info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Health insurance birth control solution
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 3, 2012, 1:30:05 PM3/3/12
to
I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
just birth control, since one can question the government's power to
mandate what services must be included in private health care plans.
Cosmetic surgery? Penis implants? Viagra? But that debate is for
another thread.
On the issue of whether a Catholic organization, for example, should be
forced to provide birth control and abortion services in its employees'
health care plan, the solution is simple -- they should drop all coverage
and let the employees purchase whatever insurance policies they want.
There is no law requiring employers to provide health insurance. An
employer who pays $1000 monthly health insurance premium per employee is
free to drop coverage and give the $1000 directly to the employee and let
her use it to purchase her own policy, one that does or doesn't cover
birth control pills, whatever she CHOOSES to (liberalism is all about
CHOICE).
The problem with this idea is that during the Obamacare debate several
years ago, Democrats refused to allow tax deductions for individual
health insurance policies. The employer who provides health insurance
can deduct the $1000 from his taxable income, but the employee who
purchases an individual policy must pay tax on that $1000 -- 25% or $250.
There is no reason why health insurance premiums are not deductible,
except that Democrats want to be dicks and make everyone dependent on
employer-provided plans, plans that are then loaded up with mandates
(like birth control) until they become too expensive and the employers
drop them, making everyone dependent on government-run Obamacare.
the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
just birth control, since one can question the government's power to
mandate what services must be included in private health care plans.
Cosmetic surgery? Penis implants? Viagra? But that debate is for
another thread.
On the issue of whether a Catholic organization, for example, should be
forced to provide birth control and abortion services in its employees'
health care plan, the solution is simple -- they should drop all coverage
and let the employees purchase whatever insurance policies they want.
There is no law requiring employers to provide health insurance. An
employer who pays $1000 monthly health insurance premium per employee is
free to drop coverage and give the $1000 directly to the employee and let
her use it to purchase her own policy, one that does or doesn't cover
birth control pills, whatever she CHOOSES to (liberalism is all about
CHOICE).
The problem with this idea is that during the Obamacare debate several
years ago, Democrats refused to allow tax deductions for individual
health insurance policies. The employer who provides health insurance
can deduct the $1000 from his taxable income, but the employee who
purchases an individual policy must pay tax on that $1000 -- 25% or $250.
There is no reason why health insurance premiums are not deductible,
except that Democrats want to be dicks and make everyone dependent on
employer-provided plans, plans that are then loaded up with mandates
(like birth control) until they become too expensive and the employers
drop them, making everyone dependent on government-run Obamacare.
2907 Dead
Mar 3, 2012, 1:31:47 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
In other words you don't support the right.
> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Message has been deleted
chibiabos
Mar 3, 2012, 2:04:13 PM3/3/12
to
In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>, Dånk 42Ø
unless you've paid sufficient premiums over your lifetimes to cover its
cost, thereby not forcing others in your insurance group pay for it.
Testicular cancer would be best, since you're so hung up about
everybody else's groins.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
<da...@bud.org> wrote:
> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
I question your right to cancer treatment (should you ever need it)
> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
unless you've paid sufficient premiums over your lifetimes to cover its
cost, thereby not forcing others in your insurance group pay for it.
Testicular cancer would be best, since you're so hung up about
everybody else's groins.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 4:14:38 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea
<chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
That's an unjust law. Anyone should be able to discriminate
for any reason whatsoever. It's not the job of any government to
legislate aesthetics.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
<chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>
>I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a bigger
>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>
>issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
That's an unjust law. Anyone should be able to discriminate
for any reason whatsoever. It's not the job of any government to
legislate aesthetics.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 4:15:10 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:04:13 -0800, chibiabos <ch...@nospam.com>
scrawled in blood:
>In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>, Dånk 42Ø
><da...@bud.org> wrote:
>
>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
>I question your right to cancer treatment (should you ever need it)
>unless you've paid sufficient premiums over your lifetimes to cover its
>cost, thereby not forcing others in your insurance group pay for it.
What's that got to do with the topic?
scrawled in blood:
>In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>, Dånk 42Ø
><da...@bud.org> wrote:
>
>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
>I question your right to cancer treatment (should you ever need it)
>unless you've paid sufficient premiums over your lifetimes to cover its
>cost, thereby not forcing others in your insurance group pay for it.
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 4:15:45 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
in blood:
>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
want.
in blood:
>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
want.
Message has been deleted
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 5:11:37 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:31:34 -0800, China Blue Sea
<chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article <rc25l7lfhstidnfl6...@4ax.com>,
It's called misapplication of the 14th amendment.
<chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article <rc25l7lfhstidnfl6...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea
>> <chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
>> > Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>> >> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> >> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>> >
>> >I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a bigger
>> >issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>> >discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>>
>> That's an unjust law. Anyone should be able to discriminate
>> for any reason whatsoever. It's not the job of any government to
>> legislate aesthetics.
>
>It's called the 14th Amendment.
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea
>> <chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
>> > Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>> >> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> >> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>> >
>> >I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a bigger
>> >issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>> >discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>>
>> That's an unjust law. Anyone should be able to discriminate
>> for any reason whatsoever. It's not the job of any government to
>> legislate aesthetics.
>
It's called misapplication of the 14th amendment.
Free Lunch
Mar 3, 2012, 5:23:21 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:31:34 -0800, China Blue Sea
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
can never discriminate, what it says is that you cannot discriminate
under certain circumstances such as demanding that the government
enforce your bigoted behavior or insist on the right to engage in
interstate commerce while refusing to follow the law.
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea
>> <chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
>> > Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>> >> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> >> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>> >
>> >I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a bigger
>> >issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>> >discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>>
>> That's an unjust law. Anyone should be able to discriminate
>> for any reason whatsoever. It's not the job of any government to
>> legislate aesthetics.
>
>> <chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
>> > Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>> >> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> >> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>> >
>> >I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a bigger
>> >issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>> >discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>>
>> That's an unjust law. Anyone should be able to discriminate
>> for any reason whatsoever. It's not the job of any government to
>> legislate aesthetics.
>
>It's called the 14th Amendment.
And that, despite Kresch's parody interpretation of it, does not say you
can never discriminate, what it says is that you cannot discriminate
under certain circumstances such as demanding that the government
enforce your bigoted behavior or insist on the right to engage in
interstate commerce while refusing to follow the law.
Steve
Mar 3, 2012, 5:57:42 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
>In other words you don't support the right.
It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
pathetic loon.
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
>In other words you don't support the right.
pathetic loon.
Vurgil
Mar 3, 2012, 6:10:28 PM3/3/12
to
In article <3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbu...@4ax.com>,
Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
the patients.
beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
the patients.
Steve
Mar 3, 2012, 6:31:04 PM3/3/12
to
GM has to tell the plants not to paint any cars pink. <LOL> Now do
the loons on the far left think that infringes on the rights of people
who want pink cars?
Vurgil
Mar 3, 2012, 7:57:27 PM3/3/12
to
In article <l5a5l7t96cf4cj8ap...@4ax.com>,
False analogy!
Car buyers can easily go to other car dealwers, or have their cars
painted pink after buying them, but not all patients who wind up in
religiously run hospitals have the choice of going to other hospitals.
And a rape victim who was also beaten up and then hospitalized in a
Catholic hospital who wants a morning after pill may well end up not
being able to get one.
Car buyers can easily go to other car dealwers, or have their cars
painted pink after buying them, but not all patients who wind up in
religiously run hospitals have the choice of going to other hospitals.
And a rape victim who was also beaten up and then hospitalized in a
Catholic hospital who wants a morning after pill may well end up not
being able to get one.
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 8:24:44 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> scrawled
in blood:
It's a business like any other. A jewish deli doesn't serve
pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
in blood:
pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 3, 2012, 8:40:22 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000, 2907 Dead wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
> In other words you don't support the right.
I have a right to keep and bear arms. Should the government force YOU to
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
> In other words you don't support the right.
purchase my guns and ammunition?
2907 Dead
Mar 3, 2012, 8:59:07 PM3/3/12
to
there and no place else.
>
>
> Don
> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster Praise "Bob" or burn in
> Slacklessness trying not to.
>
> Don
> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster Praise "Bob" or burn in
> Slacklessness trying not to.
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 3, 2012, 9:01:56 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea wrote:
> In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
> Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>
> In article <hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
> Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>
>> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>
>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>
> I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a
> bigger issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church
> cannot discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
True, but the issue isn't religious discrimination, it's whether a
> bigger issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church
> cannot discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
religious organization should be forced to violate its principles.
If Christian organizations are not free to discriminate when hiring
employees, then Jewish and Muslim organizations may not discriminate,
either. (Of course, nobody would dare tell a Muslim organization it must
hire Jews.) Now suppose that I, a Satanist, am hired by a Jewish
hospital. My contract says that since I am on call, the hospital
cafeteria must provide me with free meals. I have a constitutional right
to eat pork, so now I demand that the cafeteria provide me with free pork
chops and bacon cheeseburgers. Naturally, Jews would object, arguing
that my right to eat pork does not require them to provide it.
DanielSan
Mar 3, 2012, 9:07:09 PM3/3/12
to
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 9:14:36 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:07:09 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
Forcing others to pay for it violates those others' rights.
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
DanielSan
Mar 3, 2012, 9:24:39 PM3/3/12
to
suggesting that eating of a certain type of food is the same as medical
operations?!
2907 Dead
Mar 3, 2012, 9:25:50 PM3/3/12
to
medical costs caused by the tens of thousands of shooting that occur in
the US each year.
kni...@baawa.com
Mar 3, 2012, 9:27:41 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:15:45 -0600, Don Kresch
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>in blood:
>
>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
> No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
>want.
I don't want to pay for church infrastructure but I am forced to do
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>in blood:
>
>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
> No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
>want.
so because they are tax exempt. There is no opt out box to check on my
tax return.
I don't get a deduction from tithing to a church. IMO, tithing is
giving to a business not a charity or non profit organization since
they invest the money.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 9:43:39 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:27:41 -0800, kni...@baawa.com scrawled in
blood:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:15:45 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>>in blood:
>>
>>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>
>> No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
>>want.
>
> I don't want to pay for church infrastructure but I am forced to do
>so because they are tax exempt. There is no opt out box to check on my
>tax return.
Would you rather them be taxed and thus be allowed to have a
say? That's the way it works.
blood:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:15:45 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>>in blood:
>>
>>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>
>> No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
>>want.
>
> I don't want to pay for church infrastructure but I am forced to do
>so because they are tax exempt. There is no opt out box to check on my
>tax return.
say? That's the way it works.
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 9:44:41 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:24:39 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
Irrelevant. Are you seriously suggesting that some things are
so special that they require laws to prevent "discrimination". Wow.
Just wow. How smugly self-absorbed can you get, Danny?
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
so special that they require laws to prevent "discrimination". Wow.
Just wow. How smugly self-absorbed can you get, Danny?
DanielSan
Mar 3, 2012, 10:32:29 PM3/3/12
to
On 3/3/2012 6:14 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:07:09 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 3/3/2012 2:57 PM, Steve wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead<de...@gone.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>>
>>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>>> pathetic loon.
>>
>> And, since it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights....
>
> Forcing others to pay for it violates those others' rights.
No one is forcing others to pay for it.
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:07:09 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 3/3/2012 2:57 PM, Steve wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead<de...@gone.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>>
>>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>>> pathetic loon.
>>
>> And, since it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights....
>
> Forcing others to pay for it violates those others' rights.
DanielSan
Mar 3, 2012, 10:38:57 PM3/3/12
to
On 3/3/2012 6:44 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:24:39 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 3/3/2012 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> scrawled
>>> in blood:
>>>
>>>> In article<3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbu...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead<de...@gone.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>>>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>>>>> pathetic loon.
>>>>
>>>> Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
>>>> beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
>>>> the patients.
>>>
>>> It's a business like any other. A jewish deli doesn't serve
>>> pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
>>
>> No, because pork-eaters can go to another deli.
>
> Irrelevant.
No, it's not.
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:24:39 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 3/3/2012 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> scrawled
>>> in blood:
>>>
>>>> In article<3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbu...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead<de...@gone.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>>>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>>>>> pathetic loon.
>>>>
>>>> Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
>>>> beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
>>>> the patients.
>>>
>>> It's a business like any other. A jewish deli doesn't serve
>>> pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
>>
>> No, because pork-eaters can go to another deli.
>
> Irrelevant.
Message has been deleted
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 11:55:27 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:38:57 -0800, DanielSan
Yes, it is.
Don Kresch
Mar 3, 2012, 11:55:55 PM3/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:32:29 -0800, DanielSan
We're talking about the principle thereof.
DanielSan
Mar 3, 2012, 11:57:02 PM3/3/12
to
decisions.
Dumbass.
DanielSan
Mar 3, 2012, 11:57:25 PM3/3/12
to
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 12:28:34 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:57:02 -0800, DanielSan
Yep. Only a dumbass would believe otherwise.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 12:28:53 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:57:25 -0800, DanielSan
Liberty.
Olrik
Mar 4, 2012, 12:38:15 AM3/4/12
to
impossible for him to think.
Mockery and insults is all he deserves.
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 12:42:03 AM3/4/12
to
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 12:42:41 AM3/4/12
to
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 02:25:50 +0000, 2907 Dead wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:40:22 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000, 2907 Dead wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>
>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder
>>>> whether the government should be paying for it or forcing others to
>>>> pay for it.
>>>
>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>
>> I have a right to keep and bear arms. Should the government force YOU
>> to purchase my guns and ammunition?
>
> No, but I do pay for your deadly little hobby in higher insurance and
> medical costs caused by the tens of thousands of shooting that occur in
> the US each year.
You don't pay for anything, since you're on the dole.
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:40:22 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000, 2907 Dead wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>
>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder
>>>> whether the government should be paying for it or forcing others to
>>>> pay for it.
>>>
>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>
>> I have a right to keep and bear arms. Should the government force YOU
>> to purchase my guns and ammunition?
>
> No, but I do pay for your deadly little hobby in higher insurance and
> medical costs caused by the tens of thousands of shooting that occur in
> the US each year.
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 12:48:28 AM3/4/12
to
organizations are perfectly free to drop coverage for all their employees.
The Catholic church can be forced to provide birth control coverage in
its health insurance plans, but it can't be forced to provide health
insurance at all. If the Catholic church wants to uphold its principles,
it should drop all health insurance coverage for its employees, and let
them Hope that Chairman Obama will pay for their coverage instead.
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 12:50:47 AM3/4/12
to
dumbass like myself would think otherwise.
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 12:51:38 AM3/4/12
to
Olrik
Mar 4, 2012, 12:53:26 AM3/4/12
to
Le 2012-03-03 16:14, Don Kresch a écrit :
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea
> <chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea
>
>> In article<hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
>> Dånk 42Ø<da...@bud.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>>
>> I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a bigger
>> issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>> discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>
> That's an unjust law. Anyone should be able to discriminate
>>
>>> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>>
>> I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a bigger
>> issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church cannot
>> discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>
> for any reason whatsoever. It's not the job of any government to
> legislate aesthetics.
And here's "Kresch" advocating murder, rape, slavery, and every other crime.
"Kresch", you're a failed human being, a despicable person. I hope you
live a very long, bitter life.
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 12:55:11 AM3/4/12
to
be "forced to pay" for someone's operation? Christian Scientists, for
example.
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 12:56:44 AM3/4/12
to
don't want to provide insurance for health care.
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 12:57:09 AM3/4/12
to
Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
At least Jews are tolerant of Gentile pork-eaters: Muslims not only would
refuse to serve a Kafir a bacon cheeseburger, they would behead him for
even asking.
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 12:59:00 AM3/4/12
to
Are you insane or just stupidly gullible?
> At least Jews are tolerant of Gentile pork-eaters: Muslims not only would
> refuse to serve a Kafir a bacon cheeseburger, they would behead him for
> even asking.
Olrik
Mar 4, 2012, 1:09:40 AM3/4/12
to
Message has been deleted
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 1:23:19 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:50:47 -0800, DanielSan
A service is a service. Only a dumbass would think otherwise.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 1:25:24 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, D�nk 42� wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2012-03-03 23:57, DanielSan a �crit :
The principle of force is the same. Are you stupid or just a
hypocrite?
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, D�nk 42� wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik wrote:
>>
hypocrite?
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 1:26:19 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:56:44 -0800, DanielSan
So you're defining insurance for healthcare as "whatever Danny
wants them to provide".
wants them to provide".
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 1:27:11 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:51:38 -0800, DanielSan
We're talking about the principle thereof. Hypotheticals. You
do know what a hypothetical is, RIGHT? You're not that fucking stupid,
RIGHT?
do know what a hypothetical is, RIGHT? You're not that fucking stupid,
RIGHT?
Olrik
Mar 4, 2012, 1:48:31 AM3/4/12
to
Le 2012-03-04 01:18, China Blue Water Navy a écrit :
> If he's lucky, when he dies Mistress will cut off his head and hang it in the
> hall.
If he's lucky, his mental disease will not impedes his propensity to be
wrong about everything.
"Kresch" is demented.
> hall.
If he's lucky, his mental disease will not impedes his propensity to be
wrong about everything.
"Kresch" is demented.
kni...@baawa.com
Mar 4, 2012, 2:02:40 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:43:39 -0600, Don Kresch
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:27:41 -0800, kni...@baawa.com scrawled in
>blood:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:15:45 -0600, Don Kresch
>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>>>in blood:
>>>want.
>>
>> I don't want to pay for church infrastructure but I am forced to do
>>so because they are tax exempt. There is no opt out box to check on my
>>tax return.
>
> Would you rather them be taxed and thus be allowed to have a
>say? That's the way it works.
Are we on the same page? They get taxed exempt and have their say
no matter their delusion. Are you on planet Earth?
The Bleeters are preparing to elected to the presidency an idiot
that thinks the world is six thousand year old.
Perhaps you telegraph rational thought too much.
Warlord Steve BAAWA
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:27:41 -0800, kni...@baawa.com scrawled in
>blood:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:15:45 -0600, Don Kresch
>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>>>in blood:
>>>
>>>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>
>>> No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
>>>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>
>>>want.
>>
>> I don't want to pay for church infrastructure but I am forced to do
>>so because they are tax exempt. There is no opt out box to check on my
>>tax return.
>
> Would you rather them be taxed and thus be allowed to have a
>say? That's the way it works.
Are we on the same page? They get taxed exempt and have their say
no matter their delusion. Are you on planet Earth?
The Bleeters are preparing to elected to the presidency an idiot
that thinks the world is six thousand year old.
Perhaps you telegraph rational thought too much.
Warlord Steve BAAWA
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 2:08:47 AM3/4/12
to
subscribed to their teachings. Even if I did work for them, I wouldn't
expect them to support my lifestyle if it differed from theirs.
One of my recurring themes is political correctness trying to use the law
to impose its ideology on conventional religion. My usual analogy is a
Chess club that is forced to admit Checkers players, though this goes one
step further and has the Checkers players forcing the Chess club members
to play Checkers whether they want to or not. After the Chess players
have been purged, the Checkers players rename their game as "Chess," but
it isn't Chess at all. Likewise, a government can force the Catholic
church to ordain lesbian priests and teach that Kim Jong Il is God, but
then the religion ceases to exist except in name only.
Most people can afford to pay for birth control, and most people probably
do not want their insurance company or the government to know the details
of their sex lives. Even if birth control were covered by insurance,
most women and men would prefer to pay for it out of pocket rather than
letting Chairman Obama know how often they get laid.
The poorest of the poor are already covered by Medicaid, which *DOES*
cover birth control, so this is a non-issue, something orchestrated by
Democrats to increase the price of private health insurance so that
employers drop coverage entirely, forcing people into the government-run
Obamacare system.
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 2:34:10 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one. It does not matter
that pork and meat/dairy products violate their kosher rules, they are
REQUIRED to fulfill my constitutional right to eat non-kosher food.
Are ALL leftards as dain bread as you? I might blame it on the drugs,
but then I've probably dropped a hundred times as much acid as you ever
have, and I can still formulate a coherent thought. Perhaps it's the
crack cocaine that Chairman Obama feeds you to keep you loyal to the
Party line.
As an anarchist, I hate leftards and rightards alike, but while rightards
are fascist enough, they are nowhere nearly as terrifying as leftards
like you. Modern leftardism combines the calculated yet evil genius of
Stalinism with the psychotic mania of an asylum for the criminally
insane. The more I try to argue with leftards like you, the more
terrified I become over the prospect that you may one day seize power.
Hopefully, the 2nd Amendment will prevent that from happening.
> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>>> impossible for him to think.
>>
>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean that
>> a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>
> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger. Are
> you insane or just stupidly gullible?
It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon cheeseburgers,
>>> impossible for him to think.
>>
>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean that
>> a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>
> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger. Are
> you insane or just stupidly gullible?
a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one. It does not matter
that pork and meat/dairy products violate their kosher rules, they are
REQUIRED to fulfill my constitutional right to eat non-kosher food.
Are ALL leftards as dain bread as you? I might blame it on the drugs,
but then I've probably dropped a hundred times as much acid as you ever
have, and I can still formulate a coherent thought. Perhaps it's the
crack cocaine that Chairman Obama feeds you to keep you loyal to the
Party line.
As an anarchist, I hate leftards and rightards alike, but while rightards
are fascist enough, they are nowhere nearly as terrifying as leftards
like you. Modern leftardism combines the calculated yet evil genius of
Stalinism with the psychotic mania of an asylum for the criminally
insane. The more I try to argue with leftards like you, the more
terrified I become over the prospect that you may one day seize power.
Hopefully, the 2nd Amendment will prevent that from happening.
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 2:41:51 AM3/4/12
to
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 2:43:00 AM3/4/12
to
On 3/3/2012 10:25 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 2:43:25 AM3/4/12
to
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 2:44:12 AM3/4/12
to
happening, you can go ahead and fuck off.
Message has been deleted
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 2:50:07 AM3/4/12
to
they don't want to follow the pre-established rules or new rules, they
need to get out of that business. No one is forcing them to stay in
business. I would think that they would like the money that comes with
the providing of that service, but if their ideology trumps money, then
they don't HAVE to provide that service. There are many secular
organizations that would be glad to get that service.
> One of my recurring themes is political correctness trying to use the law
> to impose its ideology on conventional religion.
ideology on others?
<snip>
DanielSan
Mar 4, 2012, 2:51:37 AM3/4/12
to
On 3/3/2012 11:34 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>>>> impossible for him to think.
>>>
>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean that
>>> a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>>
>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger. Are
>> you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>
> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon cheeseburgers,
> a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one.
You don't have the right to eat bacon cheeseburgers.
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>>>> impossible for him to think.
>>>
>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean that
>>> a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>>
>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger. Are
>> you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>
> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon cheeseburgers,
> a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one.
Steve
Mar 4, 2012, 6:06:39 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:57:27 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>In article <l5a5l7t96cf4cj8ap...@4ax.com>,
> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> GM has to tell the plants not to paint any cars pink. <LOL> Now do
>> the loons on the far left think that infringes on the rights of people
>> who want pink cars?
>
>False analogy!
>
>Car buyers can easily go to other car dealwers, or have their cars
>painted pink after buying them, but not all patients who wind up in
>religiously run hospitals have the choice of going to other hospitals.
>
>And a rape victim who was also beaten up and then hospitalized in a
>Catholic hospital who wants a morning after pill may well end up not
>being able to get one.
Wrong.. they can request another hospital
>In article <l5a5l7t96cf4cj8ap...@4ax.com>,
> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbu...@4ax.com>,
>> > Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbu...@4ax.com>,
>> > Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> >> >> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>> >> >
>> >> >In other words you don't support the right.
>> >>
>> >> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>> >> pathetic loon.
>> >
>> >Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
>> >beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
>> >the patients.
>>
>> Of course they do... it's the very same right that the management at
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>> >> >> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>> >> >
>> >> >In other words you don't support the right.
>> >>
>> >> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>> >> pathetic loon.
>> >
>> >Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
>> >beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
>> >the patients.
>>
>> GM has to tell the plants not to paint any cars pink. <LOL> Now do
>> the loons on the far left think that infringes on the rights of people
>> who want pink cars?
>
>False analogy!
>
>Car buyers can easily go to other car dealwers, or have their cars
>painted pink after buying them, but not all patients who wind up in
>religiously run hospitals have the choice of going to other hospitals.
>
>And a rape victim who was also beaten up and then hospitalized in a
>Catholic hospital who wants a morning after pill may well end up not
>being able to get one.
Wrong.. they can request another hospital
Dakota
Mar 4, 2012, 6:17:59 AM3/4/12
to
On 3/3/2012 9:54 PM, China Blue Sea wrote:
> In article<jZ6dna0TqOiJUM_S...@earthlink.com>,
> Dånk 42Ø<da...@bud.org> wrote:
>> religious organization should be forced to violate its principles.
>
> Hint: Hinduism is pretty much contrary to every principle of Catholicism.
>
>> If Christian organizations are not free to discriminate when hiring
>> employees, then Jewish and Muslim organizations may not discriminate,
>> either. (Of course, nobody would dare tell a Muslim organization it must
>> hire Jews.) Now suppose that I, a Satanist, am hired by a Jewish
>> hospital. My contract says that since I am on call, the hospital
>> cafeteria must provide me with free meals. I have a constitutional right
>> to eat pork, so now I demand that the cafeteria provide me with free pork
>> chops and bacon cheeseburgers. Naturally, Jews would object, arguing
>> that my right to eat pork does not require them to provide it.
>
You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>
> Provide evidence any of your conclusions could actually occur.
>
> In article<jZ6dna0TqOiJUM_S...@earthlink.com>,
> Dånk 42Ø<da...@bud.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea wrote:
>>
>>> In article<hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
>>> Dånk 42Ø<da...@bud.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>>>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>>>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>>>
>>> I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a
>>> bigger issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church
>>> cannot discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>>
>> True, but the issue isn't religious discrimination, it's whether a
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:37:23 -0800, China Blue Sea wrote:
>>
>>> In article<hrSdnVXgzp2w_s_S...@earthlink.com>,
>>> Dånk 42Ø<da...@bud.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
>>>> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
>>>> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
>>>
>>> I would think forcing the Catholic church to hire Hindus would be a
>>> bigger issue, but it is already tried and true law that if that church
>>> cannot discriminate based on religion for most kinds of jobs.
>>
>> religious organization should be forced to violate its principles.
>
> Hint: Hinduism is pretty much contrary to every principle of Catholicism.
>
>> If Christian organizations are not free to discriminate when hiring
>> employees, then Jewish and Muslim organizations may not discriminate,
>> either. (Of course, nobody would dare tell a Muslim organization it must
>> hire Jews.) Now suppose that I, a Satanist, am hired by a Jewish
>> hospital. My contract says that since I am on call, the hospital
>> cafeteria must provide me with free meals. I have a constitutional right
>> to eat pork, so now I demand that the cafeteria provide me with free pork
>> chops and bacon cheeseburgers. Naturally, Jews would object, arguing
>> that my right to eat pork does not require them to provide it.
>
You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>
> Provide evidence any of your conclusions could actually occur.
>
sbalneav
Mar 4, 2012, 10:04:32 AM3/4/12
to
On 12-03-03 07:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> scrawled
> in blood:
do.
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> scrawled
> in blood:
>
>> In article<3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbu...@4ax.com>,
>> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead<de...@gone.com>
>> In article<3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbu...@4ax.com>,
>> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead<de...@gone.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>>
>>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>>> pathetic loon.
>>
>> Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
>> beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
>> the patients.
>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you don't support the right.
>>>
>>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
>>> pathetic loon.
>>
>> Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
>> beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
>> the patients.
>
> It's a business like any other. A jewish deli doesn't serve
> pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
It is when the deli receives public funding. As the religious hospitals
> pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
do.
Phlip
Mar 4, 2012, 9:51:21 AM3/4/12
to
> You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
Ya you do. The states and people retain rights the Constitution does
not grant.
However, my religion says I should not let my tax money go to blowing
up children in foreign countries that never attacked us.
So much for my religious freedom around wingnuts!
Dakota
Mar 4, 2012, 10:54:18 AM3/4/12
to
On 3/4/2012 8:51 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>
> Ya you do. The states and people retain rights the Constitution does
> not grant.
>
Okay. That just means that the government can't prevent you from eating
>> You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>
> Ya you do. The states and people retain rights the Constitution does
> not grant.
>
pork. It doesn't mean that every grocery store, delicatessen,
restaurant, and cafeteria has to make pork available to you.
>
> However, my religion says I should not let my tax money go to blowing
> up children in foreign countries that never attacked us.
>
What religion is that? Does it say you should let your tax money go to
> However, my religion says I should not let my tax money go to blowing
> up children in foreign countries that never attacked us.
>
blowing up adults in foreign countries that have never attacked us? Does
it say you should let your tax money go to blowing up children in
foreign countries that have attacked us?
>
> So much for my religious freedom around wingnuts!
Right-wing nuts are only concerned with their own rights and work hard
> So much for my religious freedom around wingnuts!
to deny the rights of others.
Progressives like me work to ensure that equal rights are available to all.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:15:32 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:02:40 -0800, kni...@baawa.com scrawled in
say, when they do not. What do you think all those IRS regulations are
for?
Hint: the religiotards aren't the big problem; the existence
of government is. Stop fighting the arm and go for the head.
blood:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:43:39 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:27:41 -0800, kni...@baawa.com scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:15:45 -0600, Don Kresch
>>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>>>>in blood:
>>>>
>>>>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
>>>>want.
>>>
>>> I don't want to pay for church infrastructure but I am forced to do
>>>so because they are tax exempt. There is no opt out box to check on my
>>>tax return.
>>
>> Would you rather them be taxed and thus be allowed to have a
>>say? That's the way it works.
>
> Are we on the same page?
Clearly not. You seem to think that they have some sort of
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:43:39 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:27:41 -0800, kni...@baawa.com scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:15:45 -0600, Don Kresch
>>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
>>>>in blood:
>>>>
>>>>>I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
>>>>>the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> No one should be forced to pay for something s/he does not
>>>>want.
>>>
>>> I don't want to pay for church infrastructure but I am forced to do
>>>so because they are tax exempt. There is no opt out box to check on my
>>>tax return.
>>
>> Would you rather them be taxed and thus be allowed to have a
>>say? That's the way it works.
>
> Are we on the same page?
say, when they do not. What do you think all those IRS regulations are
for?
Hint: the religiotards aren't the big problem; the existence
of government is. Stop fighting the arm and go for the head.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:15:57 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:41:51 -0800, DanielSan
Dumbass.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:16:19 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:43:00 -0800, DanielSan
Dumbass.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:16:57 AM3/4/12
to
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:34:10 -0600, Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> scrawled
in blood:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>>>> impossible for him to think.
>>>
>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean that
>>> a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>>
>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger. Are
>> you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>
>It's called an ANALOGY.
Danny doesn't care. He's so wrapped up in believing that he
has the right to force others to do his bidding that he doesn't even
see his own hypocrisy.
in blood:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>>>> impossible for him to think.
>>>
>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean that
>>> a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>>
>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger. Are
>> you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>
>It's called an ANALOGY.
has the right to force others to do his bidding that he doesn't even
see his own hypocrisy.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:17:28 AM3/4/12
to
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:17:45 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:43:25 -0800, DanielSan
Yes you are, dumbass.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:18:40 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:50:07 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
"To the public" means "does not require a membership". It does
NOT mean "must serve everyone no matter what". Only a dumbass believes
otherwise.
<daniel...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
NOT mean "must serve everyone no matter what". Only a dumbass believes
otherwise.
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 11:19:14 AM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:44:12 -0800, DanielSan
We're talking about something which could happen, and which
governments have done in the past. So you can fuck off, Stalin.
governments have done in the past. So you can fuck off, Stalin.
Phlip
Mar 4, 2012, 12:11:03 PM3/4/12
to
On Mar 3, 10:30 am, Dånk 42Ø <d...@bud.org> wrote:
> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but...
This screed says it all. Fucking wicked:
http://aworldofprogress.com/blog/2012/when-we-say-they-hate-women-we-mean-they-hate-women/
On top of the baffling assertion that there’s a direct correlation
between the amount of sex you’re having and the price of the birth
control pill (believe me, they charge you the same whether you’re
getting laid or not), you of course have the notion that any woman who
has sex is a “slut” and a “prostitute”. And I mean any. Limbaugh tries
to give himself cover by saying the “taxpayer” would be on the hook,
but in fact, this is about whether or not insurance plans women pay
into should cover their fucking health care. More importantly, the
idea that contraception is health care and not just some per-fuck
admittance fee for sex has long been established. Conservatives are
pretending that Obama is requiring insurance companies to cover
something they’ve never covered before, but in fact, they already
cover it. The only thing that this is about is whether or not that
coverage should be universal and treated like preventive care, which
means offered without a co-pay. For instance, my insurance covers
about 40% of the cost now and will, starting in 2013, cover 100%.
Since 99% of American women have used contraception and since
insurance companies already accept that contraception is a service
that should be covered, Limbaugh basically characterized the 99% of
American women as “sluts” and “prostitutes”. I don’t imagine you get a
pass if you’ve only used condoms, either, because roughly 0% of women
who use only condoms do so out of some noble unwillingness to accept
insurance coverage for their contraception. Additionally, women who
only use condoms still get other kinds of health care related to being
sexual, such as Pap smears and gynecological consultations on their
contraception choices, which, by Limbaugh’s logic, puts them firmly in
the “slut” and “prostitute” category, since insurance covers that
sexuality-related care as well. So I suppose that puts the percentage
of American women who are “sluts” at the level All in his world,
except maybe a handful of lifelong celibates. And he probably has a
few choice, judgmental words for those women, as well.
> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but...
This screed says it all. Fucking wicked:
http://aworldofprogress.com/blog/2012/when-we-say-they-hate-women-we-mean-they-hate-women/
On top of the baffling assertion that there’s a direct correlation
between the amount of sex you’re having and the price of the birth
control pill (believe me, they charge you the same whether you’re
getting laid or not), you of course have the notion that any woman who
has sex is a “slut” and a “prostitute”. And I mean any. Limbaugh tries
to give himself cover by saying the “taxpayer” would be on the hook,
but in fact, this is about whether or not insurance plans women pay
into should cover their fucking health care. More importantly, the
idea that contraception is health care and not just some per-fuck
admittance fee for sex has long been established. Conservatives are
pretending that Obama is requiring insurance companies to cover
something they’ve never covered before, but in fact, they already
cover it. The only thing that this is about is whether or not that
coverage should be universal and treated like preventive care, which
means offered without a co-pay. For instance, my insurance covers
about 40% of the cost now and will, starting in 2013, cover 100%.
Since 99% of American women have used contraception and since
insurance companies already accept that contraception is a service
that should be covered, Limbaugh basically characterized the 99% of
American women as “sluts” and “prostitutes”. I don’t imagine you get a
pass if you’ve only used condoms, either, because roughly 0% of women
who use only condoms do so out of some noble unwillingness to accept
insurance coverage for their contraception. Additionally, women who
only use condoms still get other kinds of health care related to being
sexual, such as Pap smears and gynecological consultations on their
contraception choices, which, by Limbaugh’s logic, puts them firmly in
the “slut” and “prostitute” category, since insurance covers that
sexuality-related care as well. So I suppose that puts the percentage
of American women who are “sluts” at the level All in his world,
except maybe a handful of lifelong celibates. And he probably has a
few choice, judgmental words for those women, as well.
Free Lunch
Mar 4, 2012, 12:28:00 PM3/4/12
to
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:11:03 -0800 (PST), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Rush Limbaugh has a couple of decades' worth of misogyny on his program.
Sure, he can find (and lose) wives, but it appears that must be for his
money, because he certainly does not care what happens to women, he
certainly does not respect them. (To be fair, he is generally
misanthropic, but he just finds more ways to go after all women who are
not willing to act as slaves for men.)
wrote in alt.atheism:
Sure, he can find (and lose) wives, but it appears that must be for his
money, because he certainly does not care what happens to women, he
certainly does not respect them. (To be fair, he is generally
misanthropic, but he just finds more ways to go after all women who are
not willing to act as slaves for men.)
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 2:44:21 PM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:48:45 -0800, China Blue Water Navy wrote:
> In article <1bCdnUJfeOlvh87S...@earthlink.com>,
> a customer.
I believe the Constitution protects the right of people to eat whatever
they want, with the possible exception of other people.
One would think that the left-wing slogan, "My body, my choice," would
apply to food as well as abortion. It's MY body, so I can CHOOSE what I
put in it.
>> a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one. It does not
>> matter that pork and meat/dairy products violate their kosher rules,
>> they are REQUIRED to fulfill my constitutional right to eat non-kosher
>> food.
>
> A food provider is not required to stock bacon, cheese, hamburger, buns,
> relish, ketchup, nor provide a grill.
Correct. So why is a health insurance provider required to supply birth
control pills, condoms, Viagra, boob jobs, and so on?
The poorest of the poor are already covered by Medicaid, which does
provide birth control, as does the quasi-governmental organization
Planned Parenthood. This whole issue is ridiculous, because women
already have access to birth control, even free birth control if they
can't pay for it.
I repeat my earlier claim that the reason Democrats are pushing for the
birth control mandate is to increase the price of policies so that
employers drop coverage completely, forcing everyone into the government-
run Obamacare plan.
I had an HMO when I was younger. It was cheap. The reason HMOs are
cheap is because they provide few services (they essentially are nothing
more than catastrophic plans). Force the HMO to provide every
conceivable medical procedure, then the premium rises to match full-
coverage plans, and my employer drops the HMO and now I have no coverage
at all. How is this considered "progress?"
> In article <1bCdnUJfeOlvh87S...@earthlink.com>,
> Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> > On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>> >>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>> >>> impossible for him to think.
>> >>
>> >> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean
>> >> that a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>> >
>> > No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger.
>> > Are you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>>
>> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon
>> cheeseburgers,
>
> But you don't have a right to eat bacon cheeseburgers, as an employee or
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> > On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>> >>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>> >>> impossible for him to think.
>> >>
>> >> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean
>> >> that a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>> >
>> > No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger.
>> > Are you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>>
>> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon
>> cheeseburgers,
>
> a customer.
I believe the Constitution protects the right of people to eat whatever
they want, with the possible exception of other people.
One would think that the left-wing slogan, "My body, my choice," would
apply to food as well as abortion. It's MY body, so I can CHOOSE what I
put in it.
>> a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one. It does not
>> matter that pork and meat/dairy products violate their kosher rules,
>> they are REQUIRED to fulfill my constitutional right to eat non-kosher
>> food.
>
> relish, ketchup, nor provide a grill.
Correct. So why is a health insurance provider required to supply birth
control pills, condoms, Viagra, boob jobs, and so on?
The poorest of the poor are already covered by Medicaid, which does
provide birth control, as does the quasi-governmental organization
Planned Parenthood. This whole issue is ridiculous, because women
already have access to birth control, even free birth control if they
can't pay for it.
I repeat my earlier claim that the reason Democrats are pushing for the
birth control mandate is to increase the price of policies so that
employers drop coverage completely, forcing everyone into the government-
run Obamacare plan.
I had an HMO when I was younger. It was cheap. The reason HMOs are
cheap is because they provide few services (they essentially are nothing
more than catastrophic plans). Force the HMO to provide every
conceivable medical procedure, then the premium rises to match full-
coverage plans, and my employer drops the HMO and now I have no coverage
at all. How is this considered "progress?"
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 2:47:01 PM3/4/12
to
lives, including what they eat (bacon cheeseburgers), what they drink
(non-fluoridated water), what they smoke (tobacco), and even control what
they think (hate speech).
Dånk 42Ø
Mar 4, 2012, 3:16:56 PM3/4/12
to
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 06:51:21 -0800, Phlip wrote:
>> You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>
> Ya you do. The states and people retain rights the Constitution does not
> grant.
You almost got it right: the states and people retain rights that the
>> You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>
> Ya you do. The states and people retain rights the Constitution does not
> grant.
Constitution does not RESTRICT. The Framers knew that a comprehensive
listing of all possible rights was impossible, so the Constitution was
written to presume that rights inherently existed unless they were
explicitly restricted (e.g., individuals can't declare war or coin money,
only Congress can). Many objected to the Bill of Rights, worried that
the enumeration of certain specific rights would imply that unlisted
rights don't exist, which is why they were careful to include the 9th and
10th amendments.
Still, your position is unusual for a liberal, since leftists advocate an
all-powerful Soviet-style central government, and no individual rights
other than what the State chooses to grant you. Under this model, human
beings are children and the government is Big Mommy who keeps them safe
and healthy, which means making sure they eat a proper diet. Your dog
doesn't get to eat bacon cheeseburgers, he eats the ration of low-fat
Soylent Kibble you give him and nothing else, with perhaps an occasional
treat if he's been extra obedient.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"[D]uring the 'purgations' in the last month of 1935 and the first half
of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again
expelled, among them several tens of thousands of 'Trotskyists.' The most
active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and
concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly
advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the
sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. The old
principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new
one: who does not obey shall not eat."
-- Leon Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed"
2907 Dead
Mar 4, 2012, 3:31:25 PM3/4/12
to
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:16:56 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 06:51:21 -0800, Phlip wrote:
>>> You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>>
>> Ya you do. The states and people retain rights the Constitution does
>> not grant.
>
> You almost got it right: the states and people retain rights that the
> Constitution does not RESTRICT.
The Constitution has no restrictions on individual rights. By definition.
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 06:51:21 -0800, Phlip wrote:
>>> You do not have a constitutional right to eat pork.
>>
>> Ya you do. The states and people retain rights the Constitution does
>> not grant.
>
> You almost got it right: the states and people retain rights that the
> Constitution does not RESTRICT.
The Framers knew that a comprehensive
> listing of all possible rights was impossible, so the Constitution was
> written to presume that rights inherently existed unless they were
> explicitly restricted (e.g., individuals can't declare war or coin
> money, only Congress can).
Many objected to the Bill of Rights, worried
> that the enumeration of certain specific rights would imply that
> unlisted rights don't exist, which is why they were careful to include
> the 9th and 10th amendments.
>
> Still, your position is unusual for a liberal, since leftists advocate
> an all-powerful Soviet-style central government, and no individual
> rights other than what the State chooses to grant you. Under this
> model, human beings are children and the government is Big Mommy who
> keeps them safe and healthy, which means making sure they eat a proper
> diet. Your dog doesn't get to eat bacon cheeseburgers, he eats the
> ration of low-fat Soylent Kibble you give him and nothing else, with
> perhaps an occasional treat if he's been extra obedient.
>
others that you think you can knock down.
Are you ever going to mature?
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = "[D]uring the 'purgations' in
> the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands
> of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of
> thousands of 'Trotskyists.' The most active were immediately arrested
> and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin,
> through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work.
> In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by
> slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has
> been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." -- Leon
> Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed"
--
> the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands
> of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of
> thousands of 'Trotskyists.' The most active were immediately arrested
> and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin,
> through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work.
> In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by
> slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has
> been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." -- Leon
> Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed"
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Message has been deleted
Don Kresch
Mar 4, 2012, 7:12:22 PM3/4/12
to
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:51:17 -0800, China Blue Water Navy
<chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article <3sWdnVvXQpooW87S...@earthlink.com>,
>government is under no obligation to secure that privilege.
Same with birth control.
<chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article <3sWdnVvXQpooW87S...@earthlink.com>,
> Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:51:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/3/2012 11:34 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> >>> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>> >>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>> >>>>> impossible for him to think.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean
>> >>>> that a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>> >>>
>> >>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger.
>> >>> Are you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>> >>
>> >> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon
>> >> cheeseburgers, a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one.
>> >
>> > You don't have the right to eat bacon cheeseburgers.
>>
>> Yes, I do. But leftists are fascists who want to control other people's
>
>No, you don't. You have the privilege to eat it when it's available, but the
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:51:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/3/2012 11:34 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>> >>> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>> >>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>> >>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology. It's
>> >>>>> impossible for him to think.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean
>> >>>> that a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>> >>>
>> >>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon cheeseburger.
>> >>> Are you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>> >>
>> >> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon
>> >> cheeseburgers, a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one.
>> >
>> > You don't have the right to eat bacon cheeseburgers.
>>
>> Yes, I do. But leftists are fascists who want to control other people's
>
>government is under no obligation to secure that privilege.
Same with birth control.
Dänk 42Ø
Mar 5, 2012, 1:34:01 PM3/5/12
to
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:12:22 -0600, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:51:17 -0800, China Blue Water Navy
> <chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>>In article <3sWdnVvXQpooW87S...@earthlink.com>,
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:51:17 -0800, China Blue Water Navy
> <chine...@yahoo.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>>In article <3sWdnVvXQpooW87S...@earthlink.com>,
>> Dånk 42Ø <da...@bud.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:51:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 3/3/2012 11:34 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:51:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 3/3/2012 11:34 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:00 -0800, DanielSan felched:
>>> >>> On 3/3/2012 9:57 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>>> >>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>>> >>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology.
>>> >>>>> It's impossible for him to think.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean
>>> >>>> that a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon
>>> >>> cheeseburger. Are you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>>> >>
>>> >> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon
>>> >> cheeseburgers, a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one.
>>> >
>>> > You don't have the right to eat bacon cheeseburgers.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. But leftists are fascists who want to control other
>>> people's
>>
>>No, you don't. You have the privilege to eat it when it's available, but
>>the government is under no obligation to secure that privilege.
>
> Same with birth control.
That's what I meant to begin with. My right to free speech and press
>>> >>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:38:15 -0500, Olrik quacked:
>>> >>>>> That he is. "Kresch"'s two neurons are besieged by ideology.
>>> >>>>> It's impossible for him to think.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Then explain why my constitutional right to eat pork doesn't mean
>>> >>>> that a Jewish deli is required to serve me a bacon cheeseburger.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No one is requiring a Jewish deli to serve you a bacon
>>> >>> cheeseburger. Are you insane or just stupidly gullible?
>>> >>
>>> >> It's called an ANALOGY. Since I have a right to eat bacon
>>> >> cheeseburgers, a Jewish deli cannot legally refuse to serve me one.
>>> >
>>> > You don't have the right to eat bacon cheeseburgers.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. But leftists are fascists who want to control other
>>> people's
>>
>>No, you don't. You have the privilege to eat it when it's available, but
>>the government is under no obligation to secure that privilege.
>
> Same with birth control.
does not mean the government must buy me a bullhorn and printer, my right
to keep and bear arms does not mean the government is obligated to supply
me with guns and ammo. Logically, my right to use birth control does not
mean others are required to pay for my condoms.
The Constitution was drafted so that people retain rights that are not
expressly restricted. The number of restrictions are few (e.g., the
right to coin money and create courts is restricted to Congress alone),
whereas the number of possible rights is infinite. I have a right to go
fly a kite in the park, but this does not mean the government or anyone
else is required to buy me a kite.
One could reasonably argue that kite-flying is good exercise and makes
people happy, and since fitness and happiness are directly linked to good
health, that insurance companies should be required to pay for kites.
Message has been deleted
Michael Ejercito
Mar 9, 2012, 1:01:21 PM3/9/12
to
On Mar 3, 10:30 am, Dånk 42Ø <d...@bud.org> wrote:
> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
No more so than it should for conversion therapy, gender
> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
reassignment surgery, tittie jobs, Friday night pork chop dinners,
pornography, trips to Las Vegas, nevada, or a free can of soda a day.
>
> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
> just birth control, since one can question the government's power to
> The government is attempting to force religious institutions to include
> birth control services in their health insurance plans, even if birth
> control violates their religious teachings. The issue is bigger than
> mandate what services must be included in private health care plans.
> Cosmetic surgery? Penis implants? Viagra? But that debate is for
> another thread.
>
> On the issue of whether a Catholic organization, for example, should be
> forced to provide birth control and abortion services in its employees'
> health care plan, the solution is simple -- they should drop all coverage
> and let the employees purchase whatever insurance policies they want.
>
> There is no law requiring employers to provide health insurance. An
> employer who pays $1000 monthly health insurance premium per employee is
> free to drop coverage and give the $1000 directly to the employee and let
> her use it to purchase her own policy, one that does or doesn't cover
> birth control pills, whatever she CHOOSES to (liberalism is all about
> CHOICE).
>
> The problem with this idea is that during the Obamacare debate several
> years ago, Democrats refused to allow tax deductions for individual
> health insurance policies. The employer who provides health insurance
> can deduct the $1000 from his taxable income, but the employee who
> purchases an individual policy must pay tax on that $1000 -- 25% or $250.
>
> There is no reason why health insurance premiums are not deductible,
> except that Democrats want to be dicks and make everyone dependent on
> employer-provided plans, plans that are then loaded up with mandates
> (like birth control) until they become too expensive and the employers
> drop them, making everyone dependent on government-run Obamacare.
Very excellent points.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Mar 9, 2012, 1:02:45 PM3/9/12
to
On Mar 3, 3:31 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> >In article <3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbub66321u7klsb9c...@4ax.com>,
> > Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> >> wrote:
is violating my right to lobster bisque.
Surely such a thing will not cause prices to rise, right?
Michael
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> >In article <3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbub66321u7klsb9c...@4ax.com>,
> > Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
> >> >> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
> >> >> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
> >> >On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:
>
> >> >> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder whether
> >> >> the government should be paying for it or forcing others to pay for it.
>
> >> >In other words you don't support the right.
>
> >> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
> >> pathetic loon.
>
>
> >> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
> >> pathetic loon.
>
> >Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
> >beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
> >the patients.
>
> >beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
> >the patients.
>
> Of course they do... it's the very same right that the management at
> GM has to tell the plants not to paint any cars pink. <LOL> Now do
> the loons on the far left think that infringes on the rights of people
> who want pink cars?
McDonald's, by refusing to serve lobster bisque with every order,
> GM has to tell the plants not to paint any cars pink. <LOL> Now do
> the loons on the far left think that infringes on the rights of people
> who want pink cars?
is violating my right to lobster bisque.
Surely such a thing will not cause prices to rise, right?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Mar 9, 2012, 1:04:47 PM3/9/12
to
On Mar 3, 5:59 pm, 2907 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:24:44 -0600, Don Kresch wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> scrawled in
> > blood:
> there and no place else.
>
Let me know when an employer forbids employees from purchasing
birth control from third parties (instead of merely refusing to
reimburse the employee for the cost of birth control).
Michael
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:24:44 -0600, Don Kresch wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> scrawled in
> > blood:
>
> >>In article <3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbub66321u7klsb9c...@4ax.com>,
> >> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
> >>> pathetic loon.
>
> >>Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
> >>beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
> >>the patients.
>
> >>In article <3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbub66321u7klsb9c...@4ax.com>,
> >> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you
> >>> pathetic loon.
>
> >>Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious
> >>beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights of
> >>the patients.
>
> > It's a business like any other. A jewish deli doesn't serve
> > pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
>
> It is if they have a monopoly, or if their employer requires them to eat
> > pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?
>
> there and no place else.
>
Let me know when an employer forbids employees from purchasing
birth control from third parties (instead of merely refusing to
reimburse the employee for the cost of birth control).
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Mar 9, 2012, 1:06:07 PM3/9/12
to
On Mar 3, 9:50 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 9:28 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:57:02 -0800, DanielSan
> > <danielsan1...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
> On 3/3/2012 9:28 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:57:02 -0800, DanielSan
>
> >> On 3/3/2012 8:55 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> >> On 3/3/2012 8:55 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> >>> Yes, it is.
>
> >> Okay, got it. Choice of food establishments is identical to medical
> >> decisions.
>
>
> >> Okay, got it. Choice of food establishments is identical to medical
> >> decisions.
>
> > Yep. Only a dumbass would believe otherwise.
>
> Pork sandwich or heart attack. Clearly, this is the same thing. Only a
>
> dumbass like myself would think otherwise.
If you are having a heart attack and are rushed to the hospital, I
suspect the issue of whether the hospital stocks birth control pills
will be the least of your concerns.
Michael
2907 Dead
Mar 9, 2012, 1:44:22 PM3/9/12
to
They are merely being told that they cannot demand that their
insurance provide refuse to provide birth control as a part of their
health care package for employees.
It's a good example of why employers should have no role at all in the
type of health coverage people get.
>
> Michael
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.
2907 Dead
Mar 9, 2012, 1:45:29 PM3/9/12
to
health care their employees get?
Michael Ejercito
Mar 9, 2012, 3:56:15 PM3/9/12
to
insurance company; the company is free to decide whether to give in to
their demands.
I can demand lobster bisque from McDonald's; I am not entitled to
lobster bisque from McDonald's.
Michael
Steve
Mar 9, 2012, 7:49:38 PM3/9/12
to
sue.
Steve
Mar 9, 2012, 7:49:38 PM3/9/12
to
specify what exactly they are buying..
Steve
Mar 9, 2012, 7:49:38 PM3/9/12
to
health care they offer as a benefit..
>
>> Michael
2907 Dead
Mar 9, 2012, 7:58:15 PM3/9/12
to
birth control coverage at no extra cost. It saves them billions in
abortion, child birth and child care costs.
Why is it right wingers can never figure out simple business economics.
>
> I can demand lobster bisque from McDonald's; I am not entitled to
> lobster bisque from McDonald's.
>
>
> Michael
> I can demand lobster bisque from McDonald's; I am not entitled to
> lobster bisque from McDonald's.
>
>
> Michael
Steve
Mar 9, 2012, 8:06:22 PM3/9/12
to
Dänk 42Ø
Mar 9, 2012, 11:20:03 PM3/9/12
to
I suppose the answer is yes.
Employer-provided health insurance is an American TRADITION, not a RIGHT,
the result of wage controls during WWII, when companies used pension and
insurance benefits to attract talented workers.
Over the years, the employer-provided health insurance benefit has become
to be perceived as a constitutional right, when in fact companies are not
required to offer it at all -- much less offer an insurance package that
covers everything from birth control to the kitchen sink. Force
companies to include the kitchen sink, and they will simply drop
coverage, and let Chairman Obama pay for it.
I will repeat my personal horror story of enrolling in an HMO when I was
younger. I'm not sure if I was offered a choice, but I enrolled in the
HMO because it was cheap. The reason HMOs are cheap is because they
don't cover much, though they are useful in the event of major illness/
injury.
You get what you pay for, so don't expect the HMO to cover birth control,
Viagra, boob jobs, hair transplants, grief counseling for your dead dog,
butt enlargement, and so on. Get run over by a car and you are covered.
If you want "free" hair transplants, then purchase a more expensive
policy that covers them. But the hair transplants aren't "free," you
just pay for them in the higher premium price. A good analogy is the
government requiring auto liability policies to cover oil changes: Oil
changes cost $100 per year, so the auto insurance company charges you an
extra $100 per year to cover them. You think you are getting "free" oil
changes," but you're just an idiot.
Dänk 42Ø
Mar 9, 2012, 11:42:48 PM3/9/12
to
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:49:38 -0500, Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:45:29 -0800, 2907 Dead <de...@dead.net> quacked:
coverage, a policy with a $10,000 annual deductible. Since most people
rarely incur $10k of medical expenses per year, such a policy would be
dirt cheap, and $10k is not so much as to bankrupt most people. (Tax-
free Health Savings Accounts would help pay much of the deductible, too.)
Democrats completely rejected catastrophic coverage policies during the
Obamacare "debate," in favor of mandate-laden policies that would drive
policy prices up and encourage companies to drop coverage completely,
forcing everyone into the government-run "public option."
I can afford to pay for routine health care out of my own pocket. What I
cannot afford is a major illness/injury that runs up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in hospital bills. Since I use less than $1000 a
year in medical services, I would prefer to pay $1000 a year for a policy
with a $10,000 deductible. Chairman Obama would force me to purchase a
comprehensive policy that includes everything from birth control to the
kitchen sink for $10,000 a year with a $0 deductible. As a result, I am
deprived of my right to CHOOSE a policy that meets my individual needs.
As a gay man, I don't need birth control, but I am required to purchase
it for straight women who can't keep their legs together. Meanwhile, my
premium increases tenfold, forcing me to apply for a subsidy, which is
just a euphemism for welfare. Now that I am dependent on the Obamacare
subsidy, I am more inclined to vote for the Party that promises to tax
the greedy rich to pay to increase the subsidy. See how this works?
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:45:29 -0800, 2907 Dead <de...@dead.net> quacked:
>>So you believe employers should be allowed to dictate what sort of
>>health care their employees get?
>
> Why hell no, but they certainly should be able to say what kind of
> health care they offer as a benefit..
Agreed. A company might decide to offer its workers catastrophic
>>health care their employees get?
>
> Why hell no, but they certainly should be able to say what kind of
> health care they offer as a benefit..
coverage, a policy with a $10,000 annual deductible. Since most people
rarely incur $10k of medical expenses per year, such a policy would be
dirt cheap, and $10k is not so much as to bankrupt most people. (Tax-
free Health Savings Accounts would help pay much of the deductible, too.)
Democrats completely rejected catastrophic coverage policies during the
Obamacare "debate," in favor of mandate-laden policies that would drive
policy prices up and encourage companies to drop coverage completely,
forcing everyone into the government-run "public option."
I can afford to pay for routine health care out of my own pocket. What I
cannot afford is a major illness/injury that runs up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in hospital bills. Since I use less than $1000 a
year in medical services, I would prefer to pay $1000 a year for a policy
with a $10,000 deductible. Chairman Obama would force me to purchase a
comprehensive policy that includes everything from birth control to the
kitchen sink for $10,000 a year with a $0 deductible. As a result, I am
deprived of my right to CHOOSE a policy that meets my individual needs.
As a gay man, I don't need birth control, but I am required to purchase
it for straight women who can't keep their legs together. Meanwhile, my
premium increases tenfold, forcing me to apply for a subsidy, which is
just a euphemism for welfare. Now that I am dependent on the Obamacare
subsidy, I am more inclined to vote for the Party that promises to tax
the greedy rich to pay to increase the subsidy. See how this works?
2907 Dead
Mar 10, 2012, 1:02:52 AM3/10/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages