Thanks Neal - that just made my day .

Ovfr the last few days Limbaugh inserted his misogyny into the debate . And the debate seems to have altered its focus as a result...To the detriment of conservatives I suspect. But what was really interesting was Limbaughs "apology". Froma commentator in WaPo...

In my monologue,’’ Limbaugh said, “I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.”

So he does not, after all, think it’s important to keep gay couples from marrying and women from ending pregnancies? That will come as a surprise to listeners, I feel sure.

I do hope that Limbaugh is forced to deal with this statement further...

I'm pretty sure that stating that someone is a prostitute when they are not is slander.

Notwithstanding that his broadside against Fluke had absolutely nothing to do with what she was talking about (it was not contraception for herself, but for her friend who was prescribed it for ovarian cysts), and even though Rush has somewhat of a reputation for attacking people with a hefty dollop of nastiness, and let's not forget that he's got a bit of a history himself with prescription drugs used for sexual purposes (returning from the Dominican Republic with some viagra he should not have had)...

he's managed to hit a new low.

Limbaugh's bombastic attitude not withstanding (especially when he acts like an ass), I would think that prescribing pills for cysts would be a medical issue handled with a doctor. If you need to go to Public Health providers to get them issued, that is your choice (dang! There is that word again!) If you want treatment of prescriptions pick an insurance that has that. If you do not want that, then don't CHOOSE one.

It always comes back to this. The Obama health care plan is taking away choice to NOT have it provided in an insurance plan. The president's plan is restrictive in in the fact that it is not allowing the personal choice of an employer to not have to pay for certain services. These services can be received elsewhere, even RickyP states that 98% of Catholic women get services elsewhere against the tenets of their religion.

Limbaugh being an idiot does not diminish the fact that the issue of freedom from federal intrusion. I am not saying all intrusion is bad, but this is certainly an over reach.

bbauska wrote:Limbaugh's bombastic attitude not withstanding (especially when he acts like an ass), I would think that prescribing pills for cysts would be a medical issue handled with a doctor. If you need to go to Public Health providers to get them issued, that is your choice (dang! There is that word again!) If you want treatment of prescriptions pick an insurance that has that. If you do not want that, then don't CHOOSE one.

She wanted the drug. her insurance did not cover it because despite the reason being medical, it is contraception. And she had a choice - on a limited income, to pay the full price herself or go without.

It always comes back to this. The Obama health care plan is taking away choice to NOT have it provided in an insurance plan.

Indeed. And the 'choice' is nonsensical. Because it's not the insured who gets the 'choice', is it? You want their employer to get the 'choice'. And what is that 'choice'? To restrict the medical options that insured get to choose from.

Yup. You defend the 'choice' to restrict the 'choice' of others, because the eevul fedrul gubmint is 'forcing' people to have more options.

The president's plan is restrictive in in the fact that it is not allowing the personal choice of an employer to not have to pay for certain services. These services can be received elsewhere, even RickyP states that 98% of Catholic women get services elsewhere against the tenets of their religion.

*headpalm*. Most Catholic 'institutions' are already providing the cover. Most Catholics are employed by others, so it's not 'elsewhere' they are geting them from. And still, you seem to think it's Ok for Catholic employers to impose their 'choice' on non-Catholic employees.

Limbaugh being an idiot does not diminish the fact that the issue of freedom from federal intrusion. I am not saying all intrusion is bad, but this is certainly an over reach.

What about the freedom from employer intrusion? What about putting individual rights at the heart of teh US system. The DoI doesn't talk about how all people, corporate entities and religious movements are created equal, does it? The Constitution doesn't talk about 'employers' at all - people, citizens, yes.

What it 'comes down to' is the wish to impose one brand of religious morality over all others, to impose corporate morality over individual morality...

And let's not forget that:

a) the compromise renders the wishes of the RCC redundant - it gives them exactly what they want, except for a way to play the victim without looking like idiots and
b) It's cheaper to have a plan that includes contraception than one that doesn't, so they were asking for a [i]subsidy[i], not 'freedom'.

Scalia had something to say about this....

For the past month, debate has raged about insurance coverage for birth control, whether organizations that have a religious objection to covering birth control must nevertheless include coverage in their medical plans and now, more generally, whether employers that have religious or moral objections to birth control can refuse to provide such coverage. The discourse has grown ugly, with mud being slung at women who have the temerity to defend the need for birth control coverage, pious politicians wrapping themselves deeply in the cloak of the First Amendment and the media, by and large, sitting back with its bag of popcorn, watching the food fight while generating days of cable news and commentary coverage on both sides of the issue.

And all of this sturm und drang would be well and good had this question not been resolved more than 20 years ago by the Supreme Court. In 1990, the Court granted certiorari on a case captioned Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the Court considered the question of whether the State of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to the defendant, a Native American who utilized the hallucinogenic peyote as a religious, sacramental rite and was fired from his job because of his ingestion of the substance, which was illegal under state and federal law.
Smith and his co-defendant challenged the determination of their ineligibility for unemployment, arguing that their use of peyote was protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Although they were successful in the lower courts, Smith and his co-complainant lost in the Supreme Court in a decision written by the noted left wing radical and judicial activist, Antonin Scalia.
Yes, that Justice Scalia. The same one who issued a concurrence in a case in 2005 that is likely to form the foundation for upholding "Obamacare." (See, http://scarylawyerguy.blogspot.com/2011 ... e-you.html). In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in Oregon's favor and Justice Scalia's core rationale was straight forward - that a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by one's religion does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Justice Scalia cited examples that included the prohibition on polygamy (U.S. v. Reynolds), the requirement that Amish employers collect and pay Social Security taxes even though the Amish faith rejects participation in government programs (U.S. v. Lee), and "Sunday closing laws" that affected those who celebrate the Sabbath on days other than Sunday as laws that were all upheld against similar Free Exercise challenges.

As Justice Scalia noted, if the Court permitted people to challenge generally applicable laws based on religious belief, the "tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief." In other words, pacifists cannot challenge the appropriation of tax dollars for war purposes any more than Mormons can assert they are free to engage in multiple marriages. Only when the free exercise of religion is tied to another constitutionally protected right will the Court invalidate that law. So, where "a licensing system for religious and charitable solicitations under which the administrator had discretion to deny a license to any cause he deemed nonreligious" was challenged, it was struck down because it ran afoul of both the Free Exercise Clause and the right to a free press (Murdock v. Pennsylvania).

So what does all of this have to do with the recent firestorm around requiring religious employers (primarily those affiliated with the Catholic Church) to cover birth control as part of their health plans? A few things, actually. First, and most importantly, the idea that this requirement is unconstitutional is complete and utter bullshit. No matter how much Republicans fulminate on the House or Senate floor about this unprecedented affront to religion, which itself ignored the fact that more than 20 states had similar requirements, 8 of which did not include the so-called "religious exemption" the original, pre-Obama "compromise" in their regulations, the simple fact is that had a religious organization challenged the Obama Administration in court, that group would have lost even if the Administration had not chosen to include the religious exemption at all because the requirement that birth control be covered in insurance plans was applied neutrally and did not otherwise impact other protected constitutional rights as per Smith.

Need further proof? None other than the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in its decision striking down the individual mandate in Florida v. HHS found that "Congress has legislated expansively and constitutionally in the fields of insurance and health care" citing laws such as HIPAA (patient privacy protection and insurance portability), COBRA (allowing former employees to maintain coverage through their former employers at a premium), ERISA, and Medicare. In upholding other portions of the Affordable Care Act, the Court noted that "It is clear that Congress has enacted comprehensive legislation regarding health insurance and health care. The Act is another such example." So even a conservative court that has struck down the individual mandate has also acknowledged that Congress has the authority to pass laws that include regulatory authority that impacts medical insurance coverage.

And why does this all matter? Because our country is not a theocracy that allows one religious sect to elevate its interests over others simply because they have a loud microphone and a lot of adherents. The slippery slope we would fall down if anytime a religious organization objected to a law or regulation because it offended its religious tenets would lead to absurd results where Rastafarians would be free to smoke marijuana, Quakers could withhold their tax dollars to fight wars and Mormons could wed multiple partners. While Republicans are furiously re-framing this issue as another example of government intrusion into the lives of ordinary, God-fearing Americans, this is a tempest in a teapot over something that was on the books in the majority of states in our nation before the proposed federal regulation and even so, it was well within the government's power to require this coverage. That the President was willing to provide the accommodation he did was unnecessary, but yet another example of his attempt to meet his foes halfway, something, they of course, will never accept.

http://scarylawyerguy.blogspot.com/2012 ... r-why.html

I am for ALL to have the same choice to choose whatever insurance they want. It should be a personal choice which one you choose, not based upon employer insurance. Going to walk downtown on a beautiful day. I will write more later about Scalia's comments

danivon wrote:She wanted the drug. her insurance did not cover it because despite the reason being medical, it is contraception. And she had a choice - on a limited income, to pay the full price herself or go without.

This is a false choice because if she is truely low income, medicaid would have covered the cost even with private insurance. If she was low income but too much for medicaid, there are other state and federal programs that would cover the insurance.

As for the claim that it wasn't covered because it was contraception, I find that to be a weak argument. Granted, without seeing the specifics of her insurance, I would be willing to bet she didn't follow up with the insurance company. If there was a medically necessary reason for the medication, beyond contraception, they most likely would have covered it.

danivon wrote:What about the freedom from employer intrusion? What about putting individual rights at the heart of teh US system. The DoI doesn't talk about how all people, corporate entities and religious movements are created equal, does it? The Constitution doesn't talk about 'employers' at all - people, citizens, yes.

And yet you are making an argument that the employer's liberty on deciding what benefits to offer its employees is less important then what the employee should get. Why should the employer have his liberty impuned when the employee can decide to go somewhere else if they don't like what they are getting.

Yes, of course, employees have loads of choice. How many Americans are unemployed? How many net new jobs are being created a month? Things are better than a year or so ago, but let's not pretend that employees have the balance of power.

I don't know the detail of Fluke's friend's insurance any more than you do, but that was the essence of the testimony. We are talking about insurance companies here, who don't like to make a habit of allowing claims when the small print means they don't have to.

Oddly, you who say that government should not pay and how it would be unfair and wrong to make people pay taxes towards 'health entitlements' are quick to say she should have been able to get it free from the government. Maybe it's not that simple anyway, maybe it's not that common for free pills to be given out for non-emergency cases?

archduke

And yet you are making an argument that the employer's liberty on deciding what benefits to offer its employees is less important then what the employee should get.

Something in here about corporate rights trumping individual rights?
Because you're making the arguement that an employer should be able to, based only on his expressed moral position, be able to ignore the laws of the nation.
What a large door you open....
as the scary lawyer said:

The slippery slope we would fall down if anytime a religious organization objected to a law or regulation because it offended its religious tenets would lead to absurd results where Rastafarians would be free to smoke marijuana, Quakers could withhold their tax dollars to fight wars and Mormons could wed multiple partners. While Republicans are furiously re-framing this issue as another example of government intrusion into the lives of ordinary, God-fearing Americans, this is a tempest in a teapot over something that was on the books in the majority of states in our nation before the proposed federal regulation and even so, it was well within the government's power to require this coverage. That the President was willing to provide the accommodation he did was unnecessary, but yet another example of his attempt to meet his foes halfway, something, they of course, will never accept.

Russell - As I understand it, the Catholic Church is not an individual. Neither is Georgetown University. The vast majority of employers of more than 15 people are not individuals, as even single-owner companies are technically companies, not part of the owner. Your property does not inherit your rights.

So yes, I am saying that the individual rights of employees trump the corporate rights of employers. When financial instruments have more power than people do to determine their own choices, we travel down a dangerous path - just as Ricky's quote talks about what allowing religious exemption from laws can mean.

What other benefits are "rights" that must be provided by the employer? RickyP, your quoted passage is a great reason for employers to NOT be involved in insurance at all. Thank you for that.

Do they need to provide a vehicle to every employee so they can get to work?
Do they need to provide free hair cuts and stylings?
Do they need to provide movie tickets to ensure relaxation of all employees?

Surely you can see that they should not be providing the services above. My question is, why does the employer have to provide insurance? Would it not be better to give the employee the money and let them make the choice themselves? I guess I think so, because people know best their specific situation. Perhaps others in this discussion think differently because of a view that the government can decide better. I would disagree, but can see why they might think that.

I agree with Scalia in that the religious should not be forcing it's view upon the rest of America any more than the Government forcing itself upon Religion

danivon wrote:Yes, of course, employees have loads of choice. How many Americans are unemployed? How many net new jobs are being created a month? Things are better than a year or so ago, but let's not pretend that employees have the balance of power.

So you want to base an entire regulatory regime on a temporary situation? Or are you saying that this high unemployment is a permanent situation?

danivon wrote:Oddly, you who say that government should not pay and how it would be unfair and wrong to make people pay taxes towards 'health entitlements' are quick to say she should have been able to get it free from the government.

It is entirely consistent. I disagree that the policy should be in place. But if it is there, and being paid for by my tax dollars take advantage of it instead of forcing an even more onurous and intrusive regulatory scheme on me.

danivon wrote: Maybe it's not that simple anyway, maybe it's not that common for free pills to be given out for non-emergency cases?

Actually it is probably she is just too damned lazy to find out for herself.

rickyp wrote:Something in here about corporate rights trumping individual rights?

Who says they are corporate rights. Let's say I own a business. I own a printing company that is closely held by me and my family. So our rights to determine what compensation to offer our employees is less important then the employees rights to certain benefits.

Even though the employee has a choice to work for me or not; whereas under this new regulatory scheme I have no choice.

rickyp wrote:Because you're making the arguement that an employer should be able to, based only on his expressed moral position, be able to ignore the laws of the nation.

Absolutely not. I am saying the laws should not be implemented in the first place.

danivon wrote:[Yup. You defend the 'choice' to restrict the 'choice' of others, because the eevul fedrul gubmint is 'forcing' people to have more options.

And when have i ever even remotely spoken like some redneck hick. I have a position that Government has limits on what it should and should not do. I have expressed that opinion in, what I believe to be, an intelligent and cogent manner. Your using this kind of ebonic spelling is an attempt to make me seem stupid and uneducated.

This is just one more example of you being an condescending arrogant prick and deserve this response.

@#$! you.