Obama General Discussion, vol. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope you keep running on this "backlash". It's a great, winning issue for the GOP. The louder, the better.

BC-Employers-Religion1-e1328631576475.png

Odd how in one thread we're told that not only should public opinion polls be discounted, but actual "put it to the vote of the people" democratic ballot initiatives should be overturned. While in this thread polls are used to support an autocratic mandate.

Even odder, while I can't find a "right" to marriage or free women's health care in the Constitution... I can find the "right" to the free exercise of religion.
 
Odd how in one thread we're told that not only should public opinion polls be discounted, but actual "put it to the vote of the people" democratic ballot initiatives should be overturned. While in this thread polls are used to support an autocratic mandate.


i think you may want to rethink this line of thought.


Even odder, while I can't find a "right" to marriage or free women's health care in the Constitution... I can find the "right" to the free exercise of religion.


does it say you can use your religion to discriminate against other people?
 
While in this thread polls are used to support an autocratic mandate.

Who is saying that?

What I am suggesting is that you have an issue that you can feel free to run on. It's a loser issue for you, and the people would vote to that effect. Nevermind that it's a loser issue in the court of public opinion, it is also a total waste of time in an election when the US is faced with significant economic and other problems.

If you want to run on gay marriage - go ahead. The GOP has done that in the past and was successful. Did I find it repugnant? Sure, but it was their prerogative. You want to run on it again? Do it. I think you'd find the results would be a tad different.
 
beginning to wonder if this isn't yet another trap of self-destruction set by the Obama administration to make the GOP look like a party of anti-woman religious fanatics. look at how far the GOP wants to go -- "we think anyone should be able to deny women contraception whenever they want!"


Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administration’s birth control rule would effectively permit any employer to deny contraception coverage in their employee health plans, critics note.

“Any employer could deny birth control coverage under Rubio’s bill and all the employer would have to do is say it’s for a religious reason,” said Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. “There is no test to prove eligibility. It’s a loophole you could drive a truck through.”

The Rubio bill, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, comes in response to a Catholic firestorm over the fact that the administration’s exemption on its birth control rule does not include religious hospitals and universities along with churches. But this bill appears to go far beyond that, permitting any employer to claim the religious exemption without a criteria.

Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage | TPMDC


i mean, honestly. this is contraception.

it also shows what is, indeed, the slippery slope of "my faith made me do it" arguments.
 
But this bill appears to go far beyond that, permitting any employer to claim the religious exemption without a criteria.
This was actually my thought when I first read the Catholic Church's arguments against the decision--well, what's so special about colleges and hospitals? Why not any old business run by a religious person, why not any old religious conviction? Like my right to not consider black people for employment because my church objects to race mixing, for example. Or to bar employees in an interracial marriage from claiming spousal benefits. Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions, when they own businesses can they opt out of covering those?
 
Last edited:
Even odder, while I can't find a "right" to marriage or free women's health care in the Constitution... I can find the "right" to the free exercise of religion.

But how does mandating that an health insurance policy includes reimbursing contraceptives for women infringe on someone's right to freely exercise his/her religion? Someone can still proclaim he/she belongs to a certain religion, worship the deity of choice, etc. Those rights are not being infringed.
 
But how does mandating that an health insurance policy includes reimbursing contraceptives for women infringe on someone's right to freely exercise his/her religion? Someone can still proclaim he/she belongs to a certain religion, worship the deity of choice, etc. Those rights are not being infringed.

Exactly.

Fine, people. You want to try and stop selling contraception? Then I don't want to hear any complaining of any sort from you when people find themselves with children they can't afford to take care of. In fact, I hope you'll be picking up where the parents left off, then, and pitching in to help care for these children. If you're as Christian as you claim, that shouldn't be a problem at all, right?
 
backlash from the 98% of Catholics who use birth control?

98% !! So where's the issue with "access" that make these mandates so frickin important? Seems like contraception is widely available to those... oh yeah, Obamacare never was about health care. It's about the top-down controlling of health care decisions.


as the chart shows, it's not a "religious" issue at all, it's an identity issue for white evangelical protestants.

Evangelical? You might want to rethink THAT. I personally have no problem with contraceptives. It's a large part of my practice. Including Plan B. But I posted on this forum the day this came to my attention (Jan 21st in Mandatory Health Care Thread). It was so long after that before this became a national issue I was beginning to worry I had overreacted.

I hadn't. It took awhile to get out because, to the MSM, it was a non-story.
Now it's news. Now people are reacting.

This is an issue of government overstep and First Amendment religious freedom. But if you need to think of this as "anti-woman religious fanatics" gettin' ginned up by Fox News and Karl Rove... you go right ahead.
 
Is it that you really don't understand this issue, or that you just have to make a boogie man out of everything?

Can anyone tell me how this infringes on anyone's rights?
 
98% !! So where's the issue with "access" that make these mandates so frickin important? Seems like contraception is widely available to those... oh yeah, Obamacare never was about health care. It's about the top-down controlling of health care decisions.


the statistic i had read was that 98% of Catholics use birth control. i don't know what percentage of them have it covered in their health care plan. i do know that not everyone who works for a Catholic organization (hospital, college, whatever) isn't a Catholic. it seems bonkers that people who are employed by a Catholic university be denied access to birth control through their employment-based health care because of the religious beliefs of their employers ("beliefs" that aren't even shared by anything other than a tiny minority of their followers).

this isn't about Catholics being denied birth control. this is about Catholics denying it to others.





Evangelical? You might want to rethink THAT. I personally have no problem with contraceptives. It's a large part of my practice. Including Plan B. But I posted on this forum the day this came to my attention (Jan 21st in Mandatory Health Care Thread). It was so long after that before this became a national issue I was beginning to worry I had overreacted.


i don't think evangelicals are against birth control. i DO think evangelical respond to dog whistles such as this. religious freedom! Obama! boogeyman!





I hadn't. It took awhile to get out because, to the MSM, it was a non-story. Now it's news. Now people are reacting.


you're right. just as Obama has eviscerated the Republicans on foreign policy so that it isn't an issue, he's started to do the same with the improving economy.

guess the only thing left is to start up the culture wars again.



This is an issue of government overstep and First Amendment religious freedom. But if you need to think of this as "anti-woman religious fanatics" gettin' ginned up by Fox News and Karl Rove... you go right ahead.


nope. it's about religious voters with an enormous chip on their shoulder -- and who aren't likely to even be Catholics -- who think the big bad guvmunt is going to tell them what to do.

i'm thinking more and more that Obama is setting yet another culture war trap to gin up young voters. people in their 20's and 30's certainly value their birth control, since this is their child bearing years and they'd really rather be in charge of when they do and do not get pregnant. he's also aware that the white evangelical base is getting older, is looking more and more alien to an increasingly diverse America, and making them freak out about birth control (even if it's really "religious freedom") makes them look positively insane and thus unelectable.
 
this isn't about Catholics being denied birth control. this is about Catholics denying it to others.

I don't think it's even that.

It's the Church hierarchy (which seems to be never listened to by most Catholics on this issue anyway) and evangelical concern trolls who would at most other times trash Catholics as non-Christians and the Pope as the anti-Christ but suddenly they are oh-so-worried about Catholic dogma and catechism.
 
If we're going to start citing the Catholic church, let's at least be honest and point out another little nugget that's come out of the Vatican:

Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.

Access to adequate medical attention, the pope said in a written message Nov. 18, was one of the "inalienable rights" of man.

...

In his own written statement, Cardinal Bertone had strong words in support of the need for governments to take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants.

"Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care," he said, adding that the provision of minimal levels of medical attention to all is "commonly accepted as a fundamental human right."

Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing, the cardinal said.
 
this isn't about Catholics being denied birth control. this is about Catholics denying it to others.
I'm against a government take over of health care and a defender of First Amendment rights. I'm against the government mandating anyone's insurance provide "free women's health care."

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/mandatory-health-insurance-part-2-a-201358-63.html

I think, if nothing else, I'm consistent on these points.

i don't think evangelicals are against birth control. i DO think evangelical respond to dog whistles such as this. religious freedom! Obama! boogeyman!

Isn't the whole point of the dog whistle analogy that the message is being sent in such a way that only the targeted audience will hear the message? If so, how come these messages directed towards me via "dog whistle" are coming in so clear to you?

Are you drawn to ponds by duck calls too? :wink:

guess the only thing left is to start up the culture wars again.

You're right, I want this election to be about the debt, the economy, entitlement reforms, market-based health care reform and energy. Catholics didn't start this war, Obama did.

i'm thinking more and more that Obama is setting yet another culture war trap to gin up young voters. people in their 20's and 30's certainly value their birth control, since this is their child bearing years and they'd really rather be in charge of when they do and do not get pregnant. he's also aware that the white evangelical base is getting older, is looking more and more alien to an increasingly diverse America, and making them freak out about birth control (even if it's really "religious freedom") makes them look positively insane and thus unelectable.

Don't quit your day job to become a political analyst. ;)
 
For INDY.

Here's my situation: I'm 21, a PA resident, in college, in thousands of dollars of debt, and barely make enough money working to pay for day-to-day expenses. My tuition is going up again next year because the governor of my state cut our appropriations again to keep natural gas from being taxed (30% this time around). My finances operate totally separately from my parents: I have my own debt and my own bills, I'm not some rich kid tag along who pretends to not have money. So...

Why should I vote for a Republican? What advantages would a Mitt Romney bring to the table over a Barack Obama? Honest question. I'd like you to make a case to me that Romney is better for me than Obama, fiscally. We'll put aside all the asinine social positions of the GOP. Let's just talk money.
 
I'm against a government take over of health care and a defender of First Amendment rights. I'm against the government mandating anyone's insurance provide "free women's health care."


how is denying coverage of one area of health that is widely accepted, widely covered, widely understood to be of enormous social good an exercise of the First Amendment?

as yolland mentioned before, what if my religion forbade interracial marriage? can i deny health coverage to your spouse because she's Korean and my religion says that God makes different races for a reason and put them on different continents because he didn't want confused half-breed children?


Isn't the whole point of the dog whistle analogy that the message is being sent in such a way that only the targeted audience will hear the message? If so, how come these messages directed towards me via "dog whistle" are coming in so clear to you?

you're right. this isn't a dog whistle, that was inaccurate of me. this is plain old red meat to the Democratic base (young people). whenever you use religion as an excuse to discriminate against women -- how does the Church feel about Viagra? surely Viagra encourages recreational sex as much as the Pill, and surely people of Viagra age likely have partners who aren't exactly in their most fertile years -- you're going to get the Dems all riled up. the Dem ladies in the Senate were all over this.


You're right, I want this election to be about the debt, the economy, entitlement reforms, market-based health care reform and energy. Catholics didn't start this war, Obama did.

but evangelicals sure do seem hell bent on fighting this war for them. sadly, your candidate who seems most able to talk about such things (Romney) is now behind your purest, nastiest, most intolerant, most anti-freedom candidate (Santorum).

Don't quit your day job to become a political analyst. ;)

so ... you agree with my analysis, then? ;)
 
For INDY.

Here's my situation: I'm 21, a PA resident, in college, in thousands of dollars of debt, and barely make enough money working to pay for day-to-day expenses. My tuition is going up again next year because the governor of my state cut our appropriations again to keep natural gas from being taxed (30% this time around). My finances operate totally separately from my parents: I have my own debt and my own bills, I'm not some rich kid tag along who pretends to not have money. So...

Why should I vote for a Republican? What advantages would a Mitt Romney bring to the table over a Barack Obama? Honest question. I'd like you to make a case to me that Romney is better for me than Obama, fiscally. We'll put aside all the asinine social positions of the GOP. Let's just talk money.



um ... it gets better?
 
how does the Church feel about Viagra? surely Viagra encourages recreational sex as much as the Pill, and surely people of Viagra age likely have partners who aren't exactly in their most fertile years

That REALLY drives me nuts. Don't want women to take a pill because it might "stop the creation of life" or it might mean we can actually go ahead and have sex for reasons other than pregnancy or some sort of other weird reasoning of that kind.

But men using Viagra? Yeah! Go nuts! Hump everything in sight! That's okay!

So many issues related to birth control always involve the women getting the brunt of the criticism. Women don't get pregnant just standing there, a man is involved somehow, so if we're going to be restrictive with women's health/reproduction issues, maybe we should do the same for men, too, eh?

Given my own family's financial struggles over the years, I too would like to hear an answer to PhilsFan's question.
 
For INDY.

Here's my situation: I'm 21, a PA resident, in college, in thousands of dollars of debt, and barely make enough money working to pay for day-to-day expenses. My tuition is going up again next year because the governor of my state cut our appropriations again to keep natural gas from being taxed (30% this time around). My finances operate totally separately from my parents: I have my own debt and my own bills, I'm not some rich kid tag along who pretends to not have money. So...
Has the idea of finishing your degree in another country ever occurred to you?
 
I'm a journalism major. Even in college, you have to work your way up through the ranks. I can't leave and drop in elsewhere. Too many opportunities would be missed.
 
Birth control most certainly IS health care for women. It is taken for other major health reasons other than preventing conception. It can cost up to $600 dollars a year (maybe even more depending upon reason for use) for uninsured people, which might be chump change to many people. But to poor and struggling people it is NOT. There are also non Catholic people who work for Catholic institutions, maybe they should all be fired.

This was the perfect political issue for this year, and it has worked

AP sources: Obama revamping birth control policy

WASHINGTON—Retreating in the face of a political uproar, President Barack Obama on Friday will announce that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees after all, The Associated Press has learned. The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception.

Obama's abrupt shift is an attempt to satisfy both sides of a deeply sensitive debate, and most urgently, to end a mounting election-year nightmare for the White House.

Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama's health care law that he insisted must remain. But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.

Obama will speak about his decision at 12:15 p.m. EST.

Senior administration officials confirmed the details to the AP but insisted they remain anonymous in advance of the president's announcement.
 
ugh. why does he do this? he just looks weak to people like me, and the people he's reaching out to already hate him because he's a marxist kenyan stalinist foreigner.

although this seems a bit more of a compromise than a concession, and it just makes everything more complicated:

On a conference call with reporters Friday, a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.

"All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...tion-accommodation-for-religious-orgs?ref=fpa
 
It's just too bad this couldn't have waited until after the election, as that's the only reason he's caved in. He doesn't want to lose potential voters in what could be a close election (though I have my doubts with the way the whole GOP Primary Circus is going down)

I don't recall Bush ever really backing down from anything, and I wish Obama had a little bit more of that bravado in him.
 
I'm a journalism major. Even in college, you have to work your way up through the ranks. I can't leave and drop in elsewhere. Too many opportunities would be missed.



if you want to continue in journalism, you'll probably have to move to a big media market and take an unpaid internship. you'll have to survive either on a second job or parental support in an expensive city like NYC or Chicago or LA, and you'll be working to prove yourself to other people who you hope will either hire you with their company (to do low-level but actually paid stuff) or who will say good things about you when you gain enough experience to apply to low-level but actually paid jobs in far-flung media markets like Tuscaloosa or Boise. and that's if you're lucky. even getting an internship can be tough -- seek out alumni contacts and write them letters and ask them about their careers, and be willing to work for free and to do just about anything. if you stick with print media only, you may never make a lot of money, and it may take you years to pay back your student loans. Memphis makes a very healthy salary, and he's now 35 and still paying back his undergrad loans.

other options to consider are teaching and/or going into law.

one good thing is that, now, thanks to Obama, you can stay on your parent's health insurance until you are 26. this means you'll have a good 4 years to work things such as unpaid internships so you can pursue your dreams and not have to worry about getting hit by a truck and having to spend your life repaying those bills in addition to your student loans. you also may not have to give up your dreams and take the first job with benefits that comes your way because you can't be without health insurance.

there's an enormous amount of creativity that would be unleashed with universal health care. think of all the risks entrepreneurs could take if they didn't have to worry about where their health care was coming from. i think so many creative, dynamic people are held back because of a lack of social support here in the US -- they are forced into jobs they hate because they have a spouse or a child who must be taken care of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom