So you've probably heard the news. It seems the Obama administration decided christian hospitals "must" provide contraception and morning pills which is against what they belive in. I find it surprising Obama would be so bold. What are your thoughts on this?
Now you see how it is in the US. It's always those so-called religious people who causes trouble. Right now for example there's some anti Obamacare ads on TV, especially on Fox TV (retard) and it's sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce which probably comprise some criminals who own an insurance business among this group of terrorists. They are mad at the president for telling them that it's not right to deceive their customers by refusing coverage because they have a pre-existing condition so they ally with religious groups in order to start as many propaganda as possible.
Just for the record, I'm an atheist who doesn't watch Fox and still finds plenty of reason to oppose Obamacare.
1. Insurance companies don't cover people with pre-existing conditions because they would go into debt. 2. If insurance companies go into debt, they are shut down.
How can you possibly blame an insurance company for wanting to make a profit? The only way the company can stay in business is by making a prophet. I can understand wanting national health care because it can be constantly bailed out by the government (despite being economically unstable), but to demonize insurance companies for staying in business is close minded.
Of course, as I said before, I don't support national health care because there are two different solutions people tend to seek. The first solution is to find ways of paying for health care. This solution often leads to national healthcare, where health care prices aren't cheaper, the costs are just being payed by other people. The other solution, the solution I believe to be best, is to find ways of decreasing the cost of medical care. At best, national healthcare costs the private sector the same amount of money, it's just that different people pay for the costs. The reality, national healthcare causes artificial inflation, which means the prices of medical goes up.
So there is plenty of reason for people to dislike national healthcare. To simply pin "it's because of religion" to it is just wrong.
You might find this article interesting, and mandatory for further discussion of the matter (click on the second link in the text for more details about the compromise):
You're right, sorry. I was pointing out how Republicans pretend to be religious and side with religious people to serve their sneaky purpose. @NoNameC68, I posted a comment on your page about the subject.
I just want to point out that Democrats, such as the president himself, are also guilty of pulling the religion card out their rears.
Well sure they do. In the end we must not forget that these people in Congress are rich and they don't really understand what we (middle class, poor,etc) have to go through because of their policies. We won't go anywhere until there are more parties involved. A different party that would represent religious, liberals, conservatives, ethics groups, etc.
In the end we must not forget that these people in Congress are rich and they don't really understand what we (middle class, poor,etc) have to go through because of their policies.
Quite a broad assumption to make. Many members of Congress came from poor backgrounds themselves.
And no, I call BS on that one. More parties = More disputes = Getting no where. Coalition governments have shown time and time again to be generally crappy, look at Britain today. Or in Israel where the peace process is hindered because the ruling coalition has to include members of the radical right to ensure a majority.
imagine water would not be necessary for us to live. some shops dont even sell it. but then some shops are forced to sell it because the customer whants it. if customer A whants it he/she gets it, if customer B dont whant it he/she just doesnt buy it.
maybe a bad example but if they say no to the medicine they get none, if they say they want it, they get it. a plus for obama.
imagine water would not be necessary for us to live. some shops dont even sell it. but then some shops are forced to sell it because the customer whants it. if customer A whants it he/she gets it, if customer B dont whant it he/she just doesnt buy it. maybe a bad example but if they say no to the medicine they get none, if they say they want it, they get it. a plus for obama.
First of all, I had to read your sentence several times to understand what you ment. And second of all, this is on a very different level than water. Water doesn't kill, but morning pills do.
Anyway Obama decided to change his mind about force religous hospitals from providing it.
Its not about the customers (a.k.a. patients). The rule is about the rights of all female employees in religiously affiliated hospitals and the employer's obligations.
I'm not sure I agree with the government telling anyone what they can or cannot do with their businesses if they are in fact private businesses. But... you have to think about something. Why is it that we don't openly have piss poor working conditions with nickel a day pay like some of the foreign stereotypes are portrayed to have? I wonder if there are actually children sweat shops in some 3rd world countries that roll out the user goods we buy. There comes a point in time when a business seeking profit would possibly pursue such methods so as to optimize profit for the higher ups while minimizing all of the costs of production... salaries go under this, right? The reason why we don't have worse conditions and worse pay is because we have regulated the beast of industry here so as to attempt a better life style for the lower downs.
I'm going to have to go with forcing an institution to cover the expense of birth control / contraceptives of their employees as being a bad thing. If we were a communist nation, then I would be more for it. We choose where we work. We agree to contracts. We should abide by those contracts or seek work elsewhere. If they suffer enough from it, then they'll have to change what's on their contracts so as to bring in employees. This isn't a point of better working conditions or even a salary that supports/promotes life. It's a point of making people provide extra services that aren't necessary.
Will legislation that says that employers have to pay extra for their employees' alcoholism or smoking habits come up next? Employers shouldn't have to pay up more money just because someone doesn't want to keep her legs crossed. If you can't live within your means so as to afford your habits, then that is your fault. If someone wants to give out something for free, then that's an entirely different matter. If you have an ectopic pregnancy (or got *****) and you're health is at risk, then I think that constitutes something health insurance should pay for... since it's health related. Otherwise, you all of a sudden not wanting the thing or just randomly getting pregnant is your problem, and you should pay for it. Just because affording contraception makes intercourse an expensive habit doesn't mean your employer should have to pay for your habit. ...contraception isn't mandatory for the process to work. If you decide to take contraception, then you pay for contraception. If I want to go have a beer, then I go buy a beer... or I go find an employer who randomly incorporates buying the workers beer in his contract. He shouldn't be made to buy me beer by anyone or anything other than his own volition.
I'm terribly scattered lately. I hope some of that procrastination made sense.
