Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
nipsip

Scott Brown and the Blount Amendment

Rate this topic

16 posts in this topic

Brown says he supports it. Anyone read it?

 

Basically it states that employers and insurance companies can refuse coverage of any health care service required under the new health care law based on undefined “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

 

This amendment is about any employer objecting to covering anything, as long as the can state that the coverage either goes against their religious beliefs or their “moral convictions”

 

Now just suppose your employer was a Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witness who didn't believe in medical treatment.

 

Of course it is not going to pass, but why is Brown taking such an extreme position?

 

Is this the new face of the Republican party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffolk University poll has Brown up 9 points over Warren, but that's before he announced support for this bill. We'll have to see if that affects his numbers, but think it might even help him a tad with Mass Catholics who, while generally supporting insurer provided contraception, believe religious institutions should be exempted from the requirement by a margin of 55% to 39% (according to PEW Polling).

 

It's interesting to me how Mass Dems decided to replace Ted Kennedy, a charismatic, loveable rogueish male with Coakely, a bland party apparatchik female. She was essentially the Anti-Teddy. Voters rejected her in favor of Brown. Now they've got a second chance at the seat and what did the Mass Dem leadership do? They went for yet another bland, homely party-insider female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking Brown has made a real error in supporting this bill.

 

Of course you think it's a mistake. It's a smackdown of Obamacare and the Obama agenda.

 

Sounds like it's about individual liberty. Damn shame Harry Reid won't even let it get to the floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown says he supports it. Anyone read it?

Basically it states that employers and insurance companies can refuse coverage of any health care service required under the new health care law based on undefined “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

This amendment is about any employer objecting to covering anything, as long as the can state that the coverage either goes against their religious beliefs or their “moral convictions”

Now just suppose your employer was a Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witness who didn't believe in medical treatment.

Of course it is not going to pass, but why is Brown taking such an extreme position?

Is this the new face of the Republican party?

 

what's the matter?

don't like that insurance companies want to have a say in what their plans cover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO employees should shoulder the burden of ALL rheir health insurance costs! Why should I, as a business owner have to contribute anything to employees health insurance? Let the individual take responsiblity for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO employees should shoulder the burden of ALL rheir health insurance costs! Why should I, as a business owner have to contribute anything to employees health insurance? Let the individual take responsiblity for themselves.

 

I'll take it in cash, no problem there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO employees should shoulder the burden of ALL rheir health insurance costs! Why should I, as a business owner have to contribute anything to employees health insurance? Let the individual take responsiblity for themselves.

 

that's up to the employers to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO employees should shoulder the burden of ALL rheir health insurance costs! Why should I, as a business owner have to contribute anything to employees health insurance? Let the individual take responsiblity for themselves.

 

You don't have to as far as I know...I don't even think you have to offer it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason employers offer health coverage for employees is the expense is tax deductible and to attract employees. If you don't need either, businesses don't offer health care insurance.

 

For those of you who think employees can just buy it themselves either have employer provided health care insurance, or don't have any idea what it costs.

 

50% of all workers make less than $27K a year and a good health care policy costs $800 a month for a single person and that's after taxes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you think it's a mistake. It's a smackdown of Obamacare and the Obama agenda.

Sounds like it's about individual liberty. Damn shame Harry Reid won't even let it get to the floor.

 

It is a smackdown of women and if you have been paying attention, women can vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suffolk University poll has Brown up 9 points over Warren, but that's before he announced support for this bill. We'll have to see if that affects his numbers, but think it might even help him a tad with Mass Catholics who, while generally supporting insurer provided contraception, believe religious institutions should be exempted from the requirement by a margin of 55% to 39% (according to PEW Polling).

It's interesting to me how Mass Dems decided to replace Ted Kennedy, a charismatic, homicidal, sociopathic, loveable rogueish male with Coakely, a bland party apparatchik female. She was essentially the Anti-Teddy. Voters rejected her in favor of Brown. Now they've got a second chance at the seat and what did the Mass Dem leadership do? They went for yet another bland, homely party-insider female.

 

FIFY

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a smackdown of women and if you have been paying attention, women can vote.

 

I see. So you believe that all women deserve to have birth control and that it must be FREE to them and that I have to pay for it? Is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obamacare isn't shot down by the SCOTUS or repealed , business owners will have to provide health insurance for their employees or face fines, unless they get a dispensation from the Almighty Barak, bought and paid for by campaign contributions. I can't afford to offer health insurance to my employees, paying them $19 ? hour is enough to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.