Can the president now order Kosher delis to give away pork?

[hadit]

Food just isn't a parallel to healthcare.

Right, it's a much more basic and immediate need. It's a valid question, and I would interested to see what you think.

[Lulu]

hadit, if you don't understand the difference between making birth control affordable to women and forcing a deli to sell pork, I really don't think anyone here can help you out. Quite honestly, I find your views both archaic and insulting... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable people here. Perhaps not. The reality is that condoms (which cost about $6/box of 10) is not a realistic solution to preventing pregnancy for a monogamous couple. Sure a person can do cash pay for birth control, but she will pay anywhere from about $30-150/month for BC if the insurer doesn't cover it. Christ, caddis was bitching about a $25 albuterol inhaler not too long ago.

As far as voluntary... I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If we want to head down that path, most type 2 diabetes is caused because the person voluntarily sat on their ass and ate bad food. Do we deny them meds? And lung cancer and COPD, they voluntarily smoked so I guess they should pay cash for any meds too.

I'll give you this. I think they should pay a $5-10 co-pay and I don't think Plan B should be included. It's about $40 if someone were to buy it over the counter. However the public sides with Obama on this one.

It's not even close: By a lopsided margin of 66 percent to 26 percent, Americans support President Barack Obama's proposal to require private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control for women, according to a new CBS/New York Times public opinion poll.

Rephrasing the question to ask specifically about "religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university," barely moved the needle, to 61 percent to 31 percent.

+/- let's say 10% for the CBS bias, only the old guys in the Catholic Church and 26% of the public thinks providing birth control is unreasonable. Welcome to the 26%.

[Vader]

The president has caused a firestorm by attempting to force the Catholic Church and other religious organizations to provide contraception for their employees, even if said organizations have religious objections to doing so. In addition, every health insurance company is now required to give away contraception, even if said company was created specifically to serve religious organizations that object to doing so. This was done on the sketchy grounds that contraception is so very vital, so very important, and apparently so very expensive and difficult to obtain that horny people without health insurance were basically reduced to begging in the streets for a condom. Yeah, yeah, I know, hyperbole. Don't get your underwear in a twist. Anyhoo, what's to stop the logical next step?

Food is a much, much more basic need than is contraception and there are people in America who can't even afford an XBOX 360 because they have to spend all their money to feed their families.

If the president now has the power to just order things like this to happen, why could he NOT simply demand that all food providers such as ethnic grocery stores, neighborhood bake sales, and yes, the aforementioned Kosher deli provide a full selection of all approved food products which includes pork, on the grounds that it's lower in fat than beef?

Would those of you now applauding the president's power grab be so thrilled to know that when you go to your favorite Jewish eating establishment, you now have to pay significantly more for your Kosher meal because you have to subsidize the pork chop dinner they are forced to give away for free? Feel free to substitute vegetarian and meatballs, or Muslim and pork, etc. You know what I'm getting at. Would you applaud all food establishments being forced to provide ALL foods from a government enforced list, or would you prefer to allow stores to specialize on certain foods, knowing that you have the choice to eat there or not?

Discuss. If this is allowed to stand, what would stop the scenario I just described?

Again, for the ninth consecutive time, Obama had to do something to prevent religious zealot idiots are not forcing thier beliefs on their employees, patients, ect.

Whether the right likes it or not, THIER RELIGION IS NOT THE FUCKING LAW and THIS FACT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. The right has to learn to keep their religious beliefs to themselves. This is espcially true where medical treatment is involved.

[86Dùde]

Going to to steam up your mask if you don't cool down you lordship.

[302Riz]

Now we have the government imposing its beliefs on religious organizations who have their own ideals when it comes to birth control. How is this any different than religious people imposing their ideals on other people?

If religious organizations who don't believe in birth control shouldn't have to provide it to their employees or constituents. If they want to live in ignorance, that's their choice.

[Powerboss]

Again, for the ninth consecutive time, Obama had to do something to prevent religious zealot idiots are not forcing thier beliefs on their employees, patients, ect.

Whether the right likes it or not, THIER RELIGION IS NOT THE FUCKING LAW and THIS FACT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. The right has to learn to keep their religious beliefs to themselves. This is espcially true where medical treatment is involved.

You're a complete fucking idiot.

Have you heard of the religious liberty clause of the Constitution? The Constitution is the highest law of the land.
That clause codifies that religious persons and organizations have the Constitutional right to religious liberty and free exercise and free conscience to not have to do things against their religious beliefs. Catholic Hospitals provide a service and they are under no obligation to do things that violate their religious beliefs just as Quakers were not compelled to fight in wars. Do you need more explanation and examples you ignorant buffoon?

Ignorant morons like you are the reason we're in this mess.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Off topic...HUNGRY FOR A PASTRAMI SANDWICH ALERT!

[hadit]

hadit, if you don't understand the difference between making birth control affordable to women and forcing a deli to sell pork, I really don't think anyone here can help you out. Quite honestly, I find your views both archaic and insulting... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable people here. Perhaps not. The reality is that condoms (which cost about $6/box of 10) is not a realistic solution to preventing pregnancy for a monogamous couple.

Why not? Are condoms not very effective, and thus the stories we're feeding kids false?

Sure a person can do cash pay for birth control, but she will pay anywhere from about $30-150/month for BC if the insurer doesn't cover it. Christ, caddis was bitching about a $25 albuterol inhaler not too long ago.

As far as voluntary... I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If we want to head down that path, most type 2 diabetes is caused because the person voluntarily sat on their ass and ate bad food. Do we deny them meds? And lung cancer and COPD, they voluntarily smoked so I guess they should pay cash for any meds too.

Big difference between diabetes, which is a disease, and pregnancy, which is a natural compenent in the propagation of the species.

I'll give you this. I think they should pay a $5-10 co-pay and I don't think Plan B should be included. It's about $40 if someone were to buy it over the counter. However the public sides with Obama on this one.



+/- let's say 10% for the CBS bias, only the old guys in the Catholic Church and 26% of the public thinks providing birth control is unreasonable. Welcome to the 26%.

Popularity has nothing to do with the Constitution. Freebies from the government are always popular, but they're not always lawful.

Regardless, that does not even address what I am talking about, which is the government's lack of authority to compel individuals and organizations to act against their religious beliefs. That's the bottom line here, and I'm sorry you have gotten hung up in the side issue of whether contraception is a good thing or not. That's irrelevent to this. Heck, we used contraception until I got a vasectomy, and I have no problem with it at all, nor do I belong to any organization that forbids it. What I DO have a problem with, however, is the government taking the unprecedented step of FORCING religious organizations to actively purchase and supply contraception when they have strong religious objections to doing so.

Do you not see that once this new power is entrenched, there is absolutely nothing that could stop a future president from deciding that it would be a good thing for all Americans to eat a certain way, and subsequently force ALL eating establishments to buy and give away things to which they object?

[hadit]

Again, for the ninth consecutive time, Obama had to do something to prevent religious zealot idiots are not forcing thier beliefs on their employees, patients, ect.

Whether the right likes it or not, THIER RELIGION IS NOT THE FUCKING LAW and THIS FACT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. The right has to learn to keep their religious beliefs to themselves. This is espcially true where medical treatment is involved.

Again, and I'm not even counting, no one's forcing anyone to not use contraception. What's happening here is that organizations don't want to be forced to subsidize their employees' sex lives. What's wrong with that?

[Sparkly Mary]

Again, and I'm not even counting, no one's forcing anyone to not use contraception. What's happening here is that organizations don't want to be forced to subsidize their employees' sex lives. What's wrong with that?

And now they don't have to do so. The organizations don't have to pay for contraceptives. The insurance company does. This issue is now moot.

[Powerboss]

Hadit, These buffoons don't get understand the Constitution, nor do they have any respect for it. They prefer to shred it so they can have their agenda and moral code forced on everyone.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when Government controls medicine. Next, it will be forcing insurance companies and / or employers to cover the left's sacred issue of Abortion.

One last point. These buffoons don't understand the consequences and implications of what they are endorsing here with Government control. What if the next Secretary of Health determined the following rules:

1) 5 day waiting period before women could have abortions. This would parallel the 5 day waiting period that firearms purchasers faced under the Brady Law.

2) A requirement that every person who receives free condoms from any federally subsidized health center first must receive 30 minutes of mandatory abstinence counseling.

3) A rule stating that those who visit Gay Men’s Health Crisis cannot accept any services until after completing a 2 day course on gay conversion, so that they can be “cured” of their homosexuality.

Do you think the lefties would go for those rules? They had better hope that Obama doesn't get away with this new rule because future Administrations can make their own rules like the 3 cited.

[Powerboss]

And now they don't have to do so. The organizations don't have to pay for contraceptives. The insurance company does. This issue is now moot.

Seriously? I can't believe you actually fell for that.

Question: Who pays the insurance company via premiums? Answer: The Employer.

[Sparkly Mary]

Hadit, These buffoons don't get understand the Constitution, nor do they have any respect for it. They prefer to shred it so they can have their agenda and moral code forced on everyone.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when Government controls medicine. Next, it will be forcing insurance companies to cover the left's sacred issue of Abortion.

One last point. These buffoons don't understand the consequences and implications of what they are endorsing here with Government control. What if the next Secretary of Health determined the following rules:

1) 5 day waiting period before women could have abortions. This would parallel the 5 day waiting period that firearms purchasers faced under the Brady Law.

2) A requirement that every person who receives free condoms from any federally subsidized health center first must receive 30 minutes of mandatory abstinence counseling.

3) A rule stating that those who visit Gay Men’s Health Crisis cannot accept any services until after completing a 2 day course on gay conversion, so that they can be “cured” of their homosexuality.

Do you think the lefties would go for those rules? They had better hope that Obama doesn't get away with this new rule because future Administrations can make their own rules like the 3 cited.

I wouldn't have a problem with 1 and 2.
As for 3, "the gay" is not an illness that can be, or needs to be "cured".

[Cyclone Ranger]

Sorry, but nothing in the Bill of Rights suggests that commercial or religious institutions have rights. The power to regulate such entities was either specifically granted to Congress, or delegated to the states.

Businesses can be regulated, including statutes demanding they pay for health insurance for their employees.

[Sparkly Mary]

Seriously? I can't believe you actually fell for that.

Question: Who pays the insurance company via premiums? Answer: The Employer.

Who can pass along that cost to its employees via the share of premiums that they pay for the coverage.

[hadit]

Who can pass along that cost to its employees via the share of premiums that they pay for the coverage.

They are still being forced to pay for and provide contraception to their employees, something they have specific religious objections to doing. Like I've been saying all along, however, once this new power is entrenched, what's to stop a future president and compliant Congress from mandating the other kinds of things that have been mentioned?

[Cyclone Ranger]

I'll say it many times, many ways - but businesses have limited rights, and certainly not to deny their employees health benefits designated by Congress.

[hadit]

Sorry, but nothing in the Bill of Rights suggests that commercial or religious institutions have rights. The power to regulate such entities was either specifically granted to Congress, or delegated to the states.

Businesses can be regulated, including statutes demanding they pay for health insurance for their employees.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

If you honestly think that means churches have no rights, there literally is no helping you. And again, what would be your reaction to a law forcing Kosher delis to buy, prepare and give away pork?

[hadit]

I'll say it many times, many ways - but businesses have limited rights, and certainly not to deny their employees health benefits designated by Congress.

They're not denying benefits, they're simply refusing to pay for them. The people can still get the benefits.

[Lulu]

Seriously? I can't believe you actually fell for that.

Question: Who pays the insurance company via premiums? Answer: The Employer.

Not true - they pay a portion in premiums. The person pays the rest of the premium and they pay deductibles and co-pays.

Christian Scientists are prosecuted when they withhold medicine for religious reasons so when it comes to healthcare, religion doesn't get a free for all on healthcare decisions. There are also laws against polygamy. There has been precedent set for the free exercise clause and while dramatic to say so, this is not a constitutional infringement.

The only situation where the church is being forced to do anything is if they also own the insurance company the health plan is through. Again, if they want to operate outside of the law, they can operate like a private business and give up their tax exemptions. That is fair.