So I called the Govenors office, not the first I have done this mind you, and spoke with the most obnoxious young man. He wanted to bully me into a debate. I will add, every other time I have called the Govenor’s office, I have spoken with a perfectly lovely black woman. She is always polite. Well, what a difference this experience was for me.
I wish I had asked his name now. He answered the phone and I told him I was calling about the amendment that would inhibit women buying abortion coverage with their own money in the insurance exchange. I asked him, rhetorically of course, why republicans always seemed to rally around the premise of small government, but when it comes to a womans vagina/i.e. reproductive system, they were more than happy to use government power to justify their means.
He then proceeded to interupt me and instead of asking me for my name etc, he wanted to debate me on the subject. I told him I had no interest in debating him, that I simply called to register my disgust. Well, he proceeded to tell me that I had “called a non partisan office”. Can someone please tell me how Govenor McDonnell’s office is non partisan. Isn’t he a republican? Am I in the some twighlight zone episode?
I told this young man I had no interest in discussing any issue with him. While he, on the other hand, wanted to engage me. I told him I had no interest in having a debate, he had no control over the legislative process and I simply wanted my information being forwarded to the govenor.
Let’s just say the “conversation” degraded very quickly and might have ended with an eff you to this young man.
I have never been forced to debate a topic when I have called a legislator about an issue. I relay my thoughts, they take my name and address and say “thank you” , end of phone call.
I will be following up this conversation with a formal complaint.
I don’t particularly like to make this comment, but I can’t help but wonder how Elena knew that the woman answering her call was a “perfectly lovely black woman”. Skype?
She is the lady we always get when we call the governor’ss office. Some things you just know. I had just spoken to her about 15 minutes earlier.
Yes, Moon and I had just spoken prior to my calling, both sharing how perfectly nice the woman is who has always answered the phone, which is why I was somewhat taken aback to hear a young mans voice.
Actually that person needs to be fired. 1. The governor’s office cannot be non-partisan when the governor runs as a member of a political party. He has not governed from a non-partisan point of view for the most part, thinking of ultra sounds and hospital requirements for clinics.
Secondly, we should be able to call and voice and opinion regardless of who is in office. You shouldn’t be bullied or debated when voicing your opinion.
Once again, there has been an attempt to silence constituents with opposing views. I would demand an apology from the governor.
I cannot fathom how your rhetorical question managed to put the young administrative assistant on the defensive and made him want to debate you. It is almost as if he felt that you were attacking him (he’s likely a Republican, perhaps a volunteer intern) and the governor’s office.
The answer of course as to why women would be inhibited from buying abortion coverage is the nature in which insurance works. Women would pay an additional rider to get the coverage, but it would still require the financial resources from all the insured to be pooled in order to keep the cost of the abortion coverage low. So those of us who find abortion to be morally repugnant would in effect be financially supporting this insurance coverage for women.
I have no problem if the insurance companies separate abortion coverage from all other coverage so that the group that wants it would essentially be self insuring; the cost would then be much, much higher for those who want it. I think that’s okay, but I am sure that those who want the coverage also want to force the rest of us to pay for something that we find to be morally offensive.
I think Elena and I were pretty shocked by his behavior also. Most people simply take down your message and say thank you for contacting whomever. I have made hundreds of calls like that over the years. Other than Bob Marshall, that’s the first we have run in to it.
Kelly, your abortion answer is such a stretch. How about those Jehovah’s witnesses who are paying for blood transfusions? You simply cannot sort out inssurance like that. I can think of all sorts of things I don’t approve of but people get through insurance.
I expect you and others would be walking back from that moral repungnance a few steps if you thought your significant other was carrying a fetus who had tay-sachs disease. No one would willingly bring a child into the world to face that disorder and the pain associated with it before the baby dies. There is no cure.When I worked I had abortion coverage. Lets just say that coverage was paid for with [ublic funds until I retired and paid out of pocket.
I also paid for disorders of parts I didn’t even have, like prostate surgury. I don’t think we can pick and chose. I also didnt use the abortion coverage. You have been paying for maternity coverage on a lot of people also.
Once again, there has been an attempt to silence constituents with opposing views
How ironic, you do just that here 😉
@Petersen, only at you because you have been a pain in the ass on the blog. If you say something that contributes to the conversation, I let you through. If you are trolling and just being a pain in the ass, your comments don’t go through. Surely you have figured that out by now.
As for those others here with opposing points of view, I would say that Cargo is living proof that you have lied about us.
@kelly_3406
I think you hit the nail on the head. I’m prochoice but I do have an issue with me paying (indirectly or directly) for someone else’s abortion let alone forcing someone who strongly opposes the procedure to pay for it. Isn’t that what planned parenthood is for?
You aren’t paying for someone else’s abortion! What does it take to convince you men of that? Stop saying that, You all sound stupid because you aren’t paying for anyone’s abortion. That is just a myth.
And no, that isn’t what planned parenthood is for. Do you think THEY pay for abortions? Most of the time women and girls come in with the money clutched in their hands. Some come in counting out coins.
Well Kelly, there are Jehovas Witnesses that find blood transfusions repugnant, but it isn’t their right to determine if it is included in coverage. I find it interesting that those who have never walked in someone elses shoes find it so easy to judge.
I don’t beleive you have ever had to face a painful emotional choice if your loved one were carrying a fetus that was incompatible with life. Who are YOU to determine what is morally offensive such that you impact other people who have different feelings. I found the Iraq war morally offensive, but it isn’t within my right to say my tax dollars won’t pay for it. If a woman wants to buy coverage, its her right. You don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Oh, I forgot, you don’t have a vagina but you are more than happy to dictate what happens to mine or another womans.
I find factory farming morally offensive, but I can’t deny you the right to buy it on the open market.
Back to the point about my call. I don’t call the Govenors office to debate, I call to express my opinion to a man that holds policy power. Period. If I want to debate, I will go on the blog or facebook. In all the years I have expressed concern over legislation, I have never been bullied into proving my point. Like I said, Republicans area all about “the free market” until they don’t like what’s in the free market. Don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one.
Ooops, you covered the question. funny that we pretty much came up with the same thing. I didn’t even see your response.
Until Obamacare passed, Jehovah’s Witnesses and everyone else had the right to self-insure (or not insure ar all), so there was no first amendment (1A) issue. Now that the government is forcing everyone to participate in government-regulated medical plans, separation of church and state is an issue. Just as the government is not allowed to promote a religion, neither is it allowed to trample on 1A rights.
I consider pooling my funds in an insurance plan to contribute toward abortions as an infringement on religious liberty. And let’s face it: the purpose of Obamacare was never really to contain costs, but rather to control insurance plans so that things like birth control and abortion could be forced in. Even the HHS finally admitted this week that Obamacare was driving up costs for many groups. So the facts demonstrate that claims that the Affordable Healthcare Act would control medical costs was a lie from the very beginning.
Lie is a strong word. The Iraq war was a LIE.
The savings on ACA arent supposed to start yet.
IU see no 1A issue. No one is forcing abortion or contraception on anyone. No one requires anyone else to accept a blood transfusion.
Many Catholic instituions have been paying for these things all long. It depends on the institution. Let’s not pretend its all a matter of conscience.
What do people do in self insured situations that have contraceptive coverage and abortion coverage? No difference.
The fact that some Catholic organizations fail to live up to the standard does not set a precedent that the rest of us have to follow. Of course you see no 1A issue. Abortion issues are important to you, so I understand the view that everyone should just fall in line to make sure that cost is no issue to exercise this Court-defined “right”. But in order to do so, the government has chosen to trample on my constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You are correct that abortion (or blood transfusions forJehovah’s Witnesses) is not being forced on anyone. But being forced to support it financially is still anathema to religious freedom. Just because it is collective support (e.g. paying into an insurance plan) rather than individual support does not change the fact that the government is forcing people under Obamacare to participate financially in supporting practices that violate, at least in some cases, their religious conscience.
You seem to imply that the collective will should take precedence over individual liberty, but in our republic, we (have tried to ) adhere to the principle of “majority rules, minority rights.” Just because it is inconvenient for your issue does not mean that the government gets to throw out this principle.
Kelly, no one will ever force you to have an abortion. Your rights aren’t being trampled. You can also be whatever religion you want. You aren’t being forced to support abortion financially. That is just so bogus.
Too bad you didn’t have the same moral qualms about the Iraq war. What if *I* didn’t want to be forced to support that war that was built on lies? No one gave a rat’s ass. I pay for a whole lot of things I don’t approve of. Once the govt. takes my money, it is no longer mine.
All the rider owners cover the cost. Surely not all of them will want an abortion. I expect it will work like all the people out there like me who rarely take prescription drugs. I expect I pay for a lot of people who do take them.
@ kelly: “Now that the government is forcing everyone to participate in government-regulated medical plans,”. Where did you come up with this? The government is not forcing you to participate in any government regulated medical plan. If you already have coverage, it is not an issue. You can continue your coverage–period.
@ Peterson: ” I’m prochoice but I do have an issue with me paying (indirectly or directly) for someone else’s abortion”. Does this mean you also have an issue with insurance that would cover vasectomies?
@Moon-howler
The Iraq War was NOT built on lies — this is where you show your left-wing bias. It was built on bad intelligence. Here is the CIA mea culpa:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/a_classified_CIA_mea_culpa_on_iraq%20
I did not have a problem with the Iraq War morally. The justification for war was not based just on WMD. I think we should have deposed Saddam and then gotten out, but that is a debate for another day.
them’s sure some pretty weasel words, Kelly. Also, neocons did some fast talking to make sure everyone got fed the same lies.
I have a problem with going in to a sovereign nation and blowing it to kingdom come. Doing that is unprecedented in our history as a nation.
There are plenty of people who feel war is immoral. That is hardly a new concept. I think the entire war was immoral because it wasn’t defending our nation and we were told it was. Innocent men, weomen and children died senselessly. Why was it our job to depose Saddam?
I disagree.
@Kelly, if you aren’t part of the rider, how can you possibly be paying for anyone else’s service?
We all pay for someone else’s service with which we disagree. It’s because of this bundling of services that we have more affordable insurance. I walk several miles every other day but I pay for sedentary people’s choices (some of which are not choices but physical limitations). I don’t smoke but I enjoy a beer or two. Men can’t become pregnant so they should butt the eff out of women’s decisions. We’re half the population. We have a say. If you can’t stand for insurance companies to offer riders (I don’t think women should have to pay extra for this coverage to begin with), skip insurance and pay for your care out of pocket.
I don’t think it should be a rider either but I am willing to compromise, unlike some folks.
We have constitutional protections from having to do some things we disagree with, but not others. There are no protections against insuring sedentary people, but there are protections against paying for things that violate someone’s religion.
Obamacare has removed the right to skip insurance and pay out of pocket.
@Kelly,
Yes because all those people exercise their right not to be insured and guess who ends up paying for it? Those of us who ARE insured. I for one am tired of paying premium increases because of some slob who thinks he is invincible. As Americans, we don’t let people die on the street. Some hospital takes them in. To pay for it, they charge everyone more. Who pays? We do.
Good for Obamacare if it cuts down on that nonsense. When I had my first child many many years ago, I remember emperin being 2.15 a pill. Now that is absurd. Today it probably costs $20 to take a tylenol with Codeine.
Kelly, I just can’t leave this “offending people’s religion” business. If I have a rider for jewelry or silver service on my policy and lets say I get burglarized, you havent paid into the rider. Only I have other people have.
If you are speaking of contraception, then lets go there. I am sure I have been paying for some man to take viagra. Oh well….maybe my money has put a smile on someone’s face. I hope I have been paying for someone’s contraception. I know that some people don’t believe in it. That’s ok. Why aren’t you howling about contraception drugs and sterilization being on someone’s plan? On the moral scale, abortion and contraception are both considered mortal sins. I didn’t think mortal sin had grades of depravirty or severity.
@kelly_3406
For a limited time one can opt out and pay a penalty.
Smoking, blood transfusions, and alcohol consumption are frowned upon by different religions but those advocates aren’t writing the rules for the rest of society.
Observant Mormons also aren’t supposed to drink caffeine beverages like coffee, tea, coke, etc along with not smoking or drinking. I sure haven’t heard them howling.
Kelly, you’re going to have to explain to me how the entire insured group subsidizes the person who purchases a rider for particular coverage. I thought the whole point of the rider was to pay for services not covered by the base policy.
As far as what you may find to be morally offensive, that is absolutely not applicable to private insurance coverage. Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and even in the case of forced financial contributions, such as federal taxes, Americans cannot use morality as a reason for non-payment. There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans whose morals abhor killing for any reason, and they still have to pay taxes to the military for that very purpose.
Your morals should not affect my (or anyone else’s) health care. Period.
The power to declare war and the authority to raise and maintain an Army are specifically called out by the Constitution, so religion does not except any citizen from paying for it. Even so, our country has a long tradition of allowing conscientious objectors to serve in other capacities.
Prior to Obamacare, I would have agreed that private insurance coverage would not be covered by the 1st Amendment, but the government now forces everyone to participate and the Secretary of HHS has the power to mandate what has to be included. Because we are now compelled (I don’t call paying a paying a penalty a choice) to purchase insurance, it should not be allowed to violate any of the basic constitutional amendments.
Even though a rider is paid for certain coverage, the money collected does not necessarily cover the entire cost of procedures in a region or state. You can easily imagine that certain metropolitan areas would have many more abortions than the riders actually cover, so funding from the general fund would have to be used for solvency.
@MH @censored
Insurance would not be used to cover tobacco or alcohol CONSUMPTION. It would be used to treat people who suffer ill effects from these things. I do not think Mormons would condone denying treatment because someone made poor choices in life. Most religions are interested in helping such people recover and live their lives differently.
The best analogy that you made was to transfusion, but it does not draw the same ire as abortion. First of all, its purpose is different: it is used to save life, rather than take life. Many LDSs allow blood transfusions for their children. Second, I think some of them have established medical communities to avoid issues with blood transfusion in the larger community. Not sure if that will still work under Obamacare.
LDS has no sanctions about blood transfusions that I am aware of. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow blood tranfusions. LDS has sanctions about caffeine drinks, alcohol and smoking.
It goes back to the riders. When you have a rider policy, it is separate from regular insurance. No one in the general population will pay.
Sorry. You’re right — I confused LDS with Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the point stands.
I stand by my point. Don’t buy a rider and you will not be paying for an abortion.
Youare talking about abortion and not contraception?
Kelly, independent of your particular morality deciding my insurance coverage, your rights under the first amendment are in no way affected by abortion or contraception insurance coverage.
The first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That’s it. How would insurance coverage of contraception, even if mandated, establish or eliminate a religion or prohibit you from practicing it?
The way individual insurance companies price their riders is up to them, but I would assume they price the riders to cover the costs of the insured service. Your assumption (guess?) that they spread some of the cost amongst all ratepayers puts you on thin ground when used as a reason to prevent me from buying a rider for particular coverage.