Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Nobody voted for this! This is an Obama administration decree that trashes the First Amendment of the Constitution (but probably not according to your convoluted interpretation, which I'm sure is forthcoming). I also just love the argument that this is a health issue. Stop disease, stop pregnancy! What a crock. This contraception mandate is pure arrogance. I'm mad that we have a president who cares very little about freedom and the Constitution. And this thing isn't over. There's lawsuits and proposed bills in some states that would allow companies to ignore federal mandates. I say, duke it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Nobody voted for this! This is an Obama administration decree that trashes the First Amendment of the Constitution (but probably not according to your convoluted interpretation, which I'm sure is forthcoming). I also just love the argument that this is a health issue. Stop disease, stop pregnancy! What a crock. This contraception mandate is pure arrogance. I'm mad that we have a president who cares very little about freedom and the Constitution. And this thing isn't over. There's lawsuits and proposed bills in some states that would allow companies to ignore federal mandates. I say, duke it out. Ok so just to confirm you have no interest in addressing some of the slippery slope "where does it end?" issues me and gdhi brought up right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Kettle Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So stop trying to force your way on religious individuals who don't want to go against their faith. Just curious, but if you are a person of faith, how are you an NJ Devils fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ok so just to confirm you have no interest in addressing some of the slippery slope "where does it end?" issues me and gdhi brought up right? None whatsoever. But I will. If a Jehovah's Witness organization does not want to offer health care insurance that covers blood transfusions, then it should be well within their right to do so. If it were me, I wouldn't take a job with a Jehovah's Witness organization, but that would be MY choice. Just curious, but if you are a person of faith, how are you an NJ Devils fan? LOL! What makes you think I am a person of faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) None whatsoever. But I will. If a Jehovah's Witness organization does not want to offer health care insurance that covers blood transfusions, then it should be well within their right to do so. If it were me, I wouldn't take a job with a Jehovah's Witness organization, but that would be MY choice. Well I guess you are consistent, that's something. I'm glad we don't live in that kind of society, and I am glad we will soon have universal coverage, I'm glad that coverage will cover birth control, not because Obama thinks its a good idea but because the medical profession does. Oh, and 70 million people voted for the guy who said he wanted to implement universal health care. Just because you weren't one of them doesn't mean they don't exist or have a voice. Edited February 28, 2012 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Oh, and 70 million people voted for the guy who said he wanted to implement universal health care. True enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 Some GOP wannabe in Illinois has more in common with Ahmadinejad than a potential statesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazer Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=698 Edited February 29, 2012 by lazer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Some GOP wannabe in Illinois has more in common with Ahmadinejad than a potential statesman. Those pesky global warming, evolution and holocaust hoaxes It's so awesome Republicans are proud to speak up for the truth. (We don't have to add over-population to the myth list too now do we? ) Ah but we're invoking the Hitler strawman -- wait no in this case the strawman argument is the strawman... wait a sec... I do still consider myself an Eisenhower Republican - it's how my values were formed, not so much merely parroting my parents/grandparents. Edited March 2, 2012 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 “Philosophically, I’m a National Socialist,” Jones said. “Officially, I don’t belong to any party except my own, the America First Committee.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 yet hes running as a Republican... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Because he feels the Dem guy is too pro Israel. Not because he cares about either party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 yet hes running as a Republican... There are always fringe lunatics running in either party, doesn't mean they have the support of the base. If this guy wins the primary or election then maybe its something to be concerned over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Also -- I believe it is our responsibility to decrease the surplus population. Obviously it's not something you can mandate without trashing people's rights. Making birth control affordable and easily accessible to all is a priority for me. Because of the state of global over-population birth control is not merely a right, it is a necessity for all of society. I really hate ignorance. I think the Catholic stance on birth control is ignorant and I hate it. If traffic is clear why do you have to stop at a red light? Isn't that infringing on people's rights? If I want to walk in front of traffic it is my right - and yet jaywalking is against the law - a ticket-able offense. Not controlling population endangers the lives of others equally. Some rights have to be forfeited for the good of others. This is the most equitable population control you can put into place. SUCK IT UP! Just quick response to Jerry I thought I had already posted but can't find in this thread : Your right to cross a street whenever you damned well feel like MUST be forfeited. You do not have the right to walk in front of my car causing MY DEATH. You dont have the right to shoot someone dead even if you're willing to pay the consequences. That's what I'm talking about. (If you can leap to mass sterilization dream for me I can leap this far for you) ) NOW -- as for birth control since it was brought up in this thread -- I have no idea what the big deal is. In the 90s my birth control was not covered by my insurance. I was able to use my Flex-spending account so it wasn't taxable income spent on it. It's an inconvenience and it discourages birth control as I said above. But other than that - what's the big deal? Is it that the Christian Science Monitor will now be able to claim exemption from offering health insurance to it's many employees because the owner might support faith healing practices only? That IS the same principal Jerry so I am guessing you would be in support of that. Can there be waivers that enable health-based coverage for birth control? A few of my high school friends had to go on the pill for hormone regulation though they were NOT sexually active (truly not just a fools paradise kids don't boink kind of thing)? Would you support that Jerry or should all health insurance be optional for all companies? Why was is it a slippery slope when I dont think it's mandatory now? Is it a slippery slope if we dont provide dental insurance - it's even more vital to over-all health. I'm just not seeing the real value of this fight for either side. Edited March 6, 2012 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'm just not seeing the real value of this fight for either side. Correct. I also highly doubt that there a lot of people who are pulling the voting lever either way are going to care all that much. To the extent that they do, either side could reverse course immediately, it still won't change what they were going to do anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Providing health insurance should be optional for companies, Pepperkorn. Health insurance is not a right, no matter how bad the left wants it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Providing health insurance should be optional for companies, Pepperkorn. Health insurance is not a right, no matter how bad the left wants it to be. I'd go a step further, we should ban companies from offering insurance to employees, it would avoid this debacle altogether. I would prefer a system like Switzerland, everyone has to buy the base insurance policy from a private company, all private insurance companies must offer the base insurance package at the same price and can not deny anyone from the base plan. link Those companies are not allowed to make profits on the base package, but are allowed sell additional coverage on top of the base, and people only have to put up to 8% of their income towards insurance, if that 8% doesn't cover the cost the government subsidizes the rest. It's not that I think this is perfect, it's just I think it strikes the best balance between individuals, insurance companies, and government everyone gets something, everyone gives a little of something, everyone gets covered and the government is just regulating, not overseeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Squishy, now you're going in a direction that I like. I'd have to think about the merits of banning the inclusion of health insurance as a company perk, but on the surface it seems like a decent idea. I'm not an expert in the finances of the health insurance business, but I believe that it's the massive group plans, and the group discounts that come with them, that are a big factor in why individual health plans are so expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Squishy, now you're going in a direction that I like. I'd have to think about the merits of banning the inclusion of health insurance as a company perk, but on the surface it seems like a decent idea. I'm not an expert in the finances of the health insurance business, but I believe that it's the massive group plans, and the group discounts that come with them, that are a big factor in why individual health plans are so expensive. Oh absolutely. If everyone was dropped from employer coverage the average price of a health plan would stay exactly the same, the people on the underside of the average would pay more but the people on the high side would drop. While I know Health Insurance is a good incentive companies offer, so is a check for $6000 dollars (roughly the average amount companies spend per person), and either companies are going to give that money back to their workers, hire more workers, or spend it (of course maybe some companies just hold it to offset loses, but then risk losing employees to higher paying competitors). Another benefit to employees is it gives them more mobility, you are no longer holding on to a job just to keep your health insurance. But this is probably a pipe dream for our country given how toxic our political environment is, so I support incremental improvement when the see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yeay! I love common ground. I dont get the health insurance system and I'm from a family of actuaries. The other difficulty I have is a lot of friends are doctors -- and they do indeed make an obscene amount of money. They do.. there is no way around it. hmm... I guess I got lost in space pondering this and never posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 FWIW, I might be on board with a simplified, or at least a more simplified, system where every family gets a voucher to purchase basic health insurance subject to certain regulations including one that claims pre-existing conditions can't be denied. Employer funded health insurance is an anomalous vestige of WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yeay! I love common ground. I dont get the health insurance system and I'm from a family of actuaries. The other difficulty I have is a lot of friends are doctors -- and they do indeed make an obscene amount of money. They do.. there is no way around it. hmm... I guess I got lost in space pondering this and never posted Sure doctors make a lot of money but (1) you have to be smart and (2) it requires a long educational/training period. Name me another profession that requires more training before you are a full fledged doctor? From college, to med school to very little pay on the job training, it isn't easy or cheap to get to the point at which you can actually make that "obscene" money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) I work for UMDNJ. Trust me, You do not have to be smart. Getting a PhD takes longer than getting your MD. MD = 4 years then on to intern and residency. If you count those then you have to count post-doctoral studies. A biochem (etc and so forth) PhD will run you 8 years just to get the initials - follow it up with a 4-8 year post-doc. Bio/Chem PhDs get tuition remission. Med students do indeed pay an obscene amount for schooling -- but it's paid off in three years on the job pretty much. I have hyper-educated friends as ironic as it is since I'm so NOT educated. I always encourage undergrads to get their MD PhD. Tuition remission on the MD - given THE cushiest thesis project. Done with PhD in 4 years no post-doc. I say med school students aren't smart BUT they do understand their limitations and their strong suits - so in all honesty good common sense is required. That is worth a heck of a lot. "They do, there is no way around it" up there came about because I was thinking; they invest in their education --- but unless they die they're going to get tenfold back. OR unless they choose to work for free for philanthropic reason -- a friend's sister does. Hey -- my uncle was a surgeon... I forgot about that. He was no brain machine... he was good at what he did though. OK I'm getting extemporaneous here and I feel it'll only get worse as I get closer to the bottom of this glass of beer. (Old Speckled Hen for anyone who cares ) So no need to explain to me how tough it is to be an MD, I've pondered it thoroughly. I'd rather here (HEAR!) about the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc and so forth - not prevarication mind you - just the facts. My daughter used to say "My Daddy is a doctor... but not the kind that helps people." Edited March 9, 2012 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 The GOP race gets more interesting by the day. Gingrich says he’s in it until the convention, and his interviews on the subject yesterday were fascinating. He said, and I paraphrase: It’s not necessarily in Santorum’s best interests to battle Romney one-on-one, because together Gingrich and Santorum can best ensure that Romney doesn’t get the 1,100 or so delegates he needs to win the nomination. Gingrich also said if he dropped out, Romney could focus all his campaign war chest on smearing one candidate, and that Romney doesn’t have enough money to smear everyone. Gingrich despises Romney, and he’s not afraid to show it. Gingrich also apparently believes that his best chance to be the candidate is to destroy Romney. And I wouldn’t be shocked if Santorum secretly believes that having Gingrich around for as long as possible is a good thing. Imagine a GOP Convention with Romney and Santorum/Gingrich with a similar number of delegates? What would happen? I don't know, but there would be fireworks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 My link Santorum now officially scares the sh*t out of me. Although I'll never vote for him anyway, I felt that most of his loony ideas were just his personal opinions and that he wouldn't do anything about them as a legal matter. For any Republican candidate who wants any chance at being successful in the future, I suggest you listen to something I heard a construction worker say in some documentary: "One side wants my guns, the other wants my porno magazines, and they're not getting either of them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts