Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception

Obama is too frigin' smart for the turds in the republican party...and they didn't even see this coming...jeez I didn't see it coming....praise God women's rights and health issues are here to stay...and I'm a man.

jeez I didn't see it coming.

Me either! I thought we were headed to a show down. Obama is a genius

praise God women's rights and health issues are here to stay...and I'm a man.

Glad you see the benefit in a woman being able to choose when she reproduces. It's just good for everyone

Birth control is a man's right, too. When the church tries stopping women from using birth control, it affects the men in their lives as well. Men SHOULD, therefore, be just as disgusted at these tactics.

And many of us are at a number of levels. But still one of the biggest offenses is the attack on our mothers, sisters, daughters, and companions (our loves). As for the attack on me as a man, that is a minor irritation to me, personally, as opposed to this attack on the humanity of women. The whole idea is belittling and dehumanizing to over half the population.

The whole idea is belittling and dehumanizing to over half the population.

No it's actually not. The hysteria over this issue is absurd. Women were in no danger...zero, none, nada, zip, ziltch...of losing access to contraception.

I happen to think the Church is wrong on the issue of contraception. But contraception of all types is readily available and cheap. In fact, there are lots of ways to get it for free. Women were in no danger.

Women were in no danger...zero, none, nada, zip, ziltch...of losing access to contraception.

But women were paying out of pocket for preventative health care in a way that men did not have to. Contraception is important for the overall health of women as well as being prescribed to combat common diseases from acne to PCOS to cancer. However, because we are only women and a bunch of men have had some issue with this type of health care, we have been spending over and above our premium what any other person would pay for any other type of generic meds.

But women were paying out of pocket for preventative health care...

Yeah but not ALL women were going to be affected by this issue with the Church. We're only talking about women who were in a health plan paid for by the Catholic church or other religious institutions. The Left (and a lot of them here on NV) has been making this out to be some kind of attack on all women. No Church has been calling for non-believers to be denied contraception. They just don't want to be part of the process because it violates their beliefs. That's actually pretty tolerant.

Personally, I think they're interpreting the Bible a little too harshly, but whatever, that's their problem. If we can find a way to make this work without requiring them to violate their teachings, I think that's better for everybody.

And I think that's all the president was thinking. All of this "chess vs. checkers" and "Art of War" stuff is a bunch of partisan nonsense.

We're only talking about women who were in a health plan paid for by the Catholic church or other religious institutions

This statement right here, tells me you have no idea how many millions of women who work for catholic institutions and have been affected in this country. This statement right here, tells me you didn't even know how women had to pay over and beyond their premium for preventative services even if they didn'twork for a catholic institution. This archaic and male driven policy is now over as insurers will now cover preventative services for this issue just like they cover it for other preventative health issues.

Also, please continue to rationalize, meanwhile this country will continue to move forward toward health care equality.

I agree, LanaD. And for once the insurance companies agreed to something that actually made sense. Plus, it saves them much bigger money in the long run so the insurance industry didn't fight it.

Ohiogal, I'm glad for the coverage. You misunderstand me. I was responding to the notion that religious institutions were trying to take something away from women. At worst, you ended up with the status quo, and even that was just a question of money - and a relatively meager amount of money at that.

This statement right here, tells me you have no idea how many millions of women who work for catholic institutions and have been affected in this country.

No I don't. I bet off the top of their heads, not one person here knows what that number is. Not even you. Googling it doesn't count. But it's still not ALL women, which is what I said.

This statement right here, tells me you didn't even know how women had to pay over and beyond their premium for preventative services even if they didn'twork for a catholic institution.

This is not relevant, though. Such women now have the coverage and the Church digging in its heels would not have changed that. By the way, contraception isn't the only preventive healthcare item for which people have to pay extra.

This archaic and male driven policy is now over as insurers will now cover preventative services for this issue just like they cover it for other preventative health issues.

Yeah. Good.

Also, please continue to rationalize

Why don't you just say, "I dismiss your point of view out of hand." Because I'm sure that's what you mean by "rationalize" when you describe my opinion. I don't see this issue has having been some massive attack on all women. Nor do I see some magnificent defeat of the Republicans. This is all hyperbole and it's silly.

ohiogal-479871 - This statement right here, tells me you have no idea how many millions of women who work for catholic institutions and have been affected in this country. This statement right here, tells me you didn't even know how women had to pay over and beyond their premium for preventative services even if they didn'twork for a catholic institution. This archaic and male driven policy is now over as insurers will now cover preventative services for this issue just like they cover it for other preventative health issues.

Also, please continue to rationalize, meanwhile this country will continue to move forward toward health care equality.

You just don't get it, do you?

1) Employment benefits is NOT a right. No employer is legally obligated to provide any. The sad fact is, while this non-controversy about BC rages, many employers do not provide even the basic insurance to cover certain life-threatening illness, much less BC. If you work for an employer that doesn't provide BC, you are free to quit and find one that dies.

2) I've been purchasing BC all my life, without insurance, it hardly broke my bank account.

3) While there are a few extreme exceptions, a female does not die or get sick becuase of lack of BC. My insurance provides all the gynecological and reproductive services sans BC. Most do.

4) I've been proactive in Women's Rights since I was 19 and in that short time, I have been involved with many issues that make this faux-outrage pale into insignificance. Such issues as equal pay, gender discrimination, gender equality, violence, single moms and poverty have a far greater impact on all women aside from BC.

5) While having BC coverage is a plus, I do not see it as a "right" and having the government mandate this, considering it's poor record at enforcing the laws already on the book concerned with women, is disingenuous.

While I am liberal but no friend of Obama's, his tweaking in regards to this BC issue was an excellent move.

It is amazing, why was there NO controversy over insurance companies covering Viagra??? If religious groups are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO concern about BC, why not limit it at the source? Take away a man's ability to "rise to the occasion" and there would be a lot less unwanted pregnancies.

Think about it, the church has no issues with insurance covering male/female infertility, but covering those who don't want a child for whatever reason (reducing abortions) is "bad".

First it was abortion, now it is birth control, the right wing wants to restrict us from. Pretty soon if a woman refuses her husband then she can be arrested. Maybe even girls will be sold into marriages to old men (that is if they have money). Aren't women suppose to be subserviant to men so there will be no rape trials, if a man wants sex from a woman he will just need to take it. Little girls 12, 11, 10 will be forced into marriages.

Yes, women have so much to look forward to in the Republican world!

2) I've been purchasing BC all my life, without insurance, it hardly broke my bank account.

1) Not everyone has your "bank account".

2) Now you don't have to.

We're only talking about women who were in a health plan paid for by the Catholic church or other religious institutions

Bull@!$%#. The whole premise that the employer pays for healthcare coverage is BULL@!$%#.

Your healthcare premium for coverage through your employer is paid by you in full. It is part of your total compensation package. This means that it is your money that you agree to let the employer administer. The advantage of this to you is that the employer gets to negotiate benefits packages on a group rate. The advantage to you is that group administration costs are lower per member than for individuals and you get the lower group rate. The advantage to the employer is that it saves them money on payroll taxes while still being able to attract the best qualified employees.

The bottom line is this is your money, not the employers, just as much as the pay check you cash.

No employer should have the power to control your body. And none of them have the right. You as an individual have the right to freedom of religion. The Church as an institution, like all institutions, has no rights. Why? Because only people have rights. All social constructs have powers derived from the consent of the people.

Where will employers right to tell us what we can buy stop?? First they can demand BC is not covered. Then can they forbid you from buying cigaretts, candy, acohol? What about getting pregnant? What if conservatives want for FORCE you to get pregnant. Can employers force NOT to get pregnant. Once we start letting employers control our rights even our bodies where do we stop?

It's an affordability issue. If you can afford to pay for your own health care, or to get health insurance from a group other than your employer group, you're free.

In modern societies, we pay for health care by pooling our resources. We hope that enough healthy people are in the pool, so that, when one of us needs it, there will be money to pay for our need. When our pool is our employer or professional group, it is insurance. When our pool is the whole population, it is so-called socialized medicine.

If the public option offers a Catholic hospital more affordable health care than a private insurance company then isn't the whole Republican argument redundant about "affordable" private insurance redundant?

I am sorry if I work in a hospital I don't think the board of directors of the hospital have the right to deny me BC. They are my employer not my Priest! My Priest doesn't even have the right to tell me if I take BC or not THAT is between me and God!! By the way if BC is so much of a problem then why aren't they screaming about Viagra covered. Isn't sex suppose to be for precreation only according to the bible? If a man can't rise to the occassion then GOD is telling him not to have sex. How many men use Viagra outside of the marriage bed? Newt Gingrich!!

Is religion killing religion in America. Religion lost another round.

Do we really have a christian religion?

With the discoveries of the lost gospels over the last 50 years, which have debunked most of the "magic act" stories about Jesus, and the churches' flat refusals to even acknowledge they exist, I submit that christianity was built on falsehoods and deceit.

I submit that christianity was built on falsehoods and deceit.

Some of it was. Very cleverly. Read the New Testament books of Letters, Corinthians, etc to see how the original message of the Gospels have been bastardized.

Getting people to celebrate Christian landmarks by melding them with pagan holidays is another example.

I came to that conclusion some 40 years ago. Religion (all of it) is BUNK. Bunko would be an apt name for it

The ONLY authenticated date in christianity that is more or less confirmed (date, not year) is EASTER (a misnomer, actually) because of the tie-in to the passover seder which was being performed at that "last supper". (and, no, I don't attach mystical properties to the event)

the fabric they have woven is unravelling, and they are scrambling to do anything they can to patch the holes. all we have to do is keep sharing truth.

Coooool. You liberals going to start backing him finally or still call him weak?

The White House apparently had this planned for weeks if not months.

It was intended to drive the righties even harder to the right .... causing the true Independents to flee from them.

So what you're saying is that the people in the White House are dishonest. They're like policy trolls. They don't actually promote things because they believe in them, but just to get a rise out of their political opponents. Basically, they will stop at nothing to put politics before the American people. Nice.

Do you think they don't believe in women having access to contraception?

They don't actually promote things because they believe in them, but just to get a rise out of their political opponents

Actually, it's pretty obvious that they were able to do something in which they believe and do it in a way that also made their political opponents look silly and childish and out of touch.

To be fair, though, it's not very hard to make the right look silly, childish, and out of touch these days.

They don't actually promote things because they believe in them, but just to get a rise out of their political opponents

Actually, it's pretty obvious that they were able to do something in which they believe and do it in a way that also made their political opponents look silly and childish and out of touch.

To be fair, though, it's not very hard to make the right look silly, childish, and out of touch these days.

He's a planner, so maybe he was prepared when the teapubs did what they always do - try to spin a health issue into a social issue. Teapubs are pretty predictable. The will do the knee jerk response of opposing anything he does, and Obama's backup plan is in place when they do. Brilliant on his part.

I have heard it other ways...

Obama Completely Neuters The GOP’s Cries Of A War On Religion

Absolutely, Brian!

Has the Pope's head exploded yet?

Viva La Papa! Long live Obama!

Has the Pope's head exploded yet?

Which one?

Tim is a good thing I put my coffee down before I read this. LOL

Has the Pope's head exploded yet?

Why? Have his Holiness's boy prostitutes contracted an STD? Maybe he should use his holy prophylactic. Wait.. oh snap...

The Pope wow, wonder what he is a now thinking...I am smilin'

Barack Obama is present, here in the 21st Century, no one else on the conservative

side of ANYTHING gets that...

Bravo, Mr President good work , good move

Obama/Biden 2012

Awwwww

I sowwy

And.....don't fret about the votes lol

I think Obama & the far left wanted women to have BC coverage. That is what they got. So I guess they are happy. I have to admit when I first heard that he was letting the catholic Church have its way again I was disappointed, but when I read what his new policy was I was impressed.

bob... do you know how to play chess? If you do you should recognize a masterful play made by President Obama today. Do yourself a favor, be classy, stand up and say "Well, Played Mr. President" because ultimately, you know damn well that Obama has far more regard for women's rights than any of the GOP POTUS wannabe's. Or is that the problem right there for you, that pesky issue of protecting women's rights?

bob, the GOP and the church are standing there with egg on their faces (at least I think it's egg - it's clear-hite and sticky). They did NOT get what they wanted. What they wanted was to exert their will over women's rights. They failed miserably, and the church can't force women to give birth to more future tithers.

His proposal was for women to get birth control through their insurance policies with no deductible or co-pay

Tell us bob, did he get his way?

If your contention is that all he does is capitulate to the right then.........

I guess you'll be voting for him again? After all, if you're correct then he's the best president the GOP could hope for right?

But he is still black.......bummer eh?

This is amazing. The GOP and the church are screwed. They have no choice but to accept this; in the end, women get what they want and the church and gop look like fools. Check and mate.

bob-1478320 - I've been reading you posts for a while now and I’m pretty sure you are really Roger Ailes, but I digress.

The first part of your post is a bit too over the top when it comes to baseless opinion so there is no use in responding.

However, this part is oddly beatific in its detachment from reality:

Hmm lets see now, the republicans and the Catholic church got what they wanted, Obama and the far left did not===who got punked?!

So, the GOP/Catholics now have BC still flowing through them to the ladies even though they vehemently did not want it and you say they got what they wanted? They got what they wanted by having control of BC swiftly taken out of their hands and put squarely into the hands of females? I thought BC was against their religion? How did they get what they want? Are you saying that this was all a crock and they just wanted to make a political point and lost? Or, are you saying that they lie about their religion on BC is really okay, regardless?

The President and the ‘far left’ did not get what they wanted by having the President (in the light of national attention) manage the GOP/Catholics like children fighting over a candy thus showing their true colors? They didn’t get what they wanted because what they wanted was to put BC in the hands of women…where it now is...all across the USA?

Can you prove anything you post or is it all just what you hold in your head, bob?

Poor Bob, so bitter about our intelligent off white President.

GOP is going to be toast in November.

Here's some therapy for you Bob, we'll call it DeFoxification, now repeat after me.

I will vote for Obama in November, he is obviously the best choice.

Now repeat that 1,000 times and you should be cured of your ignorance.

bob-1478320

no actually his proposal was to force religious affiliated institutions to toe his line,did he get his way?

Oh, come on already. Prove it, bob! Prove it! Show us the link where the President is saying that his ultimate goal on this one was to ‘force religiously affiliated institutions to toe his line’.

Can’t find it? Golly, I suppose that means in your mind that you assertions must be true?

you should be cured of your ignorance.

I don't know...republican/conservative/teabagger ignorance is one of the hardest substances known to man.

anyone that doesn't acknowledge obama as "the one" is obviously ignorant,and of course at the same time a racist-no matter what color skin they might have. I mean if they had a brain they would be so much easier to control just like the millions of Obamamaniacs around the country ,who just walk around hoping Obama will whip out his magic laser wand(the one he focused on jobs 2-1/2 years ago) and now will repeat the magic words;
"presto" "changeo"

He just waved that wand at the Catholic Bishops and guess what bobby

Presto Changeo!!!!!!

and guess what next summer the SCOTUS will wave their magic wands and Obamacare will go "poof" and disappear like the rabbit. Enjoy it while you can

Obamacare will go "poof"

Sorry. Not gonna happen.

Hang onto that dream and you may stave of GOP depression for another few months.

After that, I'm afraid medication will be your only recourse.

Luckily, with the Healthcare Act in full bloom by then hehehe, you WILL be able to get that medication, because the insurers won't be able to disqualify you for your pre-existing condition Obama Derangement Syndrome.

bonos,

bob, the GOP and the church are standing there with egg on their faces (at least I think it's egg - it's clear-hite and sticky).

The ones I saw didn't have it on their face, but were wearing pearl necklaces.

DNFTT

So, the GOP/Catholics now have BC still flowing through them to the ladies even though they vehemently did not want it and you say they got what they wanted?

The Church leadership may still turn out to be unhappy with the president's compromise. That really is not set yet.

no actually Obama picked a fight and retreated as is his style.

Wow. Compromise works. Everything does not have to be a fight to the death or considered an example of retreat/spinelessness.

Sour grapes Bob. You cannot effectively spin this one. A good, thoughtful decision was made. Deal with it. No one can help that the far Right wants to fight and bicker about everything while turning life into a @!$%# hole for people.

gee, bob - any more sour grapes you want to display???

Grapes make wine.

SOUR grapes make WHINE.

Behold the GOP/TP in 2012....time to break out the cheese.

I rest my case.

Cardamom Sour grapes make vinegar. GOP/TP in 2012 will never happen. Have a good one.

DNFTT

Which one?

bob-1478320 - I've been reading you posts for a while now and I’m pretty sure you are really Roger Ailes, but I digress.

Big insult to Roger Ailes...big!

Roger Ailes can not be insulted,Joanna Caroll,in my opinion

11.1 - Reported, inflammatory. personal attack.

you must have dug deep into your consciousness for that one

Nope.

Does getting punked by President Obama sting a bit? Feeling a little butthurt?

Try some ice.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hi Tyler I still have not gotten around to reading the rules, but you have never had to warn me and I have never been suspended I must be doing something right.

I'll go read the rules right now............., oh look shiny object. :-)

remember 3 - you are taunting the very one who has the power to make you "disappear" (I just got returned from having been placed in purgatory for a week by #2)

remember 3 - you are taunting the very one who has the power to make you "disappear"

After 3 in a half years I have nothing to worry about, it is all about common sense and common courtesy I will not disappear until I'm ready too.

Tyler has a sense of humor and fairness that is hard to find in most over lords.

I think it is more fun to find not-so-offensive, eloquent ways of insulting people... :)

I don't get it but its as funny as hell....where did you come up with that turn of phrase?

Yeah, thats why the right wingers are so appreciative right now. They're all out in droves thanking the President for giving them what they wanted.

Commisar,

He gave the GOP everything they wanted while keeping what he wanted

Have you noticed all the legislation offered by the GOP to outlaw contraception? They didn't get what they wanted. Just the opposite. Instead of further restrictions on contraceptives and further violation of every women's human and civil rights, they got increased access to BC by every women in the country.

They got their asses handed to them.

They got their asses handed to them.

It is fun to see the GOP try to spin this loss.

They didn't get what they wanted.

The GOP wanted religious freedom protected and they got it. Obama gave the GOP everything they wanted, and still got everything he wanted.

well, that's your opinion of the decision - remember what they say about OPINIONS

Obama is a diplomat - that's someone who can not only tell you to go to mythical HELL, plus give you precise directions on how to get there, yet make you believe you will ENJOY THE TRIP

Obama did not punk the GOP. He gave the GOP everything they wanted while keeping what he wanted. This new bill will not violate religious freedom and will still ensure that people have free contraception.

Hmmm...instead of forced religious doctrine in one of our laws and the GOP using it as a political ploy against the President...The President made sure we are still allowing religious freedom while still protecting women's right to choose when they have babies.

Wait...

HOW is this NOT a win again?

Face it...the googly-eyed religious nuts thought they had him painted into a corner...they were all geared up to use it against him...

And the President handily stepped aside and protected BOTH freedoms.

Imagine that.

They got punked.

What they really want is for women not to have contraception at all, free or not. That's a fight we should welcome. If they want to party like it's 1965, in the midst of a national election campaign no less, they can come on with it!

REMEMBER in November

knife? I think they brought a slingshot

slingshot? I think they brought a bean bag brain.

People want others to pay for the things they want. It is wrong no matter how you slice it.

How is your premium payment to the insurance company someone else paying for this? You do realize that it is your money that pays for employer based healthcare coverage right? That is money you are not receiving in your paycheck. It is a smart decision on your part and on the companies part. You get the lower cost of group rates and group administration and the company gets payroll tax breaks and more competitive compensation packages to attract the best workers. It is a win-win for the employee and the employer.

They want we to pay their way. I feel it is totally against my rights as an individual. And am tired of having my basics rights trampled on.

How is this affecting you? Wait, I know how. It lowers your insurance premiums because BC is much cheaper than pregnancy and child birth. So it saves the insurance company money in pay outs and they can pass those savings on in lower premiums.

Those BASTARDS! How dare they lower your premiums!

. They want we to pay their way. I feel it is totally against my rights as an individual. And am tired of having my basics rights trampled on.

1. The Teapublicans claim that health-care is not a right, so which "basic right" are you referring to?

2. You "had no idea" that you had access to birth control or abortions? Isn't that your fault for not reading your policy? Typical righty, blame someone else.

3. The women that pay into your plan are helping to cover any issues you may have with your testicles, penis or prostate, lowering your costs. That must be equally wrong, isn't it?

If you're so outraged, then drop your insurance and pay for your own.

This:

Am so tired of everyone bashing republicans then think it is okay to bash republicans.

is a 2 way street. We should all strive to do better...yes?

People want others to pay for the things they want. It is wrong no matter how you slice it.

They want we to pay their way. I feel it is totally against my rights as an individual. And am tired of having my basics rights trampled on.

People want others to pay for the Viagra they want. It is wrong no matter how you slice it.

They want WE to pay their Viagra costs. I feel it is totally against my rights as an individual. AND am tired of having my basic rights trampled on.

(For piss sakes)

They want WE to pay their Viagra costs. I feel it is totally against my rights as an individual. AND am tired of having my basic rights trampled on.

This comes down to the basic position that human beings are entitled to healthcare and equal rights. And that white males are human beings, the rest are something less. It is time to teach these misinformed individuals that that women and people of color are human beings, too.

Seriously, look at their reaction to any equal rights question. They are taken as a reduction in the rights of these white males. A woman getting equal pay is some how a loss of white male's rights. Equal voter access is a loss of white male rights. Etc. In this particular example, the guarantee that the individual has the religious freedom to decide on BC on their own is somehow an attack on the religious freedoms of some group of white males in the Church hierarchy. The loss of privilege and the ability to oppress others is not a loss of freedom or rights.

Government vs. Private healthcare insurance. The biggest difference is choice. I can choose not to have the employer healthcare plan. Or I can choose to have the healthcare plan. It makes no difference which I choose. One might note taht employer generally pay part or all of the premium to make it cost less for the employee.

Now with the Government plan you have no choice. You must have the plan. oh they say you can decline it but you must then have another plan or pay a penalty (tax). So you see you really have no choice. You will pay no matter what. By the way. Teh governmetn is on the hook to pay part of that cost. So in effect you are not only paying the cost of the insurance but also the whole cost through your taxes. Doesn't sound so good now does it.

Limitations in the policies co exist. Even medical limits coverage. So that arguemtnt is not even valid. Irt is jsut who is the one who is making the limitations. Here again the difference. I can say no to the private provider with no penalty but with the Government it is a big no. I have to accept it and pay for it.

It all boils down to who is paying for it. Taxpayers are paying for it. We have come to believe we can take from some Americans and give to other Americans. We have drawn a line in the sand. Instead of everyone working to make America great. there are those who are taken from and there are those who think they are entitled. America is failing for that very reason. Those taken from do not want to pay anymore and those who think they are entitled are demanding more. That is the root of all of our problems.

We are not promised a home, car, affordable healthcare insurance or even happiness. We are promised life, libery and the pursuit of happiness. Does not mean we will have a healthy life. Does not mean we are so free we are lawless. Does not mean we will be happy. But it does mean we have opportunity. Taht is what we have. But when entitlement come into play the basic rights of others is diminished. The others are the ones who actaully pay into the system.

Healthcare is not now or ever was a right. it never wil lbe a right. A right is not something someone else must pay for so we can obtain it. Here is the botom line. Freedom is the most precious thing in the world. Freedom comes attached with personal responsibility. We seem to forget we have the responsibility to provide for ourselves. We demand others to take care of us.

Obamacare blew it with regard to improving choice for people who get their healthcare insurance through their employers. If you get health care insurance through your employer, I believe you are required to accept it. Most employers do not offer much in the way of decent choices, so this did not unleash that magic of the marketplace that Americans love so much.

#17.6 Healthcare is not now or ever was a right.

In modern societies, we choose to pay for health care by pooling our resources. We hope that enough healthy people are in the pool, so that, when one of us needs it, there will be money to pay for our need. When our pool is our employer or professional group, it is insurance. When our pool is the whole population, it is so-called socialized medicine.

In the old (libertarian) days, your physician was sensitive to your ability to pay. Only the wealthy died in hospitals of named diseases: most died of "old age", at home. You live the life you can afford (not vacationing in St. Tropez). Why not live the death you can afford? All of a sudden, only at the end of life, you want to be treated as well as a millionaire???

We ought not to confuse "health" insurance with health care. Insurance is a financial instrument. What health insurance protects is not your health, but your wealth, against the ravages of the costs of health care. It is primarily for the wealthy: as a wealthy person, I don't want to pay for health care (which could easily bankrupt me), I want to pay for health insurance (so that I can leave my wealth to my heirs).

Poor people would rather spend what money they have on more pressing needs than contributing to the pool of resources to cover the risk of possible future health care costs. The insurance companies are unwilling to cover existing conditions, or to remove caps on care, unless the government mandates (and subsidizes) the expansion of their risk pool to the (they figure mostly healthy) uninsured. The mandate was a McCain campaign offer. When McCain wan't elected, the insurance companies demanded the same from Obama. Romney demonstrated, in Massachusetts, that the costs of treating those who do not contribute to the pool exceeds the costs of paying for coverage of those who cannot afford it.

In modern societies, we are unwilling to apply to human life that principle of "let the house burn, just make sure it does not spread to the house of the neighbor that bought in to protection (contributed to the pool)". We might not encroaching on your personal liberty to drive without a seat-belt, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, except that we know we will be paying for your treatment in an injury. Maybe what we need is an opt-out-of-modern-society personal responsibility statement (like a "do not resuscitate" order) attached to your driver's license, which basically says "I do not consider my health care a right".

Healthcare is not now or ever was a right. it never wil lbe a right. A right is not something someone else must pay for so we can obtain it.

Then what is a Police force? What is a Firefighter? Teachers? Roads? Our military?

Sorry, your point is totally invalid.

It seems we all agree that people have a choice if they should have healthcare insurance or not. The problem is those who choose not are forced to join the "pool" if they want to or not. Therein lies the problem. It takes away from free choice.

I am totally against abortion personally. But I will shout at the tiop of my lungs to protect the rights of those who wish to abort to be able too. Now here is the catch. They can have but I do not in no way want to pay for it. I have more pressing things I need to purchase.

So we in an attemp to force people to get healthcare insurance open the door for we being told how we are to act (wear seatbelts or helmets), what we can eat or drink even what activities we can participate in. After all we msut keep cost down right? Wrong. I prefer to take the risk.

By the way I do have a do not resucitate order. It is funny I have to choose that but if I didn't have it they would have to do it. Strange now isn't it. We now have in this so called modern society an ever growing amouont of limited choice. We are held accountable for our neighbors mistakes. ANd we expect our other neighbors to share with us. Very disappointing.

A socialist country will never be a free society. The two are total opposites.

When our pool is the whole population, it is so-called socialized medicine.

No it is not. Socialized medicine is a totally different animal than socialized access/insurance. Socialized medicine would mean that every doctor, nurse, orderly, administrator, etc is an employee of the government. This is a far cry from a single payer, or what we are pursuing at this time of universal coverage through multiple private suppliers. All this system is doing is making sure the pool of insured includes everyone and that the premiums are calculated on this entire pool instead of cherry picking policyholders from the general population.

most died of "old age", at home.

Most died of easily treatable childhood diseases, accidents at home or at work, during childbirth, ineffectively treated minor infections. Treatment consisted of a sharp knife and an herb garden. Is that the world you want to go back to?

A socialist country will never be a free society. The two are total opposites.

You're right. With social programs you are not free to die from poverty against your will. You are free with those programs not to participate in them, other than paying your share, but no one comes to your home and drags you handcuffed to the doctors office or hospital. You still have the right to refuse any specific treatment.

You have the right to access to health care and you have the right to refuse to receive it. You do not have the right to contribute to the general availability to the rest of society. Just like you do not have the choice to pay for the military. You don't have to join it, but you have to help pay for it.

Thanks for the distinctions between "socialized medicine", "socialized access/insurance" and "single payer".

What would happen if we were able to opt-out of paying for the military, or fire and police protections? What about public infrastructure, like roads, bridges, ports, and sewer systems?Then, what about FDA, CDC and USDA protections?

#17.12 being told how we are to act (wear seatbelts or helmets)

In modern societies, we are not dispassionate about hosing your brains off the pavement and sending you home to fend for yourself (there are still places in the world where this is the rule).

What would happen if we were able to opt-out of paying for

It would be a disaster. Just like we have in healthcare and access to healthcare now. There are some services that are best met with a social approach, including all those you mentioned, healthcare and others. My point was that there is a spectrum of options between socialized medicine and strict free market. It is not a one or the other choice. I also didn't mean to imply my preference one way or the other in the above post. Sweden's socialized system seems to work well for them. I think a single payer system could work well for us, with subsidies for extra beds and staff to handle medical emergencies like natural disasters or epidemics/pandemics.

Our system has me nervous about what will happen when we have an epidemic. We just do not have the resources in place to handle an influx of 1 million patients or more in a matter of weeks. We don't have the beds and equipment or the staff necessary to handle this eventuality.

Tim, if Katrina taught us anything, it taught us how unprepared we are for large scale disasters.

Our police, firefighters, teachers, roads and military are not rights. Police, firefighters, teachers and local roads should and always be local issues. To the most part they are. Now we as a people do need an interstate system. An interstate systems directly effects the commerce of the entire nation. The military is on a federal government level only as set in the constitution directly. Defense of this country is a direct responsibility of the Federal Government.

Actually what did Katrina teach us? Katrina was not the first large scale disaster and was not the last either. Why are we still hearing about Katrina so many years afterwards when we have had storms that were jsut as bad that are all but forgotten about? There is an interesting question.

Never realized that in socialist countries that no one dies in poverty against their will. Interesting concept. Also find it hard to believe that there are those who will to be in poverty. So we as a free nation are suppose to support every one so that there is no poverty? Are we to pool our resources to do so? We offer the opportunity for people to rise out of poverty. Would much rather the opportunity exist than the taking from the rich to give to the poor idea.

The whole thing is a lot of people want to help the poor. taht is a wonderful thing. The problem is they want to use public funds to do it. So it becomes an issue of public funds (all taxes or taxes by otehr names collected by government) vs private funds. The issue after that is people try to put everything under the "good for America" umbrella to justify their own cause. The answer? Go to the constitution. The real constitution. Apply the supreme law as intended. Nothing has changed. The only changes is in how we interpret and apply it.

Social security is a money hungry monster. It is an example of obamacare on a small scale.

What was different, to visitors from abroad, in this country in the 1950's and 1960's, was the lack of beggars on the streets.

Don't let the "village idiots" fool you. The USA is still a wealthy nation, with the ability to marshall the best of the world's thinking on any problem. Not only do our state and local governments benefit from this, but so does the world. We contribute the science that goes into the regulations, and building codes, that protect us from diseases and disasters, and which serve as a model for the rest of the world. Not only do most Americans, but the world, appreciates our USDA, CDC, FDA, EPA, FAA, NTSB and FEMA. We can afford this stellar a government. Much more important than being military power is being the standard bearer of a society in which people dream and thrive. Despite the third-world-like image of those victims of hurricane Katrina begging for help, we are far from that kind of nation.

The terrorists have us locked in a last century conflict. While much of the world has moved on to trade and commercial competition, we have trapped ourselves in the role of the enforcers of law and order against archaic, absolutist warriors. I like to watch the Japanese news (on NGK). Our competitors are making deals in Asia and Africa.

We can afford this Stellar government? One answer. 15 trillion in debt.

It is not the governemtn that makes AMerica great. It is the individual that makes America great. It is the fact that we have survived 200 years as a constitution republic. It is the fact that we are a free society. Yet we are trying harder and harder to become socialist. We want the government to rule us, not govern. We survive and thrive despite the Government.

This country was based upon rebellion againt governemtn. Read the constitutuion. It's puirpose is to limit the Government and protect our freedoms. It is not there to create a government to rule over us. There is no doubt some Government departments have useful value. But when those department work independant of oversight they go beyond their powers.

SO what has changed between the 50's and 60's? Attitude. The people's attitude. Now we have increasing beggars in the streets.

Concerned75 @#17.21

What exactly does your comment have to do with the topic at hand?

It is simple. We are going deeper and deeper into debt. People are screaming for more and more benefits. We think we need this healthcare thing. Yet we cannot pay the bills we already have. it is about Obama thinks he punked the GOP as if he is a popularity contest. Even though many people feel we are getting trampled on and forced to pay for things like birth control for others he is only interested in punking the GOP.

Sure it is easy to limit topics to just one thing. Everythiing separate sounds so good. But when you put everythiing into the big picture you get more understanding.

Maybe 17.21 was off topic. But it was a direct response to 17.19. As in everything else 17.21 is not agreed with and called out. But 17.19 is agreed with and is okay. Is that not how Obama and the GOP is? One trying to push over the other. Both are totally wrong. Yet we one one direction or the other and We the people get messed over everytime.

It is simple. We are going deeper and deeper into debt.

Obamacare was revenue neutral. I was mainly a health care reform bill.

What Obamacare isn't is a huge government health care program. Whether it was an adequate reform bill is a separate discussion.

Whenever somebody starts a comment with the phrase "it's simple" I get worried that they are failing to appreciate the involved complexities in the topic.

Yeah, we could learn to do it by ourselves, or hire private companies, to:

1. test and rate the safety of our meat and produce.
2. monitor outbreaks of diseases.
3. test the safety and efficacy of new drugs.
4. make air traffic agreements.
5. control polluters in our neighborhoods.

Get to know your neighbors, because, in a disaster, you may well be relying on them for your survival. You can stock up and buy a gun, or you can organize a walkie-talkie network to monitor and help each other: don't be left stranded on a bridge to nowhere.

Concerned,

Do you have the right to life? Without access to health care, how do you propose to keep that life?

As for police, there are standards of rights and liberties set down in writing in the Constitution that apply to law enforcement. This gives the federal government a say in police activities at all levels. The local police can not violate the Constitution. Education has a national impact and the federal government has the power to set standards of weights and measures. As well as the obligation of promoting the general Welfare. Well in a global economy the education of our populace is in the general Welfare of the country. Having a State of illiterate citizens hurts the country as a whole. Setting a minimum standard for what constitutes an education is well within the realm of the federal government. If your State wishes to surpass that standard, GREAT.

As for public poverty programs: 1) they are a small part of the budget and their elimination would not make a dent in the debt or deficits. 2) They are poorly designed, intentionally or unintentionally is open to debate, and do little to assist people in their efforts to move off assistance and often hinder them. This is not an indictment of the concept, but of the implementation. You exemplify the part of the population that fails to make this distinction. That basic position is that since the implementation was poorly done, the concept is bad. This just is not a logical conclusion, anymore than we are in a position to conclude that antipoverty efforts are always good and effective. Both are closed minded to the review of reality and to improvements in programs.

Obamacare is not revenue nuetral. Even by his own statements we know that is not true. He said himself the plan was to slow down the rising cost not to elimintae the cost. But the cost will still go up. The actual amount of the increase is not know for sure.

Actualy we can and do make sure our food is safe. We have that responsibility. Now it is great that the FDA does a lot for our food supply. But the end responsibility is ours. Otherwise they would be in our kitchens checking everything. Am not saying the FDA is all bad. But They do go overboard.

In a disater we are responsible first to our own safety and welfare. If you sit and wait on the governemtn you have at least a three day wait. have personally been through Huricanes, Floods and tornadoes. In everycaee being prepared and using survival skills afterwards made it bearable. Are we saying we are too stupid to care for ourselves and need government to do it for us?

Yes I have a right to life. But does that mean I have a right to a perfect life? Does the governmetn give me life? Dalong that line are they responsible for my condititon in life? I say no. I have the responsibility to make sure I am healthy. If I ignore that then it is my fault I am ill.

Actually a little over 50% of our spending is on entitlements. SS, Medicare, Welfare. This plan will only add to taht spending. i am for cutting military as long as they cut acrooss the board. But they are unwilling to do so. Spend spend spend.

He said himself the plan was to slow down the rising cost not to elimintae the cost

To slow down the rising cost of private insurance.

Do you have the right to life? Without access to health care, how do you propose to keep that life?

I love this question. And have never heard a good answer. We have a RIGHT TO LIFE, yet if you get sick, you are on your own?

Someone steals your wallet, mugs you in broad daylight. You call the cops, the cops show up, talk to you for a couple of hours, scour the neighborhood for witnesses, stop in nearby stores and buildings looking for video that shows who robbed you. They FIND him a week later. They arrest him, lock him up, feed him and clothe him until his trial. They pay for his lawyer, pay for the prosecutor, and pay the jurors to sit and judge him. THEY FIND HIM GUILTY, he is sentenced to a year in jail.

Now, how much did your stolen wallet cost? Just the imprisonment alone was $30,000 for his year in ail, not counting court costs, police, etc. All for your $30 wallet?

But when someone needs a $20 prescription for antibiotics and a $60 doctor visit, so they DON'T DIE, you have the gall to complain about the cost of medical care?!?!

Get your priorities straight, THEN come complain about how medical care IS NOT A RIGHT.

I have a gun, and can protect myself and my property, I CANNOT cure my own cancer.

And why does the government want to slow the rising cost of healthcare? It isn't because they think we are paying too much. It is because they are paying to much. Now what they are doing is doubling down on their expenses. One thing they are figuring that sticks out. Cost will rise because they are involved. But not their cost. But the people's cost. Am sure most do not understand that formula. But it is real just ignored.

It is funny people want to ajoin the Constitution and the declaration of Independance when it benifits them. But when it doesn't they want it severed.

Answer the question does the Government give you life? Since they do not give you life why is it their responsibility for the quality of life? The individual is responsible for their life and the quality of life they have. Now if you say they are responsible for your quality of life theat gives them the power to dictate all aspects of your life. In other words they know better how you should live, eat, exercise, habits. be enetertained and all of you activities than you do. But hen againthey alrady think we are ignorant and they know best.

So do we want Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or do we want them telling us what is best for us?

I have a gun tand can protect myself. I also try to live a structured life as to prevent being unhealthy. But someday regardless of what the government does I will die. Guess that is just a limited right huh?

Actually I agree. We give criminals too manyt rights. When one proves and is proven guilty they are a scourge to society they are no longer a part of society. They use to have to work and provide for their room and board. It was not that long ago prisons were self sufficient. But since we gave them rights we foot the bill. it is not my priorities that are in the wrong place. I call scum.... scum.

And why does the government want to slow the rising cost of healthcare? It isn't because they think we are paying too much. It is because they are paying to much.

Wrong. Half the argument when debating the issue was about the drain of rising healthcare costs on the entire economy. It is dragging down businesses, individual disposable income, and the government. It reduces ou4r competitiveness in the global market place, reduces demand for other goods and services and will bankrupt the whole economy if things don't change.

And why does the government want to slow the rising cost of healthcare? It isn't because they think we are paying too much. It is because they are paying to much. Now what they are doing is doubling down on their expenses. One thing they are figuring that sticks out. Cost will rise because they are involved. But not their cost. But the people's cost. Am sure most do not understand that formula. But it is real just ignored.

Not all of your fears are completely unfounded. The framework of Obamacare could be tweaked to make it onerous and parasitic. It can also be tweaked to make it better.

The basic idea of a national health care system where everyone is required to be in has been tried in other nations. (I think Germany has an all-in system of private insurance.) It's not enough to just mandate individuals and employers to have and provide health insurance. The plans need to meet uniform standards.

I think one area where Obamacare blew it and could stand improvement is in the respect that your employer decides which plan(s) you can enroll in. It would have been an improvement if employees had access to these exchanges that the government is going to set up. I think the cozy relationship of employers to particular insurance companies enables mediocrity. And as we see in this case, it is setting the stage for employers to deny certain kinds of health care to their employees. (In this case, birth control.)

The only way Obamacare is really going to get a chance to work is if Obama gets a second term. If the GOP retakes the White House in 2012, killing Obamacare is going to be job #1.

And you know what? I think people are watching this story about the Catholic church and realizing that Obamacare turns the government into an advocate for them in the workplace with regard to health care insuarance, and they are going to like that.

Thanks for the good post. We do have differing thoughts on the issue. But what else is new.

In the first comment Ii do not use other countries as a basis for what we should do. We are by law different than any other counrty in the world. What makes us different? The constitution. No other country has the protections of the people or the limitations of the governemtn we have. Yet we choose to ignore them. It is comes under the waht I say al the time with freedom comes responsibility.

Have huge problem with the mandate for everyone to have insurance. They are indeed forcing us to purchase a service. When that happens it will have a rise in cost tothe individual. We will have to pay the cost to comply with the law. It will indeed have the opposite effect of the goal they are trying to achieve.

Why do employers have the right to choose what plan they provide? They are the ones footing the bill. Have seen some employers offer a series of plans that go from cheap to our of range. Coverage range also differs. The employer in these cases usually pay only a small amount for the employer. Here is the thing. Employers should have the right to decide what plan they offer and how much it cost. You do not lose your identity jsut because you hire someone to work for you.

Do really think things will change if government steps in. It is said there are relationships between employers and insurance companies. If that is true then the only change we will have is who is the relationship. It will then be the Government and the insurance companies.

Honestly think we are headed towards an American Utopia. That is purely fictious. It is not possible. Not in a free society for sure. But not in any society. Take Greece for example. We are headed that direction. Is that what we want. Obamacare is another step that way.

In the first comment Ii do not use other countries as a basis for what we should do. We are by law different than any other counrty in the world. What makes us different? The constitution. No other country has the protections of the people or the limitations of the governemtn we have. Yet we choose to ignore them. It is comes under the waht I say al the time with freedom comes responsibility.

America is not living in the same sort of world that existed in 1776 and 1789. We have amended the constitution since then and established precedent and established law since then.

Please list a few changes where the Constitution is not as valid today as it was back when written. Now this excludes the amendments of course. But along that line not all changes were good. Prohibition comes to mind.

Just because we set precedent does not mean the precedent was right. In fact is some cases the precedent I am sure was ignored and other precedent set. Guess that would fall under the changing of the underwear idea.

Gulliver.

I think one area where Obamacare blew it and could stand improvement is in the respect that your employer decides which plan(s) you can enroll in. It would have been an improvement if employees had access to these exchanges that the government is going to set up.

I think you will see this develop over the next 8 to 16 years. One reason it wasn't pursued this time is because the exchanges didn't exist and there was no track record to calm the fears of the average citizen. When they have operated for 5 to 10 years, the fear quotient will diminish and it will be easier to switch over to them.

Concerned,

Why do employers have the right to choose what plan they provide? They are the ones footing the bill.

You are perpetuating a common fallacy. The bill is footed by the employee. The employees that have empowered the employer to collectively bargain with insurance carriers on their behalf with a portion of their total compensation for services rendered. The money belongs to the employee. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The individual employee gets the cost savings of group rates and consolidated administrative costs. The employer gets the benefit of lower payroll taxes on a portion of the compensation to employees and the ability to attract better employees by negotiating better deals than their competitors.

You are perpetuating a common fallacy. The bill is footed by the employee.

Health insurance is part of the employees compensation.

How would you feel if your Muslim employer paid your salary by giving you a debit card which was restricted from paying for pork or alcohol?

(Maybe I shouldn't be giving anyone any ideas.)

Tim please do not take this as a personal attack as we are jsut dicussin ghte issues.

Employers do not have to offer a healthcare plan. You are right mst do because it attracts employees. But I have found my wages went down when I got more benefits.

Now when did the companies money come from me? They pay us to wrk there. It is their money. They in some cases took all the risk putting up everytjing they had to start the company. They have all the risk. If the employee gets hurt they have to pay. If a customer gets hurt they have to pay. How is it our money? It is the companies money. I get them to pay me more and provide benefits by producing in the company. They will survive without me. But I sure need them to survive.

But nowdays the governemtn takes care of us so we do not have to work. The only problem is. The Government gets its's money from us. When us stops working then there is not one to pay the bills and we get what? wait for it...Nothing.

Actually I would hope I could get paid in gum.

Actually if I worked for an employer that forced me to get their insurance I would not be there long. If they said how I could spend my money I wouldn't be there long. It is my choice if I want to bea part of their group or not. Not theirs. But here we have the governemtn taking that choice away from me. Under penalty of law I cannot say no. So the employer cannot tell you what to do but it is okay for the government to do it?

Yes pension plans, 401ks, health benefits, eye care, dental coverage, stock options, etc are part of an employee's compensation package. The value of these benefits and the salary/hourly wage are the property of the employee, not the employer. Therefore, the employer has no say in what the employee chooses to do with this compensation.

How would you feel if your Muslim employer paid your salary by giving you a debit card which was restricted from paying for pork or alcohol?

The same way I do about the contraception issue. It is none of their business.

As for requiring the at least one plan that contains birth control, that is based on 2 factors.

1. The religious freedom of the employee
2. The compelling evidence that birth control is a cost effective preventative practice for a number of potential diseases and for reproductive planning and control.

The comment you quoted was directed at concerned's erroneous claim that health coverage is paid for by the employer and not the employee.

Employers do not have to offer a healthcare plan.

There are employer mandates under Obamacare. If you are a mandated employer (I believe this is based on the number of employees you have) and you don't provide health care insurance, there is a tax penalty.

I'd have to Google the exact details, and I don't feel like it.

Actually if I worked for an employer that forced me to get their insurance I would not be there long.

Oh, bull@!$%#!

You would be happy to not have to buy health care insurance on the private market for around ten thousand dollars or more.

There are employer mandates under Obamacare. If you are a mandated employer (I believe this is based on the number of employees you have) and you don't provide health care insurance, there is a tax penalty.

Correct. This is for 2 major reasons.

1. It is an unfair advantage in labor costs to other companies that do offer health benefits as part of their employee compensation.
2. The tax helps to pay for the employees to get coverage in the exchanges.

Whether or not that is actually "forcing someone to buy health insurance" is open to debate. It's a tax penalty for for failing to do something. ("A stick.") For years, we have had "carrots" for employer provided health care: the cost of health care insurance is tax deductible when provided in the workplace, for example.

There are people saying we should do away with that tax deductible status. I personally wonder why buying your own health insurance isn't tax deductible. Why does smoothing out the market always involve working class people (and unions) giving something up?

Those are debates for the next round of tax reform, which is going to be looking for new revenue streams.

There is a huge difference in benefits and income. However some benefits are taxable as they are income. There are many different types of benefits. Yes when I contribute to the 401 or retirement plan or the stocks that is my money. I choose all the options or refuse them all together.

I can choose to buy their eye, dental or health care plans. If I choose their plan i do not become the ownwer of their plan. But I do choose to use the plan. That runs up until the time I terminate it. Where I am noe they 100% of the plan. It is not considered income. I do not pay taxes on it.

There was a time I did have to pay for the company plan. Actaully went out and found a private plan that cost less. The coverage was not as good but it costr less. So I choose outside the group. But I was not going to use the company plan.

I stil stand firm on the fact the governmetn is out of line forcing anyone to purchase anything. taht is out of their scope. And trust me under penalty of law is forcing the issue, They package it any way they wish. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Now if we do the right thing in the first place then this whole contraception issue is mute. Healthcare insurance is not a right. If you want healthcare insurance get a job and be responsible. Stop with all the excuses as why you can't. People expect me to go work everyday pay all of my bills plus pay the bills for those who can't. They call that fair and right. I call it balony.

The government has set minimum standards for health insurance plans.

Gulliver's,

There are people saying we should do away with that tax deductible status. I personally wonder why buying your own health insurance isn't tax deductible. Why does smoothing out the market always involve working class people (and unions) giving something up?

Did you realize that if the premiums paid by employer based healthcare were collected as premiums to pay for a Medicare for all universal single payer program, everyone in the country could be covered without raising anyone's premiums? In fact, for those with employer based healthcare coverage, the premiums would likely go down as those working people without coverage currently could begin to pay on a sliding scale. I ran the numbers back in December, 2009 in an article. The difference is the 15 to 30% for profit insurers take out for profits, advertizing, CxO salaries, etc.

Choice could be included simply by having a menu of options based off the basic plan at additional premiums. Much like private insurers do today.

Did you realize that if the premiums paid by employer based healthcare were collected as premiums to pay for a Medicare for all universal single payer program, everyone in the country could be covered without raising anyone's premiums?

You are preaching to the choir. I'm still seething about how single payer didn't even get a look-see.

You are preaching to the choir.

I suspected.

I'm still seething about how single payer didn't even get a look-see.

I go back and forth on this. From an ideal position, I am very disappointed. From a practical perspective, we have been trying for over 100 years and have gotten nowhere. This is at least a step in the direction. It will get people used to the idea of government involvement and make modifications easier. I think we are moving in the direction now, it is just excruciatingly slow. And more painful than it has to be if people weren't so terrified of change.

jofo - 18th? try 10th century

Huzzah!

and the rethugs probably don't even recognize that they lost - they are saying that they won...

there isn't a ONE of those TEATHUGNICAN'TS that I would vote for in November

That's the sign of a good negotiator - when everyone gets up from the table thinking that he/she won.

based on the "competition" - the wind is at his back and the spinnaker's up - it's all downwind from here tot he finish (remember - it's his to lose and IF enough don't VOTE in the key states, we ALL LOSE with a RETHUG presidency BECAUSE those who vote for one of the 4 DOPEY DWARFS will also vote for congress THE SAME WAY!)

REMEMBER THAT IN NOVEMBER!!

Canary, remember it was the policies of the last President who allow corporations to skate by on paying safety fines that lead to the deaths of 29 men. But hey, to Republicans those 29 were NOT more important than the welfare of the corporation. People to them are lazy-good-for-nothings-who-only want-government handouts. Remember if your not rich it's your fault for being lazy. Have you spent your life being lazy or the 99% of us in this country have you worked hard for "the man" all your life?