Contraception Coverage Mandate

So you won't answer the question about Reagan but you will demand others answer your questions. Typical RW'er.

 

Anyway, back to the topic. My prediction is that all of the demagoguing of this policy will backfire on the Right and their overt pandering to their religious base will be more than ignored by women that don't wish to pay for contraception completely out of pocket.

The Right's war on women is about to come to a screeching halt especially given the attacks on women's abortions rights, the attacks on Planned Parenthood, and their latest attack on basic contraception rights. I don't think that the Right has a chance in hell of getting any noticeable percentage of the women's vote next election. So keep advancing your war on women GOP. I like where you're going with this self-destructive behavior.

 

I see they lost my post from last night. Anyhow, I predict that BO will either walk this policy back or the courts will walk it back for him. BTW, BO is now talking compromise.

 

Uh, no:

Obama Contraceptives Mandate Losing Senate Democrats?

A handful of Senate Democrats have split with President Obama’s controversial birth-control mandate and slammed the administration’s requirement that church-affiliated employers cover contraceptives.

The five Democrats in the Senate expressing concern about some parts of the administration’s policy include, most recently, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, who have spoken publicly about their unhappiness with the mandate.
“This was a bone-headed decision by HHS,” Sen. Ben Nelson said of the new Health and Human Services mandates, according to the Nebraska Radio Network.

Nelson agreed with state Attorney General Job Bruning’s decision to file a legal challenge to the mandate. Florida’s Nelson has also raised concerns. “My position is that church-affiliated organizations should be exempt, not just churches,” Nelson told the Tampa Bay Times Buzz Blog, adding that he has called the White House to express his concerns. “It’s a matter of religious freedom,” Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin told ABC News.

The senators’ statements follow other Democratic senators who voiced concerns this week. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted Wednesday, “I am opposed to the Administration’s new requirement that religious org.’s must offer employees contraception benefits.”

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wrote a letter to President Obama last week calling on him to reverse the new ruling. ”I have strongly supported efforts to provide greater access to contraception,” Casey wrote. “I believe, just as strongly, that religiously affiliated organizations like hospitals and universities should not be compelled by our Federal government to purchase insurance policies that violate their religious and moral convictions.”

Meanwhile, West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, up for re-election, has teamed with Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida on legislation that would repeal the administration’s mandate. In a letter sent to Obama last week, Manchin called the mandate “a direct affront to the religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment of our Constitution.”

Likewise, Republicans have called for the same thing en masse, coming out strong in a coordinated fashion this week in the House of Representatives and the Senate, demanding that the president change his position.

“The Obama administration’s decision to force religious hospitals, charities and schools to comply with the mandate that violates their religious views is abhorrent to the foundational principles of our nation,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said on the chamber floor this week. “This is a huge mistake that I hope the administration is currently reconsidering. And if they don’t, Congress will act.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-contraceptive-mandate-losing-senate-democrats/

 

... and here are some "LWers" who are upset, too:

Democrats For Life of America
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WRONG TO ASK THE FAITHFUL TO VIOLATE THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS

When the issue of requiring contraception coverage first came to light several months ago, I issued a statement expressing confidence that the Obama Administration would provide a religious exemption for organizations that oppose certain types of birth control – particularly drugs like Ella that some studies indicate may cause abortion. It seemed like a common sense decision to provide a religious exemption.

Like many Americans, I was deeply disappointed that the Administration chose to adopt a narrow rule that will require religious organization to pay for services that violate their beliefs rather than adopting one of the many alternatives offered by Catholic and other faith leaders.

The organizations affected by this narrow rule share our progressive values of helping the poor. By forcing them to choose between their religiously-motivated social work and their religiously-motivated convictions, this decision directly affects the ability of these organizations to continue to provide services to those who need help the most. It is not consistent with our Democratic values to constrain the very organizations who exemplify the values that we as a Party fight to protect.

The decision also works at cross-purposes with the goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), since millions of Americans could now lose access to employee-sponsored health care as a result of this change. Indeed, several religious institutions have already indicated that they may have no choice but to drop their health plans and pay the fine instead of violating their religious beliefs.

The Obama Administration, quite frankly, made a bad decision, but has an opportunity to make it right. We urge the Administration to correct this wrong by adopting one of the many alternatives that will allow religious organizations to continue to provide health insurance to their employees and also continue to provide essential services to the poor.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

 

... and a couple more Democrat senators, too:

Some Senate Democrats Split From White House On Contraception Rule

The White House on Thursday faced mounting pressure from Senate Democrats to amend its requirements that religious employers include contraceptives in their health insurance plans, as Republicans tried to force votes on the issue. Advocacy groups on both sides of the debate turned up the rhetoric, potentially hurting the chances of finding a compromise that both sides can live with. Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Claire McCaskill of Missouri on Thursday became the latest Democrats to indicate they want to see the administration go back to the negotiating table (Haberkorn, 2/9).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-report.aspx#Administration News-3

 

So, once again one of your assertions has dissolved before our very eyes. I just LOVE watching lemming Left Wingers squirm.

 

Being a farmer dust don't bother me. Not arguing about mathmatical principles - just trying to understand them. Such as - how there can be a net gain of 1 million jobs during Obama's term as President yet the unemployment rate is higher than the day he took office.

 

I'm no expert and I'll be the first to admit it but I do know that you are not dealing with a static population of employed/unemployed people. New people enter the job market while others leave the job market for any number of reasons. There is a formula (the same formula for each adminstration) for determining the unemployment numbers that looks like this:


The unemployment rate is measured as the percentage of the labor force unemployed. The formula is "unemployment rate (%) = (unemployed/labor force)*100."


The labor force excludes (1) people less than 16 years of age***; (2) people institutionalized; and (3) potential workers ("not in labor force" such as homemakers, full-time students or retirees) from the total population.


*** "people less than 14 years of age" was used before 1947.


The labor force includes people who are willing and able to work: (1) employed and (2) unemployed.


The labor force and unemployment data are collected by a nationwide random survey of some 60,000 households each month (by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

 

Obama has flip-flopped on the issue. He:

A. Couldn't uphold his principles

B. Recognized that (at least part of) Obamacare was bad

C. Bowed to pressure from the Republicans

D. Bowed to pressure from the Democrats

E. Succumbed to all of the above

Obama announces ‘accommodation’ for religious institutions on contraception

February 10, 2012
Amid a backlash from many Catholics and proponents of religious liberty, President Barack Obama announced Friday that his administration will not require religious institutions like hospitals and universities to provide free contraception to their employees in their health insurance.

Speaking to reporters at the White House Friday, Obama offered a compromise that would allow women to obtain free contraception but would require them to obtain it directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control because of religious beliefs.

"Whether you're a teacher or a small businesswoman or a nurse or a janitor, no woman's 's health should depend on who she is, or where she works, or how much money she makes," Obama said, calling free contraceptive care a "core principle" of his health care law, which requires that all preventive services be provided at no cost to patients.

Obama went out of his way to say that he supports freedom of religion, pointing out that one of his stints as a community organizer in Chicago was funded by a Catholic group (Did all you liberals know that? Obama was funded by a religious group!!!! The liberal media needs to jump all over this one...).

"As a citizen and as a Christian I cherish this right," Obama said. "I saw that local churches did more good for a community than a government program ever could." (Hmmmmm... that's an interesting statement. Who on this forum agrees with the president?)

Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association each approved of the compromise, which the White House is calling an "accommodation (or flip-flop)," in statements on Friday.

Obama's staff was deeply divided over the decision to require free contraception, with Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, both Catholics, very opposed (Democrats? Opposed to the president's legislation? Who would think?), ABC's Jake Tapper reported earlier this week.

White House officials said on a conference call with reporters Friday that the proposal would allow the government to guarantee preventive services to "nurses, teachers, janitors, mothers" who work at religious organizations, while maintaining "religious liberties."

When pressed, the White House officials--who asked to remain anonymous--did not say they are confident that the proposal will end objections from Catholic bishops. Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a statement Friday afternoon that Obama's announcement is "a first step in the right direction," but that he does not know all of the details yet. "We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans' consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations," he said.

The Obama administration says insurers can provide birth control for free (but, Obama, someone has to pay for it) because contraception reduces costs for them overall by preventing expensive-to-cover pregnancies, as well as reducing the risk of ovarian cancer.

Some are skeptical of Obama's claim that insurers won't pass on their costs to religious employers. "If you believe the insurance companies will actually provide the drugs for free, you know nothing of economics (unless you're a Socialist who thinks money drops from the sky)," Red State blogger Erick Erickson wrote on Twitter. Sarah Kliff at the Washington Post points to a Guttmacher Institute report that estimates it costs about $21 per patient to add contraception to a plan for a year. Even if those costs were offset by a reduction in pregnancies as the Obama administration suggests, the up-front cost to insurance companies would be considerable (What's this? Obamacare is going to raise the cost to insurance companies considerably? Oh, Lord... inevitably the costs will be passed on to the consumer - don't the liberals know this?).

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...oups-contraceptive-rule-enough-170500694.html

 

What!? You mean moen's predictions were wrong - again!

 

BO is a complete & utter fool! To cause this kind of dust up in the first place shows the kind of idiot he is.

 

Yes. As a prognosticator, he makes a good door stop.

 

....and with this, moen makes his exit.....

 

He will certainly return with some sort of lame excuse for Obama and the liberals such as, "Obama evolved his opinion" or "Obama made accommodations for women" or some other such spin.

 

....or if he really wanted to show his solidarity & prove he is down with the cause he could claim BO really "stuck it to the evil insurance company".

 

Hahaha.. We have to stop! By spinning, we're actually starting to sound like him now!

 

But you need to think about that a minute. I am not sure just how much this affects the church "industries", but most (all?) large companies self insure and only have the insurance companies run the program. That means that when BO "stuck it to the evil insurance company", the church is still paying in at least some cases.

 

Circle meet your jerkers.

 

Is that the best you can do? Really. Come on. As an insult comic, you're lame. However, just as an insult, you're very good. Let's hear some of your political blather on this topic. We can hardly wait! :: y a w n ::