Shared publicly  - 
 
The birth control debate explained by Pricess Bride.
9
12
Bob Mulholland's profile photoAlec Wisner's profile photoRachel M's profile photoK Kinnic's profile photo
22 comments
 
+David Tyner Lets see in the City of Grand Island the only Hospital is a Catholic one. So if you are nurse practitioner living there, you pretty much don't have a choice.

There are many more examples. Kind of a silly question on your part imo.
 
+David Tyner Is that really your argument for them being able to force their views on employees which oh wait they don't restrict who they interview.

In this economy when people need a job most aren't going to put the organizations religious beliefs before just getting a job.

But as I've said before freedom of Religion (or to not believe)is a two way street. You can't cry you are stifling my religious freedom while stomping on someone else's. Which is exactly what these organizations against Obama's policy are doing.
 
+David Tyner You answer is suck up the cost of moving, away from friends, possibly family (btw it's really the only major hospital in that region as its a major rural area) so they can stomp on your freedoms for their own.

Got it. Two can play that game.
 
+David Tyner Because jobs are so plentiful that we can afford to quit, right. An employer does not have the right to impose his religious beliefs on his employees. Employees are not serfs and beholden to their employer for access to their faith.
 
Just because they employ you, why should it be mandatory they give you any health insurance at all?
 
+Chris Bunch Health care should be a right. That we don't make it so in the US is one of our biggest failings.
 
Let them not provide insurance, then I can get it in the exchange. By providing crappy insurance I can't use the exchanges in the ACA. I would rather they didn't provide insurance.
 
I feel like this has gotten far to academic in all circles. You want an abortion? Get one... your employer may or may not help pay for it. You want contraception? Buy it... your employer may or may not help you. None of the policies being discussed either make it impossible to do what you believe to be correct or prevent you from acting as an individual.
 
+Kent Goertzen I don't want the government to have anything to do with my health care. Our government screws up everything they touch.
 
Why should I give my employer a tax break for benefits he isn't providing?
 
+Grant Arnold But do affect current employment regulation. But hey tough luck women, we'll pay for viagra and all, but not your sexual health needs.
 
+Chris Bunch And it delegated to private industry as it is now is working... oh wait it isn't except for the wealthy. Anyone else having a major health issue prepare to file for bankruptcy if you are lucky.
 
+Kent Goertzen I do not know what I have done to make you call me a liar. Whatever it was I am sorry.
 
Ah +Kent Goertzen, I think that is an argument against sexual discrimination in health coverage not the "freedom" or right to health care. I'm thinking about it like this: some employers offer dental coverage, others don't. I don't think there should be a law requiring dental coverage or making it illegal to provide that coverage. Your employer does not determine what coverage you may seek, only what is covered. If a company offered Viagra coverage, but not contraception... that might be grounds for a lawsuit. ;-)
 
+Grant Arnold " I don't think there should be a law requiring dental coverage or making it illegal to provide that coverage."

I think there should be a law requiring health benefits for every citizen. That includes dental.

Your position is a bit naive with the reality of what is going on. I'm guessing a RP supporter given the strong anti-government position???
 
+Chris Bunch "Our government screws up everything they touch."

That is a dishonest statement. You know it, you have no grounds to object to being called dishonest when making such a statement. You attempt to turn this on me is the last time you'll get to that on my page.
 
+Kent Goertzen ... Yep, that exposes the primary difference of our opinion then. You are correct; I'm a RP supporter who believes the best path to "universal coverage" exists when we let consumers decide what to buy and at what price. IMHO, this is not naivete but we can agree to disagree. I'm glad there are dissenting opinions on both sides. However, the comment thread was originally dealing with "freedom of religion" in healthcare. If customers actually can decide what to buy, isn't this whole topic kinda moot?
 
+Grant Arnold Problem with that is the assumption that these private businesses will be working in the best interest of those who need insurance, or have health problems.

It takes no consideration of those on the lower in, nor provides any solution for them.


Ron Paul wants to Eliminate all federal protection agencies and laws. And then if something happens you can sue.

Never mind the cost for the average person trying to sue large corporations. Never mind its a completely reactionary system that provides no protections, and the damage is already done.

For example Massey Energy Coal mine explosion. In Ron Paul's world Massey should have less regulations, and it would some how have been better for those miners who died. And they can always sue, oh wait their dead, too late.

And even the families suing after don't change anything. They won, and Massey Energy is still not protecting miners adequately. I thought Ron Paul said the fear of Lawsuits was suppose to cause them to want to do the right thing?

He wants to pass the buck of regulation on to states that can't afford to do it themselves. Too bad for you North Dakota, you don't have the population for your state to tax to create the proper regulatory agencies, so you get no protections.

Meanwhile Ron Paul claims oh look I created a small Government. No, he just moved it, and passing it on to failing and struggling states.

That is Ron Paul's line of thinking and a prime example of his lack of compassion.

Eliminating the minimum wage when poor can't make ends meet with it, isn't going to help, but Ron Paul thinks so.

And then there is is idea the will enable the return to Jim Crow. He wants any business to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That includes Race.

Then there is character or lack there of:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-pauls-campaign-touts-endorsement-of-pastor-who-advocates-killing-gay-people/


Note here, Ron Paul in response to 3 newspaper interviews not once denies making the quotes from the Newsletter he claims credit in a video. He only says they are taken out of context. So to take out of context he actually had to say those words, and there isn't a context those statements can be taken other than racially motivated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-newsletters-swiftness-of-black-men_n_1169990.html


His former aid trying to defend him from the Racism claims accidentally lets out he's a closet homo-phobe. Happy to take their money, but won't use their bathrooms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/eric-dondero-ron-paul-racist-homophobic_n_1170054.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Ties to Stormfront:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm
Ties to Nazi group:
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-was-implicated-in-attempted-white-supremacist-island-invasion/

His 1-2 good points don't outweigh the many, many bad points of electing him.

Ron Paul! Vote for reduced wages, the hyper empowerment of corporations, and economic slavery!


Did the USDA put salmonella in our meat? No, meat-packing corporations did. And they've got enough lawyer-and-lobbyist power to keep the USDA regulators at bay.

Did the EPA dump raw oil into the Gulf of Mexico? No, BP did. They cut corners on safety and no regulator was in a position to stop them.

Did the government kill the 29 miners at Upper Big Bend coal mine? No, Massey Energy did, and had enough clout to keep the mine going even after inspectors had found more than 500 safety violations.

Ron Paul wants to kill USDA, EPA, and any coal mine regulations for safety, and let those companies police themselves. Why would they do better with no regulation and policing themselves when they can't do it right with regulation.

Do you really think Massey Energy would have done a better job protecting those miners lives under RPs plan.
Do you really think not having the USDA enforcing food regulations would have stopped the salmonila outbreak? Yes it happened with them, but that is because of the Right continually underfunding them so they can't do their job.
Do you think BP wouldn't have cut corners with less regulation?

Eliminating the minimum wage when poor can't make ends meet with it, isn't going to help, but Ron Paul thinks so.

And then there is is idea the will enable the return to Jim Crow. He wants any business to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That includes Race..

You want to see what a small, no regulation government looks like, look at Somalia or China at that.

He doesn't trust the government to manage them, but after all of the above and the countless examples through our history of corporations when allowed to go on their own doing the wrong thing, he trusts them to manage themselves.

Giving Corporations even more unlimited power to police themselves which is what he wants to do isn't going to solve a thing.

His policies do not work in the real world, they only work in a fantasy version of the world where there is no corruption, and no one willing to exploit others.

He wants to pass the buck of regulation on to states that can't afford to do it themselves. Too bad for you North Dakota, you don't have the population for your state to tax to create the proper regulatory agencies, so you get no protections.

Meanwhile Ron Paul claims oh look I created a small Government. No, he just moved it, and passing it on to failing and struggling states, and he gets to fiddle while they burn.


Ron Paul! Vote for reduced wages, the hyper empowerment of corporations, and economic slavery!
 
Ron Paul doesn't want "government out of people's lives", he wants the Federal government emasculated so that state and local majorities are free to run roughshod over civil rights and unpopular minorities everywhere. "Liberty" was the coded word for undermining worker and suffrage rights during the Gilded Age--which seems to be where Ron Paul wants to take us back to.
 
+Kent Goertzen Well stated points regarding Ron Paul and the role of government in checking corruption and protecting citizens. This is a discussion that will chase it's tail into infinity unless we somehow magically remove humans from the equation... Despite the fact that we're discussing how to better the human condition (universal healthcare, reduced corruption, prevent abuses of power, etc..), it's human behavior that puts us in this place to begin with. IMHO, its idealistic (and naive) to think that a government, democratic or otherwise, can act in your best interest or provide better care than we can for ourselves. However, I definitely see your point.
 
"[It's] idealistic (and naive) to think that a government, democratic or otherwise, can act in your best interest or provide better care than we can for ourselves, <i>when it is beholden to powerful special interests.</i>"

Fixed that for you.