitution and Saxby Chambliss that Taxes and Spends like a drunk politician. Neither of which would ever suffer if they retired today.

Obamacare should be waived for any individual that chooses to be self-reliant. Forcing We The People to purchase healthcare is just the beginning. History has already shown us this. As for you bone headed people who like to compare automobile liability insurance requirements with the new healthcare requirements, go back to sleep. There is no hope when you start using such ridiculous analogy.

Maybe George has learned to scroll on past, too.

Aaron I don't want to pay for your health insurance... stop being a taker and take care of yourself.. you will use health care and I don't want to pay for it. Grow up and be responsible.

Why is using the analogy of auto insurance not accurate? Insurance is insurance. It's not designed to guarantee you'll never pay anything for getting things done. The analogy is more than accurate. Insurance is to help cover you should something catastrophic happen. We should all still be expecting to pay for basic things, like check ups and birth control and other daily things. And, like I said earlier, if we were, we'd pay more attention to price, which would have the effect of dropping the costs of these services. And the less things covered by our policies, the cheaper the premiums would be.

Only problem is, then we wouldn't need government to intervene. We can't have that....

T.O., I don't get the reference for the first part of your first sentence. My point is if you sincerely want to have reasonable and respectful discussions with anyone who doesn't fall into the conservative camp, you need to drop the snarky. You seem to think only the left insults and name-calls, but your second sentence above is an example of how you also mock and insult. You're a little more careful about the name calling. Instead you tend to phrase call. :D Though you always DEMAND that people answer your questions, which makes people NOT want to answer your questions, I'll go. Scrutiny of politicians is a good thing. The reason the media asks such questions of politicians as "how old do you think the earth is?", is to get a basis for what the politicians believe - do they believe in science or fiction? Fact or fantasy? In other words, what do they truly believe about certain issue or views. Are they just pandering to their base or is that their true belief? The question is not important, but the answer for certain is. Sometimes they are gotcha questions, which may give the most candid answers. I want reporters to ask the hard questions of all candidates. If they can't stand up to a reporter's questions, how can they stand up to adversity in the job they're seeking? I personally, contrary to your statement, don't fall into the extremism pit. I'm a moderate, boring though that may be to extremists. Are you reading me again?

BTW, your the form of your questions changes from one post to the next. I'm not sure which form qualifies with you as being answered, so tried to give a broad response.

Congressman and congress women are mostly concerned about getting reelected, and that is an issue.

Fewer taxes and less government ... how about fairer taxes and a more efficient government. Why should I be taxed at a higher rate when I work for my pay compared to someone who makes their fortune with investments?

Less government most likely means more power for corporation.. I want my government to be strong enough to fight for me against the BP's, Exxons, Wal-Marts, big drug Companies, and agro-chemical companies.. that put profits far head of human or environmental safety.

J Wo- Government, by all experience, is inefficient, and corrupt. The only way to have more efficiency is to have less government.
As far as fair goes, there are three kinds, the County Fair, the State Fair and the World's Fair, everything else is not fair.
This is life, not Montessori School.
Everyone is not equal. There are those that work harder and make better decisions and they should not be made to pay for the lazy and stupid, unless they choose to.

And those that are born into wealth are surely the hardest working and most deserving. Personal freedoms are not real, they are an idea protected by the government. Ask anyone killed during the reign of a dictator or king, or killed after a witch trial.

I would prefer a government that protect my freedoms and help make sure I got a fair trial. You seem to disagree.

You life would be much harder and less prosperous if the EPA didn't protect your air and put standards on your drinking water.... Its about protecting my (and yours) freedoms and rights.

Nice article cited from a liberal media source that is critical of both parties.

One thing that it did not address is how access to birth control could mix into the equation, and likely reduce the number of abortions if people in poverty had better access to birth control. If women have more control over their bodies, more pregnancies will be planned and few abortions will be the result.

Question: Should HL be allowed to say that they won't provide neonatal health care to unmarried women?

BUT should the employer be the one that gets to decide that? Personal freedoms extend further than those of the business, just like I couldn't deny someone health care or dinner at a restaurant based on their religion.

If the business is paying the premiums, then yes, they should be able to say what they will and won't cover. Again, not the government's job to decide.

And if you own a restaurant, you should be able to deny service to anybody you want. It's your business. Of course, the negative press associated with it would probably 'help' you to not discriminate too broadly. Just sayin....

Just cook everything in bacon fat.

George W. Bush?

And, as is usual, for you, inappropriate and irrelevant. Jamie Foxx is a comedian, and free speech is even YOUR right. You have such scorn for your President and for your fellow Americans who voted for him. Why don't you let it go? It's going to be a very long 4 years for you. Just a side note from me . . . you claim not to watch Fox, but read newsbusters? Nah, you don't follow far right wing media, MUCH.

Speaking of irrelevant....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Actually, based on comments above, her comment is completely relevant. You just don't like it, which is different.

And yes, I do feel scorn for my fellow Americans who voted for him. Contempt, pity, lots of emotions in there. This country was not founded with the idea that we need an all-powerful entity to take care of us. We are self-sufficient, not leeches. We are teaching people to be dependant on government, not on themselves. This thread is a perfect example - we want to force healthcare to cover things that we should be able and willing to pay for ourselves. Why does the government feel the need to coddle us? And why is it OK for the government and those on the one side to call it a 'War on Women' because some people don't think it's OK to kill the unborn? Or because we don't think we need to pay for everything for women to have sex? I don't think the government should pay for condoms or Viagra, but that's not considered a 'War on Men.' We are becoming a society of useless drones that will expect everything to be handed to us, and we will learn (even more than many now do) to envy and even hate the rich, purely because they're rich. Instead of wanting to emulate them and build ourselves up, we will want to tear them down by whatever means necessary, just so things can be more 'fair.'

T.O.'s top cheerleaders showed up, I see. John B speaks of nothing. Karsten, yes, that post is irrelevant b/c it's hate-mongering and off topic - you just like it, therefore defending it b/c you're anti the President. You guys belong in the same club. You let your hatred of the President color (pun intended or not? - for you to decide) all matters of government and laws. The Congress wrote this law, passed this law, and the President signed it. I have never felt coddled by the govt. I have worked and paid taxes since I was 18. The red states, including GA, are the states which receive the most federal help. What should that tell us? It tells me that Republican governing is doing something majorly wrong. You want the government not to help people who need it most, and you're ok with the government managing a woman's health decisions? That's messed up. Women's health issues are not primarily about abortion rights, rather include HEALTH issues that don't affect the male gender. "War on Men"? more like war FOR men b/c they get Viagra covered in ins., which affects costs for all insureds and no one sees the irony in that. I don't envy anyone who is legally successful. Good for them! But, the wealthy should pay at least the same tax rates that the average American family has to pay. Wow, you really have that right wing talking point stuff down to the letter. Hatred is a terrible thing to hang onto. Serenity now, serenity now . . .

Fine, we'll agree to disagree as to relevancy. Even though it directly addresses a post above about people worshipping Obama (makes it relevant, but OK), but we already know Jamie Foxx is this way, so whatever.

I let my mistrust of government color my perception of government. We really have two different factions on here - those that think the government is the answer to all our ills, and those that think the government is the source of all our ills. It's the same reason I consider myself Conservative and not Republican. I haven't agreed with the Republican camp in a long time, but find I'm even further from the Liberal camp. So you can say all you want that I just dislike this President, and you wouldn't be wrong. If you want to blame on his color, then whatever, that argument just shows ignorance. I dislike anybody that's in charge that wants to expand their control over me and my life.

You also address the Viagra coverage again, which I just said I didn't think they should cover that, either, so I'm not really sure why you brought this one up again....

AND...the wealthy DO pay the same tax rates. They actually pay, on average, a higher effective rate than anybody else. They make about 40% of the income in this country, and pay around 60% of the taxes. So, to say they don't pay their fair share is disengenuous. At best....

Ahh....GGY...sounds like your cage is rattled.....why the emotion? Is it because my terse nothing adds more value than your long winded tired rhetoric? You claim to be a moderate...but you're nothing more than a programmed liberal.....please turn of MSNBC....it's garbage tv.

Karsten, that worshiping thing that Tammy likes to throw out is only relevant to her, not to the topic at hand. In fact, she may be the only one I've read who says such a silly thing. Maybe it's just that she says it so often. You and she probably voted for Romney, if you voted, so does that mean you idolize and worship him? Think about that. Do you also think anyone who voted for the President worships him, or is it just that poster? That's annoying and obnoxious and serves only to further divide people who are already opposed, increasing the likelihood that they'll remain averse. You and she and most of the others posting on these boards may think the government is the source of all ills, but it's not true. I don't think the government is the answer to all problems, but you're lumping me and anyone who doesn't share your views into that category. There is a vast middle ground. You may think Viagra shouldn't be covered, but you're the only one I have seen say that. I didn't say you dislike the Pres. b/c of color or race, however, I'm wondering if that be the case and if it is really at the heart of the hatred of this man, especially in the South. Not limited to the South, as there are racists and rednecks all over the nation, but maybe they just relocated from the South. To deny that his race is a factor for a huge faction would be naive. Trump and Romney had their code words. If Pres. Obama were white, ask yourself if the hatred would be so palpable.

Karsten, the wealthy do not pay the same tax rates. As they make more income, of course, they pay more in actual dollars, but not the same rate. They can afford to hire the best CPAs and tax attorneys to squeeze out less (maybe that's why they claim to be job creators). Romney paid 13-14% - at least for the two years he released. The average family pays 20% after allowable deductions but many people in the middle income level pay more than that rate. How much do you think a family of 4 has left after paying taxes at a higher rate than the wealthy? How much does Romney have left after paying a lower percentage rate in taxes? It's what you have left that makes the difference.

No, John John. I'm not rattled, upset or angry, certainly not by you. Exasperated - sure. Those couple of words in all caps was for emphasis. I didn't want those points to be lost in lower case. Your terse nothing does indeed add zero value, sub zero. You only think I'm liberal because you and your friends are so far to the right you're about to fall into an abyss. I don't watch MSNBC unless it's for special coverage of an important event, like the DNC and election night. I prefer to be entertained in my telewatching. :)

GGY, no, look at the charts. The wealthy pay more in dollars and percentage. Except those who make income on nothing but investments, but let's be honest, there's not a lot of those. Even Romney's 14% is still higher than the effective rate of anybody that you know.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/chart-day-effective-tax-rates-income-category

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/09/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-most-americans-pay-higher-tax-ra/

Karsten- Don't try to confuse GGY with facts, that's not fair.

From the CNN website: "The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners."

There is absolutely nothing wrong about having a progressive income tax. We would be a foolish nation not to have one. The US even use to make tax returns public record, seems like we still should.

Karsten, why are you defending people who wouldn't wipe their feet at your doorstep? Why do you want them to pay less so you can pay more? You have no idea who I know, wealthy included.

Facts are my friend, Racer man.

I'm not defending anybody specific. I'm defending common sense. Why should somebody, just because they're successful, pay a higher rate than anybody else? They already pay more money. The percentage should be constant. I'm not saying they should pay a lower percentage, just not a higher. Of course, we should get rid of the income tax, but that's another discussion.

And that wasn't to defend any group of people. That was to refute your statement regarding the idea that the rich pay a lower percentage. They don't. Some may, but not legally.

Karsten, we have a progressive tax system in the US. Of course, higher incomes should pay at a higher rate. Too many in the upper income brackets have ridiculous loopholes and deductions that give them advantages the rest of the population doesn't have, and they end up paying a lower rate than the middle class. If the system weren't already to their benefit, why are they hollering about changes to have a fairer system? Do you think the billionaires would have thrown money into getting Romney elected if they weren't going to manipulate their way into even more advantages? Nuh uh.

Ya know, you stating over and over again that they pay at lower rates still doesn't make it true. But say it again, maybe you'll start to believe it.

I've never said the rich aren't about getting the system to be in their favor. But the left seems to love the 'Pay their fair share' idea, and it's already shown that they do. More than their fair share, since really 'fair share' would be the same percentage as others.

Let me ask you this. Somebody makes $100,000 a year. They pay 15% of that, or $15,000 to the government in taxes. Somebody that makes $1m, at the same rate, would pay $150,000. That second person just paid more than the first person made. Why in the world would you think that's not enough? Or somebody that makes $10m, paying in $1.5 million of that. That's kind of a lot of money. Or are you just so focused on the unfairness of the fact that they got to keep $8.5 million of THEIR money? Because that's really what it boils down to - it is their money. It's not yours or the government's to decide how much you're going to let somebody keep.

Yes, percentages - they don't pay fair percentages in comparison. And, also yes, the govt. does get to decide how much a taxpayer keeps - it's called the tax code. The tax code is in serious need of fair reform. If I got to keep 8.5 million after taxes, I would feel really bad that someone with medical bills (through no fault of their own), special needs kids, or other misfortune (through no fault of their own), had to send their kids to school hungry without proper clothing, from a house with no heat, while they're scraping between paychecks to pay the rent and run out of money before the next rent is due. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think so. 60% of Americans think the wealthy should pay more rather than putting more of the nation's bills on the backs of the middle class. I bet some of those folks are wealthy themselves.

Of course they do. At the SAME percentage, it would be fair. And at the higher percentages they currently pay, I'd say more than fair. But I guess that's the difference - perception. I don't think the rich should be punished because they're rich. I also feel it's not up to me to decide how much is a fair amount for them to keep.

I feel bad about people that have those issues, too. That's why God designed private charities. It's shouldn't be up to the federal imperial government to distribute funds. Too many that really don't need it are receiving it. And rich people can always give more. There's a line on the return for additional amounts you'd like to pay. Keep in mind, too, that Romney purposely understated his deductions, so his percentage would stay higher. He voluntarily gave more to the government. Pretty good guy, I'd say.

And of course most Americans think that the rich should pay more. They're led to believe like you, that the rich don't pay their fair share. Our illustrious leader has been spreading this lie for many years now, and the news outlets aren't about to refute him. If you tell somebody that this group is underpaying, then ask if they should pay more, what do you expect them to say?

Haha! Romney purposely declared less in deductions to make himself look a little bit better before the election. Wonder how long it will take him to amend that return :D God designed charities? Karsten. Churches and charities are constantly and continually asking for donations. They're not overrun with money or goods. Somebody ain't helping enough. The General Welfare definition as applicable to the U.S. Constitution: "The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes."

Yeah, I've learned to accept the things I cannot change. I refuse, however, to give up on this country until I know it can't be saved. At that point I'll either be happy and ignorant, like the rest of the populace, or I'll move. But until we get to that point, expect to hear plenty like me.

I'm interested in why we on the right are supposed to just accept Obie and you guys on the left got to bitch about Bush non-stop. He won twice too, ya know...

People have been talking about the demise of this country since it was formed. It has and always will be a work in progress. You think everyone but you is happy and ignorant? That's a stretch by anyone's measure. I couldn't stand George Bush, but I never called him names. However, he deserved every bit of bitching sent his way, Cheney, too. First, he and the Republican machine stole the election from the American people, then he ignored intelligence forewarning of the 9/11 attacks, he put troops on the ground in Afghanistan then pulled back and invaded Iraq - two wars on tax cuts, and put Medicare Part D in place - a program which costs more than Obamacare (where's your outrage about that?) You're wrong - Bush only won once. Sorry for the history lesson. You probably hate the subject.

You're wrong GGY. Bush won both elections. Check the final tallies. FL was n question the first election. The Supreme Court ruled. But FL continued to count and Bush won. I'm not happy with a lot of things he did and didn't do (he seemed to forget he had veto power) but I can't imagine the pile of crap we would be in if Gore had been in office when 9/11 happened. He would have blamed it on the airlines for using high pollution engines.

I'm not wrong, Mr. B. Jeb Bush's Republican machine stole the election for his bro. Fla. elections officials dragged out the recount so the right-leaning Supreme Court could decide. Florida's elections system is still a mess, but in 2000 it was a travesty. Any lead shown Bush in Fla. could not be trusted. There were 1200 "absentee" military ballots not postmarked, for just one issue. If there had been a 9/11 attack with Gore in the WH, he wouldn't have invaded and destroyed Iraq. Gore won the national popular vote by half a million. Gore wouldn't have spent the surplus left by the Clinton/Gore admin, and he wouldn't have handed out those tax cuts we're still fighting about today. That's just a start. Yessir, a Gore WH would have produced a better America and a more peaceful world. We would have had a 10-year start on slowing the climate crisis looming large.

GGY, do you take pills to create the dream world of which you speak? Or are you just insane?

Neither, Mr. B. I have never even had a hangover. Not a pill person, either. I have always kept my mind clear to make good decisions. It is you and your kind who live in an alternate universe. You should become a vegetarian; get that fox out of your diet :)

I'm already a vegan.

Good for you!

Romney has paid more in taxes than many lifetimes but still not enough compared to what he has hidden offshore. And, yet, here you are, too. Aren't you the guy who wants to put fat people in jail?

Lets not confuse things too much. Are we talking about federal income taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, food taxes, car taxes...... I pay a high percent of my income to state taxes and sales tax for necessary items.

Do you think we all pay the same percent of our income in taxes on basic necessities?

What does per cent have to do with it JWo? You can't spend per cent, you can spend dollars.

GGY, I understand Romney, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi all use the same courier service to transport their money to the Cayman's. Why are you just picking on Romney?

"What does per cent have to do with it JWo? You can't spend per cent, you can spend dollars."

umm.. I don't really follow. I'm referring to math. Example 10% of $100 is 1o dollars. Percent is dollars and you can (and do) sped a percent of your income.

Mr. B, Romney tried to be POTUS and you guys are still b'ing about it. His secret cabinet would have included Adelson, Koch bros., Trump and the like. Show us the source of your Reid and Pelosi claim, or are you just trying to be cute?

J Wo, I thought we were talking about federal income taxes. You're right, it's even worse for the middle and low income group.

JWO, I'm talking about Romney paying $30,000,000 in taxes. Did your higher % come anywhere close?

GGY, I'm married to a banker. I'm not allowed to reveal the source under penalty of law.

Mr. B, so you say. Sounds like your banker has confidentiality issues. She shouldn't be telling secrets to an avid internet poster. Slip ups, you know. They often come with age. That's a good reason to have an age cap on Presidential and VP candidates.

I agree with the age limit. Let's make it 69. That way you could put Biden out to pasture and he would stop being an embarrassment to you.

Mr. B., I think it should be younger, 60-65. VP Joe Biden doesn't embarrass me in the least.

Why am I not surprised?

Didn't expect you to be or you wouldn't have made the statement. You think Biden is an embarrassment, but you don't think Romney & Ryan with their lyin', Newt, Santorum, Bachman, Cain, Perry are embarrassing? That's some sad stuff there.

I'm talking about Romney paying $30,000,000 in taxes. Did your higher % come anywhere close?

As a percentage to my income, yes.

Wow GGY, you listed all the Republican candidates but not one Democrat. I suppose all Dems are just as truthful as can be, even the lying bastid in the oval office.

So, the answer is NO, JWo. I didn't think so. Hell, I bet if you pooled everyone you know, you wouldn't come close to what Romney paid.

Exactly, Mr. B. Why would I list any Dems? I can't name a prominent Democrat who remotely compares in the embarrassment department to the Rs in the R primary or the eventual candidates. RR were caught on tape and in print many times lying and flipping, except on the 47% video where Romney was telling his truth. There's a big difference between lying and stating your idealistic goals, which may not be realized when you are dealing with a gridlocked Congress. You shouldn't disrespect your President that way. That negates anything else you have to say.

He's not my president. I seceded.

He your president just as Bush was mine.. despite Bush being incompetent and the VP being a hate monger and Bush/Cheney losing the popular vote in 2000. You seceded, ha that's funny, why do you waste your time posting about something you are not part of ... at least in your mind.. funny republicans.. so fickle, so unpatriotic, so sad.

No he's not. He doesn't represent me or any of my values. You can have him.

If you are a an American and a citizen of the United States of America then he is your president... that's the constitution says.. The American people elected him, you may not have... but he is still your president, like him or not.

While you are correct he paid more in dollars them me, I doubt he paid more as a percentage of his income, and I know he got a much bigger tax credit than I did. I think he took 4 million in tax credits. So he took more in tax avoidance that I and the people I know took.

Obama is my role model. He doesn't respect the constitution so neither do I.

What tax credits did Romney take for $4MM? You mean the charitable contribution tax credits? Those at 10%? Meaning he gave $40MM in charity for the $4MM credit? Did you give that much? Even that big a per centage? Nah, I didn't think so.

"And yes, people who won't take care of themselves, then want me to pay for their health care, should be jailed for theft by taking."

The exact reason I support the health care law.. it makes people pay for their own health care instead of deferring those costs to other people. I'm glad we can agree that the health care law is good because it makes people have health insurance.

We're equal in the sight of God. Romney had a big head start in life, which he added to with his ill-gotten gains. I don't consider Romney my equal. I have a conscience and a heart. He's a draft dodger, a tax dodger and a question dodger who tried to buy the presidency with the help of his billionaire supporters. He's also a liar and a flip flopper who thinks 47% of Americans are not worth the dirt under his feet. Didn't he only win 47% of the popular vote? I hope that number haunts him the rest of his days. In my opinion, you have a warped view of the health care system. Everyone will at some point in their lives need health care, insured or not. They shouldn't go to prison for health issues. That's crazy mean. How much does the prison system cost the govt. vs basic health insurance per individual? That's not a practical solution, so you just want to punish people for not being skinny.

Gotta stay focused here. Racer X didn't say fat people or people in bad health due to choices they made should be jailed. He said that fat people or people in bad health due to choices they made THAT WANT OTHERS TO PAY FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE should be jailed. Very clear distinction....

And who would do the policing for that system? Who would decide why someone has bad health? the parameters and measures to determine, the detective work and lawsuits? Our courts are already backlogged with frivolous and ridiculous cases. More tax dollars going to a stupid idea, and an inhumane one at that. Many obese people have insurance and you and Racer aren't paying those premiums. Everyone in the system, taxpayer and insurance payer, shares in the cost of the nation's healthcare. AHCA was designed to have everyone be more responsible. And, it will be improved. You guys may even like it then, but no one expects you to admit it.

Wow, you've gone completely off the rails at this point. It was a hypothetical discussion. We're not talking about putting people in jail. He said they SHOULD be in jail. For theft. He was making a point.

And nobody's healthcare system has been improved by going to single payer. Why would we suddenly get it right? Well, some have, like Norway, but have you seen what you have to do to move into the country? You have to be employed and not overweight. Can you imagine us telling people that? We can't even call illegals 'illegal' without offending somebody. We're so screwed....

You people are up in arms over the insurance mandate (a Republican idea) in the healthcare law but think it's fine to deny someone's freedoms because of health issues. That's bizarre. Racer X was serious, Karsten, and you agreed with him. That's bizarre, too.

You are so missing the point here. Nobody is denying anybody anything because of health issues. We're saying if they're having health issues that are their own fault and then want to use my money that's taken from me at the poing of a gun, then that should be a criminal act. You seriously have to focus. It has to do with funding, and the source. If that person has their own insurance paid for by them or their employer, then fine, who cares? If they don't have insurance and weigh 450 pounds because they can't put down the frigging Big Macs, then want me to pay for their treatment when they have a heart attack, that's essentially theft.

I'm beginning to see that this discussion is getting pretty much pointless....

News flash, Karsten - that 450 lb.person with no insurance? You're already paying for his/her medical emergency (through increased ins.premiums and medical costs) and have been since Reagan said no public hospital or any hospital accepting Medicare funds could refuse anyone emergency care. That's probably the only good thing he did in his 8 yrs. "In 1986 . . . Republican presidential icon Ronald Reagan imposed his own national healthcare mandate on the country. The mandate is well known today — it requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay — but the fact that Reagan signed it into law is often forgotten."

It seems conservatives don't mind paying for war, but have a fit if they think they're sharing in the nation's health care costs. I don't like tax dollars going to pay for war, nation building and padded defense contracts. As far as insurance coverage, it must be non-discriminatory. The rest of what you said seems to be going in circles.

I'm not a fan of paying for war, either. In fact, I'd be comfortable if we reduced the size of our military - I think it's too big. However, going to war when justified is fine. I just like to have an exit strategy in place. But, again, another discussion.

Not really related to health care, though. And I don't get the non-discriminatory comment. What exactly does that mean?

You're fussing about the govt. forcing expenses on taxpayers that you don't agree with - healthcare. I didn't agree with the Iraq war but didn't get to say don't go. Conscientious objectors who pay taxes don't get to say no war. You want to say it's okay to complain about that expense but we can't bring into the discussion our differences about other taxpayer expenses. Coverage shouldn't be denied for women's needs when men get their special meds covered - that's discriminatory. Religion should have nothing to do with insurance coverage, even if the employer is a religious institution unless they only hire people of the same religious beliefs.

You, once again, need to focus. I already said that I didn't agree with mandating coverage for Viagra. If you want to be fair, though, and you support the idea of covering the morning after pill or other such things for women, then we shouldn't ever have to pay out of pocket for condoms again. I mean, don't want to be discriminatory.

You also need to examine your idea of 'needs.' This is not a need. This is a convenience. Not mandatory. It does not save lives, it does not prevent sickness, there's no reason to cover it other than the idea that somebody else thinks it would be more convenient not to have to pay it. You want to dictate coverage on something like that? Let's say heart medication? I could maybe get on board with that. Still a stretch, as I don't believe it's the government's job to mandate any of that, but that would be more plausible.

Again, re: religion - if the employer is paying it, they should have the say. If they're providing the money, in either salary or an allowance, and the employee is buying their own coverage, then they can do what they want. It's not really a difficult concept. How can you expect somebody, an individual or a company's owner, to HAVE to buy something that is against their religious beliefs?

Does preventing an abortion = saving a life?

The BIG question is who has the larger right, the individual or the business. I side with the individual, the business owner has the same rights as the employee, but the business.. the entity paying for the insurance... has fewer rights than the individual.

Now why would that be? They pay the money, businesses are not some formless void that just provides money. There's owners and/or shareholders that actually have a say. There's somebody that put forth their blood, sweat, and tears to get that business going. Why in the world would they not have a say as to how their money is spent? It is THEIR money...

"Now why would that be? They pay the money, businesses are not some formless void that just provides money. There's owners and/or shareholders that actually have a say. There's somebody that put forth their blood, sweat, and tears to get that business going. Why in the world would they not have a say as to how their money is spent? It is THEIR money..."

It is that way because there is a difference between a business which is not a human and a employee or business owner that is. The business owner and share holders have lots of say in how the business is run... but those rights do not extend further than the employees right.. that also put in their blood sweet and tears to keep the business alive. It is THEIR money that those employees help them earn. .. Should a business be able to say we don't hire women because they cost too much or are moody? We'll only cover your family is it's 100% white, or we only offer insurance to Christian families? I hope not.

You're equating buying a pill - a non-essential part of life, mind you - with equallity? Really? I think this discussion has run its course. Now it's just getting silly....

"You're equating buying a pill - a non-essential part of life, mind you - with equallity? Really? I think this discussion has run its course. Now it's just getting silly...."

I think you just realized that there are limits on how a business should be able to act. In my previous example... it's THEIR MONEY.. why should they not be able to spend it how they want. .... because the business rights do not extend beyond the individuals rights.

The company could also not offer ins. and pay a fee for that, and that would be their choice. Then it wouldn't be an issue. HL has options, they just want to impose their religious views on their employees. If the business you have worked for was bought by an Islamic corp. and it decided would only pay for Dr. appoints with and Islamic Dr., according to sharia (sp) law, I hope you would be OK that that. I would not.

Agreed, J Wo.

I made no demand. You keep bringing up that point, like I have said somewhere that I thought that Viagra should be covered. It was obvious you weren't paying attention. Or, like the tax percentage fallacy, you figure if you repeat it enough it will come true.

Many employers make certain demands of us in our daily lives. How many of us would be unemployed if we got a DUI? I know some that have. Or arrested for any number of reasons. Same thing. Now these are illegal activites and different from buying insurance, but still. The biggest difference here is that the employer is the one paying the tab. He's actually writing the check to the insurance company. Doesn't matter if it's part of your compensation. Like I said - provide a stipend to let the employer go get their own insurance in the open market and they can buy what they want. Once the employer gives you the money, it's yours to spend as you please. Buy abortions for 20 random people if you want to, buy some blow, whatever. At that point it's your money. But if I, as an employer, have to write a check every month for those things, it should be my right to only have to buy what I agree with.

"If the business you have worked for was bought by an Islamic corp. and it decided would only pay for Dr. appoints with and Islamic Dr., according to sharia (sp) law, I hope you would be OK that that. I would not."

No, again, you're missing the point. If they wanted to only supply insurance that would only pay for Dr. appointments with Islamic doctors, then that would be their right. IMO...

It's not a hard concept - it would depend on who's actually buying the insurance - who's negotiating rates and writing the checks.

"The company could also not offer ins. and pay a fee for that, and that would be their choice."

Also a point I'm discussing in another thread. If the business owner is located in a state that does not set up the exchange for Obamacare, then that business wouldn't have to pay the fee. You know, the way it should be....

"You, once again, need to focus" and "You also need to examine your idea of 'needs.'"
Both sound like demands to me. I'm not a Republican, I know you can't make something true just by repeating, like brainwashing. Karsten, you're hopeless. I'm not trying to convince you, but you keep on keeping on. I just can't figure out why in the world you're so interested in defending people who have no interest in you.

If the states don't set up their own ins.exchanges, the Feds will do it for them. They're still bound by the federal law, upheld by the right-leaning SCOTUS.

Right now Georgia is failing to setup its own exchange...so its now asking the federal government to do. Georgia could be in control, but Governor Nathan Ramsey would rather have the feds do it. Just another way that Georgia takes from the federal government.

Let me see if I understand your opinion.
More money = better person.
If you were me.. you would much informed than you currently are.

Some people volunteer their time b/c they think it improves their society and makes American stronger. People can contribute to society in more ways than just paying taxes... and a large percent of my income goes to taxes.

I don't think GGY and myself are the ones whining.. we one the election and support health care reform. I think its HL and people like you Racer X that are the ones whining.

The rugged American individualism you were raised to believe in never existed, just like the good old days of the 50's when all the families were happy and perfect.

We are a society and a nation. If you don't like that you can move to Somalia, they have no government and you can be the independent person you pretend to be. Roads, interstates and bridges were built on the public dime, railroads built with massive giveaways of public land, all those ranchers out west are making their living on subsidized public land, thus alot of the meat you eat is subsidized by my tax dollars, internet... subsidized by government... dams and reservoirs for drinking water...subsidized by the government...

If I were you, I would wake up from my dream world of "I do everything by myself.. you didn't and you couldn't..
What about your race track.. was it subsidized by the government?

Because in their little world, those who have succeeded have to have done so by manipulation, lies, and cheating. Obviously nobody gets there through honest effort. So it's OK to take from them. Oh, that and the idea that there is a large part of our society that is just too stupid, lazy, or inept to make it on their own, so we have to have the government care for them.

You're right though - it is nice to actually be able to believe in human potential and not feel that people have to be coddled their entire lives.

"Obviously nobody gets there through honest effort", actually I think most people get through on honest effort, so lie, some cheat, but most are honest. Having a good education helps, having wealthy parents helps alot. Good luck goes a long way.

Do you think you owe anything to a society that provides opportunities to succeed?

Of course, basic taxes to cover those necessities. Does not mean that we owe every American an income. People owe it to themselves to succeed. It's government's job to provide the ability to succeed - by getting out of the way. Beyond basic infrastructure and public safety, the government really has no say.

"Let me see if I understand your opinion.
More money = better person."

Obviously, you don't understand the position.

"If you were me.. you would much informed than you currently are. "

Huh?

The real problem here is we have one group that believes government is the answer. And if we just take enough money from those that have it and give it to those that don't, we'll all be happy. I hate to tell you, but the only way to make everybody equal is to make everybody equally poor. History has done a pretty good job of teaching me that.

We are as powerful and as wealthy of a nation as we are because of freedoms and free markets and such. The more government intrusion we have gotten in our lives, the more unequal we've become.

J Wo- No, you don't understand my opinion, not even close.
Mine is: The harder working, more productive and more charitable = better person.
The rest of your last reply is pure dribble.
All of the things you mentioned were subsidized by the American people, not the Government. If you could get that one thing straight in your head it would take you a long way.
And no, most automobile racetracks are not Federally subsidized.
Lastly, I work 60 hours a week and volunteer at our local food bank

Thanks Karsten- I do sometimes wonder how these would-be robbers can live with themselves.

"All of the things you mentioned were subsidized by the American people, not the Government. If you could get that one thing straight in your head it would take you a long way." -- Please explain how you see them difference. These were governmental actions.

"And no, most automobile racetracks are not Federally subsidized." It could be state subsidized or county subsidized, they are still governmental actions.

I only ask that you get off your high horse of "I did it all by myself" and realize that you had help along the way, from friends, from the government, from other organizations...your efforts are what brought those opportunities together to make you, or some one else successful, but you had help. You didn't build the road that lets you drive to race track, some else did.. but you chipped in on the funding.

"Would be robber"... come on.. I'm no more a would be robber than you, but perhaps you're a thief.

I can only answer this in general terms, Racer, since I don't know these people personally. Although, I think if I did know them it would only confirm my thoughts. Many people that fell inferior to others for whatever reason (education, less personal belongings, lesser job, etc.) often try to elevate themselves in their mind by raising cane. Most are not complete failures but feel inferior and try to make themselves look/feel better. In the spirit of transparency, they really should just accept themselves as they are and not put on this superior attitude. At this point, they are feeling superior since their idol has won the competition. Unfortunately, people like this will have to live with the legacy their idol leaves and will fall further behind the rugged American individualists.

B., it's raising Cain (as in the Bible, the first murderer, killed his brother Abel). You and yours just can't accept the fact that not enough Americans hated the black President enough to replace him. Did you know his margin of win is getting larger with all the votes finally being counted? Looks like Romney is going to be stuck with that awful 47% number - forever! There are people smarter, richer, better educated, better looking, nicer, more fun, etc., etc., etc., than me and other Democratic voters, but we don't feel inferior. We enjoy being in the midst of the best of society ;) It's a crying shame the South is again on the wrong side of history. I love Georgia and the South, but I am embarrassed - maybe that's where "red" for the Republican color came from - Republican antics cause people to turn red with embarrassment.

GGY- Actually I meant cane, as in stick wielded in anger.

I don't recall ever saying a word about the Bush tax cuts. Maybe but I don't remember it. Any proof or is this more of your dream world ranting.

Maybe that's what you meant, but you confused the old saying "raising Cain" from the Bible b/c Cain was the first murderer, of his brother Abel. The anger is coming from your side since you're in the group griping about ACHA and taxes, getting all worked up about something over which you have no control.

Mr. B, Racer included you in the post I was responding to, I wasn't singling you out. But, you are following in their vein, so not a stretch. I don't rant - no need, I'm happy with the the election outcome and life in general. Good, then, you don't care if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended and you're a vegan. That's nice.

I'm against ALL taxes.

Well, then I take it back.

Sounds like a plan. What day does Obama deliver the checks? I'm thinking about having a pool installed. Does the government pay to install pools?

Karsten, that was pitiful. :(

Thanks for the info. I can tell the pool guy to get started.

So Nick,

Because the owner of Hobby Lobby has some superstitious beliefs you believe that would give him the right to meddle in the private personal medical care of his employees AND force insurance companies to operate in a less profitable manner (pills are cheaper than babies).
What happens when the next religious whack job decides that his favorite invisible man in the sky hates breast cancer screenings or cancer treatment, should the rest of us simply be forced to bend to his bugnuttieness as well?

An individual's religious beliefs and practices apply only to himself. If Hobby Lobby's owner doesnt believe in birth control or internal combustion he should eschew those things but he cannot attempt to force others to do so .

OK Karsten ..
Since you insist that you "know me well" Lets see how you did
1 you write "The big difference between us, on this topic, is our belief in the accuracy of the law in the first place."
WRONG... I was never a fan of the law but I acknowledge its existence and as such realize that it is indeed the law of the land
2) Again, you think the government's place is to provide healthcare,
Wrong .I dont expect the government to provide healthcare. Under the current law the government doesnt "provide healthcare". Government did indeed provide healthcare to those without it previously (and all of us paid for those uninsured) .

3) Karsten writes
"I don't. I think the law was faulty. As such, any attempts to enforce that law is suspect at best." Your personal opinion of any and all standing laws is yours and yours alone. You dont have to like it but the law has been passed by the congress , signed by the president and found constitution the Supreme court. Feel free to whine as you see fit but that has no effect on the actual facts .(not that facts interest you)
Apparently you dont know me at all , as for the topic at hand you're wrong on that as well as noted by the judges decision .
Like it or not

Grant- I swear I would not mind if a Muslim business owner required his/her employees to wear burkas, not a problem.
Considering this discussion, it's ironic that the use of sheep intestines for condom material was actually invented in the Middle East. The English greatly improved on the design 400 years later by first removing the intestine from the sheep.

"So now on "Planet Karsten" an employer can and should discriminate against those employees who dont share his specific superstitions?"

I never said 'should.' I said 'could.' Of course they can. Again, it's called freedom of religion. 1st Amendment. If you need me to paste it here, I can. But chances are good if you own a computer and can post on here, you can Google. And nowhere does it say "Freedom FROM religion." Once more, if you work there, deal with their rules.

If I go work for a Muslim company, and they want me to wear a burka, or whatever, then I'll either pony up the attire, or quit. It's the way it is.

And I agree, it does make more sense to offer birth control than to not. But it's not the government's decision to mandate it. It's the insurance company. Once again, you're missing that point entirely. And if the insurance company wants to charge HL more because they're NOT offering birth control, that that is THEIR right to do so. And if that passes the costs on to the employees, then so be it. Again, adapt or find a new job. But it IS not the government's or the employee's responsibility or right to tell somebody what they HAVE to pay for.

You know, freedom?

Racer ,

I have to believe that you are amongst the minority .Most folks find that sort of religious discrimination distasteful . I'm pretty sure the outrage would be of epic proportions if some poor Christian woman was forced to go against her religious beliefs by her employer.
Are you OK with racial discrimination as well ? Like a white guy that wont hire black people? How about a female business owner who refuses to employ men?

Just trying to see where you draw the line

I'll jump in on that one.
Blacks are a protected group. As such, not hiring them is illegal, if it can be proven that you are indeed not hiring them because they're black. That being said, I think quotas are wrong. And to be honest, if somebody doesn't want to hire based on skin color, they may be ignorant, but again, it's their company. The press will have at them if it comes out, and they will lose revenue because of that decision, so yeah, it's still their company.

Men are not a protected group. If a woman doesn't want to hire men, it's her right. Go for it.

And give an example of how a Christian person could be forced to go against her beliefs by an employer.

Grant- You ask a valid question. Just where should people draw the line? Personally, I don't look at the wearing of a burka as necessarily a religious statement. I would think of it more as a hokey uniform that would come with the territory of working for a dedicated Muslim. Look at what Hooters girls have to wear.
So, much like the Hooter's situation, where that type of dress is a relevant part of the business model, if a burka is a relevant part of the business model, so be it.
The rub would be in WHO determines if it is relevant or not? Laws are kind of like lies, in that once you make one, it usually must be followed by a hundred more.
I suppose that if I decided that a business' limitations or requirements offended me, I would boycott that business and encourage people with like beliefs to do the same. Then, it would be up to the business owner as to how much that requirement was worth and whether he should continue that requirement.

Grant- To answer your racial discrimination question, I am against it. In my business I am less likely to hire a Black man than a White due strictly to statistics. However, if a Black man interviews with me he gets every chance to impress as anyone else. I hire based on work ethic, ability and integrity as I interpret those things.
I will say it is unfair that many good hard working intelligent Black people get pigeon holed because of the actions of a large percentage of fellow Blacks. It is indeed unfair. It is something that only the Black community can do anything about. Rather than encouraging gangsta lifestyles and down-playing educated upwardly mobile Black people, the Black community needs to unite among themselves, discourage poor behavior, shed their entitlement mentality and move on as most White people have.
I believe myself to be an average White guy and I would like nothing more than everyone to love and respect each other based on their own merits, not racial characterizations.

Grant- So as you already know, drawing the line is difficult. With everyone having different morals, religious beliefs and ethics.
A question for you: On what do you base your morals and ethics?
Thanks.

Race
I base my moral & ethical beliefs on a simple basic knowledge of right and wrong . I have no need to get those beliefs from an ancient work of fiction compiled by nomadic bronze age desert dwellers.
As for my religious beliefs , they are mine alone and between me and the God I believe in . I refrain from forcing them on others or judging others in accordance to them.

No, you have no problem imposing your beliefs on everybody. Your God, obviously, is Government. And you seem to be doing a wonderful job of expressing why you think it's OK for them to impose whatever rules they want to.

Karsten

You dont know me , you dont know anything about me and you CERTAINLY have no basis to make an unfounded personal attack on me . Lets not make me the topic of discussion here Mmmmk ? Especially since you are rather clueless on that topic OK ?
Thanks ,
Now to offer some insight as you seem keen to seek it . I have no intent on imposing my beliefs on anyone .I dont care who one marries, what one does in their bedrooms or even what might happen in the uteruses of other people . None of my business nor do I believe it to be any of the government's business.
As for this particular case I dont believe claims of some superstition gives anyone the right to be exempted from a constitutional federal law passed by our congress nor do I think the owner of a secular , for profit business has any right to meddle in the medical care of his employees based on his belief in portions of an ancient pile of campfire stories.
Fortunately it seems that those tasked with deciding this issue are wise enough to see it my way , which means that some poor sap unfortunate enough to work for a bugnutty religious nut who claims cancer treatment to be against his religion wont die due to lack of treatment

Nope, I know you well, and better by every comment you make. The big difference between us, on this topic, is our belief in the accuracy of the law in the first place. Again, you think the government's place is to provide healthcare, and that it should be able to dictate what companies provide and don't provide. I don't. I think the law was faulty. As such, any attempts to enforce that law is suspect at best.

Also, failure to provide coverage in no way impedes on anybody's rights. People do not have a 'right' to healthcare. Or shouldn't. And my belief in whatever God or Gods or talking trees or whatever I choose to believe trumps your belief that you have a right to reach into my pocket and pull out whatever money you think you or anybody else is due. Like it or not.

Grant- You said " I base my moral & ethical beliefs on a simple basic knowledge of right and wrong". That's cool. I dig it. But we are not born knowing the difference between right and wrong. From whence did your basic knowledge of right and wrong come? Stay with me on this, I hope to eventually have a point (besides the one on top of my head).

Racer ,
I suppose it's debatable where one's moral and ethical values come from . I'd say at least some of them are inherent human traits that we are indeed born with . For instance most children dont need to be instructed against murdering puppies .
Others values are simple societal norms that have been in existence since three cave people decided to share a cave millions of years ago These values are taught to us by other members of the society in which we live. So the "basic knowledge of right and wrong" is both a product of human nature and societal influence

and your point?

Grant- While it is debatable where one's moral and ethical values come from, I don't have the knowledge in this field to enter that debate very deeply. I do, however, agree with you on many of your points. I will tell you, after raising three children, that while some children may not need to be taught not to kill puppies, some do. All of my kids, when very young, definitely needed instruction regarding not hurting puppies (poking them in the eye, stepping on them, holding them properly, etc.).
So, I think it is a given many values are taught to us by other members of the society in which we live and, like you, believe the "basic knowledge of right and wrong" is both a product of human nature and societal influence.
What I question is the societal influence. If one is raised in a community where stealing is an accepted activity, that societal influence, in my view, would be wrong. So while societal influence definitely plays a role, society can play a negative role too (Ex- Some in the Middle East think it is ok to punish a woman for violating Sharia law by pouring acid in her face). Continued-

So, while we agree that our sense of right and wrong is partly inherent and partly societal influence, my hopes are that you will agree that both of these influences can be badly flawed due to differences in genetic make-up as well as differences in various societies' level of "enlightenment" and attitudes toward personal responsibility.
If this is true (as I believe it is), then it becomes obvious that different people, based on the same factors can have varying ideals regarding what is right and what is wrong. Whether we, as individuals, believe the government should dictate what is right or wrong or a church should or a dirty pile of socks is ultimately up to the individual. None of the aforementioned entities have the market cornered on truth, nor evil.

My point- My experience has been that I see more evil in what our Congress and all other levels of our government have become (as far as greed, deception), than those I saw in church being raised as a Presbyterian. Though organized religion has many flaws, I really think our government is worse. This is why I prefer the societal definitions of right and wrong as presented by my church over those presented by our government. As hypo-critical as church can be, I believe that pales in comparison to the deceit our government uses to gain more and more control over us to erode the societal influences that religion and family have on the direction of our country, what we believe is right and wrong and who we are as Americans.
Thanks for reading all this. I am a poor communicator and feel like I just gave birth. I am going to bed but will look forward to reading your reply in the morning.

Racer ,
A few points to consider
1) I am unaware of any society in recorded history in which "stealing" is an accepted norm. Punishment for theft is written in our oldest recorded laws and surely existed long before written language existed.
2) Certainly values , morals and ethical standards differ between various societies and individuals .
3) You seem to be getting at a "Church v Government" argument as to where our personal values come from . While the threat of damnation by some 'sky wizard" might cause be required to keep some in line many people manage to be decent humans without such ethereal threats. Furthere , it is often that very same set of beliefs that causes acid to be thrown at women. Likewise morality rarely comes from the government
This last bit is a strong illustration of why government should not allow itself to be manipulated by religion. Historically religion is directly responsible for more depravity and violence than any other construct of man

. Here in the United States where our country was intentionally founded with a secular government one has the right to worship freely ,as long as that worship doesnt infringe on the rights of others. Human sacrifice ,and acid tossing are right out ! Likewise the government cannot and should not give special treatment to secular entities regardless of the personal beliefs of the owner .

Hi Grant,
Thanks for your reply.
1) In "Ghetto" and "trailer park" society stealing is an accepted action. Example: Recently we read a story about a man breaking into a woman's home in Loganville and she shot the dude 5 times. One respondent to the Patch said "He didn't deserve that.......he was only there to steal".
2)Thanks.
3) "Sky Wizard", that's a good one :-) While I believe in God and salvation etc., my sense of right and wrong are more guided by the basic core of what I learned being brought up in a wonderful community that happened to include many people who enjoy the fellowship that a church can provide, rather the threat of what God would do to me (He and I have our own deal going on). I find that my life works much better this way than if I used "ghetto" or "trailer park" standards to live by. as I have gotten older I have stopped really being a "church goer", but the basic morals have stuck, thankfully.
You said, "Historically religion is directly responsible for more depravity and violence than any other construct of man"- You may well be right here, but for last 200 years, I would like to see a comparison between Government and Religion on this topic. I believe Government wars would come a close second, at least.
Cont.-

Grant-
I heartily agree with your last paragraph but would like to address the last sentence.
"Likewise the government cannot and should not give special treatment to secular entities regardless of the personal beliefs of the owner ." - I agree with you. The problem, for me, lies in the Government getting involved in areas where it even has the opportunity to give special treatment. If Obamacare did not exist, none of this thread would be necessary.
Do you know if the Insurance industry in general offers health insurance that covers the "morning after" pill?
It has always struck me as ironic that we need a license to hunt, fish or drive a car, but any moron is allowed to be a parent, the most important job of them all. From a practical standpoint, shouldn't a woman just keep her legs together if she can't afford her own "morning after" pills?

Wow, Racer, a new sexist low for you. Maybe you would agree that at least insurance companies should cover the cost of the aspirin to make your remedy more effective?

Racer...
Ghetto & Trailer Park "society "? Wow, really? I'm quite certain theft is still illegal in trailer parks and ghettos and is widely frowned upon even in that "society" which exists only in the broad generalizations invented in your mind. Further , some half wit on the internet suggesting that a home invader didnt deserve what he got is not representative of a "society"

As for insurance, generally insurance companies cover medicines that a doctor prescribes. I dont believe what a woman does with her legs is anyone's business but hers and her doctor's. It is certainly no business of the government or an employer.

Hey Grant- Yes, stealing is illegal in the ghetto too. But we all know how well laws work for those who ignore them. I have had LOTS of experience in this. There is a sub-culture within these societies that truly believe stealing is ok, regardless of the law.
I probably worded the woman's legs thing wrong. I should have said, a man and woman should think twice before they stick the woman's legs in the air, sorry.
Yes, you are right, it is no one's business but their own, but they need to be responsible for the outcome of their actions, not the government, nor their employer, in my opinion.

Racer writes

"Yes, you are right, it is no one's business but their own, but they need to be responsible for the outcome of their actions, not the government, nor their employer, in my opinion."
Agreed...They are responsible, so they go see a doctor and get advice on medical care options and choose the option that they and their doctor agree is the right one, their medical insurance covers that care as it should and everyone is happy , just as it should be ...
Glad to see we agree that the employer has no part in treatment decisions !!

Still very vulgar, Racer. Try again. Maybe your wife can help you.

Eh, at this point the sheeple in this country would have found another 'gimme' President to worship. It wouldn't really matter....

OK, since your link is obviously too big for you to read, here you go...

"An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work."

The important part of that paragraph is "infringes on the rights of other employees." The owner is an employee, for all intents and purposes, and forcing him to pay for something definitely infringes on his rights. However, not providing that has no impact on anybody else's religious rights. None. He's not forcing them to follow his religion by not offering something.

Not only that, but we're talking here a lot about 'shoulda wouldas.' The courts already said HL has to pony up the coverage. They say they shouldn't. (See? 'Shouldn't.' There's that word again. You're right, reading IS fundamental.) The OP begins with the word 'Should.' Again, there's that pesky word.

HL SHOULDN'T have to provide the service. First, it does not affect the freedom of religion of any workers. Second, it DOES affect the owner's freedom of religion to be forced (yes, forced, as in made to, as in no choice) to provide something that he disagrees with. At his expense. That last part is probably the biggest part of this argument.

So no, I'm not wrong. Maybe in the eyes of the law. Maybe. But even then, I'm not thinking I am.

Does that logic squeal in pain when you torture it?
The owner is an employee now? Umm How about no ?..The owner is an EMPLOYER and as such cannot require his employees to abide by his religious beliefs, nor does he have any right to attempt to inflict those beliefs upon those poor sould who are stuck peddling his Chinese garbage

Lets have a different angle here since I'm enjoying your squirming. We'll go back to that first amendment you were all hot and bothered with ..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....."
Like it or not Congress has passed a law requiring EMPLOYERS with X number of employees to offer health insurance coverage to those employees. Are ya with me so far?
What you are asking now is for Congress to "establish" an exception to that law based on the "religion" of a business owner ..
Why do you hate America?

So, the employer takes no paycheck from the operation of his business? Hunh, and I was under the impression that they got their livelihood from that very business. I guess he has a part-time job somewhere then, huh? Ya know, just to make ends meet.

The lack of logic you employ astounds me.

And once again, he's not imposing his beliefs on his employees. He's deciding NOT to provide something. Last I checked, there was no religion whose belief was that their employer should provide birth control. Did I miss that somewhere?

And the whole "Why do I hate America?" question pretty much throws you in the whole "Too silly to address" category. Personally, my America is one of freedom. One where employers are not required to do things that they don't feel the need to do. One where the government doesn't require more and more mandatory coverage, driving up costs. I guess your America is one where companies and individuals are too stupid to figure out things for themselves, thereby needing the government.

Get off your "It's a law" schtick. We know they're laws. But just because they are, doesn't mean they should be.

Grant, that is one of the most absurd statements I've read on here. Having an employer refuse to include abortion services in their healthcare benefits has NOTHING to do with what happens in the uterus of another person. This service is readily available through planned parenthood to anyone who wants it.

An employer has the right to offer whatever benefits they wish! And to not offer whatever benefits they wish! The government has no business dictating benefit plans for companies completely separately from the free exercise of religion question!

Lots of companies do NOT offer dental coverage or glasses. Shall we have the government dictate that they MUST include this coverage for their employees?

Grant- I guess where our logic parts ways is the definition of individual responsibility..
I have paid for my own health insurance for 35 years. I make life choices based on being able to afford to do so, like taking care of myself so my rates stay low. This includes not accidentally knocking anyone up. Obamacare stunts the need for people to be responsible for their personal choices, just like most government programs.

Yes, Grant absurd!

I've already answered your other stupid question. If you are not happy with the BENEFITS offered by your employer, find an employer who gives you the benefits you want. The government has no right to dictate company benefits.

I like the way you completely ignore the analogy with dental and eye wear coverage!

Where do you get your facts? State people, documents etc.

No doubt you were among the rest of us who were outraged by the murder of 20 innocent children in New Town, CT, and undoubtedly are supporting gun control to "prevent" future tragedies, while at the same time Planned Parenthood murdered over 300,000 innocent children last year, and you are screaming about efforts to put them out of business! Unbelievable!

Google it rp. It's really easy.

@Hal - Outraged about CT, yes. Supporting gun control, yes.
You're the one who cited Planned Parenthood as an easy option for morning after pills.
Screaming? When and where, Hal? I think it is you who is screaming with all those !!! and caps.
Is ED a disease? Insurance coverage for Viagra and Cialis - check. Pregnancy is a medical condition that can bring on other health issues. It's discriminatory to exclude women's specific health needs from a comprehensive medical insurance plan offered by any employer.

If men could become pregnant there would be no controversy over this issue.

There's something very wrong with people who value an unborn fetus more than babies after they're born.

A broken arm obviously needs correction, and if not would lead to other maladies. ED in many cases is a natural part of aging, so not always abnormal. If ED meds are covered, all forms of contraceptives should be as well. I can't help it if stupid lives in your brain over this comparison.

Ask an OB/Gyn about the many health complications and diseases (diabetes, hypertension) which can occur with pregnancy. Not all pregnancies are normal - tubal pregnancy is very dangerous to the mother and threatens her life and health. Pregnancy can occur even when precautions are taken.

Male pregnancy may not change your mind, but you can't speak for the rest. It's a moot point except to point out the disparity.

Now she's an expert on ED...if you ask your husband he'll give you a good answer for his ED...nothing to do with aging....

You're just a creepy stalker, John B. Dirty minded old fool.

John B.- GGY said I mentioned something about genitalia to her once but I have no memory of it. There was this particularly ED inspiring poster once on Patch that went by "Georgia Democrat" who I accused of keeping her husbands nuts in her purse. Do you think GD and GGY are one in the same? It would explain a lot.

Not a stalker GGY...if I were I wouldn't be stalking you. Anything else you would like to proctor the group on today?....or is your google button worn out?

Racer, I said you speak of genitalia in your posts, not that you directed such comments at me. Just recently you colored up your comment to someone else in that manner. Hasn't been that long ago, so I'm sure you can find it. Maybe you're unaware of it, maybe you think it's macho, but it is offensive. I have only been posting since the end of Oct., and only then because of the ridiculous stuff put out by some of your types. Does that help? If you said such as that to anyone you should have been banned by PATCH. That's disgusting.

You are a stalker, John B, and a creepy vile one at that. You single me out to post an insult nearly every time I write a comment and the subject doesn't even matter to you. You're a nasty man. You don't even have the decency to comment on whatever the topic is. You just blatantly harass me. I really don't understand why PATCH lets your comments stand.

Who would you be, Racer X? What's your real name? I don't blame you for using a moniker, though. You probably would shame your mother and children. You're just as disgusting as John B, but at least you make some topic-related comments. The problem with you two is you're facing the rare female who stands up to your nonsense on a public forum.

GGY...certainly you don't begrudge me of my freedom of expression do you? You wrote in this thread you started posting here in October because those who oppose your views are idiots.....in so many words...correct? For the most part all of your posts support your reason for being here...so I call you out and you go into melt down mode. If I'm so "irrelevant" as you have stated so many times...why do you continue to respond to my posts? I'm guessing your just a bit insecure in your skin.

No, that is not correct. I didn't say anything about idiots - your word. I said, as you full well know, "I have only been posting since the end of Oct., and only then because of the ridiculous stuff put out by some of your types." I got a bit tired of reading the trashing being done, so I decided to participate because there weren't that many others with my views posting. Some of that vitriol needed to be countered. I have no problem with your freedom of expression until it only serves to insult and harass me. You don't write anything otherwise. I haven't noticed you engaging other posters (except Racer man b/c he's on your tag team) - when do you do that? That's the problem I have. Which is it? You say I'm too confident, then you say I'm insecure. You can't keep up with your own insults. I have no problem with giving you as good as you send or debating you on views as long as you're being relevant to the discussion, but I resent the highly vulgar words and tone you use too often. You don't call me out - you call out at me with vulgarity and inappropriate comments. Big, big difference. Also, you're in violation of PATCH rules for attacking another poster - Racer, too.

the ridiculous stuff put out by some of your types...hmmm...now how would I intepret that as "idiots." Your agenda is clear and you are transparent. You're not that smart GGY......

Because you twist words to suit your "agenda". I suspect you must think I'm smart. That's why you have a problem with me. You must like your own womenfolk to be dumb as rocks, or at least act like it.

no...really...I don't think you're smart at all...you would be lost without your google button....now good night...and you can have the last word...I know you won't be able to sleep tonight without it....womenfolk...lol..what a tool...

I never mind being challenged by someone who does so with substance and just the tiniest bit of decency. I rather enjoy it or wouldn't waste my time. There are very few posters on these threads who are truly intelligent enough and with proper manners who don't embarrass themselves and anyone reading these comments. You and Racer need to grow up and go away until you do.

and true to form...when challenged she wants to call foul and look for intervention...no one is harassing you GGY....pathetic........

You are foul. If you don't think so, you have no worries, do you? It's my right to complain and bring this to the PATCH STAFF attention. I have let it go on too long and get too out of hand. You two don't stop. You only get worse. It's time.

only one person name calling...can you guess who? Good night GGY...you're boring and I would rather do something more value added like brush my dogs teeth...