Active Users:96 Time:20/08/2014 07:48:37 AM
To soon to tell, but if you think so feel free to demand a correction from them. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 03:12:40 AM
See the WaPo article below.

And here’s how it works after the compromise: “Our policy is saying that the Catholic hospital doesn’t want to cover contraceptives, and they don’t include that in their policy. It also says that Aetna needs to provide contraceptive services for free to workers in the plan. Aetna sets the premium, but it cannot be higher than it would have been without birth control. The premium does not include contraception.”

And, in the end, that leaves Aetna with the bill. “There is a sort of bank account,” says the official, “and Aetna is sucking it up.”

That sounds good, but the White House says a lot of things; in 2008 Obama said Democrats should nominate him instead of Hillary because his healthcare plan did not carry a public mandate and hers did.

"Aetna sets the premium, but it cannot be higher than it would have been without birth control." Just how are they verifying that? Remember, these are the same people who proudly declared health insurance available to everyone because they removed insurer freedom to deny coverage—WITHOUT establishing the very kind of price restrictions mentioned here, thereby allowing insurers to price people out of the market rather than denying them coverage outright. One of the healthcare "reforms" most critical failings is the near total absence of anything to slow, let alone halt or reverse, the growth in prices. Since they have done a complete 180° on this issue in just 48 hours, I will not believe that statement any more than I believed the last one until they demonstrate its veracity. Talk is cheap; it almost has to be with Obamas policies, because there is nothing to them BUT talk.

If you don't want to believe them, that's your prerogative. You still have no factual basis to claim that people will have to pay for coverage. The entire point of the preventive care rule is that it eliminates copays; it seems to me that they are pretty dedicated to making sure that applies evenly.

What you see as a complete 180, others see as savvy political maneuvering. (See article below.)

My factual basis for believing people will have to pay for the coverage is, as already stated 1) Obamas healthcare "reform" is almost completely devoid of cost oversight, one of its biggest flaws and thus one of the biggest liberal criticisms, and 2) Obama has a history of reversing himself, on healthcare in particular and on this issue specifically. So when Obama says, "we will do x, and the law with almost no provisions to enforce it will guarantee it," I believe it about as much as I did when he said it two days ago. Maybe I am more wrong now than two days ago; I hope so, because my only error then was in overestimating how long it would take him to cave just as I said he would. It is what he does. Note Rolands response immediately below yours: Aetna MAY comply to save money, but if they do not Obama has no means to force them. He is pretty much entirely dependent on their voluntary compliance. Again, that is the whole problem with his healthcare "reform:" It relies on those who got rich destroying the healthcare system to voluntarily repair it.

Oh, and I pretty much already knew "what women really think" about this, but even the ones who use contraception do not all agree the government should force churches whose doctrine forbids it to buy it for employees. I think Obama already has the strict pro choice vote locked up (though Romney was a NARAL donor back when he was running for governor of a liberal state. ) I also think the number of religious Americans greatly outnumber the strict pro choice ones, and a lot of the former were already uneasy about Dems in general and Obama in particular. This did not help with anyone on the fence.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 11/02/2012 at 04:02:26 AM
Reply to message
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up - 09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM 658 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 64 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well. - 09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM 110 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources! *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM 28 Views
Is there really such a thing? *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:11:30 PM 27 Views
You lost all credibility in the first line of your post. - 09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM 108 Views
The subject line didn't help. *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:04:11 PM 28 Views
But it added some flair to the discussion! *NM* - 09/02/2012 07:46:47 PM 26 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM 26 Views
It's one thing to have a bias. - 09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM 83 Views
Some would say putting a spotlight on it is more honest. *NM* - 09/02/2012 09:34:17 PM 27 Views
Ah, the Rupert Murdoch School of Objectivity. - 09/02/2012 10:15:57 PM 49 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 64 Views
If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote. - 10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM 58 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 63 Views
A vote for no one is a vote for more BS. - 11/02/2012 05:55:11 AM 59 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end. - 10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM 146 Views
He is already preparing to cave. - 10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM 77 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 64 Views
"And here I thought he was just another politician." - 10/02/2012 01:29:36 PM 61 Views
Aaaaand you can put your hat back on now: Obama has already caved. - 10/02/2012 04:04:30 PM 96 Views
No, you don't have to buy it from insurers. You get it for free, just like everyone else will. *NM* - 10/02/2012 09:55:53 PM 29 Views
"The employees can then buy the coverage directly from an insurer." - 11/02/2012 01:25:52 AM 88 Views
Then that article is wrong. - 11/02/2012 01:43:40 AM 93 Views
Two days ago the White House said it would not back down from requiring school/hospital compliance. - 11/02/2012 01:57:50 AM 91 Views
So in summary... the article you posted was wrong. - 11/02/2012 02:18:00 AM 62 Views
To soon to tell, but if you think so feel free to demand a correction from them. - 11/02/2012 03:12:40 AM 60 Views
Losing the exchanges is a pretty big loss - 11/02/2012 03:30:15 AM 49 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions? - 10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM 78 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. - 10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM 76 Views
Money is not the same as speech! - 10/02/2012 07:20:56 PM 64 Views
One last point - 10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM 52 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 63 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM 56 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM 45 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 57 Views
Sex is not a necessity either. - 11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM 54 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 59 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM 79 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 55 Views
The polls disagree with you. - 11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM 61 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls. - 11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM 52 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway - 11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 86 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is - 11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM 75 Views
Nossy that was not Joel, that was me - 11/02/2012 01:56:39 PM 104 Views
I know that. - 11/02/2012 03:23:32 PM 99 Views
Understood. - 11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM 61 Views
mmm... - 11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM 52 Views

Reply to Message