Obamacare Violates The Separation Of Church & State?

PrintSmith you can use more words to not answer a question than any poster I know.

You didn't really expect that the false dilemma you proposed contained the only two choices that existed, did you?

In other words...you couldn't answer the question.

In other words, the question was answered in a manner which was not considered by you beforehand. I did answer the question, I just didn't pick A or B like you wanted me to.

You sound like Romney in the last debate (and I'm quoting from memory here) when he said to the moderator...you get to ask the question you want, and I get to answer the question I want. That pretty much ends any discussion.

archer wrote: You sound like Romney in the last debate (and I'm quoting from memory here) when he said to the moderator...you get to ask the question you want, and I get to answer the question I want. That pretty much ends any discussion.

Perhaps your two point A or B multiple choice questions need a third "none of the above" choice.

So what in my answer was incomprehensible to you archer? Do you not see the difference between treating every drug approved by the FDA in the same manner with regards to insurance and singling one of them out to be treated in a unique fashion from all the rest of them? I find that difficult to believe that this escapes your ability to understand why that might cause an issue given the issue that liberals had when it was treated in a dissimilar fashion which negated any coverage by insurance at all.

It wasn't incomprehensible it was irrelevant to what I asked.

Maybe I'll try this again and phrase it differently....Why are the conservatives so upset about a federal law that asks the Catholic hospitals to make available contraception coverage at 100%, but not I am not seeing a big outcry over the state laws that ask them to provide contraception coverage at less than 100%? They are still covering contraception, and whether or not the pills are actually being used for contraception or for other medical reasons shouldn't make a difference.....how would they know?......the only major difference I see in the federal and state laws is the amount being covered. It's not really relevant now since the president caved on the issue, but the bru ha ha over contraception seems like it could be a big problem in the general election if someone like Santorum gets the nomination. Women, once gven the freedom of family planning, will not give it up quietly, and the bigger this issue gets the more women will turn away from a candidate that keeps it on the front burner.

archer wrote: Maybe I'll try this again and phrase it differently....Why are the conservatives so upset about a federal law that asks the Catholic hospitals to make available contraception coverage at 100%, but not I am not seeing a big outcry over the state laws that ask them to provide contraception coverage at less than 100%? They are still covering contraception, and whether or not the pills are actually being used for contraception or for other medical reasons shouldn't make a difference.....how would they know?......the only major difference I see in the federal and state laws is the amount being covered. It's not really relevant now since the president caved on the issue, but the bru ha ha over contraception seems like it could be a big problem in the general election if someone like Santorum gets the nomination. Women, once gven the freedom of family planning, will not give it up quietly, and the bigger this issue gets the more women will turn away from a candidate that keeps it on the front burner.

sometimes it takes national press to uncover what our local politicians have hidden in bills?
I read something interesting the other day. Quakers have always been against war, but they continue to see 20% of their taxes paid for defense spending. Shouldn't they get a discount?