Bible Forum

The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Forum rules


There has been a large increase in political threads in this forum as of late and along with that comes discussions that get quite heated. For the time being this section of the forums are locked so that the staff may do a more complete review as we consider the purpose and the direction that we would like to see the current events section go.

While this process is being carried out, please DO NOT begin or continue any discussions of a political nature elsewhere on these boards.

We appreciate you patience and understanding as this process make take up to a month to complete. Please do not be discouraged by this decision, take this time to check out all the wonderful rooms we have here.



Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 188 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:33 pm
Posts: 194
Location: Somewhere in my mind
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Where ever The Word is preached honestly and faithfully
“What are we doing here?” asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, stepping outside his wheelhouse to ask about a rising storm involving the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. “What’s the point?”

It was the Fall of 2011 and Panetta had read about a proposed Obama administration rule that would require employers – excluding houses of worship but including religious organizations such as charities, hospitals, and schools – to offer health insurance that fully covered contraception.

Panetta — a Catholic, former U.S. Representative, and White House chief of staff — didn’t quite understand why the Obama administration would be stepping into this conflict.

ABC News

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:02 pm
Posts: 1546
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Thanks, marcus.

It seems as if the President's own people are telling him he's an idiot.
Why agitate the Catholic vote over a symbolic non-issue?

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:02 pm
Posts: 354
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
Name of your church: If you want personally identifiable info, you'll have to work for it.
It's my understanding that this rule was already in place thanks to an earlier court ruling that said that if male-specific, sex-related drugs like Viagra were going to be covered, then gender-equality laws mandated that female-specific drugs also be covered. My understanding is that the new rule change dealt with the cost to the end-user of these drugs, not whether or not they were covered at all.

But I haven't been able to find a whole lot of discussion on that outside of obviously-biased sources. Anyone know anything about that?

-Dan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:33 pm
Posts: 194
Location: Somewhere in my mind
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Where ever The Word is preached honestly and faithfully
ABC is biased?

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:02 pm
Posts: 354
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
Name of your church: If you want personally identifiable info, you'll have to work for it.
marcus wrote:
ABC is biased?


No, I meant that the only people discussing the point I raised (which I didn't see mentioned in the ABC article) are biased. I've only seen it on left-ish sites.

-Dan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 200
Location: I'm a Hoosier boy!
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: I attend a house church with no name.
I think EVERY mainstream media is biased - ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, even CSPAN (particularly when taking phone calls from viewers/listeners). Follow the money and you will see where their bias lies (no pun intended). They all mislead, use facts and numbers to say something they don't say, and sometimes outright lie. And they completely ignore facts they don't want to see and don't want the public to see.

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 792
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
iluvatar wrote:
It's my understanding that this rule was already in place thanks to an earlier court ruling that said that if male-specific, sex-related drugs like Viagra were going to be covered, then gender-equality laws mandated that female-specific drugs also be covered. My understanding is that the new rule change dealt with the cost to the end-user of these drugs, not whether or not they were covered at all.

But I haven't been able to find a whole lot of discussion on that outside of obviously-biased sources. Anyone know anything about that?

-Dan.


This is also my understanding of how the whole thing got started. It pre-dated President Obama, and furthermore, I just learned on the Rachel Maddow Show the other day, that Republicans put the contraception insurance requirement in place in many of the 28 states that previously required it. I am going to try to dig up a link to that right now. But this is consistent with what President Obama has habitually done - adopted many of the ideas the GOP itself has created. The contraception insurance requirement is just the latest. (Some states, such as Iowa, even require CHURCHES to provide contraception coverage, and President Obama's plan exempts churches from the requirement). I don't understand why the GOP would make him wrong for their own ideas (the Affordable Healthcare Act is adopted from Romney's plan in Massachusetts).

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 792
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
Here's the video! :D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 792
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
Oh, and hi Marcus! It's good to see you! :)

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:26 pm
Posts: 83
Location: ...the beautiful Sonoran Desert
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: church
The point seems rather clear.

Provide access to contraception.

Catholic parishoners are certainly free to choose whether they use contraception or not...

In the President's own words:
Quote:
As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money –- for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one.

We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. In addition to family planning, doctors often prescribe contraception as a way to reduce the risks of ovarian and other cancers, and treat a variety of different ailments. And we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services.

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ntive-care



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:33 pm
Posts: 194
Location: Somewhere in my mind
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Where ever The Word is preached honestly and faithfully
Assured wrote:
Oh, and hi Marcus! It's good to see you! :)


Good to see you too. :D

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:23 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:34 pm
Posts: 5535
Location: Northern California
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Pentecostal
Name of your church: The Rivers Foursquare Church
Quote:
As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost.
What does he think -- that insurance companies will just eat those costs? Maybe in an alternate reality! Either the president really has no clue as to how businesses operate in the real world or he's being disingenuous. I wonder why he doesn't mention the fact that most "medical" birth control modalities are abortifacient? That makes the "contraception" mandate an abortion mandate. And nearly 99% of all women have used contraception? Really? According to the National Health Statistics Report (Number 36, March 3, 2011), only 86.8% of women aged 15-44 have ever been sexually active. And most women much over the age of 40 have stopped menstruating, so they would have no reason to use birth control. Sounds like fuzzy math to me. And how is it possible that more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford birth control? At least 13% of women in that age group have never had reason to use birth control. And according to the Guttmacher Institute, 26% of women rely on either male condoms or the man's vasectomy as their birth control method. That means, according to the president, that more than 80% of the remaining women have struggled to afford birth control even though birth control pills can be had for a mere $15 a month and other modalities are as cheap as $11 a month! The man can't add! No wonder we haven't had a balanced budget in this administration. Oh wait, we haven't had a budget of any kind. But at least Obama's health care plan will save us money. Oh sure it will. :lol:

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:34 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:34 pm
Posts: 5535
Location: Northern California
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Pentecostal
Name of your church: The Rivers Foursquare Church
I forgot, the Guttmacher Institute says an additional 6.3% of women rely on the no-cost methods of withdrawal and periodic abstinence. Well, you get the idea.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 792
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
Gideon wrote:
Quote:
As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost.
What does he think -- that insurance companies will just eat those costs? Maybe in an alternate reality! Either the president really has no clue as to how businesses operate in the real world or he's being disingenuous. I wonder why he doesn't mention the fact that most "medical" birth control modalities are abortifacient? That makes the "contraception" mandate an abortion mandate. And nearly 99% of all women have used contraception? Really? According to the National Health Statistics Report (Number 36, March 3, 2011), only 86.8% of women aged 15-44 have ever been sexually active. And most women much over the age of 40 have stopped menstruating, so they would have no reason to use birth control. Sounds like fuzzy math to me. And how is it possible that more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford birth control? At least 13% of women in that age group have never had reason to use birth control. And according to the Guttmacher Institute, 26% of women rely on either male condoms or the man's vasectomy as their birth control method. That means, according to the president, that more than 80% of the remaining women have struggled to afford birth control even though birth control pills can be had for a mere $15 a month and other modalities are as cheap as $11 a month! The man can't add! No wonder we haven't had a balanced budget in this administration. Oh wait, we haven't had a budget of any kind. But at least Obama's health care plan will save us money. Oh sure it will. :lol:


No, the insurance companies have been having an ongoing dialogue with the President on healthcare, and he already knows that they stand to save a LOT of money providing birth control services instead of pregnancy services. They have no problem providing this "coverage" for free, because it limits their exposure.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:02 pm
Posts: 1546
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Got to agree with Gideon here. Planned Parenthood used to give it out like candy for free.

A new milestone reported in today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/fo ... ml?_r=1&hp

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 188 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group