Obama's change in birth control mandate praised by some; bishop reserving judgment

Shoeless Eluder wrote:

<quoted text>Makes one wonder how people did it 1000 years ago or even 150 years ago it was an individual thing. If insurance was never invented or government trying take over our lives we would all be better off and life would be much less expensive different no doubt but less expensive.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
A flip-flop is when a person reverses their position in a way that contradicts their stated values or beliefs (see Romney, Mitt).
Obama did nothing of the sort. He found a way to make the new regulations palatable to most Anericans without abandoning his core principle-- namely, that women have a right to equal healthcare.
It's called "compromise"... and clearly today's GOP regards it as a dirty word.

Judged:

1

1

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>See Romney...and I thought for sure you would be talking about Obama and the patriot act, or gitmo...

Judged:

1

1

Mark wrote:

And as far as your second paragraph...still violating the first amendment...because we know most Americans don't really care about that... Compromise? Nothing of the sort.
The only compromise that occurred is when the Catholic Bishops compromised their principles and supported Obamacare.

Judged:

1

1

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
You're half right: the Patriot Act was a total flip-flop.
But he never changed his mind on Gitmo-- he just got shut down by the Party of No.

Judged:

1

1

1

radell wrote:

<quoted text>I don't wonder. I know, the history is there. An unacceptable percentage of infants and mothers died.

Judged:

1

1

1

GoogleThis wrote:

And once again Obama shows that he is indeed a moderate. Those who say he is an extremist or a radical liberal are just creating their monsters.

Judged:

1

1

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
A flip-flop is when a person reverses their position in a way that contradicts their stated values or beliefs (see Romney, Mitt).
Obama did nothing of the sort. He found a way to make the new regulations palatable to most Anericans without abandoning his core principle-- namely, that women have a right to equal healthcare.
It's called "compromise"... and clearly today's GOP regards it as a dirty word.

Judged:

1

1

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Great point.
Let's just revert to those good old days.
No chemo, no open heart surgery, no dialysis, no hip or joint replacements, no focus on care for the elderly and infirm.
You're absolutely correct in your final assessment: it would be different no doubt, but less expensive.

Elephant Gun wrote:

Shame on them catholics poping for out 4 - 8 kids they cant afford and then going on welfare. I see this becomming more of a womans rights issue and how the church is trying to take away peoples rights. The real sandy is a perfect example of why birth control is needed. You cant fix stupid so dont breed with a republican.

Shoeless Eluder wrote:

<quoted text>Your missing the point.. Insurance companies and government have made the cost of everything almost unaffordable. There was a time though when government stayed out stayed away from research left it to scientists who payed for there own education to do their work, they may have got grants to do research, but now grants come with strings attached..
Let me ask you a question. Is it government that caused infant mortality to decline or people who realized there was a better way? The point I am making is nothing is free. The cost just keeps getting passed down to those who are not having children like most people over forty five but we still pay for something that is not our/their responsibility, whether it is contraceptives, or people, couples who really cant afford to have children but expect others to pay the bill for their mistake or ignorance, and I am amazed at how many ignorant young people are out there today, after all the advancements in "education". When was it that the paradigm changed that people just expect someone else to take care of their problems or needs or wants? There are always exceptions but when you open the door everyone wants to get in and who can blame them when the president says its free.
If you cant afford children then either don't have sex or pay for your own birth control again it is an individual responsibility not all of ours. It doesn't take a village to prevent an unwanted pregnancy just two responsible people.

Forrest Gump wrote:

How about this. If the insurance covers Viagra then it should cover Birth Control. If it doesn't then neither would be covered.

Forrest Gump wrote:

How about this. If the insurance covers Viagra then it should cover Birth Control. If it doesn't then neither would be covered.

Living Large2 wrote:

<quoted text>Good point. But do we really need the government to force insurance companies to cover either?

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Viagra is a treatment for a medical condition.

Living Large2 wrote:

<quoted text>Good point. But do we really need the government to force insurance companies to cover either?