RE: What the Republicans got

RE: What the Republicans got (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 11:24:36 AM)
dont see anything on their docket for this session.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 11:24:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 I was not including abortion as a type of birth control. I was addressing the issue of employers being required to include birth control (used at the time of conception) in their insurance plans. Requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion procedures is a totally different subject as an abortion would occur well after the initial time of conception. Its the same issue sloguy. You are requiring people to take action against their religious beliefs. And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. BTW Notre Dame is not prevented from freely exercising its religion by this rule, although how a non living thing can exercise religion is beyond me.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 11:25:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I consider taxes a relatively settled issue. However, there are myriad other issues. 1). The law as written only allows subsidies for STATE RUN exchanges. Yet the IRS is providing them to the exchanges run by the federal govt.Two cases underway. Nope. Case will never get heard by any appellate court. quote: 2). Requirement for Religious dissenters to pay for birth control (etc). Two cases pending at appeals court at the moment. It requires employers to provide health insurance. what the employee does with that insurance is no business of the employer. Right of Privacy. No religious freedom involved. Another dead end. quote: 3). Remote chance. The supreme court says the act is a tax. Tax bills must originate in the house. ACA originated in the Senate. Case is proceeding in Washington DC. Long settled. Will not be heard quote: 5. Suit is filed for the feds delaying the employer mandate. Waiver provision in the law. No case. So in total nothing. Not even anything Roberts would dare try and use. So you say. Fortunately the Supremes, once again disagree with you. Notre Dame lost the BC case and the appeal has gone nowhere. The other cases are also going nowhere. SCOTUS has not taken any and won't.

Yachtie -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 11:29:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: 3). Remote chance. The supreme court says the act is a tax. Tax bills must originate in the house. ACA originated in the Senate. Case is proceeding in Washington DC. Long settled. Will not be heard The problem I see with it as a tax is, unlike supposedly the 16th amendment getting around the apportionment / uniformity, the tax/fine is neither, nor is it covered under ~income. Of course anyone can claim SCOTUS has ruled, as it has. The tax issue has not been fully vetted, and I see no desire for SCOTUS to do so. It's a social issue which SCOTUS took on in its social engineering "under color of law" capacity.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 12:52:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Where in Chief Justice Robert's opinion is it that the expansion is in pursuit of the general welfare? The Standard in SD v. Dole that really applies here is whether the funding removal is, in fact, coercive or not coercive. In SD v. Dole, it was determined that a 5% withholding of Federal Funding was not coercive. In the SCOTUS decision, it was determined that 100% withholding of all funding, new and old, was coercive. It was decided that the only funding that could be withheld was that funding that would have been granted for expansion. Bullshit. It was coercive. The court just said it wasn't compulsion rather than coercion. The same applies to Medicaid funds. The states refusing to expand Medicaid are also the worst ones for trying to deny their citizens access to it. They would like to do without it except for the fact that the people they harm would vote them out of office. Oops. My bad. You are right. SD v. Dole did say it was coercive, but not compulsive. And, in the case of Medicaid expansion, the ruling was that, as written, it would have been, to apply SD v. Dole, "so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion." That's why it wasn't upheld like SD v. Dole.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 12:58:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 4:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: 3). Remote chance. The supreme court says the act is a tax. Tax bills must originate in the house. ACA originated in the Senate. Case is proceeding in Washington DC. Long settled. Will not be heard The problem I see with it as a tax is, unlike supposedly the 16th amendment getting around the apportionment / uniformity, the tax/fine is neither, nor is it covered under ~income. Of course anyone can claim SCOTUS has ruled, as it has. The tax issue has not been fully vetted, and I see no desire for SCOTUS to do so. It's a social issue which SCOTUS took on in its social engineering "under color of law" capacity. No. It has long been the practice of the Senate, when they want to pass a bill with a new tax, to take an existing such bill passed by the House and amend it to replace all of the original bills text with their own bill. That is what happened with the ACA and no challenge to that has ever succeeded.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 4:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer. The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance. Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable?

cloudboy -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 4:50:15 PM)
quote: Taxes and regulation make doing business less profitable, If government policies help stabilize the economy and boost the middle class, higher taxes and regulations would actually increase corporate profits. Also, reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage helps small businesses who would otherwise fold having to pay the prices for existing health care premiums. Higher taxes did not cripple the economies under Clinton or Eisenhower. What's been most crippling to the USA economy since 1950 are the failed wars of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our CIA and military adventurism also did not help promote freedom in Central or South America --- and did not help establish a stable Middle East either. US forces did help deter the USSR from deploying missiles in Cuba, helped stabilize Yugoslavia, and helped repel IRAQ from Kuwait. What harms the USA is a leadership that fails to pick its battles.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 6:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer. The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance. Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable? If the employer is paying for the insurance, then, yes, the employer is being forced to subsidize stuff. If the employee wants to add coverage, then he or she has the option to do so.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 8:10:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer. The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance. Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable? If the employer is paying for the insurance, then, yes, the employer is being forced to subsidize stuff. If the employee wants to add coverage, then he or she has the option to do so. You're kidding right? Let's think for a moment, a JW business provides insurance that does not cover blood transfusions but does not tell its employees it is a JW business or that the insurance has that gap. Would that be acceptable?

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 8:19:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer. The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance. Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable? If the employer is paying for the insurance, then, yes, the employer is being forced to subsidize stuff. If the employee wants to add coverage, then he or she has the option to do so. You're kidding right? Let's think for a moment, a JW business provides insurance that does not cover blood transfusions but does not tell its employees it is a JW business or that the insurance has that gap. Would that be acceptable? There is a responsibility for the employer to inform the employees, and there is a responsibility for an employee to actually read what's covered and what's not. That's sorta part of picking a plan, isn't it? How you can't see this is beyond me.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 9:34:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer. The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance. Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable? If the employer is paying for the insurance, then, yes, the employer is being forced to subsidize stuff. If the employee wants to add coverage, then he or she has the option to do so. You're kidding right? Let's think for a moment, a JW business provides insurance that does not cover blood transfusions but does not tell its employees it is a JW business or that the insurance has that gap. Would that be acceptable? There is a responsibility for the employer to inform the employees, and there is a responsibility for an employee to actually read what's covered and what's not. That's sorta part of picking a plan, isn't it? How you can't see this is beyond me. Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made? Do you not see how problematic this could get?

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 9:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made? Do you not see how problematic this could get? My plan covers everything at 100%. So, you're complaining that things might be difficult? Well, FFS, why didn't you just come out and say that?!? Apparently, people are too stupid to be responsible enough to know what is and what isn't covered. They shouldn't be bothered with understanding their plans, options, and responsibilities, either. As far as the insurance company not covering blood transfusions because they are a JW organization, that would be something that should come up in negotiations, shouldn't it? I guess we can't let a company negotiate it's own insurance options, either, now, huh?

Phydeaux -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 11:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do. Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer. The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance. Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable? Well, lets look at this. When JW's children have been afflicted with curable, serious diseases, the rights of the parents to be guardians is only over turned by legal action. Here, you are talking about complete disenfranchisement. So yes. I think forcing catholics to fund abortion and birth control is bullshit. Buy your own condoms.

Phydeaux -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/18/2013 11:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made? Do you not see how problematic this could get? No. I don't see anything other than usual due diligence. But thats the difference. You want a nanny state. I want to be able to choose for myself.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/19/2013 7:00:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made? Do you not see how problematic this could get? My plan covers everything at 100%. So, you're complaining that things might be difficult? Well, FFS, why didn't you just come out and say that?!? Apparently, people are too stupid to be responsible enough to know what is and what isn't covered. They shouldn't be bothered with understanding their plans, options, and responsibilities, either. As far as the insurance company not covering blood transfusions because they are a JW organization, that would be something that should come up in negotiations, shouldn't it? I guess we can't let a company negotiate it's own insurance options, either, now, huh? Really? Your plan has no exclusions? Are you really sure about that? (no plan I've ever seen did so and I used to help choose plans for a software firm that wanted to provide the best policy possible.) You might want to reread the policy small print. They all exclude "experimental" treatments and most also include wording that says they don't cover procedures not considered standard care or the like. Why would the JW insurance company be required to explain it's preapproval policies? No law requires such. Luckily the ACA says insurance now has to provide a certain core set of things including blood transfusions and contraception. But still the company simply provides health insurance. What the employee does with said insurance is no concern of the employer. Otherwise the employer is infringing on the employees rights to privacy, association and religion (at least). Trying to get the government to place the employers "right" over the employees actual rights is absurd.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/19/2013 7:09:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made? Do you not see how problematic this could get? No. I don't see anything other than usual due diligence. But thats the difference. You want a nanny state. I want to be able to choose for myself. Bullshit. You already admitted to not having insurance. You even claimed you would refuse to get insured under the ACA because of your opposition to it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/19/2013 10:56:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made? Do you not see how problematic this could get? My plan covers everything at 100%. So, you're complaining that things might be difficult? Well, FFS, why didn't you just come out and say that?!? Apparently, people are too stupid to be responsible enough to know what is and what isn't covered. They shouldn't be bothered with understanding their plans, options, and responsibilities, either. As far as the insurance company not covering blood transfusions because they are a JW organization, that would be something that should come up in negotiations, shouldn't it? I guess we can't let a company negotiate it's own insurance options, either, now, huh? Really? Your plan has no exclusions? Are you really sure about that? (no plan I've ever seen did so and I used to help choose plans for a software firm that wanted to provide the best policy possible.) You might want to reread the policy small print. They all exclude "experimental" treatments and most also include wording that says they don't cover procedures not considered standard care or the like. !00% sure. I don't care what you've been part of before. Your not seeing a plan does not mean it doesn't exist. quote: Why would the JW insurance company be required to explain it's preapproval policies? No law requires such. Luckily the ACA says insurance now has to provide a certain core set of things including blood transfusions and contraception. But still the company simply provides health insurance. What the employee does with said insurance is no concern of the employer. Otherwise the employer is infringing on the employees rights to privacy, association and religion (at least). Trying to get the government to place the employers "right" over the employees actual rights is absurd. If the company is paying for the insurance, then it's covering transfusions means that they are paying for transfusions, doesn't it? Now, if there is zero difference in premium amount and the company isn't self-insured, then covering or not covering transfusions is moot.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/19/2013 10:59:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made? Do you not see how problematic this could get? No. I don't see anything other than usual due diligence. But thats the difference. You want a nanny state. I want to be able to choose for myself. Bullshit. You already admitted to not having insurance. You even claimed you would refuse to get insured under the ACA because of your opposition to it. Again, you are choosing for people and not letting them choose for themselves. If Phydeaux has chosen to not buy insurance, then the choice has been made, hasn't it? Self-determination is such a bitch for a nanny state.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875