Obamacare Violates The Separation Of Church & State?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course the remarks were not a 'bald-faced lie". Both LJ, myself and the Obama administration were discussing the APPLICATION of the regulation to all employers, which is the case in 28 states. Further, many of those states have even stricter applications, such as in Colorado, that provide NO exemption for religious institutions. Additionally, the regulation does not require any religious institution to provide contraceptives to its followers who choose to follow that particular dogma. Instead, where any religious institute operates as a business separate from its worship, providing goods and services to the public at large, and who employ a substantial number of employees that do not follow that particular dogma, then that business must operate as other businesses do.

In fact, polling is showing that the majority of Catholics support this regulation as proper.

Tell me the Colorado Statute which states that reproductive health services must be rendered at no charge Dog. Show me where in Colorado law it says that contraception prescriptions must be filled at no charge. You can't show them to me, because they don't exist as you claim they do. What the Colorado law does say is that maternity coverage and contraceptive coverage must be offered on the same terms as all other coverages.

Colorado Revised Statute 10-16-104:
(3) Maternity coverage. (a) (I) All group sickness and accident insurance policies providing coverage within the state and issued to an employer by an entity subject to part 2 of this article, all group health service contracts issued by an entity subject to part 3 or 4 of this article and issued to an employer, all individual sickness and accident insurance policies issued by an entity subject to part 2 of this article, and all individual health care or indemnity contracts issued by an entity subject to part 3 or 4 of this article, except supplemental policies covering a specified disease or other limited benefit, shall insure against the expense of normal pregnancy and childbirth or provide coverage for maternity care and provide coverage for contraception in the same manner as any other sickness, injury, disease, or condition is otherwise covered under the policy or contract.

Nowhere in these statutes is it written that an employer, any employer, is required to provide an insurance policy which provides contraception services at no cost, treating it in a dissimilar fashion than any other sickness, injury, disease or condition. You've lied again Dog - and I'm calling you on it.

Why aren't any of you complaining about the 28 states that already require this at the state level. Why is it only a war on religion when Obama/the feds do it?

Stuck in the echo chamber archer? That claim has already been shown to be false.

Im listening right now to a story about New York where this is the law. Fordham Universe IS providing coverage for contreception because of the state law.

Yes, it is also the law in Colorado that contraception must be treated the same as any other prescription is - but that is not what the Obama mandate is at all now, is it. No, the mandates coming down from the high federal mountain are that reproductive services and contraception must be treated in a dissimilar manner than any other condition, illness, disease or sickness and that contraception must also be treated in a dissimilar manner than any other prescription. In point of fact, there are no states that have the requirement which the Obama administration seeks to impose in this area - not a single one.

I'm posting this again... just for those folks who want to keep insisting that the 28 state laws that are being mentioned here are the same as the mandate that Obama just pass down to us from on high. One of the most far-left biased "journalist" Chris Matthews points out the fallacy on his cable show.

[youtube:3t6jgxw7]

[/youtube:3t6jgxw7]

I don't think anyone is going to suggest that Matthews is reading from a right wing talking point.

PrintSmith wrote: Yes, it is also the law in Colorado that contraception must be treated the same as any other prescription is - but that is not what the Obama mandate is at all now, is it. No, the mandates coming down from the high federal mountain are that reproductive services and contraception must be treated in a dissimilar manner than any other condition, illness, disease or sickness and that contraception must also be treated in a dissimilar manner than any other prescription. In point of fact, there are no states that have the requirement which the Obama administration seeks to impose in this area - not a single one.

Where did I say Colorado?

Actually the plan for contraceptives is not so different for how flu shots and other preventive services are covered. Prevention I believe has been proven to be cost effective in lowering health care costs.....surely a birth control pill is cheaper than an abortion or a live birth, is it not?

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Yes, it is also the law in Colorado that contraception must be treated the same as any other prescription is - but that is not what the Obama mandate is at all now, is it. No, the mandates coming down from the high federal mountain are that reproductive services and contraception must be treated in a dissimilar manner than any other condition, illness, disease or sickness and that contraception must also be treated in a dissimilar manner than any other prescription. In point of fact, there are no states that have the requirement which the Obama administration seeks to impose in this area - not a single one.

Where did I say Colorado?

You didn't... Print was saying "It is also[/i] the law in Colorado" as in comparing the law to New York.

archer wrote: Actually the plan for contraceptives is not so different for how flu shots and other preventive services are covered. Prevention I believe has been proven to be cost effective in lowering health care costs.....surely a birth control pill is cheaper than an abortion or a live birth, is it not?

I don't think we are discussing prevention, cost or anything like that. We are discussing the laws.