If any church wants to get involved in politics they should lose their tax exempt status. It's called separation of church and state,if you want to play you have to pay.Tax all churches and then they can take part like all of the other political parties.Why should the catholic church have any say in what women use for birth control as far as I can tell in that church women are second class citizens at best with no say over their own bodies.They should be ashamed they treat anyone this way.They do not deserve any consideration at all.

@ oldvet : Obama doesn't have to be smart. His evil more than compensates for everything he does.

Perplexing view of the current administrations ignorance to fixing long term problems in this country; ignoring future promises while telling everyone their plan is the right one. Very Sad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_f20ZDBj...

Nice try but obama is not that smart.

FOTH:

That's a great example, and it should also foreshadow what the current course of the feds plan. That being to TAX VIA INFLATION. As we all know by now, no major private sector entity will ever be allowed to fail ('to big to fail' has all ready been legislated as law now), and the unsustainable government programs of: SS, medicare, medicade will ALL be bailed out eventually as the go bust. Bailed out via the CREATION (printing) of $$$'s. All this will just lead to even more so of the MEGA inflation you detailed, for the next generation. I can't even imagine how bad the next generation gets SOAKED by hyper inflation of everything from health care, to food, to energy, to basic materials. Inflation is not always bad; as long as you have wages that keep up, and or exceed it. There is ZERO signs of 'normal' wages, ever being able to keep close to the path we are on...Unless, of course, you are a politician. The average politicians net worth EXPLODES, once they go to DC!

DeGryse: Thanks for the kind words but I owe credit to RAF and Billnewbie for their clear, concise setups.

You are absolutely correct that America is on an unsustainable course and we should weep for our children. Not so much for the fact that we're headed South but because so few Americans seem to care this is happening. Even fewer seem to understand why the greed that motivates big money to manipulate laws and policies to their benefit is exactly the same greed that motivates individuals to accept "free" stuff taken by force from their neighbors. The main difference between them is, the former are more skilled at transforming greed into benefit.

Bella, don't you realize that insurance companies aren't the ones who pay the bills, that they are just proxies for the real bill payers, the employers and their emolyees? It's a pity trhat you don't understand much about the subject. All you know is that the President is getting you more "free" stuff. And when you get charged for higher premiums later, you'll be mad at your insurer and not the real cause of your increased costs, your government. You have to hand it to the President. He certainly knows how to play his political base.

Billnewbie: By 1970, Medicare and Medicaid had been implemented, and employer-paid private health insurance was fairly common. An uninsured worker earning minimum wage of $1.60 would have worked 750 hours to pay for your $1,200 3-day maternity stay. Since then, three decades worth of healthcare hyperinflation has ballooned that minimum wage earner's burden to over 1,400 hours of work, but for a shorter 2-day stay!

Rewind another 20 years, back to 1950 when most every working American (except AFL/CIO members) expected to pick up his or her own tab for healthcare. Minimum wage was 75 cents ($0.75) per hour. Would you care to guess what a 3-day maternity stay cost in 1950, before healthcare hyperinflation? Are YOU sitting down?!?

The chart below quantifies, in the form of work required to pay for a regular hospital maternity stay, the real human impact of six decades worth of healthcare cost hyperinflation:

2010 = 1,400 hours @ minimum wage, for a 2 day stay
1970 = 750 hours @ minimum wage, for a 3 day stay
1950 = 84 hours @ minimum wage, for a 3 day stay

I guess wisresident doesn't want to think about the retirees that enjoy their excellent pensions because Obama saved them from obliteration with the auto buyout which now has called successful by a majority of Americans. I guess he forgot about the employees in Janesville that transferred to other plants in different states that kept their wages/benefits and might add just received a $7000 dollar profit share check in addition, thanks to Obama. Might be a job for you wisresident over at FAUX news for your misguided attempt at misinfo/propaganda, maybe with your talent you could apply for a janitor position.

I think President Obama will have a bigger issue to deal especially in Southern Wisconsin hit hardest by the GM pull out in 2008. In that year Mr. Obama was then a candidate for President and On February 13, 2008 Mr. Obama said this to GM workers in Janesville “And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive.” Anyone remember those words. The question that voters will have to ask themselves at the polls in November of 2012 is this. {Can Wisconsin workers afford four more years of lies and UN kept promises} Because between GM and President Obama Janesville took a huge hit on jobs and now Janesville sits idle. Here is the other trick to this problem is who do you trust democrats or republicans that will be the dilemma in November that will all have to take a hard long look at.

billnewbie....yeah, I am sure it is the insurance companies' CONSCIENCE that is bothering them on this issue. Hahahahahaha. That is the funniest thing I have read in a while. Kudos to the president for pulling off a brilliant plan, and thank you to the repubs for walking right into it.

free of charge is extremely popular

By a lopsided margin of 66 percent to 26 percent, Americans support President Barack Obama's proposal to require private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control for women.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/...

Sorry Ezoner. It was Third_Eye's quote.

No one is being forced to use birth control. Good grief. Nor are insurance companies being forced to DISTRIBUTE it. Insurance providers are required to make it available if a woman wants it.

GoodAmerican said "Nobody, no Catholic nor anybody else, HAS to use birth control if they are opposed to it. This is just another lie the tea fools can cling to."

Considering that you've ignored the other people involved in this, you know, the ones who the President is actually ordering to distribute said birth control whether they want to or not, one has to wonder, just who is the fool, GoodAmerican? Or perhaps you approve of government power being used to force people to do things against their consciences and at their own expense as long as it isn't you? Would you feel that way if the government ordered you to personally buy and distribute birth control to anyone in your neighborhood who wants it, and then put flyers in their mailboxes telling them about your new duty and where to find you? Somehow, I suspect you may have a different opinion then.

Way back in the seventies (1970-1979) when my wife gave birth to our first born, we had no health insurance so I know exactly how much the cost of the 3 day stay at the hospital and OB was since I paid the bill. (Are you free health care for allers sitting down?) The total was $1200. My son and his wife had a baby last May. He only has a vague idea how much their experience cost, but his deductibles and co-pays were twice as much as the total I paid all those years ago. We agreed that the delivery and one day's stay at the hospital was no doubt upwards of 30 times what I paid nearly 40 years ago. But the price of gasoline, is up only about 7 times what it was then. Good thing we don't have gas insurance, eh?

Now why is that, I wonder? The answer is obvious to me. It's simple economics, the law of supply and demand. When you make something free, as President Obama proposes with his goofy plan, you can expect demand for that product to increase exponentially, if not logarithmically. And since there really is no such thing as a free lunch, what President Obama is really doing is sending the bill for that "free" lunch to the people who were not invited to the party at the wildly inflating demand driven and ever increasing price. And so, if you have an invitation to the party, "free" sounds pretty good. That is, until you find out later that your boss (one of the ones without an invitation) can't give you a raise since your health insurance costs have gone up too much. Oh, and by the way, your going to have to pay a greater share of your premiums from now on too. But hey, at least you get "free" birth control! Thanks, Mr. President!

lizzyjake: Projection, much?

I am waiting for the Republican party to step up and sponsor a bill that declares a woman's reproductive system to be owned by the Government. Just who do the women think they are anyways? The Republicans should force all women to be under the religious views that condemn this behavior. Come on Paul, where are you when we need you?

Ezoner: Are you trying to put words in my mouth? I understand your point.

Over the decades that I carried an individual health insurance policy, it had a very high deductible and I never filed a claim. That truly WAS insurance because nobody else was picking up ANY part of my tab. Meanwhile, others whose healthcare was paid via my premiums played various roles in causing the price of healthcare to hyperinflate. It's just not enough for you and I alone to care about costs. :-)

Third_Eye said, "He has pointed out many times that I am "ignorant" and "uneducated". If I were a smaller person I would point out my credentials."

I have never called you ignorant or uneducated. I have, however, repeatedly said your positions and opinions are ignorant, uneducated and ill-informed -- simply because they are. Go ask RAF to punch your victim card. No sympathy from this corner for people who refuse to educate and inform themselves on the issues before spouting off. Your credentials mean little when you don't use your ability to learn.

Zoom -- not sure where you got my quote from -- I think you pulled from someone else.

Fool -- I understand what you are stating I agree with all but your conclusion. I believe where you are going is all should have HCA accounts or some form of one. What I do not agree, is that a for profit company is less effective at managing than a government agency, where politics and severe ideology can have an effect on what coverage I may recieve and the quality of care based upon regulation and standardization of services through a very paper/process intensive governmental environment. There are many reasons that a private system is better, and the more private the better yet.

I worked for a company that gave you $2500 at the beginning of the year to cover normal care and then only provided critical care as a back-up. The $2500 went into an HCA and was able to roll-over and have another $2500 added each year as long as you worked for the company. It reinforced personal responsibility for individual responsibility. It was basically -- my Money.

Obama lives in his own little world and does not seem to look at the big picture or the ramifications of his actions. I personally can not see why anyone would support him, other then their own ethnic bias.

It appears that my little non political math musing has excited Poobah.
You know he is so much smarter than the rest of us.
He has pointed out many times that I am "ignorant" and "uneducated". If I were a smaller person I would point out my credentials.

Ezoner wrote: "The figure that 98% of women use birth control doesn't pass the math (smell) test."

You didn't even get the statistic correct. It is estimated that 99% of women have used birth control some point in their lifetime. That doesn't mean 99% of women use birth control all the time.

Bond: If getting elected was Obama's mistake, what was McCain's? Or Paul's? Guess that majority of Wisconsin's voters don't agree. : )

BunBun wrote: "The problem is not "affiliated" institutions, but ones directly run by the church."

Churches themselves have always been exempt from the birth control mandate. Your entire comment is moot. There is no such thing as a Hospital run by Roman Catholics.

Ezoner: I don't necessarily disagree with your general opinion of government administered services but that's a separate topic of discussion. I don't need to demonize government or any particular individual in order to make my point.

With regard to my point, you are misunderstanding a crucial key principle first mentioned by RAF, upon which I simply expanded: Nothing is "free". When someone else picks up the tab for something of value that you receive, the natural market forces that would normally have motivated you to put downward pressure on its price no longer exist. In order for this basic principle of economics to function properly, each of us must exchange something of value for anything of value that we receive. The evidence in support of this basic principle of human nature is overwhelming. If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, "I have no idea what ______ cost because my health insurance covered it." Do you think ANYONE using birth control will care about its cost anymore? What do you suppose will happen to the price of birth control when the market no longer cares how much it costs?

To digress just briefly to address your point... modern health insurance is no longer "insurance" in the true sense of that word. Especially so if the cost of benefits you receive has no negative impact on your other personal expenses or when the benefits you receive are elective. In my case, every penny I spend on healthcare MUST be taken from some other budget item. Period. Private health "insurance" today is little more than socialized medicine, privately administered for profit. Mandated "free" elective benefits only further exacerbate this economic reality.

Obama's epic screw up was being ELECTED....

"Apparently, some of the conservative lemmings"....

not a lemming baby, as a harmless bunny that would be Leporidae not Cricetidae.

"The truth is that many of these same religious affiliated businesses already offer paid birth control, because their employees aren't hired based on religious preference, and birth control is cheaper than pregnancy or abortion. Republicans are trying to paint this as a religious issue, when it's really an equal protection and labor law issue."

I know there are a few big words in the article but I thought that most of you folk would be able to follow along sans illustrations - twas not to be... The key point is the religious sect known as Roman Catholics bar contraception except in the case of the pill being perscribed medicaly for menstrual problems. The problem is not "affiliated" institutions, but ones directly run by the church. Feel free to critique church dogma to your hearts content, but mandating that an institution must go against its own tenets would be like demanding that your local synagouge contribute to a pig roast just because you want BBQ.

Obama sure got it off the table...this isn't going to happen in October. The people complaining aren't voting for him anyway. The Catholic Church truly underestimates the feelings of women. They do have the right to vote, (since 1920, Cardinal Dolan), and your messing with their personal health care. Mistake? Uh-huh.

Third_Eye said, "However those that quote the statistic are implying that the use is for birth control."

They aren't implying anything. You are inferring it. I didn't even delve into your other ignorant comment about excluding those women who are unable to conceive a child. You are uneducated on this issue. You display a great deal of ignorance on the issue, while trying to do the math for everyone.

Fool -- your statement that insurance is the cause of increased healthcare costs is baseless and false on its foundation. If anything, insurance keeps costs down. A government mandated or government run system will cause healthcare costs to explode. Why?? Regulation and controls , government inefficiencies and mis-management. Not one government organization created has been able to control costs, thet play shell games to sometimes make numbers look better. The fact remains that a claim will be made, paperwork filled out for the care, someone to review the paperwork, someone to compensate the health provider. What about the systems to manage that? Where does that cost come from, who pays for that? Its not a one time cost. The only reason government is interested is that they can now have another super large budget of $$ to shift around in their shell game.

Poobah, the response I expected.
I am well aware of the non contraceptive uses of birth control. However those that quote the statistic are implying that the use is for birth control.
But then, in your eyes, I'm "uneducated" and "illinformed".
If I was as in touch and informed as you would I then think like you?

Gendalf: You are correct that providers charge relatively higher prices to the uninsured. However, your conclusion does not logically follow that observation.

Whether insurers are receiving a discount or whether the uninsured are being charged a premium is more a matter of semantics than economics. (In fact, that inflated price billed to the uninsured forms the basis for an inflated write-off when said charge is deemed to be noncollectable debt.) What IS true --and I presume you will agree-- is that the total dollar amount collected by providers would not magically be reduced if everyone just happened to be paying the same price. Quite the opposite; it is those surcharges paid by self-payers (such as myself) that subsidize those who are covered, whether their insurer is a private company or the government.

Regardless, the fundamental principles of economics in my comment remain true. Insurance is the CAUSE of hyper-inflating healthcare costs, not the solution to them.

Third_Eye said, "First of all by many estimates as many as 10% are 'gay'. I think that's high, but let's say half that, 5%."

You're suggesting that lesbians don't use birth control? This demonstrates how ill-informed you are about the many non-contraceptive uses for birth control pills. It also demonstrates why males should not be in charge of legislating female reproductive rights. Perhaps you should have an offline conversation with a woman about the many uses of the medication.

The figure that 98% of women use birth control doesn't pass the math (smell) test.
First of all by many estimates as many as 10% are 'gay'. I think that's high, but let's say half that, 5%.
Then there are women who cannot concieve for a number of reasons or do not have sex. Could that be as high as 10%?
If 98% of the remainder use birth control, that would be 83% of all women.

For the people that think no charge contraception will cost more in the long run, let's think about that. Since nearly 100% of women will have immediate access to birth control, presumably there will be fewer births. The costs of pregnancy, birth, and all other expenses borne by the health insurance companies to handle the health of a child are much, much more to insurance companies than the contraception mandate especially now that all children are required to be given insurance. As has been noted, those costs trickle down to those paying for health insurance, so the contraception provision in the health care law should actually have everyone jumping for joy. Since it comes from our sitting President, however, some will rail against it regardless.

Rick_Raff quipped, "poobah like to tell everyone they're wrong while telling everyone to bow at his thrown."

You're wrong. It's throne, not thrown. Now bow, minion!

your right rick raff he's not even African American... he's Arab! right?

RAF wrote: "The sum of the latest dumb proclamation of this administration will be higher healthcare premiums as the cost for the latest mandated "free" item is passed to all.

True, but the whole truth is even worse. What is actually passed on to all is actual cost PLUS insurance company overhead, profit and taxes, currently a mark-up of 25% or more, on average. Therefore, everyone forced to pay for said "free" item in fact pays 25% more than if those who directly benefited from said free item simply purchased and paid for it themselves. (As with food, clothing, shelter, etc.)

But wait, there's more! What do suppose will happen to the price charged by the producers of said "free" item when the people who benefit from its use couldn't care less what it costs and the insurance company makes MORE profit when said price increases because they simply pass that cost +25% on to be paid by those who have no say whatsoever in the transaction but are compelled to pay by force of law?

But wait, there's even more! What do you suppose will happen to the price of goods and services produced by American companies who are forced to participate in the above described system of economics?

What I find most amazing is how anyone could support and advocate for such a system and still sleep at night.

"free of charge is extremely popular"
-
Ahh the magical pill. As with most magical things, like unicorns, the reality is they don't exist. As in the claim of "free", there is no product or service that is ever free. Some person somewhere has expended effort to produce or service a result; not free. The sum of the latest dumb proclamation of this administration will be higher healthcare premiums as the cost for the latest mandated "free" item is passed to all. Typical of the folks that can't face reality, claiming more free stuff.

MissScarlet, it's so entertaining watching "Christians" attack other "Christians." It's so...well, Christian.

Obama's attack on Christians is unforgivable - but it is probably mandated by his religous beliefs. I guess he could be the anti-Christ that we have anticipated for centuries.

From the article: "The people most directly affected by the mandate—particularly the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—were not in the room. The administration engaged in no substantive consultation with Catholic bishops, who were only called to receive pronouncements."

No Michael, WOMEN are most effected by the mandate, and the vast majority want paid birth control. Yes, even catholics. Leave it to a middle aged man to completely get it wrong.

Good American, you are so right. Nobody is forcing anyone to use birth control. This is straight out of the Rep's playbook every election.

Apparently, some of the conservative lemmings are OK with businesses limiting their health care options when the Republican talking heads tell them it's bad.

The truth is that many of these same religious affiliated businesses already offer paid birth control, because their employees aren't hired based on religious preference, and birth control is cheaper than pregnancy or abortion. Republicans are trying to paint this as a religious issue, when it's really an equal protection and labor law issue.

The compromise offered by Obama has the same effect as the original bill. Women will still get their paid birth control, except now from the insurance company. Ironically, many of these businesses are self insured, so they are effectively providing the birth control anyway. Everybody wins. I guess the talking heads haven't told the lemmings.

While Republicans will be trying to milk this wedge issue all the way to November, the rest of the country will be asking about the economy.

baegucb - at least you finally that straight - I was worried that we lost you completely.

allin: what world do you live in? SEALs killed him on Obama's order. You are insane.

baegucb - I hate to break the news to you, but Obama didn't kill Osama - he probably wept silently inside when it happened.

good one DeGryse! quote some off topic obscure writing, without attribution. Go crawl back in your cave, and invite your multiple personalities.

DeGryse aka Robot_Lord said, "It won't work because we will start a revolution that will squash all opposition. We will kill any who oppose us, just as our brothers and sisters have done sucessfully in Korea, Cambodia, Rhodesia, Indonesia, Cuba, and anywhere else where a free people have tried to wrench themselves from the dregs of what they deserve. We need to remind them WHY THEY NEED US!!! We will do so with our bayonets, and our bombs, and our rifles and pistols. We will teach people that we know better, if they like it or not."

Those are really violent words. Maybe that's what happens when the military sends a person through combat training and then gives them a desk job ordering office supplies.

Allin: yup. He keeps attacking Al Queda and killing Osama and others. It's just a matter of time.

Christians and Moslems have become arch enemies - it was just a matter of time before Obama lost control and attacked his fundamental enemy.

poobah: Ezoner did have an epic comment. heh

You and your flying pigs, baegucb.... I should have known better.

poobah: I gave $20 to Walker...oh look! A pig just flew by ;)

Ezoner said, "Obama has stirred the country into a frenzy..."

No, people like you are the only ones attempting to stir the country into a frenzy, but I doubt it'll work. The reason it won't work is that the politicians you and others like you have supported for decades have so desensitized and conditioned Americans that they could do anything they want with you. No need to stir anyone into a frenzy. They have you following them like sheep.

You say you won't vote for any Republican or Obama. I don't believe that. I believe you will vote for a Republican. The only good that came of your post is that you fooled baegucb into wasting $20 on Walker. That's $20 less he'll spend on Romney.

The health care law that mandates all women be provided with birth control, a drug that 99% of women will use at some point in their lives, free of charge is extremely popular. Every poll shows it. The whole religious conflict only proved that Obama was willing to accomodate the angry bishops looking to pick a fight. Either way he comes out looking pretty good. Catholics are polling strongly in favor of the accomodation, so they're back on board. The President seems unscathed. God forbid that he's a smartly strategic and calculating politician. Don't you think the guys vying for his job are hoping to be just as skillful as the President?

Ezoner: thank you for your well written and reasoned post. I just sent $20 to support Walker in his recall race.

Poo -- Obama has stirred the country into a frenzy, with everything he has crammed downour throats, and now he is attemmpting to Carterize us(as In Peanut Boy) or tax the heck out of everyone. Income redistribution, limited rights, big government, Euro-socailism. I predict that 2 things will happen as we get closer to the election (mid to end summer).

1. We will be in a conflict of some type with Iran -- wag the dog.
2. If the Repubs look likely to win, there will be threats of austerity by Obama. Riots will ensue.
3. At that moment, we will be at a tipping point. It could go either way.

Please note -- I do not like any of the repubs in the race. I would not vote for either side. I have stated anyone but Obama, but the more I see the less I like. I couldnt vote for any of them right now. This is my perception of whats happening and Obamas scorched earth policy as he clings to deep ideology. He must take that path as he is beholden to the far left loons, that want everyone to ride bicycles, use pedal cars and battery driven jellopies. He only abides by Keynesian Economics, and does not understand capitalists principles and that the private sector is where growth is generated. Government is NOT the answer. The private sector is.

kaysbrew: eduicamate yourself. Obamacare is virtually identical to Romneycare. And where did Romney's plan come from? The right wing Heritage foundation likes it. So why are the right wingers up in arms over their own plan? Could it be because Obama is different? Oh, and a link for you http://www.heritage.org/events/2006/01/m...

Ezoner said, "I believe we are very close to Greece like protests. Street standoffs, between the socialists and the conservative capitalists. I believe we are very close to a revolution."

Rudy Giuliani had a formula. A noun, a verb and 9/11. It wasn't very successful for him in the political arena. Ezoner has a formula. Create a false scenario based on world events, credit the capitalists and blame the socialists. It isn't very successful either.

Good -- you are still humg up on the wrong point. Once the government can tell religious institutions what they must provide (and its outside its value/belief structure) there will be not limits period. They will tell us what we will eat, drink, sleep and drive. They will not satisfied until we all work directly for the government and we earn credits to trade for goods. These people want a dictatorship type government. They do not want to be bothered by elections, it stands in the way of them implementing their ideology. I believe we are very close to Greece like protests. Street standoffs, between the socialists and the conservative capitalists. I believe we are very close to a revolution.

Except for thos couch potatoes out there that just watch the cars go by.

kaysbrew said, "good point poobah, that's why liberal media is trying so hard to make him our guy."

Liberal media? Have you seen the conservative leaders lining up behind him? Want me to start listing them for you? Romney just won the CPAC straw poll, for Pete's sake! The Conservative PAC!!! I'm happy to see such staunch conservatives supporting a man who supported gay rights, women's reproductive rights and government mandated health care policies - including a policy that employers have to cover contraceptives. It shows great progress in the conservative wing of the Republican party.

Romney tweeted he was honored to win the CPAC straw poll, saying, "I'm heartened that so many friends here agree with me about the need for conservative change." [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/1... ] Oh, believe me, Mitt honey, so am I! So am I!

good point poobah, that's why liberal media is trying so hard to make him our guy.
However, as smart as you think you are, you should know then, that state's rights are far different from what the federal government powers are. Of course Republicans will try very hard to communicate the real issues and Democrats will demagog. Oh what the heck, they will just out right lie about it to the dumb masses. Their voting base.

kaysbrew, Republican/Democrat/Independent conservative/moderate/liberal Romney did the same thing in Massachusetts. Let's wait to see what Romney does if he's the nominee in defending his policy that was identical to Obama's.

Obama doesn't have the power to mandate anybody to give products and tell them to give it free. This is why it's so important to vote the Republican (even Romney). Under Obamacare the government will mandate everything and relate it to healthcare. What you drive, what you eat, where you live, how many children you can have.
etc... If they tell you what you can do, they will tell you what you can't do.
The Constitution tells Obama what he can't do. He shot at the 1st amendment and he has the media cover him as he runs.

Haha, Gerson trying to cover up who committed the real screw up -- Romney. Romney couldn't resist Obama's bait and jumped right in. Of course, Romney governed over the exact same policy as part of his Romneycare in Massachusetts. If Romney is the Republican nominee, the media is going to be flooded with "then" and "now" comparisons of Romney's positions.