1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Rick Santorum (US Republican presidential candidate) trying to bring Jesus into the government

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Mewmew, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Pixel

    Pixel Getting Tilted

    Location:
    Missoura
    I think the issue being raised is that most employers who provide access to health insurance, also pay for a portion of the cost. Ergo, they are paying for a portion of your dirty, dirty sex pills.
     
  2. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    Why are you responding with a quote that has nothing to do with contraception?

    But employees also pay a portion of the costs too. And employers (if they're smart) incorporate, in some form or another, the costs of their health insurance subsidies into their internal cost considerations when determining compensation packages for employees. Any employer who doesn't want to pay for contraception can easily pass on the additional costs of this mandate to their employees. All this does is make it so insurers have to cover contraception. How employers choose to pay for that additional coverage (assuming it results in additional costs, which it may or may not) is up to them.

    This isn't about money. This is about access to contraception brought to you by people who would outlaw blowjobs it they had the power to.
     
  3. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    You say that like - if you were paying you would not want to have a say in what you pay for. Most people have no objection to contraception, most would have no objection to erectile dysfunction drugs, some might. Some employers will want the best for their employees, and are willing to pay top dollar, some won't. If you are spending your money directly on behalf of others, I bet even you would have a line you would not want to cross. Why should employees be subject to the whims of their employer, one way or the other. Health insurance is personal, I argue there is no current legitimate reason for our employer based system - and if we address this, all these conflicts go away.
    --- merged: Mar 12, 2012 at 5:00 PM ---
    I thought you asked about who was "requiring" contraception coverage. Obama-care requires employers (50+) to provide coverage, or be fined, unless they get an exemption. This coverage requires contraception.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2012
  4. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    You seem to be confusing "requiring to insurers to cover contraception" with "requiring employers to pay for contraception coverage".
     
  5. fflowley

    fflowley Don't just do something, stand there!

    While there are many opinions about "Obama-care" I think anyone rationally examining the issue has to agree with the above.
    To me, this fact must be the starting point for health care financing reform.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2012
  6. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I don't think there is a difference because insurers are required to provide the coverage and employers (50+) are required to get the coverage (or pay a fine, unless they get an exemption).

    Which begs the question, why are some employers getting an exemption? Aren't these exemptions harming women? aren't these exemptions a war against women?

    Also do I need to continue with the (qualifiers) or do we have an understanding.
     
  7. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    So employers are the only ones who contribute money to employee health insurance?
     
  8. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Are they women-only companies? Or women-only exemptions?
     
  9. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Republicans who were outraged by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who btw, never spoke at an Obama event, give Rev. Dennis Terry a standing ovation at Santorum rally.
    Hell, just come out and say you support a theocracy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  10. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Are you fucking serious? He said that?

    Wow. That really pisses me off, and I'm not even American!

    Look: Be religious. Worship Jesus. Just keep it out of politics.

    And now you're saying that it must be the Christian God "put back" in America? That abortion and homosexuality must be opposed on this basis?

    Wow. If Santorum is associating his platform with this, then he needs to crash. He needs to crash and burn. Hard. This is not good for America.

    The fact that Santorum has even the slightest chance at being president is a frightening thought—even to this non-American.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    They love this guy

     
  12. KirStang

    KirStang Something Patriotic.

    Yea. I'm still scared that such a radical right-winger is a serious contender for president.
     
  13. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    The Christian Right is sure fired up. I sense an inevitability in course. Maybe not this election, but close. Too close. One of these nuts is going to be elected President one day with an overwhelmingly like-minded Congress, Supreme Court and Governorships all peeing their pants in excitement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  14. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    A part of me thinks this is what's needed to fracture the two-party system into something more "organic," for the lack of a better word.
     
  15. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I really hate people who obstinately refuse to understand difference between a school not being permitted to force children to pray and a school not allowing them to pray.
     
  16. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Are there school districts which prevent a silent prayer being made by an individual child or two or three, hands folded, heads down for 30 seconds while at their desks at the start of the day or maybe right before they eat their lunch?

    I might be naive, but I didn't think it had gotten to the point where teachers were acting as thought and prayer police.

    Or is it not considered a real allowance unless they are able to say the prayer loud enough to be heard by others?

    If so, why is it necessary to pray out loud to one's Creator?

    I know for a fact, that no child at any school in my state is refused the right to a silent prayer or even a quiet prayer between themselves before partaking of their unhealthy lunch food. If it's traditional to do so at home, the right is extended to the school environment. Within reason, of course.

    Please cite some examples of where this is occurring, if you can.
    --- merged: Mar 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM ---
    I tend to agree but then again, I fear the damage which might be done in the time prior to the fracture. Damage that would take many more years to sort out. I fear for my young adult children through it all.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
  17. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I said a part of me. A much larger part of me wants bigotry to either lose power or remain powerless. The ends do not usually justify the means.
     
  18. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    That it doesn't occur is precisely what is infuriating about their assertion that it does. I'm not sure what you thought you read in my post, but you response seems as though from left field, to me.

    Schools are not allowed to prevent children from praying in school(except in certain circumstances where they're permitted to curb other rights as well) - so when jackasses like the one in the video repeat the talking point that "As long as they tell our children that they cannot pray in public schools..." they're telling a lie. And deliberately. These theocrats treat their inability to force someone else to comply with their religion as an assault on their religion, they treat my government as though it is a 'lost' theocracy that needs to be recovered for 'Real Americans'. This is the new fascism and as far as I'm concerned the most dangerous movement in American politics at the moment. And I hate it.
     
  19. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Part of me too. The part that would enjoy giving them all the available rope as I sit back and watch them hang themselves with it.
    --- merged: Mar 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM ---
    Sorry, Hektore, I got you totally wrong as is obvious by my reply.

    I would hate them if I could get past my fear of them.

    Maybe we should start persecuting them for real.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
  20. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This is the problem with this current brand of Christian right bigotry. They're not just about the One God. They're about foisting that on the nation. I get the Christian belief that non-Christians are nonbelievers of the Truth that is Jesus, and if they don't accept Christ in their life then they will suffer eternal torment. I get that. I don't essentially have a problem with it. They can believe what they want.

    What I have a problem with is this guy standing up there and being a religious bigot and mixing it in with politics and wider society as though it were God's Plan. I have a problem with his ideas gaining a high profile. I have a problem with his ideas gaining traction. I have a problem with his ideas gaining momentum.

    This is more right-wing faux victimhood that is nothing more than thinly veiled zealotry for a society incompatible with a modern liberal democracy. This is what happens when fundamentalists come face to face with progressive liberty: they panic and go on the attack, using whatever propagandic tools they have at their disposal.

    It's disgusting.
     
    • Like Like x 1