HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Richard Mourdock (R-fool)...

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:11 AM

Richard Mourdock (R-fool) feels businesses have right to bar covering cancer patients

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm getting more optimistic that with tea-party blithering idiot Richard Mourdock as the GOP nominee for Senate in Indiana that the Dems can actually pick up this seat:

Oh boy. Mega-problem time for Republican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock:


Of particular interest to the candidate is a mandate that requires an employer to pay for certain services they may be morally opposed to—such as birth control—which Mourdock said he opposes.

But is that fair to the consumer, who may want their birth control covered?

Mourdock's example was an employer who decided to cover everything but cancer.

"Does that employer have the right to do it? I would say yes they do if they want to keep their health care costs down but it also means it's less likely you're going to want to work here. If that employer wants to get the best employees coming in the door he's going to offer the best insurance possible."

Yep, you read that right. Mourdock thinks employers should be able to deny healthcare coverage for cancer treatment. And his campaign obviously doesn't know how to deal with this serious screwup. At first, they refused to respond altogether. Then Mourdock decided to dig in deeper—way deeper. Careful, though, and watch what he's trying to do:

"Simply put, Richard was making the point that a company that discontinued insurance coverage of life-threatening ailments would immediately become an unattractive place to work," Conner told TPM. "In no way, shape or form does Richard support companies discontinuing such insurance coverage, and any attempt to say otherwise is a complete falsehood."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/19/1101149/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Morning-Digest-Richard-Mourdock-supports-firms-right-to-deny-cancer-coverage

6 replies, 1349 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Richard Mourdock (R-fool) feels businesses have right to bar covering cancer patients (Original post)
WI_DEM Jun 2012 OP
Cary Jun 2012 #1
sinkingfeeling Jun 2012 #2
Cary Jun 2012 #5
Swede Atlanta Jun 2012 #3
Angry Dragon Jun 2012 #4
hrmjustin Jun 2012 #6

Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:17 AM

1. These people don't even try to think.

They have this "conservative" Ayn Rand blather laid out before them and they abuse it as a substitute for common sense. Hell, they think it is common sense, if what they're doing is really something that can be considered to be thought.

Clearly Mourdock's mind does not allow for the fact that he is talking about adding more misery and suffering for real people and if God Herself came to Mourdock and tried to explain this fact Mourdock would remain unmoved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:41 AM

2. He's saying employers should have the right to not carry insurance

that covers cancer. You're title line is a tad misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:08 PM

5. Actually an employer has the right to not carry any insurance.

The issue is whether the premiums may be deducted from the companies' taxes and not included in the recipients' incomes.

But the real point here is clear enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:59 AM

3. This kind of rhetoric is exactly why the only real way forward on healthcare is....

 

a public option.

When you rely on private actors to pay for health insurance it is only logical they want and, to be honest, should be able to determine what level of insurance coverage they can afford. Covering cancer, heart disease, etc. is very expensive. A small business owner may literally have to limit the type of coverage such as routine examinations, vaccinations, etc. and then only catastrophic incidents with a high deductible.

A public option eliminates that pressure on private employers. Whether or not employers would pay into a public healthcare system on behalf of their employees or not would be in the details (similar to unemployment insurance). But it would level the playing field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 12:24 PM

4. Another huge idiot heard from

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 02:14 PM

6. well the dems now have the ammunition against him, use it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread