Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
First Amendment - abortions
3 views
Skip to first unread message
bratt
Feb 4, 2012, 4:52:57 PM2/4/12
to
I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
This is an article written by Peggy Noonan which raises the question, and
I'd like to know what she says is wrong. I copied and pasted the whole
article because I had trouble opening it without signing over my firstborn.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577199523577373982.html
A Battle the President Can't Win
His decision on Catholic charities makes Romney's big gaffe look trivial.
What a faux pas, how inept, how removed from the essential realities of
America. Yes, I'm referring to President Obama. But let's do Mitt Romney
first.
He's taken heavy fire for his interview with CNN's Soledad O'Brien, in
which he said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."
Every criticism has been true. It was politically inept, playing into
stereotypes about Republicans and about his own candidacy. It was
Martian-like in its seeming remove from the concerns of everyday citizens.
We're in a recession here! It was at odds both with longtime American
tradition and with rising conservative concern over the growth and
changing nature of what used to be called the underclass.
So: inept.
Advice? Treat the mistake as an opportunity. First, admit the blunder. A
political communications expert would add, "And move on." But don't. Use
this mistake, and others—"I like being able to fire people"—as the basis
for a true, thoughtful and extended statement that will allow people more
deeply into the mind of Mitt Romney. Call it "Let me tell you about my
gaffes." Use it to deepen people's understanding of your views not only on
poverty but on the whole American picture.
Three reasons to do this. First, the networks, in their Romney gaffe
reels, will have to use some of the lengthier address for the appearance
of fairness. Second, it's good to dwell on this problem now because
Democrats want it to go away. That's because they want to bring it back
fresh in the fall, when people have forgotten it. The third reason has to
do with still-widespread conservative unease with what Mr. Romney really
thinks and why he thinks it. He should set himself to giving a fuller
picture of his thoughts.
***
Which leads us to the Republican establishment, and how it feels about Mr.
Romney.
That establishment is not what it was decades ago, when it was peopled by
seasoned veterans who made decisions and got people in line. That's gone.
What has replaced it is a loose confederation of groups and
professionals—current and former elected officials and their staffs,
activists, the old party machinery, bundlers and contributors,
journalists, radio and TV stars, mostly but not exclusively based in
Washington.
The great myth of the election year is that they are for Mitt Romney. They
are not. They are almost all against Newt Gingrich because they know him,
they've worked with him. But they mostly do not love Mr. Romney.
The establishment didn't get its candidate: Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush,
John Thune or Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour or Chris Christie. It is, secretly,
as bereft as some of the grass roots.
Why doesn't the establishment like Mr. Romney? Because they fear he won't
win, that he'll get clobbered on such issues as Bain, wealth, taxes.
Because when they listen to him, they get the impression he's reciting
lines his aides came up with in debate prep. Because if he wins, they're
not sure he'll have a meaning or mandate.
But mostly because his insides are unknown to them. They don't know what's
in there. They fear he hasn't absorbed any philosophy along the way, that
he'll be herky-jerky, unanchored, merely tactical as president. And they
think that now of all times more is needed. They want to reform the tax
system and begin reining in the entitlement spending that is bankrupting
us. They don't read him as the guy who can perform those two Herculean
jobs, each of which will demand first-rate political talent. And
shrewdness. And guts.
Mr. Romney doesn't have the establishment in his pocket. He needs to win
it. All the more reason for him to get serious now. If he is serious.
This is the authentic sound of the establishment: At a gathering in
Washington last week, I spoke to a grand old man of the party who enjoyed
high and historic appointed position. "Where is the Republican Party right
now?" I asked.
"Waiting for Jeb," he said. Waiting for rescue.
That's what Mitt Romney's up against, not Newt.
***
But the big political news of the week isn't Mr. Romney's gaffe, or even
his victory in Florida. The big story took place in Washington. That's
where a bomb went off that not many in the political class heard, or
understood.
But President Obama just may have lost the election.
The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says
that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals
and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide
and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives,
abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they
will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go
out of business.
In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its
institutions can't be Catholic anymore.
I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's
charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those
organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in
fines.
There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.
The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to
such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.
Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes
last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the
church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic
principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is
not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to
it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions
that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.
If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a
potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right
and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the
administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and
undercut, have also come out in opposition.
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the
government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president
affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its
great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million
Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the
electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote,
54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the
battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence
on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure
of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
____________________________________________________________________
How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
This is an article written by Peggy Noonan which raises the question, and
I'd like to know what she says is wrong. I copied and pasted the whole
article because I had trouble opening it without signing over my firstborn.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577199523577373982.html
A Battle the President Can't Win
His decision on Catholic charities makes Romney's big gaffe look trivial.
What a faux pas, how inept, how removed from the essential realities of
America. Yes, I'm referring to President Obama. But let's do Mitt Romney
first.
He's taken heavy fire for his interview with CNN's Soledad O'Brien, in
which he said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."
Every criticism has been true. It was politically inept, playing into
stereotypes about Republicans and about his own candidacy. It was
Martian-like in its seeming remove from the concerns of everyday citizens.
We're in a recession here! It was at odds both with longtime American
tradition and with rising conservative concern over the growth and
changing nature of what used to be called the underclass.
So: inept.
Advice? Treat the mistake as an opportunity. First, admit the blunder. A
political communications expert would add, "And move on." But don't. Use
this mistake, and others—"I like being able to fire people"—as the basis
for a true, thoughtful and extended statement that will allow people more
deeply into the mind of Mitt Romney. Call it "Let me tell you about my
gaffes." Use it to deepen people's understanding of your views not only on
poverty but on the whole American picture.
Three reasons to do this. First, the networks, in their Romney gaffe
reels, will have to use some of the lengthier address for the appearance
of fairness. Second, it's good to dwell on this problem now because
Democrats want it to go away. That's because they want to bring it back
fresh in the fall, when people have forgotten it. The third reason has to
do with still-widespread conservative unease with what Mr. Romney really
thinks and why he thinks it. He should set himself to giving a fuller
picture of his thoughts.
***
Which leads us to the Republican establishment, and how it feels about Mr.
Romney.
That establishment is not what it was decades ago, when it was peopled by
seasoned veterans who made decisions and got people in line. That's gone.
What has replaced it is a loose confederation of groups and
professionals—current and former elected officials and their staffs,
activists, the old party machinery, bundlers and contributors,
journalists, radio and TV stars, mostly but not exclusively based in
Washington.
The great myth of the election year is that they are for Mitt Romney. They
are not. They are almost all against Newt Gingrich because they know him,
they've worked with him. But they mostly do not love Mr. Romney.
The establishment didn't get its candidate: Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush,
John Thune or Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour or Chris Christie. It is, secretly,
as bereft as some of the grass roots.
Why doesn't the establishment like Mr. Romney? Because they fear he won't
win, that he'll get clobbered on such issues as Bain, wealth, taxes.
Because when they listen to him, they get the impression he's reciting
lines his aides came up with in debate prep. Because if he wins, they're
not sure he'll have a meaning or mandate.
But mostly because his insides are unknown to them. They don't know what's
in there. They fear he hasn't absorbed any philosophy along the way, that
he'll be herky-jerky, unanchored, merely tactical as president. And they
think that now of all times more is needed. They want to reform the tax
system and begin reining in the entitlement spending that is bankrupting
us. They don't read him as the guy who can perform those two Herculean
jobs, each of which will demand first-rate political talent. And
shrewdness. And guts.
Mr. Romney doesn't have the establishment in his pocket. He needs to win
it. All the more reason for him to get serious now. If he is serious.
This is the authentic sound of the establishment: At a gathering in
Washington last week, I spoke to a grand old man of the party who enjoyed
high and historic appointed position. "Where is the Republican Party right
now?" I asked.
"Waiting for Jeb," he said. Waiting for rescue.
That's what Mitt Romney's up against, not Newt.
***
But the big political news of the week isn't Mr. Romney's gaffe, or even
his victory in Florida. The big story took place in Washington. That's
where a bomb went off that not many in the political class heard, or
understood.
But President Obama just may have lost the election.
The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says
that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals
and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide
and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives,
abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they
will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go
out of business.
In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its
institutions can't be Catholic anymore.
I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's
charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those
organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in
fines.
There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.
The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to
such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.
Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes
last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the
church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic
principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is
not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to
it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions
that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.
If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a
potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right
and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the
administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and
undercut, have also come out in opposition.
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the
government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president
affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its
great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million
Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the
electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote,
54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the
battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence
on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure
of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
____________________________________________________________________
BillB
Feb 4, 2012, 5:11:12 PM2/4/12
to
On 2/4/2012 1:52 PM, bratt wrote:
> I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>
> How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
> abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
It's a complex topic. You might get some leads for your inquiry here:
> I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>
> How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
> abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/17-free-exercise-exemption.html
bratt
Feb 4, 2012, 5:37:08 PM2/4/12
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
bratt
Feb 4, 2012, 5:48:54 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4 2012 4:11 PM, BillB wrote:
most applies?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
Iceman
Feb 5, 2012, 12:53:23 PM2/5/12
to
"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:pul009x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
funding, they have to follow certain rules. If they don't want to follow
those rules, they don't have to, but they aren't entitled to taxpayers'
money. They can run their hospital on private donations only and do
whatever they want.
And they aren't requiring them to support abortions - only non-abortion
forms of birth control.
news:pul009x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>
> How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
> abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
The government can state that if the Catholic hospitals want government
>
> How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
> abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
funding, they have to follow certain rules. If they don't want to follow
those rules, they don't have to, but they aren't entitled to taxpayers'
money. They can run their hospital on private donations only and do
whatever they want.
And they aren't requiring them to support abortions - only non-abortion
forms of birth control.
VegasJerry
Feb 5, 2012, 12:54:48 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 4 2012 1:52 PM, bratt wrote:
> I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>
> How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
> abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
When the church takes tax dollars, or offers public service, they cannot
> I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>
> How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities support
> abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
discriminate in services.
This same type of battle was being fought about pharmacies refusing to
sell certain drugs. Restaurants refusing customers because of race.
Refusing to sell or rent houses to a particular race Equal Housing Lender
rules for loans. Making you ride in the back of the bus because of race. A
utility company (with monopoly abilities) cannot unjustly just raise its
prices (PUC). A chain store cannot sell at low prices, making up the
profit at a different store, just to force other local stores to go out of
business. Casinos in Las Vegas cannot sell food for lower than costs as
lost leader (forcing outside restraints out of business).
It's about civil rights
Jerry 'n Vegas
bratt
Feb 5, 2012, 1:53:34 PM2/5/12
to
that this would apply here, but Muslims in prison get special meals etc.
I didn't realise it only applied to birth control, not abortions, so thank
you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
Iceman
Feb 5, 2012, 2:48:58 PM2/5/12
to
"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Feb 5 2012 11:53 AM, Iceman wrote:
>
>> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:pul009x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>> >
>> > How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities
>> > support
>> > abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
>>
>>
>> The government can state that if the Catholic hospitals want government
>> funding, they have to follow certain rules. If they don't want to follow
>> those rules, they don't have to, but they aren't entitled to taxpayers'
>> money. They can run their hospital on private donations only and do
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> And they aren't requiring them to support abortions - only non-abortion
>> forms of birth control.
>
> Even when it comes to deeply held religious beliefs? It seems strange
> that this would apply here, but Muslims in prison get special meals etc.
The government is allowed to pass some restrictions that affect religion if
>
>> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:pul009x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>> >
>> > How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities
>> > support
>> > abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
>>
>>
>> The government can state that if the Catholic hospitals want government
>> funding, they have to follow certain rules. If they don't want to follow
>> those rules, they don't have to, but they aren't entitled to taxpayers'
>> money. They can run their hospital on private donations only and do
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> And they aren't requiring them to support abortions - only non-abortion
>> forms of birth control.
>
> Even when it comes to deeply held religious beliefs? It seems strange
> that this would apply here, but Muslims in prison get special meals etc.
they are "neutral laws of general applicability" - that apply equally to all
religions, and that don't specifically target one religion's practices. The
government can ban polygamy or animal sacrifice even though some religions
allow them. The government couldn't, say, pass a law banning the Islamic
head scarf. But it can enforce noise regulations for everyone, and not
allow a mosque to blast a call to prayer over loudspeakers at 6 AM.
The government and private companies are also usually required to make
"reasonable accommodations" of specific religious beliefs when it isn't too
costly or intrusive to do so. So that applies to things like special meals
for Muslims in prison, or allowing a Jewish employee to take off a day or
two for Jewish holidays.
And there are religious exemptions from many laws - New York's gay marriage
law states that religious groups that object to gay marriage aren't required
to perform or recognize them, and that they can't be sued for refusing to
perform a gay marriage.
Omaha8_Beach
Feb 5, 2012, 3:21:17 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 11:53 am, "Iceman" <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
It's my understanding that it doesn't matter whether they get gov't
funding or not. If you have a private health care plan, you have to
offer contraceptives, which I believe includes the morning after pill,
and you have to do it with no co-pays required, end of story. I don't
know what additional penalties there are if the company simply refuses
to comply and just accepts the fines.
Omaha8
> "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
funding or not. If you have a private health care plan, you have to
offer contraceptives, which I believe includes the morning after pill,
and you have to do it with no co-pays required, end of story. I don't
know what additional penalties there are if the company simply refuses
to comply and just accepts the fines.
Omaha8
bratt
Feb 5, 2012, 3:22:21 PM2/5/12
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
johnny_t
Feb 5, 2012, 3:53:19 PM2/5/12
to
It may well be a violation of the establishment clause. And it is
unconstitutional.
However, the establishment clause may very well not belong to
non-religious businesses, even if they are run by a religion.
Imagine the government regulating olive oil, soap, or wine.
Access rights, to legal and even constitutionally protected policies and
practices, may trump the establishment clause.
This may turn out to be very important, imagine sharia law. If sharia
law is found to be partially unconstitutional, is it allowed to continue
because of the establishment clause>
But ultimately, this is also a test of single payer, medicare, medicade
and other state health care, which contains constitutionally protected
acts being covered. Does an organization that takes state money, are
they allowed to deny legal services for religious reasons?
I don't think the answer has been answered yet.
This is a step in asking and answering that answer. The question has to
be asked by actual acts instead of hypotheticals to be answered by our
legal system.
Stay tuned.
unconstitutional.
However, the establishment clause may very well not belong to
non-religious businesses, even if they are run by a religion.
Imagine the government regulating olive oil, soap, or wine.
Access rights, to legal and even constitutionally protected policies and
practices, may trump the establishment clause.
This may turn out to be very important, imagine sharia law. If sharia
law is found to be partially unconstitutional, is it allowed to continue
because of the establishment clause>
But ultimately, this is also a test of single payer, medicare, medicade
and other state health care, which contains constitutionally protected
acts being covered. Does an organization that takes state money, are
they allowed to deny legal services for religious reasons?
I don't think the answer has been answered yet.
This is a step in asking and answering that answer. The question has to
be asked by actual acts instead of hypotheticals to be answered by our
legal system.
Stay tuned.
Mossingen
Feb 5, 2012, 4:28:27 PM2/5/12
to
"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:eqv209x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Feb 5 2012 11:53 AM, Iceman wrote:
>
>> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:pul009x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>> >
>> > How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities
>> > support
>> > abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
>>
>>
>> The government can state that if the Catholic hospitals want government
>> funding, they have to follow certain rules. If they don't want to follow
>> those rules, they don't have to, but they aren't entitled to taxpayers'
>> money. They can run their hospital on private donations only and do
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> And they aren't requiring them to support abortions - only non-abortion
>> forms of birth control.
>
> Even when it comes to deeply held religious beliefs? It seems strange
> that this would apply here, but Muslims in prison get special meals etc.
>
> I didn't realise it only applied to birth control, not abortions, so thank
> you.
You agree that the governmen doesn't have a right to barge into your house
>
>> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:pul009x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't even pretend to know this.
>> >
>> > How can the government mandate that a Catholic Hospital/Charities
>> > support
>> > abortion when it goes against everything they believe in?
>>
>>
>> The government can state that if the Catholic hospitals want government
>> funding, they have to follow certain rules. If they don't want to follow
>> those rules, they don't have to, but they aren't entitled to taxpayers'
>> money. They can run their hospital on private donations only and do
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> And they aren't requiring them to support abortions - only non-abortion
>> forms of birth control.
>
> Even when it comes to deeply held religious beliefs? It seems strange
> that this would apply here, but Muslims in prison get special meals etc.
>
> I didn't realise it only applied to birth control, not abortions, so thank
> you.
and force you take a drug test. Yet, you don't have any problem at all with
welfare recipients having to take drug tests before receiving welfaire
dollars, right?
It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
strings attached to government money.
bratt
Feb 5, 2012, 5:14:51 PM2/5/12
to
guess my initial reaction was strings/no-strings based on religious
beliefs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
TruthSeeker
Feb 5, 2012, 8:21:50 PM2/5/12
to
Mossingen wrote:
> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> You agree that the governmen doesn't have a right to barge into your house
> and force you take a drug test. Yet, you don't have any problem at all with
> welfare recipients having to take drug tests before receiving welfaire
> dollars, right?
I believe drugs should be legal, but as long as they are illegal, this
> and force you take a drug test. Yet, you don't have any problem at all with
> welfare recipients having to take drug tests before receiving welfaire
> dollars, right?
requirement is reasonable. Having to meet some criteria before getting
a government handout is not the same as storm troopers barging into your
house.
> It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
> strings attached to government money.
really want the government to just give money to anyone who asks? There
should, and will, always be strings attached. You just don't happen to
like this particular string.
In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
impose anything that they want on anyone.
--
TruthSeeker
Clave
Feb 5, 2012, 10:03:02 PM2/5/12
to
"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:Uf6dnbMEdfqutrLS...@giganews.com...
Jim
news:Uf6dnbMEdfqutrLS...@giganews.com...
> Mossingen wrote:
>> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> You agree that the governmen doesn't have a right to barge into your
>> house
>> and force you take a drug test. Yet, you don't have any problem at all
>> with
>> welfare recipients having to take drug tests before receiving welfaire
>> dollars, right?
>
>
> I believe drugs should be legal, but as long as they are illegal, this
> requirement is reasonable. Having to meet some criteria before getting
> a government handout is not the same as storm troopers barging into your
> house.
>
>
>> It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
>> strings attached to government money.
>
>
> Why should there not be strings attached to government money?
Fine -- let's drug-test recipients of farm subsidies and defense contracts.
>> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> You agree that the governmen doesn't have a right to barge into your
>> house
>> and force you take a drug test. Yet, you don't have any problem at all
>> with
>> welfare recipients having to take drug tests before receiving welfaire
>> dollars, right?
>
>
> I believe drugs should be legal, but as long as they are illegal, this
> requirement is reasonable. Having to meet some criteria before getting
> a government handout is not the same as storm troopers barging into your
> house.
>
>
>> It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
>> strings attached to government money.
>
>
> Why should there not be strings attached to government money?
Jim
Pepe Papon
Feb 6, 2012, 3:33:06 AM2/6/12
to
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:50 -0700, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
>> strings attached to government money.
>
>
>Why should there not be strings attached to government money? Do you
>really want the government to just give money to anyone who asks? There
>should, and will, always be strings attached. You just don't happen to
>like this particular string.
Where do you get this from? You're just putting words in his mouth.
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
>> strings attached to government money.
>
>
>Why should there not be strings attached to government money? Do you
>really want the government to just give money to anyone who asks? There
>should, and will, always be strings attached. You just don't happen to
>like this particular string.
Truthseeker
Feb 6, 2012, 12:32:26 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/5/12 10:54 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> When the church takes tax dollars, or offers public service, they cannot
> discriminate in services.
>
> This same type of battle was being fought about pharmacies refusing to
> sell certain drugs. Restaurants refusing customers because of race.
> Refusing to sell or rent houses to a particular race Equal Housing Lender
> rules for loans. Making you ride in the back of the bus because of race. A
> utility company (with monopoly abilities) cannot unjustly just raise its
> prices (PUC). A chain store cannot sell at low prices, making up the
> profit at a different store, just to force other local stores to go out of
> business. Casinos in Las Vegas cannot sell food for lower than costs as
> lost leader (forcing outside restraints out of business).
>
> It's about civil rights
It's also about the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First
> When the church takes tax dollars, or offers public service, they cannot
> discriminate in services.
>
> This same type of battle was being fought about pharmacies refusing to
> sell certain drugs. Restaurants refusing customers because of race.
> Refusing to sell or rent houses to a particular race Equal Housing Lender
> rules for loans. Making you ride in the back of the bus because of race. A
> utility company (with monopoly abilities) cannot unjustly just raise its
> prices (PUC). A chain store cannot sell at low prices, making up the
> profit at a different store, just to force other local stores to go out of
> business. Casinos in Las Vegas cannot sell food for lower than costs as
> lost leader (forcing outside restraints out of business).
>
> It's about civil rights
Amendment. The idea that a "right" to have certain kinds of coverage in
your employer-provided health insurance trumps that -- or even comes
remotely close to that -- is ludicrous.
--
Truthseeker
VegasJerry
Feb 6, 2012, 3:17:10 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 5 2012 5:21 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> Mossingen wrote:
> > "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > You agree that the governmen doesn't have a right to barge into your house
> > and force you take a drug test. Yet, you don't have any problem at all
with
> > welfare recipients having to take drug tests before receiving welfaire
> > dollars, right?
>
>
> I believe drugs should be legal, but as long as they are illegal, this
> requirement is reasonable. Having to meet some criteria before getting
> a government handout is not the same as storm troopers barging into your
> house.
>
>
> > It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
> > strings attached to government money.
>
>
> Why should there not be strings attached to government money? Do you
> really want the government to just give money to anyone who asks? There
> should, and will, always be strings attached. You just don't happen to
> like this particular string.
>
> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
> overreach by the Obama administration.
No, it's not. That's the point.
> Mossingen wrote:
> > "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > You agree that the governmen doesn't have a right to barge into your house
> > and force you take a drug test. Yet, you don't have any problem at all
with
> > welfare recipients having to take drug tests before receiving welfaire
> > dollars, right?
>
>
> I believe drugs should be legal, but as long as they are illegal, this
> requirement is reasonable. Having to meet some criteria before getting
> a government handout is not the same as storm troopers barging into your
> house.
>
>
> > It's not about the beliefs or the rights of the recipient, it's about
> > strings attached to government money.
>
>
> Why should there not be strings attached to government money? Do you
> really want the government to just give money to anyone who asks? There
> should, and will, always be strings attached. You just don't happen to
> like this particular string.
>
> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
> overreach by the Obama administration.
< But it is right in character
> with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
> impose anything that they want on anyone.
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
-------
VegasJerry
Feb 6, 2012, 3:19:47 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6 2012 9:32 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 2/5/12 10:54 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > When the church takes tax dollars, or offers public service, they cannot
> > discriminate in services.
> >
> > This same type of battle was being fought about pharmacies refusing to
> > sell certain drugs. Restaurants refusing customers because of race.
> > Refusing to sell or rent houses to a particular race Equal Housing Lender
> > rules for loans. Making you ride in the back of the bus because of race. A
> > utility company (with monopoly abilities) cannot unjustly just raise its
> > prices (PUC). A chain store cannot sell at low prices, making up the
> > profit at a different store, just to force other local stores to go out of
> > business. Casinos in Las Vegas cannot sell food for lower than costs as
> > lost leader (forcing outside restraints out of business).
> >
> > It's about civil rights
>
>
> It's also about the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First
> Amendment.
No, it's not.
> On 2/5/12 10:54 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > When the church takes tax dollars, or offers public service, they cannot
> > discriminate in services.
> >
> > This same type of battle was being fought about pharmacies refusing to
> > sell certain drugs. Restaurants refusing customers because of race.
> > Refusing to sell or rent houses to a particular race Equal Housing Lender
> > rules for loans. Making you ride in the back of the bus because of race. A
> > utility company (with monopoly abilities) cannot unjustly just raise its
> > prices (PUC). A chain store cannot sell at low prices, making up the
> > profit at a different store, just to force other local stores to go out of
> > business. Casinos in Las Vegas cannot sell food for lower than costs as
> > lost leader (forcing outside restraints out of business).
> >
> > It's about civil rights
>
>
> It's also about the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First
> Amendment.
Jerry 'n Vegas
The idea that a "right" to have certain kinds of coverage in
> your employer-provided health insurance trumps that -- or even comes
> remotely close to that -- is ludicrous.
>
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker
Pepe Papon
Feb 6, 2012, 5:50:42 PM2/6/12
to
>In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
>fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
>a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
>overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
>with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
>impose anything that they want on anyone.
Utter nonsense. The Church is asking for a special exemption from
>fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
>a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
>overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
>with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
>impose anything that they want on anyone.
the rule for religious reasons. That would be closer to a 1st
Amendment violation than anything to this point. If they don't like
the rules, the Church is free not to accept the government money.
TruthSeeker
Feb 6, 2012, 11:05:33 PM2/6/12
to
required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
Even beyond the religious-freedom violation, it's a classic example
of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
organizations run their affairs.
Even in the cases where charitable organizations receive some government
funding along with their private donations, using that fact to force
religious charitable organizations to provide services that violate
their religious principles is both stupid and counterproductive. How
can anyone think it's smart to force a non-profit service to stop
providing their many good services because they will not provide a few
certain services? That's so typical of control-freak politicians and
left-loons who want to impose their agendas on everyone regardless of
the consequences.
--
TruthSeeker
VegasJerry
Feb 7, 2012, 10:39:18 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:50 -0700, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >
> >> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
> >> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
> >> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> >> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> >> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
> >> overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
> >> with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
> >> impose anything that they want on anyone.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. The Church is asking for a special exemption from
> > the rule for religious reasons. That would be closer to a 1st
> > Amendment violation than anything to this point. If they don't like
> > the rules, the Church is free not to accept the government money.
>
>
> This isn't about accepting government money.
Yea, actually it is.
> Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:50 -0700, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >
> >> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
> >> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
> >> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> >> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> >> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
> >> overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
> >> with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
> >> impose anything that they want on anyone.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. The Church is asking for a special exemption from
> > the rule for religious reasons. That would be closer to a 1st
> > Amendment violation than anything to this point. If they don't like
> > the rules, the Church is free not to accept the government money.
>
>
> This isn't about accepting government money.
> It's about employers being
> required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation,
> it's a classic example
> of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
> organizations run their affairs.
exuding Jews when selling houses? Or follow other rules like Fair Housing?
Or not monopolizing with their business? Or any of a list of other things
biased businesses used to do? Governing is what government is supposed to
do.
> Even in the cases where charitable organizations receive some government
> funding along with their private donations, using that fact to force
> religious charitable organizations to provide services that violate
> their religious principles is both stupid and counterproductive.
> How
> can anyone think it's smart to force a non-profit service to stop
> providing their many good services because they will not provide a few
> certain services? That's so typical of control-freak politicians and
> left-loons who want to impose their agendas on everyone regardless of
> the consequences.
Jerry 'n Vegas
_____________________________________________________________________
Truthseeker
Feb 7, 2012, 2:18:34 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/12 8:39 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>
> Yea, actually it is.
You do that a lot ... foolishly make unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.
> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>
> Yea, actually it is.
>> It's about employers being
>> required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
>> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation,
> It’s not a violation.
>> it's a classic example
>> of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
>> organizations run their affairs.
> Like not discriminating? Like being 'forced' to consider Blacks? Or not
> exuding Jews when selling houses? Or follow other rules like Fair Housing?
> Or not monopolizing with their business? Or any of a list of other things
> biased businesses used to do? Governing is what government is supposed to
> do.
>> Even in the cases where charitable organizations receive some government
>> funding along with their private donations, using that fact to force
>> religious charitable organizations to provide services that violate
>> their religious principles is both stupid and counterproductive.
> Why are they taking government funding?
accomplish specific goals, as private charities are so often more
efficient and more helpful their delivery of services to the needy.
Unfortunately the politicians and bureaucrats then use those funds as an
excuse to exert control over the NGO's other activities.
>> How
>> can anyone think it's smart to force a non-profit service to stop
>> providing their many good services because they will not provide a few
>> certain services? That's so typical of control-freak politicians and
>> left-loons who want to impose their agendas on everyone regardless of
>> the consequences.
>
> Yet you want to impose _your_ agenda. You're a fucking idiot.
agenda. And you call me an idiot. Typical Jerry.
Oh, and stop making up positions for me.
--
Truthseeker
Omaha8_Beach
Feb 7, 2012, 4:32:28 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 9:39 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pepe Papon wrote:
> > > On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:50 -0700, TruthSeeker
> > > <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
> > >> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
> > >> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
> > >> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> > >> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> > >> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
> > >> overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
> > >> with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
> > >> impose anything that they want on anyone.
>
> > > Utter nonsense. The Church is asking for a special exemption from
> > > the rule for religious reasons. That would be closer to a 1st
> > > Amendment violation than anything to this point. If they don't like
> > > the rules, the Church is free not to accept the government money.
>
> > This isn't about accepting government money.
>
> Yea, actually it is.
Jerry, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pepe Papon wrote:
> > > On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:50 -0700, TruthSeeker
> > > <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
> > >> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
> > >> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
> > >> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
> > >> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
> > >> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
> > >> overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
> > >> with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
> > >> impose anything that they want on anyone.
>
> > > Utter nonsense. The Church is asking for a special exemption from
> > > the rule for religious reasons. That would be closer to a 1st
> > > Amendment violation than anything to this point. If they don't like
> > > the rules, the Church is free not to accept the government money.
>
> > This isn't about accepting government money.
>
> Yea, actually it is.
Please show how these rules only apply to insurance plans that are
subsidized with government money. If that is the case, it should be
easy to find and post it here for all to see. I and others contend
that this mandate applies to all group health plans and health
insurers, regardless of whether they receive government funds. Please
show how this is inaccurate.
Omaha8
VegasJerry
Feb 7, 2012, 6:53:09 PM2/7/12
to
it's not.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry 'n Vegas
> Please show how these rules only apply to insurance plans that are
> subsidized with government money. If that is the case, it should be
> easy to find and post it here for all to see. I and others contend
> that this mandate applies to all group health plans and health
> insurers, regardless of whether they receive government funds. Please
> show how this is inaccurate.
>
> Omaha8
________________________________________________________________________
> subsidized with government money. If that is the case, it should be
> easy to find and post it here for all to see. I and others contend
> that this mandate applies to all group health plans and health
> insurers, regardless of whether they receive government funds. Please
> show how this is inaccurate.
>
> Omaha8
VegasJerry
Feb 7, 2012, 6:51:38 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7 2012 11:18 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 2/7/12 8:39 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >> This isn't about accepting government money.
> >
> > Yea, actually it is.
>
>
> You do that a lot ... foolishly make unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.
Except it's true and substantiated.
> On 2/7/12 8:39 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >> This isn't about accepting government money.
> >
> > Yea, actually it is.
>
>
> You do that a lot ... foolishly make unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.
> >> It's about employers being
> >> required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
> >> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation,
>
> > It’s not a violation.
>
>
> And again.
And again.
> >> it's a classic example
> >> of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
> >> organizations run their affairs.
>
> > Like not discriminating? Like being 'forced' to consider Blacks? Or not
> > exuding Jews when selling houses? Or follow other rules like Fair Housing?
> > Or not monopolizing with their business? Or any of a list of other things
> > biased businesses used to do? Governing is what government is supposed to
> > do.
>
>
> It's not like those things. Stop making up positions for me.
> >> Even in the cases where charitable organizations receive some government
> >> funding along with their private donations, using that fact to force
> >> religious charitable organizations to provide services that violate
> >> their religious principles is both stupid and counterproductive.
>
> > Why are they taking government funding?
>
>
> The government sometimes provides funds to private charities to
> accomplish specific goals, as private charities are so often more
> efficient and more helpful their delivery of services to the needy.
> Unfortunately the politicians and bureaucrats then use those funds as an
> excuse to exert control over the NGO's other activities.
funds, unregulated, uncontrolled, and support violation of law in the use
of those funds?
> >> How
> >> can anyone think it's smart to force a non-profit service to stop
> >> providing their many good services because they will not provide a few
> >> certain services? That's so typical of control-freak politicians and
> >> left-loons who want to impose their agendas on everyone regardless of
> >> the consequences.
> >
> > Yet you want to impose _your_ agenda. You're a fucking idiot.
>
>
> So objecting to politicians imposing their agendas
is
not
their
agenda.
> is imposing an
> agenda. And you call me an idiot. Typical Jerry.
Jerry (typically right) 'n Vegas
_____________________________________________________________________
Omaha8_Beach
Feb 7, 2012, 7:51:18 PM2/7/12
to
You're asking me to prove a negative. You said in another post that
your claim about this only applying to institutions or plans that
accept federal funding has been substantiated. If it has, why not
post it?
To my knowledge this applies to all health care plans, the same way
any new care sold in the U.S. has to have a seat belt. If it were so
easy for all of these institutions avoid the mandate by refusing the
gov't money, why has there not been one reputable article that has
cited as a possible way of avoiding this requirement?
I know you will simply dismiss this, but this link supports what
Truthseeker and I have said:
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforWomenIncludingPregnantWomen
"Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act
If you have a new health insurance plan or insurance policy beginning
on or after September 23, 2010, the following preventive services must
be covered without your having to pay a copayment or co-insurance or
meet your deductible. This applies only when these services are
delivered by a network provide"
Omaha8
TruthSeeker
Feb 8, 2012, 12:04:02 AM2/8/12
to
VegasJerry wrote:
> On Feb 7 2012 11:18 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/12 8:39 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>>> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>>> Yea, actually it is.
>> You do that a lot ... foolishly make unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.
> Except it's true and substantiated,
> On Feb 7 2012 11:18 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/12 8:39 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>>> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>>> Yea, actually it is.
>> You do that a lot ... foolishly make unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.
And you just continue the foolishness. Please point out where the
substantiation is in the sentence "Yea, actually it is." You can't,
you'll probably just repeat the same unfounded falsehood again.
>>>> It's about employers being
>>>> required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
>>>> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation,
>>> It’s not a violation.
>> And again.
> And again.
>>>> it's a classic example
>>>> of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
>>>> organizations run their affairs.
>>> Like not discriminating? Like being 'forced' to consider Blacks? Or not
>>> exuding Jews when selling houses? Or follow other rules like Fair Housing?
>>> Or not monopolizing with their business? Or any of a list of other things
>>> biased businesses used to do? Governing is what government is supposed to
>>> do.
>> It's not like those things. Stop making up positions for me.
> And after substantiating, you dodge. "Again."
to point out where there is a dodge. Just try ... I know you can't.
Oh, you'll probably SAY it again ... and again. You just won't be able
to actually point it out.
>>> Why are they taking government funding?
>> The government sometimes provides funds to private charities to
>> accomplish specific goals, as private charities are so often more
>> efficient and more helpful their delivery of services to the needy.
>> Unfortunately the politicians and bureaucrats then use those funds as an
>> excuse to exert control over the NGO's other activities.
> Duh. Asked and answered. Or do you believe the government should give away
> funds, unregulated, uncontrolled, and support violation of law in the use
> of those funds?
I advocated none of those things. But then, you show your obtuseness
(obtusosity?) here over and over again.
>>>> How
>>>> can anyone think it's smart to force a non-profit service to stop
>>>> providing their many good services because they will not provide a few
>>>> certain services? That's so typical of control-freak politicians and
>>>> left-loons who want to impose their agendas on everyone regardless of
>>>> the consequences.
>>> Yet you want to impose _your_ agenda. You're a fucking idiot.
>> So objecting to politicians imposing their agendas
> It
> is
> not
> their
> agenda.
saying
so
does
not
make
it
so.
>> is imposing an
>> agenda. And you call me an idiot. Typical Jerry.
> You're a typical idiot.
> Jerry (typically right [in his own mind]) 'n Vegas
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
Feb 8, 2012, 3:45:21 AM2/8/12
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:05:33 -0700, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:50 -0700, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
>>> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
>>> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
>>> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
>>> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
>>> overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
>>> with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
>>> impose anything that they want on anyone.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. The Church is asking for a special exemption from
>> the rule for religious reasons. That would be closer to a 1st
>> Amendment violation than anything to this point. If they don't like
>> the rules, the Church is free not to accept the government money.
>
>
>This isn't about accepting government money. It's about employers being
>required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation, it's a classic example
>of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
>organizations run their affairs.
Since the best option, single-payer, was given no chance of passing,
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:50 -0700, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> In the case of the government forcing Catholic hospitals and agencies to
>>> fund activities the Church considers sinful and immoral, it isn't simply
>>> a matter of the government putting strings on money that they give them.
>>> The Feds are imposing it on Catholic organizations that have employees.
>>> It is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment and a dangerous
>>> overreach by the Obama administration. But it is right in character
>>> with the trend for government hubris, that they believe that they can
>>> impose anything that they want on anyone.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. The Church is asking for a special exemption from
>> the rule for religious reasons. That would be closer to a 1st
>> Amendment violation than anything to this point. If they don't like
>> the rules, the Church is free not to accept the government money.
>
>
>This isn't about accepting government money. It's about employers being
>required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation, it's a classic example
>of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
>organizations run their affairs.
this flawed system is the next best thing.
VegasJerry
Feb 8, 2012, 11:00:33 AM2/8/12
to
On Feb 7 2012 9:04 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Feb 7 2012 11:18 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/7/12 8:39 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> >>>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>
> >>> Yea, actually it is.
>
> >> You do that a lot ... foolishly make unsubstantiated (and wrong)
statements.
>
> > Except it's true and substantiated,
>
>
> And you just continue the foolishness.
Yet another unsubstantiated charge...
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Feb 7 2012 11:18 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/7/12 8:39 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> On Feb 6 2012 8:05 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> >>>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>
> >>> Yea, actually it is.
>
> >> You do that a lot ... foolishly make unsubstantiated (and wrong)
statements.
>
> > Except it's true and substantiated,
>
>
> And you just continue the foolishness.
> Please point out where the substantiation is in...
WHOA! You're the one that claimed it was a "foolishly" and
"unsubstantiated (and wrong)," statement. But nothing to back it up. It's
what you always do. It's time YOU address YOUR charges and YOU
substantiate YOUR statements.
Or run away again.
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Feb 8, 2012, 11:24:53 AM2/8/12
to
> You said in another post that
> your claim about this only applying to institutions or plans that
> accept federal funding has been substantiated.
religious nuts are going to have to get over the fact that they're a part
of America's society. To pretend that people should not have to pay for
that part of our society they don't like, is the same as those that said
they don't want their tax dollars going to fight a war; or any other
ridiculous "tax paid" selection. And if one of those religious nuts that
believe a god doesn't want a person to be operated on, that "Only prayer
will cure you," makes the same claim; that they shouldn't have to pay for
another person's appendix operation; they're just going to have to live
with it. They're a nut and the Republican Party has been feeding them more
cool aid in order to get them elected to control you even further.
If you (plural) don't like that insurance is paying for a woman to take
birth control pills because a doctor told her a pregnancy would kill her;
you're just going to have to run around and yell at all women that you are
their religious leader; that you know what's better for them than they do,
and to "STOP TAKING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS." Don’t blame the insurance
companies or our society. Being religious and Republicans is hazardous to
the rest of us in our society.
Jerry 'n Vegas
> If it has, why not post it?
>
> To my knowledge this applies to all health care plans, the same way
> any new care sold in the U.S. has to have a seat belt. If it were so
> easy for all of these institutions avoid the mandate by refusing the
> gov't money, why has there not been one reputable article that has
> cited as a possible way of avoiding this requirement?
>
> I know you will simply dismiss this, but this link supports what
> Truthseeker and I have said:
>
>
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforWomenIncludingPregnantWomen
>
> "Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act
> If you have a new health insurance plan or insurance policy beginning
> on or after September 23, 2010, the following preventive services must
> be covered without your having to pay a copayment or co-insurance or
> meet your deductible. This applies only when these services are
> delivered by a network provide"
>
> Omaha8
TruthSeeker
Feb 8, 2012, 11:52:53 PM2/8/12
to
wanted, what you believed was the "best option," so you're willing to
see basic human rights (that are guaranteed in the Constitution)
violated to get the "next best thing."
My guess here is that you are not religious, or at least not Catholic,
so you feel that the rights violation doesn't hurt you. "First they
came for the Jews ..."
--
TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker
Feb 8, 2012, 11:55:11 PM2/8/12
to
VegasJerry wrote:
> On Feb 7 2012 9:04 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> Or run away again.
> On Feb 7 2012 9:04 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
No running away, Jerry. Just not wasting any more time on someone who
just twists everything to his warped view, so that logical discussion is
impossible. I made my points, that you cannot see them is not my problem.
You may have the last word.
--
TruthSeeker
Dutch
Feb 9, 2012, 12:18:55 AM2/9/12
to
news:uo2dnUBwLdO7zK7S...@giganews.com...
>
> My guess here is that you are not religious, or at least not Catholic,
> so you feel that the rights violation doesn't hurt you. "First they
> came for the Jews ..."
OMFG!
> Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:05:33 -0700, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> This isn't about accepting government money. It's about employers being
>>> required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
>
>>> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation, it's a classic example
>>> of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
>>> organizations run their affairs.
>
>> Since the best option, single-payer, was given no chance of passing,
>> this flawed system is the next best thing.
>
>
> How typical of Left selective-rights thinking. You didn't get what you
> wanted, what you believed was the "best option," so you're willing to
> see basic human rights (that are guaranteed in the Constitution)
> violated to get the "next best thing."
The bubble in action..
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:05:33 -0700, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> This isn't about accepting government money. It's about employers being
>>> required to cover certain things in employer-supplied health insurance.
>
>>> Even beyond the religious-freedom violation, it's a classic example
>>> of what is wrong with government mandating how non-government
>>> organizations run their affairs.
>
>> Since the best option, single-payer, was given no chance of passing,
>> this flawed system is the next best thing.
>
>
> How typical of Left selective-rights thinking. You didn't get what you
> wanted, what you believed was the "best option," so you're willing to
> see basic human rights (that are guaranteed in the Constitution)
> violated to get the "next best thing."
>
> My guess here is that you are not religious, or at least not Catholic,
> so you feel that the rights violation doesn't hurt you. "First they
> came for the Jews ..."
Truthseeker
Feb 9, 2012, 12:56:38 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/8/12 9:24 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Feb 7 2012 4:51 PM, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
>>>>>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>>>>> Yea, actually it is.
>>>> Jerry, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
>>> I know. I didn't have to post my opinion because of the facts. Show where
>>> it's not.
> On Feb 7 2012 4:51 PM, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
>>>>>> This isn't about accepting government money.
>>>>> Yea, actually it is.
>>>> Jerry, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
>>> I know. I didn't have to post my opinion because of the facts. Show where
>>> it's not.
>> You're asking me to prove a negative.
> It's not a negative to prove it's about accepting government money.
You are claiming, with no substantiation, that it's about government
> It's not a negative to prove it's about accepting government money.
money, and then demanding that he prove that it's not. If it actually
was about accepting government money you could easily prove that, but as
you can't prove that, you dodge as usual.
>> You said in another post that
>> your claim about this only applying to institutions or plans that
>> accept federal funding has been substantiated.
> I don't believe I've said that. And that still dodges the point. The
> religious nuts are going to have to get over the fact that they're a part
> of America's society.
> To pretend that people should not have to pay for
> that part of our society they don't like, is the same as those that said
> they don't want their tax dollars going to fight a war; or any other
> ridiculous "tax paid" selection. And if one of those religious nuts that
> believe a god doesn't want a person to be operated on, that "Only prayer
> will cure you," makes the same claim; that they shouldn't have to pay for
> another person's appendix operation; they're just going to have to live
> with it. They're a nut and the Republican Party has been feeding them more
> cool aid in order to get them elected to control you even further.
particular coverage in employer-paid insurance. Not about denying any
services to anyone.
> If you (plural) don't like that insurance is paying for a woman to take
> birth control pills because a doctor told her a pregnancy would kill her;
> you're just going to have to run around and yell at all women that you are
> their religious leader; that you know what's better for them than they do,
> and to "STOP TAKING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS." Don’t blame the insurance
> companies or our society. Being religious and Republicans is hazardous to
> the rest of us in our society.
advice or forcing them to not take birth control pills. It's about
requiring a religious organization to PAY FOR providing something that
goes against their moral code. Doing so is an egregious violation of
freedom of religion. It's the government saying "We don't care what
your moral beliefs are, we think this is a good thing so we're going to
make you do it."
No rights are absolute when they conflict with other rights, which is
why laws prohibiting (for exammple) human sacrifice would be
Constitutional. In this case, a fundamental violation of religious
freedom just to mandate specific insurance coverage is waaaay over the top.
It fits right in with the Left's selective regard for human rights. If
it's something in their agenda, such as gay rights, they're all for
defending it. If it's a case of a right interfering with something they
want the government to do, then they toss the right under the bus for a
"higher social purpose."
--
Truthseeker
VegasJerry
Feb 10, 2012, 6:20:48 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 8 2012 8:55 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Feb 7 2012 9:04 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > Or run away again.
>
>
> No running away, Jerry. Just not wasting any more time...
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Feb 7 2012 9:04 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > Or run away again.
>
>
Yea, right..........
on someone who
> just twists everything to his warped view, so that logical discussion is
> impossible. I made my points, that you cannot see them is not my problem.
>
> You may have the last word.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
VegasJerry
Feb 10, 2012, 6:26:43 PM2/10/12
to
make insurance payments when someone get a prostrate exam. And we have
non-gender statemments claiming they should'nt have to pay for prostrate
exams becaue they're too young, and don't have to worry about that just
yet. And all the other examples that match mine.
Get over it. There are women that would die if they get pregnant. They
have the right to medical coverage, just like everybody else. This is
simply the Republicans looking for some religious bitch against the
Democrats.
Jerry
Pepe Papon
Feb 11, 2012, 3:10:45 AM2/11/12
to
violation. Nobody's being denied the right to practice their religion.
Nevertheless, it appears to be a moot point, as Obama has given in to
political pressure.
TruthSeeker
Feb 11, 2012, 1:55:12 PM2/11/12
to
Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:52:53 -0700, TruthSeeker
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:52:53 -0700, TruthSeeker
>> My guess here is that you are not religious, or at least not Catholic,
>> so you feel that the rights violation doesn't hurt you. "First they
>> came for the Jews ..."
>
> Despite your hysterical, drama-queen response, there's no rights
> violation. Nobody's being denied the right to practice their religion.
Well, if you shut your eyes tight, put your fingers in your ears and
>> so you feel that the rights violation doesn't hurt you. "First they
>> came for the Jews ..."
>
> Despite your hysterical, drama-queen response, there's no rights
> violation. Nobody's being denied the right to practice their religion.
yell "NaNaNaNaNa" you won't see the rights violation. Freedom of
religion means more than being allowed to conduct church services.
> Nevertheless, it appears to be a moot point, as Obama has given in to
> political pressure.
moral issues are concerned are always tricky, and this one IMO doesn't
pass the smell test.
--
TruthSeeker
RazzO
Feb 11, 2012, 2:12:34 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11 2012 12:55 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> Pepe Papon wrote:
> Pepe Papon wrote:
> > Despite your hysterical, drama-queen response, there's no rights
> > violation. Nobody's being denied the right to practice their religion.
>
>
> Well, if you shut your eyes tight, put your fingers in your ears and
> yell "NaNaNaNaNa" you won't see the rights violation.
This would be Cheetos dick Pepe alright.
> > violation. Nobody's being denied the right to practice their religion.
>
>
> Well, if you shut your eyes tight, put your fingers in your ears and
> yell "NaNaNaNaNa" you won't see the rights violation.
RazzO n' Vegas
------
TruthSeeker
Feb 11, 2012, 7:29:20 PM2/11/12
to
TruthSeeker wrote:
> Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:52:53 -0700, TruthSeeker
>>> My guess here is that you are not religious, or at least not Catholic,
>>> so you feel that the rights violation doesn't hurt you. "First they
>>> came for the Jews ..."
>> Despite your hysterical, drama-queen response, there's no rights
>> violation. Nobody's being denied the right to practice their religion.
> Well, if you shut your eyes tight, put your fingers in your ears and
> yell "NaNaNaNaNa" you won't see the rights violation. Freedom of
> religion means more than being allowed to conduct church services.
You know, part of the reason for your denial that this is a freedom of
> Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:52:53 -0700, TruthSeeker
>>> My guess here is that you are not religious, or at least not Catholic,
>>> so you feel that the rights violation doesn't hurt you. "First they
>>> came for the Jews ..."
>> Despite your hysterical, drama-queen response, there's no rights
>> violation. Nobody's being denied the right to practice their religion.
> Well, if you shut your eyes tight, put your fingers in your ears and
> yell "NaNaNaNaNa" you won't see the rights violation. Freedom of
> religion means more than being allowed to conduct church services.
religion issue may be that it's the Catholics whose freedom of religion
is being denied. So let's try a little analogy.
You know the Federal Government has been making mandates for school
lunch programs, to promote a healthy diet. Now, let's suppose that the
Feds came out with a mandate that school lunches had to serve at least
two servings of pork each week.
Now, can you see how that would infringe on the religious freedom of
Jewish and Muslim schools? Hmmm?
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
Feb 12, 2012, 4:29:14 AM2/12/12
to
You're nothing but a whining ankle-biter with a two-digit IQ.
Pepe Papon
Feb 12, 2012, 4:29:49 AM2/12/12
to
Pepe Papon
Feb 12, 2012, 4:31:32 AM2/12/12
to
be no rights violation as long as non-pork alternatives were
available.
TruthSeeker
Feb 12, 2012, 7:53:46 AM2/12/12
to
consumption that is the rights violation, it is the being forced to provide.
Looks like I got that "fingers in the ears yelling Na-Na-Na" right on
the mark.
--
TruthSeeker
da pickle
Feb 12, 2012, 9:34:44 AM2/12/12
to
This is a result of court battles between the Amish and the IRS in which
the Amish claimed that Social Security taxes were insurance premiums,
which go against the Amish belief that families should take care of
their own, including the elderly and disabled."
FL Turbo
Feb 12, 2012, 11:59:45 AM2/12/12
to
He just ran a slick end run to fake out the opposition.
The situation stands right where it was.
Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
(Look up TANSTAAFL if you need further elucidation)
Slick
TruthSeeker
Feb 12, 2012, 2:22:45 PM2/12/12
to
court challenges, if the Obama Administration will then try to force the
Amish to buy health insurance. And if Pepe will still claim that there
is "no rights violation."
--
TruthSeeker
da pickle
Feb 12, 2012, 2:42:37 PM2/12/12
to
the parents want the child to have the transfusion. However, minors who
are not "mature" can be ordered to receive a blood transfusion by a
competent court even though the parents who are Jehovah Witnesses object
on religious grounds.
What I do not understand is why a immature baby (just a few minutes too
young) can be killed when it cannot be denied life support just a few
minutes later ... unless it was intended to be dead when it was "born"
and the abortion was botched and then it can just lay there and die of
"natural causes."
RazzO
Feb 12, 2012, 8:39:53 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 12 2012 3:29 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >This would be Cheetos dick Pepe alright.
>
> Do you ever contribute anything positive to any discussion at all?
> You're nothing but a whining ankle-biter with a two-digit IQ.
LOL @ Pepe Papon.
> >This would be Cheetos dick Pepe alright.
>
> Do you ever contribute anything positive to any discussion at all?
> You're nothing but a whining ankle-biter with a two-digit IQ.
Try and look at it like I make up the slack of your bombardment.
Your chronic posting reminds me of a frigid saucer size dog that runs
around and pisses on everything.
Anyone agree?
RazzO n' Vegas
-------
Pepe Papon
Feb 13, 2012, 3:34:24 AM2/13/12
to
I clearly need to start posting non-chronically. Thanks for the
heads-up.
Pepe Papon
Feb 13, 2012, 3:35:30 AM2/13/12
to
distinguish fact from opinion."
Pepe Papon
Feb 13, 2012, 3:40:33 AM2/13/12
to
individuals and their personal religious beliefs, not to employers who
hire employees of various religions.
Pepe Papon
Feb 13, 2012, 3:42:23 AM2/13/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:45 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
wrote:
>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
That's pretty much how Federal standards work. They apply to
everyone.
wrote:
>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
everyone.
Tom White
Feb 13, 2012, 5:32:05 AM2/13/12
to
On 2012-02-12, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com> wrote:
> Except that he didn't give in.
> He just ran a slick end run to fake out the opposition.
> The situation stands right where it was.
It wasn't the opposition he faked out. Catholics aren't likely
> Except that he didn't give in.
> He just ran a slick end run to fake out the opposition.
> The situation stands right where it was.
to be fooled by Obama's theology of "as long as someone else
pays the bill, just do it."
It's the same folks he's been fooling that he's again turning to
for shallow understanding.
Truthseeker
Feb 13, 2012, 12:28:59 PM2/13/12
to
On 2/13/12 1:40 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:34:44 -0600, da pickle
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:34:44 -0600, da pickle
>> "Members of the Amish religious order are exempt from paying FICA taxes.
>> This is a result of court battles between the Amish and the IRS in which
>> the Amish claimed that Social Security taxes were insurance premiums,
>> which go against the Amish belief that families should take care of
>> their own, including the elderly and disabled."
>
> That, of course, is a different situation, as it applies to
> individuals and their personal religious beliefs, not to employers who
> hire employees of various religions.
Spin and dodge, spin and dodge. FICA is paid by both employees and
>> This is a result of court battles between the Amish and the IRS in which
>> the Amish claimed that Social Security taxes were insurance premiums,
>> which go against the Amish belief that families should take care of
>> their own, including the elderly and disabled."
>
> That, of course, is a different situation, as it applies to
> individuals and their personal religious beliefs, not to employers who
> hire employees of various religions.
employers. And matters of religious freedom apply to both individuals
and organized churches, even when those churches employ people.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Feb 13, 2012, 12:32:27 PM2/13/12
to
certain people or organizations. And many of them have waivers
available ... look at all the waivers that have already been given on
Obamacare.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Feb 13, 2012, 12:33:04 PM2/13/12
to
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Feb 13, 2012, 12:46:07 PM2/13/12
to
On 2/10/12 4:26 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Get over it. There are women that would die if they get pregnant. They
> have the right to medical coverage, just like everybody else. This is
> simply the Republicans looking for some religious bitch against the
> Democrats.
My first wife would have died if she got pregnant, which is why she had
> Get over it. There are women that would die if they get pregnant. They
> have the right to medical coverage, just like everybody else. This is
> simply the Republicans looking for some religious bitch against the
> Democrats.
a tubal ligation right after we got married.
There is no "right" to medical insurance. We as a society regard access
to medical care as important, something a civilized society does not
deny to anyone in need, but having it routinely paid for is not a right
under the Constitution.
More to the point, the issue here is not access to contraception, and
honoring the religious freedom of the Catholic Church will not deny
access to contraception to anyone. It is widely available throughout
the U.S. Those who cannot afford it have plentiful free sources.
The issue here is the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of
religion, it is not about women's health -- women's rights is just the
smokescreen that the Administration and its allies are trying to use.
--
Truthseeker
FL Turbo
Feb 13, 2012, 8:56:40 PM2/13/12
to
The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
These nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable people write
regulations that assume the effect of law, without any regard to the
consequences, anticipated or unanticipated.
The Colonists revolted against Taxation without Representation.
We have now gradually but surely succumbed to Regulation without
Representation.
Whose fault is that?
Pogo said it best: "We have met the Enemy and he is Us."
Pepe Papon
Feb 14, 2012, 1:24:42 AM2/14/12
to
response, though unfortunate, was predictable.
Pepe Papon
Feb 14, 2012, 1:25:49 AM2/14/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
State standards or local standards.
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:42:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:45 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>>>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
>>
>>That's pretty much how Federal standards work. They apply to
>>everyone.
>That's right, and therein lies the problem.
>
>The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
I knew you'd say this, but it's a non-argument. The same is true of
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:42:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:45 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>>>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
>>
>>That's pretty much how Federal standards work. They apply to
>>everyone.
>That's right, and therein lies the problem.
>
>The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
State standards or local standards.
Pepe Papon
Feb 14, 2012, 1:27:21 AM2/14/12
to
temporary variety for the purpose of easing the transition.
Truthseeker
Feb 14, 2012, 2:11:30 PM2/14/12
to
you've been caught in a blatant error and have no other recourse.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Feb 14, 2012, 2:15:10 PM2/14/12
to
local standards and regulations, which is why such standards should be
imposed only when there is a clear and unambiguous benefit, and not for
every perceived potential problem that comes down the pike.
Also, States and especially local communities are closer to the issues
and the people involved, whereas the Feds are remote and encompass 300
million people in a wide variety of circumstances. Which makes the
problem of "one size fits all" MUCH worse at the Federal level.
--
Truthseeker
Bea Foroni
Feb 14, 2012, 3:01:08 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 14, 11:15 am, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On 2/13/12 11:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo<noem...@notime.com>
> On 2/13/12 11:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
Opinions, I might add, that you seldom back up with facts. I'm just
saying.
FL Turbo
Feb 14, 2012, 7:39:39 PM2/14/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:25:49 -0800, Pepe Papon
So I gather that you think being ruled by people a few thousand miles
away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred miles
away from you?
How about a One World Government?
Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
miles away from you?
Let's do a little thought experiment.
In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
<hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:42:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
>><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:45 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>>>>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
>>>
>>>That's pretty much how Federal standards work. They apply to
>>>everyone.
>>That's right, and therein lies the problem.
>>
>>The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>>bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>>everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
>
>I knew you'd say this, but it's a non-argument. The same is true of
>State standards or local standards.
I knew that you would know that I'd say that.
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:42:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
>><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:45 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>>>>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
>>>
>>>That's pretty much how Federal standards work. They apply to
>>>everyone.
>>That's right, and therein lies the problem.
>>
>>The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>>bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>>everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
>
>I knew you'd say this, but it's a non-argument. The same is true of
>State standards or local standards.
So I gather that you think being ruled by people a few thousand miles
away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred miles
away from you?
How about a One World Government?
Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
miles away from you?
Let's do a little thought experiment.
In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
Pepe Papon
Feb 16, 2012, 4:16:52 AM2/16/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:11:30 -0700, Truthseeker
distinction, and you didn't get it. We're done.
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 2/13/12 11:24 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:28:59 -0700, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/12 1:40 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>> That, of course, is a different situation, as it applies to
>>>> individuals and their personal religious beliefs, not to employers who
>>>> hire employees of various religions.
>
>>> Spin and dodge, spin and dodge. FICA is paid by both employees and
>>> employers. And matters of religious freedom apply to both individuals
>>> and organized churches, even when those churches employ people.
>
>> I suspected the distinction would be too subtle for you. Your
>> response, though unfortunate, was predictable.
>
>
>Total lack of content in your smarmy dodge noted. A typical dodge when
>you've been caught in a blatant error and have no other recourse.
I've been caught in no such thing. I've already explained the
>On 2/13/12 11:24 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:28:59 -0700, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/12 1:40 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>> That, of course, is a different situation, as it applies to
>>>> individuals and their personal religious beliefs, not to employers who
>>>> hire employees of various religions.
>
>>> Spin and dodge, spin and dodge. FICA is paid by both employees and
>>> employers. And matters of religious freedom apply to both individuals
>>> and organized churches, even when those churches employ people.
>
>> I suspected the distinction would be too subtle for you. Your
>> response, though unfortunate, was predictable.
>
>
>Total lack of content in your smarmy dodge noted. A typical dodge when
>you've been caught in a blatant error and have no other recourse.
distinction, and you didn't get it. We're done.
Pepe Papon
Feb 16, 2012, 4:18:12 AM2/16/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:15:10 -0700, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 2/13/12 11:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo<noe...@notime.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>>> bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>>> everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
>
>> I knew you'd say this, but it's a non-argument. The same is true of
>> State standards or local standards.
>
>
>This may be too subtle for you, but it's also a problem with State and
>local standards and regulations, which is why such standards should be
>imposed only when there is a clear and unambiguous benefit,
Which, of course, there is in the case of health insurance.
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 2/13/12 11:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo<noe...@notime.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>>> bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>>> everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
>
>> I knew you'd say this, but it's a non-argument. The same is true of
>> State standards or local standards.
>
>
>This may be too subtle for you, but it's also a problem with State and
>local standards and regulations, which is why such standards should be
>imposed only when there is a clear and unambiguous benefit,
Pepe Papon
Feb 16, 2012, 4:22:23 AM2/16/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:39:39 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>How about a One World Government?
>Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
>miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
>miles away from you?
That's unanswerable given the information you provided.
>Let's do a little thought experiment.
>In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
>with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
>of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
That's a vaguely worded question. I wouldn't feel comfortable with
that government in any case.
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:25:49 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:42:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
>>><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:45 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>>>>>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
>>>>
>>>>That's pretty much how Federal standards work. They apply to
>>>>everyone.
>>>That's right, and therein lies the problem.
>>>
>>>The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>>>bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>>>everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
>>
>>I knew you'd say this, but it's a non-argument. The same is true of
>>State standards or local standards.
>
>I knew that you would know that I'd say that.
>
>So I gather that you think being ruled by people a few thousand miles
>away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred miles
>away from you?
What a silly conclusion.
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:25:49 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:56:40 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:42:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
>>><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:45 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Insurance companies are mandated to provide FREE contraception
>>>>>coverage to everyone whether they want it or not.
>>>>
>>>>That's pretty much how Federal standards work. They apply to
>>>>everyone.
>>>That's right, and therein lies the problem.
>>>
>>>The proliferation of Federal alphabet soup agencies is filled with
>>>bureaucrats writing rules, regulation and restrictions that apply to
>>>everyone in the country, regardless of local conditions.
>>
>>I knew you'd say this, but it's a non-argument. The same is true of
>>State standards or local standards.
>
>I knew that you would know that I'd say that.
>
>So I gather that you think being ruled by people a few thousand miles
>away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred miles
>away from you?
>How about a One World Government?
>Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
>miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
>miles away from you?
>Let's do a little thought experiment.
>In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
>with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
>of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
that government in any case.
Truthseeker
Feb 16, 2012, 11:37:29 AM2/16/12
to
get that. So OK, we're done.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Feb 16, 2012, 11:43:33 AM2/16/12
to
Are there clear and unambiguous benefits to every government regulation
or mandate regarding health insurance? Of course not.
Are Federal regulations and mandates regarding health insurance superior
to those at the State level? IMO, no, not by a long shot. And
Obamacare is demonstrating that more and more as time goes by.
Remember Obama's promise that if Obamacare passed, and you liked your
current health insurance, you could keep it? That didn't last long, did it?
--
Truthseeker
FL Turbo
Feb 16, 2012, 7:19:07 PM2/16/12
to
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:22:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
It wasn't a conclusion.
It was a question to you.
A simple yes or no would suffice.
>>How about a One World Government?
>>Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
>>miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
>>miles away from you?
>
>That's unanswerable given the information you provided.
>
Another simple question.
Hey, don't be afraid that my feelings would be hurt if you said "no".
>>Let's do a little thought experiment.
>>In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
>>with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
>>of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
>
>That's a vaguely worded question. I wouldn't feel comfortable with
>that government in any case.
So then it appears that you would feel comfortable in 2014 with a
Federal government run by President Obama and a majority of Demos in
Congress?
Did I get that right?
Please tell me if I'm making up a position for you.
Just for the record here, I'm equally uneasy about the Federal
government complete domination over State governments, with either
Democans or Republicrats in charge.
It was a question to you.
A simple yes or no would suffice.
>>How about a One World Government?
>>Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
>>miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
>>miles away from you?
>
>That's unanswerable given the information you provided.
>
Hey, don't be afraid that my feelings would be hurt if you said "no".
>>Let's do a little thought experiment.
>>In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
>>with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
>>of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
>
>That's a vaguely worded question. I wouldn't feel comfortable with
>that government in any case.
Federal government run by President Obama and a majority of Demos in
Congress?
Did I get that right?
Please tell me if I'm making up a position for you.
Just for the record here, I'm equally uneasy about the Federal
government complete domination over State governments, with either
Democans or Republicrats in charge.
Pepe Papon
Feb 17, 2012, 3:11:02 AM2/17/12
to
Pepe Papon
Feb 17, 2012, 3:20:17 AM2/17/12
to
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:19:07 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
wrote:
>>>So I gather that you think being ruled by people a few thousand miles
>>>away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred miles
>>>away from you?
>>
>>What a silly conclusion.
>>
>It wasn't a conclusion.
>It was a question to you.
>A simple yes or no would suffice.
It was a declarative statement to which you appended a question mark.
Since it was intended as a question, this disproves the old claim that
there's no such thing as a stupid question.
>>>How about a One World Government?
>>>Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
>>>miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
>>>miles away from you?
>>
>>That's unanswerable given the information you provided.
>>
>Another simple question.
>Hey, don't be afraid that my feelings would be hurt if you said "no".
There's nothing simple about that question. It would certainly
depends on the circumstances by which the government arose and the
form it took.
>>>Let's do a little thought experiment.
>>>In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
>>>with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
>>>of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
>>
>>That's a vaguely worded question. I wouldn't feel comfortable with
>>that government in any case.
>
>So then it appears that you would feel comfortable in 2014 with a
>Federal government run by President Obama and a majority of Demos in
>Congress?
>Did I get that right?
>Please tell me if I'm making up a position for you.
I'd feel more comfortable than I would with your first scenario. But
you already knew that.
>Just for the record here, I'm equally uneasy about the Federal
>government complete domination over State governments, with either
>Democans or Republicrats in charge.
Yes, I knew that. Then again, I don't know of anyone who favors that.
wrote:
>>>So I gather that you think being ruled by people a few thousand miles
>>>away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred miles
>>>away from you?
>>
>>What a silly conclusion.
>>
>It wasn't a conclusion.
>It was a question to you.
>A simple yes or no would suffice.
Since it was intended as a question, this disproves the old claim that
there's no such thing as a stupid question.
>>>How about a One World Government?
>>>Would you think that being ruled by people a few tens of thousands of
>>>miles away from you is better than being ruled by people a few hundred
>>>miles away from you?
>>
>>That's unanswerable given the information you provided.
>>
>Another simple question.
>Hey, don't be afraid that my feelings would be hurt if you said "no".
depends on the circumstances by which the government arose and the
form it took.
>>>Let's do a little thought experiment.
>>>In 2014 with a President Romney, a Senate majority of Repos, and an HR
>>>with a majority of Repos, would you still be comfortable with the idea
>>>of a Federal government predominating over the sundry States?
>>
>>That's a vaguely worded question. I wouldn't feel comfortable with
>>that government in any case.
>
>So then it appears that you would feel comfortable in 2014 with a
>Federal government run by President Obama and a majority of Demos in
>Congress?
>Did I get that right?
>Please tell me if I'm making up a position for you.
you already knew that.
>Just for the record here, I'm equally uneasy about the Federal
>government complete domination over State governments, with either
>Democans or Republicrats in charge.
da pickle
Feb 17, 2012, 7:31:11 AM2/17/12
to
On 2/17/2012 2:11 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> Total lack of content in your smarmy dodge noted. A typical dodge when
>>>> you've been caught in a blatant error and have no other recourse.
>>>
>>> I've been caught in no such thing. I've already explained the
>>> distinction, and you didn't get it. We're done.
>>
>> And then I explained why your distinction was incorrect, and you didn't
>> get that. So OK, we're done.
>
> I got that your explanation was wrong.
Perhaps you should say one more time that you need not have the last word.
>>>> Total lack of content in your smarmy dodge noted. A typical dodge when
>>>> you've been caught in a blatant error and have no other recourse.
>>>
>>> I've been caught in no such thing. I've already explained the
>>> distinction, and you didn't get it. We're done.
>>
>> And then I explained why your distinction was incorrect, and you didn't
>> get that. So OK, we're done.
>
> I got that your explanation was wrong.
TruthSeeker
Feb 17, 2012, 9:32:25 PM2/17/12
to
that just shows that you didn't get it.
Oh, and I see you weren't done after all. What a surprise.
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
Feb 18, 2012, 3:08:47 AM2/18/12
to
The Last Word.
FL Turbo
Feb 20, 2012, 9:34:43 PM2/20/12
to
now, when even Liberals would realize that the Federal government was
becoming too large and dominant.
I was wrong.
Now I can't see any point where that might happen.
TruthSeeker
Feb 20, 2012, 10:19:04 PM2/20/12
to
FL Turbo wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:20:17 -0800, Pepe Papon
> <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:19:07 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:20:17 -0800, Pepe Papon
> <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:19:07 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>> Just for the record here, I'm equally uneasy about the Federal
>>> government complete domination over State governments, with either
>>> Democans or Republicrats in charge.
>> Yes, I knew that. Then again, I don't know of anyone who favors that.
> I had thought years and years ago that there would be a time real soon
> now, when even Liberals would realize that the Federal government was
> becoming too large and dominant.
> I was wrong.
> Now I can't see any point where that might happen.
As long as there is a single unsolved problem in society, or there is
>>> government complete domination over State governments, with either
>>> Democans or Republicrats in charge.
>> Yes, I knew that. Then again, I don't know of anyone who favors that.
> I had thought years and years ago that there would be a time real soon
> now, when even Liberals would realize that the Federal government was
> becoming too large and dominant.
> I was wrong.
> Now I can't see any point where that might happen.
any perceived inequality, there will be Liberals who want the Federal
Government to solve it.
--
TruthSeeker
0 new messages