War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.

You do not have to work for someone who does not provide the benefits you want.

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The whole problem's the mandate thing.
....
..
What bothers me, and what I tried to make clear, is that the mandate provides all these incentives to do things off the books. Especially as it isn't funded. It's going to fuel the fire of an underground economy. It's going to fuel lies. And the people playing by the rules (I'm thinking of flintlock here), are just going to be so much more expensive because of it, that there will always be work for these underground folk. The legislators being honest are going to get voted out. You just functionally put a $2,000 price sticker on what a lot of people will see as a 'little white lie.'

Not smart.


*"Bronze level" bottom-of-the-barrel plans start around $12k/yr. There is some 8% of your total income for healthcare exemption nonesense that's hard to figure out how it would be calculated. It might make the mandate not so bad as it's presented here. Theoretically if you have to pay over 8% pre-tax of everything you make towards healthcare, non-inclusive of employer contributions, co-pays, employer-employee premium sharing, etc. then the mandate fee isn't supposed to apply to you. But ignore that for these purposes. I'm assuming people will be scared enough of the fee they won't risk it. And I can see H&R Block screwing this one up pretty seriously.

thanks for the comparisons/examples dc - you always manage to make the incomprehensible clear/understandable for the typical reader.

the problem, as eye see it, is that the .gov (read: the nanny state promoters) inserting itself in this particular issue and 'trying to make all sides happy' has so compounded the issues that we again require the courts to figure it out = epic fail, once again, by the .gov (nanny statists) to fix a problem THEY have created.

the mandates are what is driving the escalation in medical insurance cost, coupled with the practice of defensive medicine by the doctors (vs the lawyers/tort bar) for jacking up the prices of what used to be or should be routine practices

and the principal issue with mandates is that forcing insurers to cover things like birth control, routine maternity, viagra/impotence, sexchange 'therapies', substance abuse etc etc is allowing the 'socialization' of the costs of the individual's lifestyle choices to be forced upon those who shouldnt otherwise have to shoulder the burden - and NONE of this stuff should be an 'insurable event'

frankly, i resent the hell out of MY med insurance rates going up to pay for any/all of the above.

then having the middle man (insurance cos) in the equation, basically getting paid/profiting to the tune of billions for essentially operating the claims-payment function, thus eliminating any oversight/incentive the consumer might have had in reducing the costs of the services rendered (simply _knowing_ what the charges will be would result in lower costs, as people decide for themselves whether they 'need' any particular service badly enuf to want to pay HOW MUCH?? for it.


all in all its the .gov that has caused the whole problem (beginning with wage caps during/after ww2, that resulted in business offering med insurance as part of compensation to get around the caps), and methinks we are deluding ourselves in thinking that congress will somehow fix it.

that said, i think we're on a oneway/no-return trip to single payer and short of that, perhaps having a gov-provider of last resort would make the most sense and it would give the private sector providers some competition - i've brought this one up before: a 6th branch of the 'armed services' called the medical corps, that would operate hospitals for those without any other means of getting med care, that would be staffed by those who would sign up for the corps just like they do for the army/navy/marine corps, be educated/trained and then owe uncle sam some number of years of service in return - this should offer a solution to both the lack of affordable options for those needing med attention and those desiring to be trained for medical careers, but dont have the 100's of thousands nec for the usual private sector education

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Ellenz,

Suppose it’s five years ago, you’re working at a large company and you have good insurance. You develop a serious illness... let’s say multiple sclerosis, or a fast-moving cancer ... it progresses to the point where you can no longer work, and you’re laid off. For 18 months, you have COBRA insurance coverage. You’re a responsible person, you have savings for emergencies ... but when the 18 months ends you find you cannot get insurance coverage at any price, because you have have MS, or cancer. You have a pre-existing condition... you had good insurance coverage until you got ill... but now, sorry!!

The 1996 HIPAA law requires that you can convert to individual coverage at the end of COBRA. What you can convert to varies by state.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.

*WARNING* Raz might be censored by EJ, but in the case of mesyn191 he no longer cares.

Your point is absolute and total nonsense - unless you're a neocommunist. You are saying that a personal "need" conveys a "right" to stick your hand into my billfold. Plain and simple.
Everything is about YOU, mesyn - YOUR needs, YOUR "rights", and what business owners OWE YOU. No one owes you ANYTHING, mesyn, and unless you figure that out you're going to end up a total loser. Your sorry attitude and mostly vacuous "arguments" on many subjects have you well on your way.

I've read your posts on this matter and you're just not worth talking to. You are going on my Ignore list.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Well, perhaps the employee can find another employer that does provide whatever benefit they want?

The "This is my business love or leave it!!" argument eh? That doesn't really answer the question you quoted, you're just shifting goal posts to a new topic. Since that question still stands and I didn't put it to you I'll try to answer yours at least. What if finding that employer requires moving far away and they're forced to sell their house, pull their kids out of school, etc? More likley: what if every employer decides to start acting the petty lord and decides to put all sorts of different restrictions on compensation every where you go so that an "ideal" employer who just pays you without trying to enforce morals/ethics/religion no longer exists? Why do you believe its reasonable for the employee to bear all risks and go through all the effort to see that their needs/wants/religious views are respected?

You are confusing wanting something and feeling entitled to it with being forced to provide a good or service that is contrary to your religious beliefs.

Why are the employers "wants" and "feelings of entitlement" and beliefs to be respected here and not the employees? Why is affordable control of procreation a "want" and not a "need" in the first place?

[Master Shake]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Once you let the Government cross that line there would be no going back. There are plenty of cults in this world. I'm a lot less frightened of them than I am of an over-powerful central government. Giving the Government power to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it's going to abide by is very foolish indeed.

Spoken like a true Brown Coat!

[Master Shake]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.

Well, perhaps the employee can find another employer that does provide whatever benefit they want? You are confusing wanting something and feeling entitled to it with being forced to provide a good or service that is contrary to your religious beliefs.

[shiny!]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I dunno what you know about the Scientologists but they're one of those cases where the government probably should say they aren't a valid religion. And it wouldn't have anything to do with the 1st Amendment. Scientology is a pure manufactured for profit cult and was always designed that way from the get go.


The wiki on it is quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciento...gion_for_money

Once you let the Government cross that line there would be no going back. There are plenty of cults in this world. I'm a lot less frightened of them than I am of an over-powerful central government. Giving the Government power to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it's going to abide by is very foolish indeed.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I dunno what you know about the Scientologists but they're one of those cases where the government probably should say they aren't a valid religion. And it wouldn't have anything to do with the 1st Amendment. Scientology is a pure manufactured for profit cult and was always designed that way from the get go.

On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the place - probably not a clinic - but I am sure that it ought to be a company, independent of the HAS [the Hubbard Association of Scientologists] but fed by the HAS. We don't want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3. keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business. I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We're treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that's religion, not mental science.

The wiki on it is quite good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciento...gion_for_money

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION??? I mean a GOOD solution? Maybe more than one good solution? What are some better ideas?

Just do a Medicare buy in for everyone that wants it above or around the poverty line, those on the opposite side of the povery line can get it for free. Those that don't can still get private insurance if they so choose.

Note: something like this was attempted soon after Obama got elected but he shot it down pretty quick and then spent a lot of time and effort to get that crap bill (PPACA) passed. That was a big tip off early on that Obama was full of crap and one of the main reasons I dislike him. He at very least has managed to set back true health care reform 8-10 years at a minimum. Maybe longer depending on how long the whole crony-capitalist system can keep lurching a long.

If we totally scrapped the employer provider model, what could we replace it with that isn't a Federal government provider model?

The other option to the above or a UHS is to do what Germany and Japan do, which is have private insurance that has fixed prices set by the government that care providers must accept no matter what, and everyone has to buy the insurance or if they're too poor they get it for free. edit: Frontline did a show on healthcare world wide called "Sick Around the World", here is the parts on Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uziy_xAkwSk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OTKw...eature=channel. Doesn't take long to watch it at all.

If we could wipe all the current players off the board and start over from scratch, what could we do that would work better?

Single payer UHS would be the best thing. Most of the rest of the world does this without issue as you can see from the charts linked or posted on the previous page.

edit:\/\/\/\/\/Except it isn't a religion, not even sorta kinda, its a scam that poses as one to hide behind the 1st Amendment. The government wouldn't be deciding anything there since the Scientology founder admitted in writing and told numerous people that the whole thing is a for profit scam.

[shiny!]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

This health insurance mess stinks to high heaven and I don't know what the solution is. It's too big, too complicated. It's too expensive to adminster and too expensive for most people to afford. Almost everybody is unhappy with the system. It's too broken to fix, IMO.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION??? I mean a GOOD solution? Maybe more than one good solution? What are some better ideas?

Do we need to go smaller instead of bigger? If we totally scrapped the employer provider model, what could we replace it with that isn't a Federal government provider model? Could we design a system that could function without insurance companies, just have direct dealings between patients and providers? Or... what?

If we could wipe all the current players off the board and start over from scratch, what could we do that would work better?

[shiny!]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

There is plenty of repression going on here in the US but religion isn't one of those things where its an issue. Hell, the government even lets the Scientologists call themselves a valid religion.

The government doesn't have a say in what is or is not a valid religion. We'd better hope they let the Scientologists be, because once the government feels it has the power to decide what is or is not a valid religion, we've lose the 1st Amendment.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

If the government can do that, it can require everyone to pay for some people's desire for some other entirely arbitrary thing, like coverage for plastic surgery, say, or a cell phone, or perhaps a new car every five years.

Is it correct to say that you believe being able to manage and control procreation is, if not a minor thing, then a luxury? Given the cost of contraceptives (never no mind the responsibility required) vs. the individuals' cost of raising a child or perhaps having the state raise an abandoned child this seems to be a net benefit for society in terms of economics doesn't it?

Also, the underlying conflict taking place is between whether the government or conscience is dominant.

What about the conscience of the individual? Don't they matter too? Do you really want the beliefs of the wage payor to be dominant over the wage earner?

This country was founded on religious liberty principles. In most of eighteenth century Europe government determined what constituted lawful religion. Now we are moving back to that repressive time.

Oh come on now you're just handwaving hysterically. There is plenty of repression going on here in the US but religion isn't one of those things where its an issue. Hell, the government even lets the Scientologists call themselves a valid religion.

[shiny!]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Who is most likely to be raising the kids on their own?
Who is most likely to be beaten by their spouse?


Poor, poor men. We're so disadvantaged.

Thank you.

[photon555]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Raz, you're exactly right. This whole discussion isn't about anyone suppressing anything. It's about whether government can require everyone to pay for some people's desire for contraception. If the government can do that, it can require everyone to pay for some people's desire for some other entirely arbitrary thing, like coverage for plastic surgery, say, or a cell phone, or perhaps a new car every five years.

Also, the underlying conflict taking place is between whether the government or conscience is dominant. Does the government rule over all society, or do private religious organisations have the right to obey their collective conscience. This country was founded on religious liberty principles. In most of eighteenth century Europe government determined what constituted lawful religion. Now we are moving back to that repressive time.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

What the magisterium of the Roman church is saying is their participation in any form of providing artificial birth control is inherently sinful and violates their free excercise.
Although I'm not Roman Catholic (I'm Eastern Orthodox), and I have profound and serious disagreement with their theology in several areas (ecclesiology, soterology, and even some of their moral theology), I do agree that their constitutional right of free excercise is being compromised by this administration.

The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

Like for instance limiting people's access, suppressing if you will, to contraceptives. After all, if people can't afford it, they probably won't get it right? And it isn't reasonable to say, "well contraceptives are cheap so they don't really count" because there is no upper or lower dollar limit here since the argument is that the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are inherently sinful and so shouldn't compensate for them which has nothing to do with cost.