Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well--I think this was a heck of a convention for the Democrats. A good deal of energy, some fantastic speeches and---believe it or not--the Dems are unloading on social issues .

One heck of a speech by Clinton---between him and Deval Patrick, they really brought it to the convention. He looked like he's shed some pounds too.

Weakest moment of the convention was that surreal moment of altering the platform to show they loved God more--then ignoring the nays of the people whom thought it was silly. Seemed unnecessary and reactionary..

 whembly wrote:
Most insurances cover BC

That varies from state to state.

Insurance companies do everything they can to provide the bare minimum coverage while having the prices as high as they can. They're capitalist organizations after all.

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Most insurances cover BC

That varies from state to state.

Insurance companies do everything they can to provide the bare minimum coverage while having the prices as high as they can. They're capitalist organizations after all.

Oh I agree... and then, in some cases they wont fully cover new BC.

My ex had to pay more for a certain Brand because it "worked better" (no really, her mood swing was nil on this thing)...

But, that's the way it is for all sort of drugs.

And I wasn't even talking about different brands. Some companies refuse to pay for birth control at all unless it is taken for a medical reason other than, well, birth control. Many states have way too overbroad regulations regarding refusal of coverage.

I'll have to hit up the speeches on YouTube tonight if I get some downtime at work.

Just as an aside---the administration also moved the opus of the coverage from the company--to the insurer (So the company did not support the birth control in any fashion). It was still rejected.

 Melissia wrote:
And I wasn't even talking about different brands. Some companies refuse to pay for birth control at all unless it is taken for a medical reason other than, well, birth control.

Hmmm... I'd like to see their reasonings...

It's probably because its so cheap... but, honestly, I'm no expert on this as I've never heard of any problems with paying for BC in my neck of the woods (excepting Catholic institutions of course)...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I'll have to hit up the speeches on YouTube tonight if I get some downtime at work.

Check out the votes on the Democratic platforms (I embedded CSPAN earlier)... that was bizarre.

I thought they were mostly flat... but, Clinton rocked the house... savvy slick willy :p

 whembly wrote:
@sebster: puny? (say that in Hulk's voice).

I was running on Hulk's 'puny God' line.

I'd still say it isn't really necessary, or at least have some generic plithy respect to religious freedoms.

I'm not sure how anyone's religious freedoms are impacted by anyone mentioning or declining to mention God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think they still are a useful place for each party to articulate their message on a public stage in a defined space and time; hopefully with some good speakers.

I think it also serves some kind of goal in announcing the next generation of party leaders. So at the Republican convention Rubio gave a good speach, and so he is now considered a likely shot at 2016/2020.

Yup; it's definitely a showcase for some potential candidates and up-and-comers. Certainly was for Clinton and Obama.

 whembly wrote:
The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.

I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.

The religious freedom angle is backward here. No Catholic is being forced to violate their religious beliefs and use birth control pills. Organizations are being asked not to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and students, who have the right to make a different religious choice.

 Frazzled wrote:
She wants government to pay for her birth control and sex change operations. her. Pay for it yourself you fething loser. You give real feminists who fought for equal rights a bad rash.

How's the economy doing again?

What's that? Fraz, who we know is totally not a Republican because he keeps telling us so, ends up falling hook line and sinker for the boilerplate Republican comments just in time for the election. Well I'm shocked.


And then reconsiders his point and makes me look like a bit of an ass. Hmmm...

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.

I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.

She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...

The religious freedom angle is backward here. No Catholic is being forced to violate their religious beliefs and use birth control pills. Organizations are being asked not to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and students, who have the right to make a different religious choice.

Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...

To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Let put it like this...

Let's say there's a PRIVATE company XYZ that offers cable services... and a manager is very Christian and is always praising the lord and such... constantly trying to "spread the glory of the lord" to his employee (but, is not breaking any company rules). Most folks would be, "eh" and blow him off. But, let's say there's a practicing muslim who is very uncomfortable about this...

Can this muslim sue his manager and XYZ company? [ the answer is NO, he has no case ]. And yes, we had a recent case like this in the midwest that the case was thrown out.

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.

I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.

She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...

That's not disingenuous. It's an important distinction to make.

The example you gave is a really poor one, that isn't really applicable at all. A boss being a proselytizing imbecile is not the same as a boss who decides that they deserve to be an exception to a national law and be able to discriminate against employees who have different religious beliefs.

And honestly? If you want no laws respecting an establishment of religion, then frankly, there should NOT be an exception to religious organizations, and they should be treated like any other non-profit or for-profit organization.

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.

I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.

She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...

That's not disingenuous. It's an important distinction to make.

The example you gave is a really poor one, that isn't really applicable at all. A boss being a proselytizing imbecile is not the same as a boss who decides that they deserve to be an exception to a national law and be able to discriminate against employees who have different religious beliefs.

Fair enough... I still disagree with it.

There are 40 separate lawsuits on this that is waiting to be filed. I can't be filed yet because that mandate hasn't kicked in yet... you cant sue for something that hasn't happened yet.

I think either the SC will overturn that part, or the "conscience clause" would be expanded to allow those institutions to opt out of that mandate.

And honestly? If you want no laws respecting an establishment of religion, then frankly, there should NOT be an exception to religious organizations, and they should be treated like any other non-profit or for-profit organization.

Not sure I follow? Are you saying that they souldn't have any tax-exemption? If so, I'd agree... but, what do I know?

I find it funny, that the world has a million different problems, but we coming back to the same argument of whether the government should pay for condoms for me.

Sorry; I thought Fluke was a good speaker. I was kind of surprised how good, but then, she did graduate cum laude from Georgetown Law.

Watching Bill Clinton, good stuff so far.

 whembly wrote:

But, that's the way it is for all sort of drugs.

I'm not surprised

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/20120831scorpion-sting-leaves-woman-big-bill.html

Her symptoms subsided after she received two doses of the drug Anascorp through an IV, and she was discharged from the hospital in about three hours.

Weeks later, she received a bill for $83,046 from Chandler Regional Medical Center. The hospital, owned by Dignity Health, charged her $39,652 per dose of Anascorp.

The Arizona Republic reported last year about the pricey markup Arizona hospitals were charging for the antivenom made in Mexico. Pharmacies in Mexico charge about $100 per dose.

I guess one advantage of the open border with Mexico then will be how easily Americans can go to Mexico for medical treatment.

whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.

I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.

She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...

The religious freedom angle is backward here. No Catholic is being forced to violate their religious beliefs and use birth control pills. Organizations are being asked not to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and students, who have the right to make a different religious choice.

Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...

To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Let put it like this...

Let's say there's a PRIVATE company XYZ that offers cable services... and a manager is very Christian and is always praising the lord and such... constantly trying to "spread the glory of the lord" to his employee (but, is not breaking any company rules). Most folks would be, "eh" and blow him off. But, let's say there's a practicing muslim who is very uncomfortable about this...

Can this muslim sue his manager and XYZ company? [ the answer is NO, he has no case ]. And yes, we had a recent case like this in the midwest that the case was thrown out.

No, but if that manager does not allow the Muslim to pray facing Mecca, then he does have a case.

To spell this out for you: you can't force the Catholics to take birth control pills; and the Catholics cannot force their employees to not do so.

I'm not one to point out when I called something... except that's not true at all and I love pointing how much I got something right, so I'll just leave my comment from the first page...

"in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith."

 Frazzled wrote:
[EDIT: Manny check your PM. Q for you.

Was the question "Is it OK on these forums to call a woman whose politics I disagree with a whore"? Because I'd like to see the answer to that too.

 whembly wrote:
Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...

To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The big, big problem with what you've said there is that religious organisations are exempt. While the insurance companies will still have to provide it to any employees of those religious organisations, the religious organisations themselves will be exempt from paying.

So they've got their religious issues protected. Now they're just complaining that everyone else has to provide this care. Which, frankly, sounds a lot less like them protecting their freedoms and a lot more like them trying to force their freedoms onto the rest of us.

Have American Catholics not noticed that in every other first world nation, the Catholic church and Catholic-affiliated institutions all pay taxes which go to fund state healthcare which provides free or subsidised birth control?

Accepting that an elected government will spend some of the taxes you pay on things you don't want is something people should be used to in a pluralist democracy. If you don't approve, you can express that at the ballot box in the same way as everybody else.

Yeah, I would be more sympathetic to Catholics and birth control if we ever heard the Catholic Bishops talk half as much about war, poverty, and other such evils.

I'm not a Christian but I have read the New Testament, and I mostly remember Jesus talking about peace and justice. Not a whole lot about birth control or gay marriage.

And, whoa, Frazzled. You alright, buddy? I can't imagine what you think of me if you think Sandra Fluke is a whore.

I wish Frazzled was the only person I had heard using that term to describe Fluke.

Sadly, Republicans have a fondness for using the term "whore" or "slut" and other such lovely appellations to describe women who support things like government-subsidized birth control, the right to choose to have an abortion, equal pay for women, or... well, any feminist topic. "Feminazi" comes to mind as well, as does "psycho lesbian bitch".

I would know, I've been called most of those myself for expressing those views... grassroots Republican movements really bring out the worst in the party.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yup; it's definitely a showcase for some potential candidates and up-and-comers. Certainly was for Clinton and Obama.

Deval Patrick is gonna be a star, I think. I was impressed not just with his speech -- because even Sarah Palin can give a pretty good speech -- but with some of his interviews afterward.

Also, Willy's still got it. Like I said in another thread...who wants to bet against Hillary and Bill in 2016? Anyone? And look for Bill -- health permitting -- to play a much more prominent role than he did in 2008.

I tend to think Obama's post-convention bounce will be muted just because everyone seems pretty entrenched already. But I think the Dems had the stronger convention, at least so far. Obviously, we have yet to hear what Obama has to say. Still, I think the Dems will come out of the convention more motivated than they went in, which is really important for them.

This story from FOX news makes it appear the Dems are dancing to the Republicans tune on what to put in their platform.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/05/democrats-restore-references-to-god-jerusalem-in-platform/

Yeah, I don't recall anyoen even mentioning the RNC on these boards.

Of course, I didn't monitor every thread either.

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I don't recall anyoen even mentioning the RNC on these boards.

Of course, I didn't monitor every thread either.

The thread about Eastwood being off his meds I think is the closest. Like you, I don't check every thread, but it's safe to say there aren't many Republican fans on Dakka so almost any comment about Republicans isn't full of sunshine due to opposing viewpoints.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This news article makes it look like the changing of the platform language an ugly event for the Dems, also.


http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13688787-in-turnaround-democrats-reinstate-language-on-jerusalem?lite

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...

To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The big, big problem with what you've said there is that religious organisations are exempt. While the insurance companies will still have to provide it to any employees of those religious organisations, the religious organisations themselves will be exempt from paying.

So they've got their religious issues protected. Now they're just complaining that everyone else has to provide this care. Which, frankly, sounds a lot less like them protecting their freedoms and a lot more like them trying to force their freedoms onto the rest of us.

That part is not true sebster...

There's a conscience exemption you can ask for that has to be approved by HHS... but, it's so rigorous the Catholics were denied.

Again, let me say this again... the issue is that ACA forces institutions like the Catholic diocese to cover BC in their insurance offerings. This is NOT them preventing their employees to find other insurances (including the ACA exchange) which does cover this.

That's why there's over 40 lawsuits on the docket for this...

American politics explained: