religious employers must cover birth control

[v-girl]

I don't think it's going to be any better if the employer is going to have to pay more for the insurance. Hell, I'd love for my asthma inhaler to be free! I'm sure those with heart problems would love their heart medicine to be free too. Instead we fork over the money for our prescriptions.

[SoonerTexan]

True. I guess it will just increase the cost of the plan anyway. I'm not sure how it will actually work?

That was a lot of fanangling, bumbling, and contradictory statements by the white house in the past 3 weeks. I guess they truly didn't see the potential backlash when they announced the decision.

[Pollyanna]

True. I guess it will just increase the cost of the plan anyway. I'm not sure how it will actually work?

That was a lot of fanangling, bumbling, and contradictory statements by the white house in the past 3 weeks. I guess they truly didn't see the potential backlash when they announced the decision.

They saw the backlash and were warned about it, they just didn't give a damn.

[diggitydot]

GMW - So, there's still a problem even though religious businesses don't have to provide coverage for BC? Or is it that the employees who may or may not subscribe to the same belief system will still have access to this type of care? I'm confused. It kinda seems like a win/win. Religious-affiliated businesses don't have to provide something against their beliefs and those who'd like to utilize this type of coverage still have the ability. Seems like both sides get what they desired.

[GrayMatterWife]

DD: before you posted, I deleted my post. My issue is with how the White House frames it.

I deleted my response because i just really don't want to get screamed at over a legal issue in a hyperpersonalized way.. I spend all day long dealing with people screaming about legal issues, and it's never personal. Some folks here can take it extremely personally, and i don't know how to deal with that very well--primarily because, it my world, it's never personal. I never mean to hurt anyone's feelings, and yet it happens. I long ago learned that it is just not worth it in this Forum for me to say anything too controversial. I either completely piss people off or chase off people off. (Not you!!)

If you want to chat, PM me!

[diggitydot]

Oh, hah...sorry. I didn't notice that you'd deleted the post. It doesn't show up as deleted on Tapatalk.

Truly, I'm was curious what the objection was, but I get that it could be how the subject was framed. I haven't heard or read the info from the WH, only the small blurbs on the radio as I was driving DD2 to her sleepover.

[v-girl]

I don't see the insurance companies just giving anything away. They will raise the rates so the employer will still be paying for this.

[oceanchild]

I really think there's a sort of bubble effect these days where people genuinely don't realize that other people might see differently. I noticed it with the whole Komen/Planned Parenthood thing. DH saw nothing but "I support Planned Parenthood" on his Facebook news feed, for example. He was surprised that I'd seen a lot of posts (granted, mostly from people I know from these boards) taking Komen's side. It's easy to forget there's another side. I remember getting that sense from people I worked with in Washington, too.

Now, obviously, Obama is the president, and he has people to keep track of these things. But I also think there would have been backlash either way. Election years are all about picking sides.

ETA: I looked into the "no exemptions" law that Colorado has. It sounds like the state can only regulate individual and small-employer plans, so it's not exactly apples to apples.

[diggitydot]

Oh, I get that other people can and will disagree with me, I just wasn't sure what GMW's specific objections over the WH's solution were.

[oceanchild]

I was actually responding to the comments about the White House actions and whether they expected backlash.

[diggitydot]

Oh, heh. Sorry...

[Ladybug]

I guess they truly didn't see the potential backlash when they announced the decision.

It's a highly controversial, divisive topic that even divides conservatives themselves. I doubt the timing wasn't...opportune and intentional.

Color me jaded.

[GrayMatterWife]

Oh, I get that other people can and will disagree with me, I just wasn't sure what GMW's specific objections over the WH's solution were.

I wish I'd been quicker to delete--or maybe had asserted better judgment to start with, and held my tongue. Sorry about that.

My comment was really about what I perceive to be the arrogance in the phrasing of this change as an "accommodation," which is an act done as a curtesy and grace, rather than as an acknowledgment of a legitimate position held by the opposition. I don't see how protecting First Amendment rights is an "accommodation," unless you mean you are (**ever-so-graciously**) accommodating the Constitution.

From a non-legal, purely political point-of-view, I have no opinion on the "accommodation" itself. To me, this whole thing has just a bunch of politicians, on BOTH sides, taking up a cause because they believe it will promote their own political interests. I find most of the politicians to be disingenuous.

[diggitydot]

No, please don't apologize. I value your opinions, even when we disagree.

[L.Jane]

No, please don't apologize. I value your opinions, even when we disagree.

I have nothing to add to this conversation, I just wanted to say this is the best thing I have read in a while and I stink at saying what I want to actually say about how it made me feel, so I will just say it made me smile.