Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9446)	2/16/2012 3:07:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

BUT I don't want to pay for a child for the rest of her life because someone couldn't - or didn't get a contraceptive. Didn't is their own choice. Couldn't isn't an issue here. Sine there is no even hint that anyone must use the contraceptive there is absolutely no difference in this infringement than any other. The difference here is the dubious constitutionality of the individual mandate in the first place, combined with the fact that your trying to force people to pay for what they consider immoral, and trying to force religious organizations to violate their religious principles. Another difference is the total lake of need or justification for this. We are talking about employees covered by insurance, not desperately poor people. They can afford the relatively modest predictable cost of contraception. Also they will still be paying the cost anyway, even if its covered through insurance, they will just be paying for it a different way.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9446)	2/16/2012 3:10:22 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Not sure I even understand what you are saying here. BUT I don't want to pay for a child for the rest of her life because someone couldn't - or didn't get a contraceptive. .......If conservatives would ONLY be honest they would all agree with this. But they get all tied in knots trying to find fault with it because it was proposed by Obama. Sine there is no even hint that anyone must use the contraceptive there is absolutely no difference in this infringement than any other. ........UNLESS you are against using contraceptives and/or like paying for unwanted children. How about we take the safety net away so that we aren't paying some irresponsible chick to make babies. This is the root of the problem. We provide incentive to women to have babies out of wedlock. Take that safety net away and suddenly the money for a condom will be pretty easy to find.