But if I don't want birth control coverage, I guess I don't get to decide....

That makes no sense. So they deny that he existed but they agree that the non-existent Jesus nonetheless did things?

I think you have it backwards. Many people agree Jesus existed. People deny that he is God's son or that he performed miracles. Rather, he was just the leader of a radical religious offshoot that eventually, under Paul's leadership, became a major world religion.

Yes I think I meant people attack Jesus over being the son of God or having divine powers or that he actually existed.

Criticisms of his actions during his life time or his message are quite muted in comparison.

IMO he remains way more respected then the Christian religion.

It seems this would be irrelevant if health care wasn't tied to your fucking job.

How do you ignore claiming to being something like the son of god as unrelated to the message? Assuming that was something he claimed and not made up after him. That's actually too easy to attack...

Post of the year! Stupid wage and price controls during WWII.

"'How do you ignore claiming to being something like the son of god as unrelated to the message? Assuming that was something he claimed and not made up after him. That's actually too easy to attack..."

Jesus is well respected by almost all religions but they do not consider him a son of God.
They see him more like Abraham or Moses, as a prophet.

Unfornately, I think they'd still be making the same uproar as it'd be the "government" saying there'll be coverage for birth control.

Not sure how universal health care works, but I'm assuming everyone "pays" for coverage through taxes, and then the government subsidizes various medical prodedures and treatments to get them down to coverage levels like a normal health insurance plan would work, correct?

Birth control is a lot cheaper than having then to cover a child's health plan as well.

"Not sure how universal health care works, but I'm assuming everyone "pays" for coverage through taxes, and then the government subsidizes various medical prodedures and treatments to get them down to coverage levels like a normal health insurance plan would work, correct?:

In Canada it work like that.

Also, doctors have private practices and charge the govt for every patient they see.

The Canadian model is not the best model. The only reason we love our system is because we have such a dysfunctional system beside us.
Compared to the European models, we do not get the same "bang for the buck".

Sure you do. You always get to decide whether to accept it or not. If you are against abortion, or birth control, or getting vaccinations, or having your teeth cleaned, you don't have to do it. If my employer is against all those things, he shouldn't have the right to make that choice for me.

Absolutely. That's why the US should join the rest of the civilized world and have a national health care plan.

Then why don't insurance companies cover it now in their most basic policies? Why don't auto insurance companies mandate brake checks, as making sure brakes are good would, by this logic, be a lot cheaper then paying for wrecks.

Are there really people out there who can't afford birth control? What if Santorum was elected President and his HHS created a new mandate that all insurance plans have to cover conversion therapy. I am sure no one here would support this. Why not? We can skip the argument that it is not good science (I agree) because I will counter that just because we cover birth control in an insurance program does not mean that people are going to therefore start using it more often. Birth rates in the U.S. are already dropping without this stupid mandate.

We have it now. It works great. It's more efficient than private health care, covers more people, and is financially solvent.

It's called medicare. The problem is that you don't get it until you're old.

I see then. I guess that you too would agree that a President Santorum who pushes for a conversion therapy coverage mandate would be perfectly fine to force that on employers for the same reasons you listed above.

Yes, because that's not science and that's not medicine. You'll have to come up with a better example than that.

Thanks for the punt. The birth rate in the U.S. has been falling without mandated birth control coverage. I might also add that this policy works as a transfer system from gay men and the elderly to heterosexual young women.

I've never had a doctor subscribe it to me, maybe a politician, but not someone who is an expert on the body.

It brought it all to the insurance industry. Ugh.

So, Romney will take Virginia, Vermont, and Mass. Gingrich will win Georgia. Santorum has Ok, and although I can't find any polls I'm guessing Alaska, ND, and Idaho. However his huge lead has crumbled into a 3 way race in Tenn, and now of 7 recent polls in Ohio Romney leads 4, Santorum 2, with one tie.

So far tonight Romney has underperformed the polls, as he won VA but is only winning 60/40 instead of the 40-point advantage, and he is trailing Santorum for the second place in GA. Will see what happens in OH/TN/OK.

Santorum takes TN.

Had Gingrich and Santorum been on the Virginia ballot, I think Paul would have managed a win there. He would have kept probably all his votes, and some of Romney would have switched to the other two guys.

Santorum takes OK as well and has come back to a virtue tie in OH. It's certainly not going to be an outright victory night for Romney.

Very poor night for Romney, especially if he loses OH (Santorum leads as of this post). Winning the two North Eastern States were a given, and beating Paul by less than 20 in Virginia is terrible.

If Gingrich drops out after tonight and endorses Santorum, it won't be easy for Romeny to reach the convention as the nominee.

If Gingrich and Santorum were in Virginia I still think Romney still would have won. It's a southern state so they would have split, and Romney would still get the benefit from a state Obama won.

I think Gingrich needed Tenn. Of course he is safe in the deep south, but lagging in the polls he needed momentum and a battleground state to compete nationally. With Georgia though I think he will remain the race for a while.

It's not a strong slate of states for Romney tonight. He will do better in the future; he will cruise in NY and California. If he wins OH I think that ends any real chance of challenging him in the long run.