« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill? 

By: DigSpace in POPE | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 13 Mar 12 9:46 PM | 44 view(s)
Boardmark this board | (The) Pope's for real stock market report
Msg. 53455 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 53437 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

The Church, in this case the Catholic Church (that which along with corporations as the only things Jefferson feared more than government) sought to restrict this access.

98% of Catholic women report using birth control during their lives.

The majority of them believe it should be a covered expense.

Obama's approval ratings went up as a consequence of the debacle.

Yes. The People. The people told the Church what the rules are in the U.S. They have such a right. The people have the right to enforce rules and laws on Churchs and Corporations. The institution, Georgetown, takes tons of public money. If they want autonomy, walk away from the money. While this rule would still as I understand it apply, the fact is there is no such example to draw from. All of the institutions that this rule is directed at enjoy public money.

Public money gets strings. I want my public money to have strings. It does. Good. Don't like my rules because of your religious convictions (that of the Church, not its members) then don't take my money. My money, my rules.

Birth Control pills run the gamut frmo cheap to expensive some patent protected, some not, side-effects vary, different ones are chosen for differnt people for sifferent reasons. There is no one "proven ... actual amount", ditto for cholesterol meds, blood-pressure meds, antibiotics, its pretty much the rule rather than the exception that costs vary widely, that effects and side effects vary widely, and the notion that some bloke in the vatican and a few folks on message boards are the right folks to make decisions on this is silly. Plesnty of insurance plans require the cheaper generic unless a specific need is demonstrated for the new fangled branded version.


- - - - -
View Replies (3) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill?
By: Beldin
in POPE
Tue, 13 Mar 12 8:26 PM
Msg. 53437 of 65535

"FWIW the testimony from the slut was concerning Endometriosis..."

BS ... her example of the lesbian with endometriosis was just an aside to help bolster her main point that she shouldn't have to pay for her own birth control. Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with including coverage for contraceptives, whether for medical conditions such as endometriosis or for general birth control, but the insureds should be willing to pay the increased premiums for such coverage and employers should retain their right to opt out of such coverage if they have religious objection to birth control.

"Its not the gov telling the insurance companies what to do, its the people, the government is the peoples agent."

BS ... one leftist, "women's rights" activist whining at a Nancy Pelosi dog-and-pony-show is not the people. This is nothing more than a request for a nanny government to enter into private contracts where it constitutionally does not belong and attempt to squash the First Amendment rights of some American citizens at the behest of others.

Again, Fluke lied through her teeth ... $1,000 per year for birth control is a ridiculous number. It's already been proven that the actual amount is only about 10% of that ludicrous figure. And, in any event, it isn't a university's responsibility to provide for its students' birth control ... the students should be personally responsible enough to go to Starbuck's one fewer times a month and use the savings to pay for their own birth control.


« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next