Because the average healthcare consumer doesn't really have any choice, putting all the power in the hands of corporations.

The customer is the employer that is paying for the coverage. They have lost choice by this law. Again, I have no problem with the insurance companies being forced to offer a particular coverage. I think that is a great idea. I have a problem with the customer being forced to buy it.

A lot of people neither want nor need public schools, they pay for them anyway.
This is a local issue, not a federal one. Schools are paid for by local and state taxes.

I believe that happened. And now the corporations are bitching.
No, the customers are bitching because they are being forced to pay for services that violate their religion.

It isn't a religious thing explicitly - it's a cynical "conservative" ploy to attack and undermine the ACA by using religion as a means to cut out parts of coverage. Note, of course, that this all simply means that these services are covered and must be paid for if utilized, this attack on the ACA is about pushing to make sure it's not available at all.
Yes, in this particular case, this is a religions thing. And again, I have no problem with the patient paying for contraceptive coverage, if they so choose. I have a problem with both the patient and the employer paying for coverage even if they do not want it.
You are basically saying that the government decides what coverage needs to be provided and not the people.

No, they are forcing the customer to pay for services they don't need. The employee is not the customer. The company paying for the insurance is. If the employee wanted to forgo the insurance plan offered by the employer and pay for their own, contraceptive providing coverage, there is nothing the employer could say about it.

No one is saying that believers are "above the law". What we are saying is that the ACA is not above the law.. The law I'm speaking of is this one:

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

By forcing "believers" to provide something they oppose, Congress is "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religion. I don't understand why people find this confusing. The same law that allows "believers" to practice their religion is the same law that prevents government from forcing you to be a believer. If you start making exceptions to that law, you are paving the way for other laws (rights) to be violated in the same way in the future.

So health insurance should not cover pre-natal care for pregnant women? Colonoscopies for middle-aged men?

Of course health insurance should cover prenatal care for pregnant women. That's not the argument. That's called a "straw man".

Should it cover prenatal care for pregnant men? It does and that's why it's stupid.

In other words, there are no standards and no concept of consumer protection. Corporations are just free to run roughshod over you. This could be your fundie employer or your crass insurance company that has an obvious conflict of interest.

Since when is consumer choice allowing corporations "to run roughshod over you"? So, in order to fix your non-existing problem, you are forcing people to pay for something they neither want nor need. In essence, in order to prevent corporations from running "roughshod over you", you are allowing government to run "roughshod over you". Wouldn't it have made more sense to pass a law that says insurance companies must offer contraceptive coverage to the customers that want it? That way, you protect the consumer while still preserving their freedom of choice.

Rather than considering to a religious thing, think of it from a liberal point of view; you are forcing gay men to pay for contraception and maternity coverage that they obviously don't need.

So typed the guy from a notebook while a camera is pointing at his face.

You can relax. Those Glass people are probably not recording you. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not that interesting. Even if it were on, you would more than likely be the part that is fast-fowarded over or simply edited out.

All these people so worried about being recorded in public are already being recorded in public!!! Look around you. Do you see that camera in the corner that is always on and always recording? Other than mobility and the fact that user has to audibly say, "record" on Glass, what's the difference?

So basically, no engineer could work for DoD. So, let's take that idea to the extreme. We disarm, and nobody is allowed to work on any defensive weapons, and we all sing Kum ba yah. Make sense? Yeah, I didn't think so either.

I am sick and tired of this racism against Mexican and latin american people. I do not find your racist joke funny. It is also perpetuating a completely inaccurate stereotype. Google "Mexican fertility rate" and educate yourself.

US Fertility Rate = 1.89 Births per woman
Mexican Fertility Rate = 2.28 Births per woman

US Life expectancy = 78.64 years
Mexican Life expectancy = 76.89 years

I am not Mexican or latin american. Mexico, and most of latin america, have a LOT of social, cultural and economic issues. But give them some respect, they aren't backward savages like most american's seem to believe.

While I'll agree with respect to civil rights, I think we've gone the other direction with the implementation of "hate crimes". Freedom of speech has reversed directions in recent years as well with limitations put in place due to political correctness. The fourth has been under attack. And, when was the last time someone actually had a speedy trial? The federal government has certainly been pushing aside the tenth amendment.

I won't get into a debate on the values of all of those, but I would say that civil rights is one (maybe the only) area where I'd agree with your original comment.

You can't be serious.

I don't know. The brief search I did only came up with ABS for motorcycles which started out around 11kg, but are down significantly. One site (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/motorvehiclesafety/tp-tp14651-vs200701-faq-742.htm) indicated that stability control systems weigh about 4 kilos. or only 1 if you already have ABS (due to share components).

So, this is all fine and dandy, weight-wise, as long as you require everyone to have them. And you don't mind the add...
According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) research, ABS in 2005 cost an estimated US$368; ESC cost a further US$111.

Not as simple as you might think. This one has a ~$5k ceramic clutch that is the most touchy of any vehicle I've driven in my 40 yrs of enthusiastic driving (I'm 55). The first time my uncle let me at it, I stalled several times, and tried exactly what you mentioned with no help. It took some getting used to, and I've driven sticks since the age of 15.

Weight is the enemy of every car on a race track. And nobody who races would agree with you.

Sigh. This is what's wrong with our litigious nation. People want others to pay for their own idiocy. Can we please start taking responsibility for our own fuck ups? Let's make it so that nobody can purchase one of these because there are safer alternatives.

Please don't ever eat with a knife and fork, you might injure yourself.. You know there's safer, more reasonable alternatives.

This accident isn't about a flawed vehicle, it's about driving on a public road at unsafe speeds, as evidenced by the police stating that speed was a factor. Until you have direct evidence to the contrary, your suggestion is simply naive.