Active Users:123 Time:02/09/2014 02:51:30 AM
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) Roland00 Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM
Pretty much he has done accounting math to obtain everything he wanted but get rid of the complaints.

1) Contraception services are required to be paid for by your employer unless your employer complains
2) If your employer complains then the insurance company must pay for the contraception cost, NEVER should the individual beneficary pay for the contraception cost (contraception costs the insurance company about $21.40 but if you buy it without insurance that price is marked up to $95 dollars.)
2b) The reason why insurance companies be forced to pay for this is that this in fact cost neutral for the insurance companies since $21.40 a month is a lot cheaper than the doctor visit costs for a pregnancy. Statistically in the end it saves the insurance company money.
2c) If an insurance company does not pay for contraception for free than they can't participate in the future 2014 insurance exchanges. Insurance exchanges will exist if a company doesn't provide insurance for individuals, people who do not get insurance from their work must buy insurance from one of these exchanges (or pay a minor tax fine) if they make less than 40k for an individual, 58k family of 2, 74k family of 3, 89k for a family of 4 (400% of family poverty line) they will get a sliding scale subsidy from the government.

In reality though money is fungible, and while in the long run money may be saved by less babies being born due to the "evil of contraception" churches are still paying for that "evil contraception."

---------

LMAO for Obama has just got two weeks of free media coverage creating telling women I am going to pay for your birth control pills. Furthermore people who are iffy on where they stand on this issue now see he has "solved" this fake problem and look perfectly reasonable in the process.
Reply to message
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up - 09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM 661 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again. - 09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM 104 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor - 10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM 65 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well. - 09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM 113 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources! *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM 29 Views
Is there really such a thing? *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:11:30 PM 28 Views
You lost all credibility in the first line of your post. - 09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM 109 Views
The subject line didn't help. *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:04:11 PM 29 Views
But it added some flair to the discussion! *NM* - 09/02/2012 07:46:47 PM 28 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM 27 Views
It's one thing to have a bias. - 09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM 84 Views
Some would say putting a spotlight on it is more honest. *NM* - 09/02/2012 09:34:17 PM 28 Views
Ah, the Rupert Murdoch School of Objectivity. - 09/02/2012 10:15:57 PM 51 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms. - 09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM 78 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly. - 10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM 73 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention? - 10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM 65 Views
If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote. - 10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM 60 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course. - 11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM 52 Views
Bullshit. - 11/02/2012 04:29:31 AM 64 Views
A vote for no one is a vote for more BS. - 11/02/2012 05:55:11 AM 60 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end. - 10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM 151 Views
He is already preparing to cave. - 10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM 78 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said. - 10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM 65 Views
"And here I thought he was just another politician." - 10/02/2012 01:29:36 PM 62 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions? - 10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM 79 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. - 10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM 77 Views
One last point - 10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM 53 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes. - 11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM 52 Views
You argument does not make sense - 11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM 82 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency. - 11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM 58 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality - 11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM 64 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM 57 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM 46 Views
In other words, I could. - 11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM 39 Views
Some more points - 11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM 59 Views
Sex is not a necessity either. - 11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM 55 Views
I can't believe you just said that - 11/02/2012 04:30:12 AM 48 Views
The widespread inability to believe that is deeply worrisome. - 11/02/2012 06:33:01 AM 60 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM 81 Views
Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained. - 11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM 56 Views
The polls disagree with you. - 11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM 62 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls. - 11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM 53 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway - 11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 90 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is - 11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM 77 Views
Nossy that was not Joel, that was me - 11/02/2012 01:56:39 PM 109 Views
I know that. - 11/02/2012 03:23:32 PM 103 Views
Understood. - 11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM 63 Views
mmm... - 11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM 53 Views

Reply to Message