Liberal Forum

It's you. Providing competition would allow lots of choice, so if some idiot insurance company wouldn't insure needed treatments, people could easily change companies.I'd also change the tax deductibility from company to individual, so it'd be very easy to change without having to lobby one's boss.I mean, what kind of idiots would go into the health insurance business, if their religious beliefs were so unpopular that most consumers would reject them?So this is your response to my asking about Roy Blunt's Amendment?Let the free market handle it?People can't always 'easily' change insurance companies.Not all jobs offer that kind of choice.The bill also allows employers to not provide coverage for treatments or medications that they find morally objectionable. You don't think that's a very vague term and has the potential to be abused by some employers to save money? Seriously?You apparently missed the part about making health insurance deductibility personally deductible, making it as easy to change health insurance as auto insurance.Yeah, lobbying one's boss in a big company is very difficult. Maybe everyone's plan would have to be changed, too.Absolutely, if some health insurance company was unreasonable it what it offered, 10 would take its place, even if that meant they'd be started from scratch.You really ought to take the time to read Free Market publications like the WSJ. Might disturb you for a little while, but they're dangerously persuasive.The operative word being 'dangerously'.I now, ideas are deviously dangerous!Seriously, you ought to. A long time ago, when conservative ideas were rarely found in the MSM or the public sphere, I came across a copy of National Review.It was so shocking to hear non-liberal opinions, I felt like a bucket of cold water had been poured over my head, no kidding.But the opinions and philosophy were so persuasive over time, I picked most of them up. Edited by RichClem, 29 February 2012 - 05:25 PM.

You apparently missed the part about making health insurance deductibility personally deductible, making it as easy to change health insurance as auto insurance.Where is that in Roy Blunt's Amendment? Yeah, lobbying one's boss in a big company is very difficult. Maybe everyone's plan would have to be changed, too.Absolutely, if some health insurance company was unreasonable it what it offered, 10 would take its place, even if that meant they'd be started from scratch.You've gone through all kinds of contortions in an effort not to admit that Roy Blunt's Amendment goes way too far. 'Maybe' this or 'if' that.....Maybe I could fly if I grew wings. Olympia Snowe acknowledged as much today. Now that she has announced her retirement, she is free to speak the truth.Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) came out today against a piece of legislation her fellow Republicans are advancing to stop the Obama administrations new birth control rule. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), would go much farther the Obama rule and allow any employer to deny coverage for contraceptives and other preventative health care services to their employees. The measure puts your boss in your bedroom and in between you and your doctor, as ThinkProgress Josh Dorner noted, and could endanger millions of womens insurance coverage for preventive health care. Republican lawmakers have rallied around Blunts amendment. A vote is scheduled for tomorrow, attached to an unrelated transportation bill. But Snowe who announced her retirement yesterday said on MSNBC today that the Blunt Amendment goes too far: SNOWE: With respect to the Blunt amendment, I think its much broader than I could support. I think we should focus on the issue of contraceptives and whether or not it should be included in a health insurance plan and what requirements there should be.VIDEO Edited by MistyBlue, 29 February 2012 - 05:41 PM.

You apparently missed the part about making health insurance deductibility personally deductible, making it as easy to change health insurance as auto insurance.Where is that in Roy Blunt's Amendment? It's not, but reform is frequently incremental. Few health insurance companies are going to make significant changes to their coverage.But frankly, once Obama is gone next year and Repubs have taken the Senate, Free Market health care reform is likely to advance including the change I recommend.You've gone through all kinds of contortions in an effort not to admit that Roy Blunt's Amendmant goes way too far. Olympia Snowe acknowledged as much today. Now that she has announced her retirement, she is free to speak the truth.Yes, she's a principle-less squish. So?Contraceptives are easily and widely available. Why do they have to be provided by health insurance companies?Answer: mandating they do so is part of the broader liberal-left agenda; for example, mandating that the Morning After pill suddenly be made available by slipping that in under "contraceptives."And a key part of Obama's and Dems re-election strategy.

Oh look. JT saw the thread title Flying Monkeys and thought it was a family reunion.

Tomorrow the Senate is set to vote on an amendment (added to the transportation bill) that was introduced by Senator Roy Blunt [R-MO].The Blunt bill would amend the Obama health care law by allowing ANY employer to deny ANY health care services based on religious or MORAL convictions.Of course we can always rely on the fact that no employer would ever abuse this rule. [/sarcasm]Sounds to me like someone is trying to sabotage the Affordable Care Act.BTW, Republicans have held up the transportation bill for three weeks, trying to add amendments like this that are ridiculously unrelated to the bill. Rand Paul wanted to add an amendment to cut off aid to Egypt.Republicans prefer to play games while 2.8 million jobs are hanging in the balance.

Tomorrow the Senate is set to vote on an amendment (added to the transportation bill) that was introduced by Senator Roy Blunt [R-MO].The Blunt bill would amend the Obama health care law by allowing ANY employer to deny ANY health care services based on religious or MORAL convictions.Of course we can always rely on the fact that no employer would ever abuse this rule. [/sarcasm]Wow, what extremists!Hillarycare Had Conscience Protections Obamacare LacksBlunt-Nelson amendment restores exact same conscience protections included in Hillarycare.As Congress continues to debate the Obamacare mandate forcing religious institutions to provide "free" coverage of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, a new report could put supporters of the mandate on the defensive. It turns out that the Democrats' 1994 health care care bill (i.e. "Hillarycare") included the exact same conscience protections that Republicans and some Democrats are now pushing in the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.The 1994 legislation gave "any employer" an exemption from purchasing health care that covered "abortion or other services" if "the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction."http://www.weeklysta...cks_632950.htmlSounds to me like someone is trying to sabotage the Affordable Care Act.I sure hope so, given that it violates the Constitution.BTW, Republicans have held up the transportation bill for three weeks, trying to add amendments like this that are ridiculously unrelated to the bill. Rand Paul wanted to add an amendment to cut off aid to Egypt.Republicans prefer to play games while 2.8 million jobs are hanging in the balance.Oh come on, it's been three full years since Obama got his entire economic policy package. Surely the economy's roaring along by now.

Wow, what extremists!So I guess that means that you agree with the Blunt Amendment that will allow employers to impose their own moral values on their employees.http://www.weeklysta...cks_632950.htmlI see that you tap danced around my question until the Weekly Standard wrote something on it, so you could find out what you really think.Hillary care is irrelevant. It didn't pass. And this is 2012, not 1994.

Wow, what extremists!So I guess that means that you agree with the Blunt Amendment that will allow employers to impose their own moral values on their employees.I see that you tap danced around my question until the Weekly Standard wrote something on it, so you could find out what you really think.I answered the question three times, moonbat.Hillary care is irrelevant. It didn't pass. And this is 2012, not 1994.It has almost nothing to do with Hillarycare. It's about the Constitution and the right to free expression of religion.About how Obama-care is violating that.Duuh.

A few posts back, I proved that in New York state it could cost someone up to $74 to get a state issued photo ID.Now I know to a moneybags like you that's chump change.But to many people that is a lot of money.It took me five seconds to show that you're full of **** Get an ID Card?What if you need to show an ID, but you don't drive and don't need a license (or your license has been revoked)? Fortunately, you don't need to jump through the hoops of getting a driver license just to prove your age or identity.You can get a New York non-driver photo ID card for between $9 and $14 without taking any tests, and you don't need an appointment. Use the ID to cash checks, open accounts, get on an airplane, buy alcohol, use your credit card, and so forth―everything but drive.http://www.dmv.org/n...rk/id-cards.phpWhat we are actually doing is taking the non-existent problem of voter fraud and disenfranchising possibly millions of people from voting.Bush's Justice Dep't tried for 5 years to prove that in person voter fraud (voter impersonation) was rampant, and they came up empty.Last year the Republican National Lawyers Association viewed data going back ten years to prove rampant voter fraud, and didn't do much better.Again, not true. There were plenty of prosecutions for voter fraud. 120 people were prosecuted and 86 convicted as of a 2007, 5 years into the probe. ...Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=allYes, Virginia, There Really Is Voter FraudBy Hans A. von SpakovskyDecember 22, 2011 1:18 P.M. The latest voter-fraud convictions in Troy, N.Y., must be very inconvenient to the public-affairs propagandists over at the DNC and the NAACP, as well as liberal media outlets like the New York Times. It just ruins their constant refrain that there is no voter fraud in the United States. Eric Shawn at FOX News reports that two Troy city officials, the city clerk and a councilman, along with two Democratic political operatives, have pled guilty to forging absentee-ballot signatures and casting fraudulent ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary. The WFP is the political party associated with ACORN.One of the citizens whose votes were stolen was stunned at what happened. She said that she was “sure this goes on a lot in politics, but it’s very rare that they do get caught.” This voter was right on the money with that observation — fraud is so easy to commit in our election system that it is rare that fraudsters get caught and even rarer that they get prosecuted.As for the constant liberal claims that voter fraud does not occur, one of the Democratic operatives who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told New York State police investigators “that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.” And whose votes do they steal? DeFiglio was very plain about that: “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing, and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions.”http://www.nationalr...s-von-spakovskyThose are Republicans, not Libs.They haven't been able to prove that a bunch of dead people are voting, try as they might, but that doesn't stop them from saying it anyway.This is about voter supression and voter disenfranchisement. Plain and simple.**** above reference continued...That is exactly what former Alabama congressman Artur Davis said recently when he admitted that he was wrong to oppose voter-ID requirements. Davis says the “most aggressive” voter suppression “is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt” of Alabama, which is an area of very poor black communities. These are the very areas where the NAACP claims voter fraud does not happen. The NAACP opposes all reasonable measures to safeguard the voting process for its own constituents, even going to the extent of defending vote stealers, as the NAACP did in Greene County, Ala., in the mid-1990s. Small wonder one of its local officials was recently sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud in Tunica County, Mississippi.In the Troy case, the ease with which voter signatures were forged without detection shows that signature comparison by election officials does not work and poses no deterrent to this type of voter fraud. That is why Kansas combined a voter-ID requirement in its new election law with a change to its absentee-ballot procedures. If you want to vote in person in Kansas, you now have to show a photo ID, and if you request an absentee ballot, you have to provide either a copy of your photo ID or the driver’s license number from the ID. That helps confirm that the registered voter — not some political operative like Anthony DeFiglio — actually requested the absentee ballot.

Tomorrow the Senate is set to vote on an amendment (added to the transportation bill) that was introduced by Senator Roy Blunt [R-MO].The Blunt bill would amend the Obama health care law by allowing ANY employer to deny ANY health care services based on religious or MORAL convictions.Oh my gosh, Republicans are trying to uphold the Constitutional right to free expression of religious beliefs?Horrors!

Oh my gosh, Republicans are trying to uphold the Constitutional right to free expression of religious beliefs?Horrors!That isn't what they're doing. You seem to think churches ONLY hire people who either adhere or believe in the tenets of thhe church doing the hiring!Absolutely nothing forces religious adherents to engage in the use of contraceptives - against their will.

That isn't what they're doing. You seem to think churches ONLY hire people who either adhere or believe in the tenets of thhe church doing the hiring!Absolutely nothing forces religious adherents to engage in the use of contraceptives - against their will.Abortion isn't contraception.

Wow, what extremists!http://www.weeklysta...cks_632950.htmlI sure hope so, given that it violates the Constitution.Oh come on, it's been three full years since Obama got his entire economic policy package. Surely the economy's roaring along by now. The entire economic policy package that we're stuck with isn't Obama's. It 's a combination of him and Republicans in Congress. So how many times is it that you've been told that now, Mayhem Clem ? 1000 ? And you call other people liars ? You HYPOCRITE !

Oh come on, it's been three full years since Obama got his entire economic policy package. Surely the economy's roaring along by now. The entire economic policy package that we're stuck with isn't Obama's. It 's a combination of him and Republicans in Congress. So how many times is it that you've been told that now, Mayhem Clem ? 1000 ? And you call other people liars ? You HYPOCRITE !Oh my, look who's come along to lie on behalf of a leftist; pseudo-"conservative" Proto-Marxist.Obama got all his economic policies passed the first year, moonbat, and he had another full year during which his party controlled Congress with a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate.He could have gotten almost anything he wanted.Only when it was obvious they failed did he start bleating about more, which would have been just as ineffective.Say, given that almost half of Obama's plan was exactly what you claim would create jobs, why isn't the economy booming by now? Edited by RichClem, 01 March 2012 - 05:51 PM.

Limbaugh Doubles Down On His SLUT Comments.The social issues debate re-ignited on Capitol Hill today when senators killed a proposal to throw out President Obama's contraception mandate. Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was thrust into the center of the debate after he called the woman who was denied the right to speak on the controversial all-male conception panel at a hearing last month a "slut" on his show Wednesday. The issue heated up more today when Limbaugh took his comments even further."I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want," he said.Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law School, was barred from testifying by Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the faith-based hearing on Capitol Hill, because he deemed her unqualified. Issa said the panel was supposed to focus on religious freedom and Fluke is not a member of any clergy. She eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing spearheaded by Pelosi on Feb. 23, where she talked about the need for birth control coverage. Fluke spoke of one friend in particular who needed contraception to prevent ovarian cysts. Rush Limbaugh, though, had a different take on Fluke's testimony. On his show Wednesday, he suggested that the reason Fluke cannot afford birth control is because she is having too much sex."Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?" he said. "Your daughter testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the pope." Fluke testified that without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman as much as $3,000 during law school. "Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That's a thousand dollars a year of sex - and, she wants us to pay for it," Limbaugh said, adding that high school boys applying to college should consider Georgetown. "They're admitting before congressional committee that they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills!"The conservative radio host continued: "What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps."On today's show, Limbaugh turned up the heat and suggested that women who use insurance-covered birth control should post sex tapes online: "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you [feminist slur (pl)], here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," he said.This loathsome, contemptible, detestable, low-life, mean, no-good, reprehensible, vile, worthless, wretched, drug addled gasbag POS is beneath contempt.(The url for this article contains the word slut, which is a banned word here.If you copy and paste it into your address bar, and change the words 'promiscuous person' to slut, it should work.)http://news.yahoo.co...h-sandra-fluke-[promiscuous person]-prostitute-172257168--abc-news.html Edited by MistyBlue, 01 March 2012 - 08:43 PM.

This loathsome, contemptible, detestable, low-life, mean, no-good, reprehensible, vile, worthless, wretched, drug addled gasbag POS is beneath contempt.(The url for this article contains the word [promiscuous person], which is a banned word here.If you copy and paste it into your address bar, and change the words 'promiscuous person' to [promiscuous person], it should work.)http://news.yahoo.co...h-sandra-fluke-[promiscuous person]-prostitute-172257168--abc-news.htmlHe knows what his fans thrive on, doesn't he.

This loathsome, contemptible, detestable, low-life, mean, no-good, reprehensible, vile, worthless, wretched, drug addled gasbag POS is beneath contempt.If he'd strongly implied someone was a child molester or dishonestly defended a rapist/ serial felon/ impeached disgrace, that would be okay in your book, right?Come on, you go bonkers over a crude satire, when you in full seriousness dishonestly smear conservative and defend liberal Democrat criminals?How does the moonbat mind malfunction so badly?

This is priceless. The RNC sends out a strategy memo called 'PUNDIT PREP' to right-wing media instructing them on specific talking points to hit this week.Jon Stewart shows how many of the pundits on Fox News followed their marching orders and hit on all three points included in the memo.The best part is when the lovable idiot, Steve Doocey actually holds up the memo he's reading from and admits that the RNC sent it.VIDEOAbout 8 minutes in.

Come on, you go bonkers over a crude satire... Oh, so when Rush says something disgusting about a young woman, it's just 'crude satire' right?What if that was your daughter he was talking about?...when you in full seriousness dishonestly smear conservative and defend liberal Democrat criminals? This coming from the partisan hack who defends POS Republicans who send out bestiality videos or sleep with both a mother and her daughter.

I`m a known K.unt and proud of it.Agreed