Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#21 Mar 31, 2014
26% of Americans support this law.
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#22 Mar 31, 2014
AP poll shows ObamaCare support hits new low … of 26%
POSTED AT 8:01 AM ON MARCH 28, 2014 BY ED MORRISSEY


Democrats who still think that defending ObamaCare makes for a great midterm strategy will be shocked, shocked by the latest AP-Gfk survey results. The rest of us … not so much. Support for the law dropped to a record low in this polling series, and even the slight improvement in the perception of its implementation leaves it far below the Democratic base numbers:

Public support for President Barack Obama’s health care law is languishing at its lowest level since passage of the landmark legislation four years ago, according to a new poll.

The Associated Press-GfK survey finds that 26 percent of Americans support the Affordable Care Act. Yet even fewer — 13 percent — think it will be completely repealed. A narrow majority expects the law to be further implemented with minor changes, or as passed.
Even the good news is remarkably bad:

Impressions of the health care rollout while low, have improved slightly.

While only 5 percent of Americans say the launch of the insurance exchanges has gone very or extremely well, the number who think it has gone at least somewhat well has improved from 12 percent in December to 26 percent now. The exchanges offer subsidized private coverage to people without a plan on the job.
Democratic candidates had better avoid having the President on their campaign trails, too, at least on this issue. Barack Obama’s approval rating for his handling of health care — a longtime Democratic policy stronghold — is now 39/61. Democrats’ lead on trust for working on health care has fallen to a margin-of-error 30/26, a loss of six points in the gap since December.

The 26/43 for ObamaCare is almost identical to December’s 27/44. That means that the three months of supposedly “fixed” operation of Healthcare.gov has changed few minds. The law has never been popular, as the series shows — disapproval peaked at the 2010 midterms, 41/52 — but its popularity has never been this low. The “strongly support” number is at its lowest, too, at 13%. That number has never been higher than 21% in this series, but it was still at 16% at the start of the rollout.

The individual mandate draws most of the opposition in the poll. A plurality of 49% oppose it outright, and 41% want it repealed. The rest of it has more support, especially the provisions that keep young adults on their parent’s family plan until 26 and the must-issue provision for those with pre-existing conditions. That might point the way to a so-called “fix,” except that the individual mandate is needed to have those two provisions along with “community pricing” that forbids insurers from calculating premiums based on individual risk. One of those things would have to go without the mandate.

Finally, keep the poll composition in mind while considering the support numbers. The D/R/I split is 30/27/24, with AP’s usual large number of “none of these”(16%). ObamaCare support doesn’t even manage to get to the number of Democrats in the survey. If Democratic incumbents plan to defend ObamaCare to the general electorate, they may need to start with their own base
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#23 Mar 31, 2014
"The lead challenger in the case is the Hobby Lobby corporation... The owners object to two forms of contraception, IUDs and morning-after pills, which they view as a form of early abortion."

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/25/294385167/birth...
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#24 Mar 31, 2014
Classify "birth control" as contraception and post conception, then rule that companies cover contraception.

This Administration didn't think twice about redefining pregnancy, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to redefine birth control.
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#25 Mar 31, 2014
Texas abortion lower court ruling was recently overturned. This law actually makes abortion safer for the mother and guess who sued....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/27/justice/texas-a...

"Specifically, the group challenged a provision that required any doctor performing or inducing an abortion to have admitting privileges "at a hospital no more than 30 miles from the location where the abortion is provided.""
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#26 Mar 31, 2014
Equality under the law would also demand that insurance provide free contraception to men. I don't see anyone making that argument, or have I missed something?
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#27 Mar 31, 2014
What about Vermont's new physician assisted suicide law, could the Hobby Lobby ruling have such far reaching tentacles as to coerce the state prevent any physician from opting out?....I don't know.
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#28 Mar 31, 2014
Healthcare subsidy is embedded in our tax code....
reality

Grantham, NH

#29 Mar 31, 2014
The Establishment Clause: A Simpler Answer to the Contraception Question?
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/01/23/...
Imani Gandy January 23, 2014

..."Allowing these companies an exemption would impose significant burdens on their female employees (as well as the wives and daughters of their male employees) and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

As Professor Gedicks explained in a recent op-ed for the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/exempt...

"If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners’ anti-contraception religion. After all, but for the business’s religious objection, the cost of contraception would be fully covered by insurance."

According to Gedicks and Van Tassell, the Establishment Clause flatly prohibits imposing these sorts of burdens on third parties—burdens which, Gedicks notes, can include up-front costs of contraception that can be close to $1,000 per year. As such, we don’t even have to begin to argue about RFRA, substantial burdens, and compelling interests, because no statute—not even RFRA—can be applied in a manner proscribed by the Establishment Clause (because in the constitutional chain of command, the Establishment Clause trumps RFRA).

Moreover, as Gedicks and Van Tassell note, citing the California Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civic... the case upholding California’s state contraception mandate, the U.S. Supreme Court has never approved these sorts of exemptions when to do so would detrimentally affect the rights of third parties."...

read the rest;

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/01/23/...
reality

Grantham, NH

#30 Mar 31, 2014
This is a secular country with secular laws where freedom of religion guarantees freedom from religion.

My employer does not have the right to tell me how to use my health coverage any more than they have the right to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, religion, sex etc..

In this country your religion does not excuse you from following our secular laws, if you wish to live in a theocracy where people are punished, tortured and killed for not following a particular religion, you had better move somewhere else because it is not going to happen here.

We have evolved in this great nation, a system of government, while not perfect, is light years ahead of a theocractic dictatorship.

God less America!
reality

Grantham, NH

#31 Mar 31, 2014
Lesbian Chef Mirella Salemi to Be Paid $1.6 Million By Restaurant Boss Who Tried to Save Her Soul
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-is...
Allison Geller, March 31, 2014

"A New York appeals court ruled that the owner of a Mexican restaurant who told his staff that gay people were bound for eternal damnation is to pay a lesbian chef $1.6 million in damages.

Courthouse News Service reports http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/28/6656... that Edward Globokar, principal owner of Mary Ann’s chain Mexican restaurants, called staff together for mandatory prayer meetings in which he called homosexuality a sin and said “gay people” were “going to go to hell,” according to plaintiff Mirella Salemi.

Salemi sued Globokar, Gloria's Tribeca Inc., and Gloria's Tribecamex for violating New York City Human Rights Law between 2004 and 2007, when she worked at Mary Ann’s as a chef.

In addition to making offensive comments at the two-hour prayer meetings, which employees had to attend at risk of being fired, Globokar also told Salemi to dress more “effeminately” and advised her to marry a man and have children, according to her lawyer, Derek Smith.

“He not only threatened her soul, but he also threatened her livelihood,” Smith told the New York Post. http://nypost.com/2012/04/02/boss-pray-day-tu... “He thought praying might cure her of her sexuality, but she is someone who didn’t need to be saved.”

New York Supreme Court Jude Carol Huff awarded Salemi $400,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages.

The justices wrote in their ruling the damages awarded were not excessive, roundly rejecting Globokar’s argument that he was exercising his First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

“The trial court properly protected Globokar's First Amendment rights by instructing the jury that he had 'a right to express his religious beliefs and practice religion, providing that he does not discriminate against his employees based on religion or sexual orientation," the justices wrote.

Smith said the verdict was "the largest employment verdict in 2012 in New York.”

It is not clear who owns the Mary Ann’s chain now."
BuyEwerOwnDamn HellthCare

Rutland, VT

#32 Mar 31, 2014
reality wrote:
This is a secular country with secular laws where freedom of religion guarantees freedom from religion.
My employer does not have the right to tell me how to use my health coverage any more than they have the right to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, religion, sex etc..
sreeech, biatch, bullsh't, lies, kvetch, whine, blah
-twister/strawmanner (as usual)
It ain't about an employer discriminating, it's about an employer's religious rights which Are guaranteed under the Constitution, while employee BENEFITS are just that- Not 'entitlements' and certainly not 'Rights'
Something may be a need, something that one has a right to PURSUE, but that doesn't make it a right! Health care is a responsibility not a right, same with yard care or car care or manicures etc.!
One's rights end where others rights begin. If health care were something that were magically created out of thin air with no effort except on the part of the person receiving it, then it could be a right.
The Constitution & Bill of Rights are about the govt.'s job to protect one's Rights, which they already have- Rights are NOT something the govt. is supposed to Provide!!
//
There Is No Right to Health Care
Ron Paul, Statement before the House of Reps, Sept 2009
www.infowars.com/there-is-no-right-to-health-...
/
Healthcare.gov exposed as data-gathering honey pot
To shamelessly harvest private consumer data and turn it over to the NSA
www.infowars.com/healthcare-gov-exposed-as-da...
//

Support for Obamacare Keeps Falling
March 31, 2014
Obamacare has nothing to do with providing quality healthcare at a reasonable price
www.infowars.com/support-for-obamacare-keeps-...
/
\
A republic is a representative form of government based on a set of principles, which for us, are enumerated in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. These documents state that we have certain rights that can never be be taken away. What is truly brilliant about these documents is that they state that the reason we have these rights is not because they are being declared in these documents. The documents are simply a recognition of rights given to us by God. They are the rights of a free people, they are derived intrinsically, and thus they are not up for debate. Even if 51% of the population wanted to get rid of the 1st amendment, you can’t do it in a republic.
A corollary to the voluntary self-abdication of rights, is that in a democracy, 51% can vote to take stuff from the other 49%. In a pure democracy, for example, all the white people could vote to take all the money of the Hispanics. In a republic, you cannot do this because it is not a God-given unalienable right to take something from someone else. None of the rights given to us by our founding documents are about the right to “take” anything, they are all mostly about the right to be left alone.
planet.infowars.com/health/healthcare-and-the...
BuyEwerOwnDamn HellthCare

Rutland, VT

#33 Mar 31, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
Equality under the law would also demand that insurance provide free contraception to men. I don't see anyone making that argument, or have I missed something?
missed something indeed
equality under the law means each person has a right to the pursuit of happiness, to try to get a job, and to have equal pay and Benefits of someone else doing the same job under the same employer.
health care is not a right, the libtards can screech and kvetch all they want but that fact will never change, and if the govt. does help provide the co$t of some kind of care or whatever for some individual then that's called a privilege, which is Different from a right. The govt.'s job is to protect God-given rights, it definitely ain't to (and it cannot) Provide em!
-insurance is a product that one everyone has a right to Pursue, as in get a job and pay for it, therefore if the insurance one bought covers contraception, that contraception wouldn't be completely 'free' would it!?
also excreted here was the notion:
"Healthcare subsidy is embedded in our tax code.... "
-uhm, where exactly?
//
"The Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
Moral Mama

Rochester, VT

#34 Mar 31, 2014
BuyEwerOwnDamn HellthCare wrote:
<quoted text>
missed something indeed
equality under the law means each person has a right to the pursuit of happiness, to try to get a job, and to have equal pay and Benefits of someone else doing the same job under the same employer.
health care is not a right, the libtards can screech and kvetch all they want but that fact will never change, and if the govt. does help provide the co$t of some kind of care or whatever for some individual then that's called a privilege, which is Different from a right. The govt.'s job is to protect God-given rights, it definitely ain't to (and it cannot) Provide em!
-insurance is a product that one everyone has a right to Pursue, as in get a job and pay for it, therefore if the insurance one bought covers contraception, that contraception wouldn't be completely 'free' would it!?
also excreted here was the notion:
"Healthcare subsidy is embedded in our tax code.... "
-uhm, where exactly?
//
"The Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
I was pointing out that the new law discriminates by omission of a person based on gender. Try not to take comments out of context, it helps everyone to stay on track.

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

#36 Apr 1, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
I am not opposed to covering contraceptives.
It's much cheaper to cover contraceptives than abortion or prenatal care.
I am opposed to including post conception termination medications as being in the same legal classification as contraceptives.
I do not believe the government should have the right to infringe on religion and force companies like Hobby Lobby to provide coverage that includes post conception medications. I hope that the court finds that contraception and post contraception needs to be addressed separately in their ruling.
You don't have the right to control another's life. You don't like post contraception pills, don't use them. God gave you your life...not the right to control others' lives.
Gott mit uns

Grantham, NH

#37 Apr 1, 2014
Video from Clarence Thomas’ wife says ‘secularism’ must end due to Obama’s ‘tyranny’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/31/video-f...
David Edwards March 31, 2014

"Tea Party activist Ginni Thomas, the wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, spoke to an anti-abortion rights activist who said that President Barack Obama was like a “tyrant” because the United States had a secular government.

In an interview for her column in The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/30/pro-life-ad... that was published on Sunday, Ginni Thomas asked anti-choice crusader Lila Rose of Live Action how to “stop the erosion” in America’s culture.

Rose predicted that history books would say that the U.S.“wandered from our principles, but we came right back to them.”

According to Rose, those principles mean that “god is a higher power than any man-made structure of government.”

“There is a natural law out there that is higher than government, than man-made law,” she explained.“That’s what we need to return to.”

“And so this idea that government is secular, and we have our faith over here, no!” Rose continued.“Secular is somehow saying there is no God, there is no higher power, there is no higher law. You can’t say that because when you have a tyrant in power, which you often sadly do — and I believe there’s aspect of tyranny of who’s in power now in our country — then whole groups of people, their dignity is not respected, their rights are not protected. And you have human rights abuses.”

“We have to go to what are the natural rights, and what is natural law.”

Watch the video below from The Daily Caller, broadcast March 30, 2014. "

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/31/video-f...
Talking Point

Williston, VT

#38 Apr 1, 2014
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have the right to control another's life. You don't like post contraception pills, don't use them. God gave you your life...not the right to control others' lives.
You are very confused. This administration altered the definition of pregnancy (among other things) and proceeded create and pass a massive law that strips away America's freedom to choose the insurance (or not) of their choice. We support the return of of our rights to select, pay for and use the insurance of our choosing.

Seventy five percent of Americans oppose this law.
Talking Points

Williston, VT

#39 Apr 1, 2014
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have the right to control another's life. You don't like post contraception pills, don't use them. God gave you your life...not the right to control others' lives.
You are very confused. This administration altered the definition of pregnancy (among other things) and proceeded create and pass a massive law that strips away America's freedom to choose the insurance (or not) of their choice. We support the return of of our rights to select, pay for and use the insurance of our choosing.
Seventy five percent of Americans oppose this law.
christian values

Grantham, NH

#40 Apr 1, 2014
Hobby lobby christian values

http://i.imgur.com/FzyWOFC.jpg
Talking Points

Williston, VT

#41 Apr 1, 2014
Vermont is considering a law that all automobiles have snow tires. Everybody good with that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Dummerston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Organic Smith & Wesson Bodyguard .380 (Aug '11) 4 hr Esther 12
Shumlin Gave Up On Single Payer Health Care 11 hr Esther 1
Vermonts new economy (Jun '14) 15 hr Vt -Most Likely T... 66
marble ace arvidson Tue Esther 44
Turning Point moving back to downtown Brattleboro Tue Esther 3
Online Petition to oust Shumlin Tue Esther 73
Review: Biologic Integrative Health - Samantha ... (Feb '10) Dec 15 Wife 61

West Dummerston News Video

West Dummerston Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

West Dummerston People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

West Dummerston News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in West Dummerston

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:05 am PST