Pennsylvania Voter Suppression law in court

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Personally I don't have a problem with it either but obviously others do. And I respect freedom of religion (as long as its doctrines are within the country's laws) more than I do the freedom to receive free BC pills. Face it we were lied to once again. If BC actually lowers healthcare costs overall insurance companies by way of free market would have had it included all along.

one's got nothing to do with the other. not sure why you keep trying to tie them together. providing birth control in no way infringes on someone's ability to follow whatever religion they wish, nor does it make them use something they don't wish to use.
and they aren't free. people pay for their coverage, don't they? anyone who owns health insurance doesn't ever use most of the products covered by their carrier. and some religions don't believe in organ donation, blood transfusions, etc-yet those are still covered. where is your outrage about that?

[Antitrust32]

I wish religion had never been invented by those greedy, power trip folks. any religion.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I wish religion had never been invented by those greedy, power trip folks. any religion.

Yeah that.

Except mine of course, LOL.

No religion.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one's got nothing to do with the other. not sure why you keep trying to tie them together. providing birth control in no way infringes on someone's ability to follow whatever religion they wish, nor does it make them use something they don't wish to use.
and they aren't free. people pay for their coverage, don't they? anyone who owns health insurance doesn't ever use most of the products covered by their carrier. and some religions don't believe in organ donation, blood transfusions, etc-yet those are still covered. where is your outrage about that?

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it. I suppose Jehovah’s Witness members who shun health care in addition to blood transfusions should be outraged with the prospect of forcing them to have coverage.

Why not require all citizens who can reach the peddle in a car to purchase car insurance even though they don't have and have no plans to own a car. Plenty of people are in accidents who don't own cars and plenty of kids and theives going to drive regardless. We can set up exchanges and give tax credits to those who can't afford it. How about homeowners' insurance? Or better yet umbrella policies for all!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it. I suppose Jehovah’s Witness members who shun health care in addition to blood transfusions should be outraged with the prospect of forcing them to have coverage.

Why not require all citizens who can reach the peddle in a car to purchase car insurance even though they don't have and have no plans to own a car. Plenty of people are in accidents who don't own cars and plenty of kids and theives going to drive regardless. We can set up exchanges and give tax credits to those who can't afford it. How about homeowners' insurance? Or better yet umbrella policies for all!

car policies cover any driver given permission to drive. so an individual doesn't have to have car insurance, but the owner of the car does...so there goes your analogy. they aren't similar, so i'm not sure why people keep trying to have a correlation between one kind of insurance and another.

they are forcing people to buy, so as to keep the whole thing afloat. if there was no way to compel the young and healthy to buy, obamacare would be far too costly for insurance companies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it

Once again, Dell, what you say is blatently false: this administration is NOT forcing birth control as part of health insurance policies on any group with religious objections. There is a simple out, to protect the civil rights of employees from religious persecution (for not agreeing with employer), where the insurance company will provide it, and the employer will have nothing to do with it.

You're entitled to your opinions Dell, but you've been far outvoted by the rest of your American fellows, who prefer a 21st century country, rather than a 1700's one. Get over it or move out.