$10.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
225 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Arizona bill would allow any employer to refuse contraceptive coverage in insurance rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
mb
Drew1365 wrote:

Perhaps we should let each business decide which is the better business decision. Or if we're talking about religious institutions, we should respect the will of the Founders in crafting the first amendment separation.


Really, health insurance and business have been an unholy alliance since day 1, and I think we can all agree with that one.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BJ
United States
Eau Claire
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
You are full of poisonous refuse and insane foolishness.
badge
I had not supposed or expected your arrogant spirit to seek such a ridiculous and childish reason for lying; you should have better reasons.
mbmbmbmbmb
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

Perhaps we should let each business decide which is the better business decision. Or if we're talking about religious institutions, we should respect the will of the Founders in crafting the first amendment separation.


Really, health insurance and business have been an unholy alliance since day 1, and I think we can all agree with that one.


Too bad the government forced wage controls on us so the two became joined at the hip. You'd think that we would learn from past mistakes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
badge
"No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you."
mb
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

Perhaps we should let each business decide which is the better business decision. Or if we're talking about religious institutions, we should respect the will of the Founders in crafting the first amendment separation.


Really, health insurance and business have been an unholy alliance since day 1, and I think we can all agree with that one.


I certainly do, but I don't think we "all" would agree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
El Chupacabratwurst
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

Perhaps we should let each business decide which is the better business decision. Or if we're talking about religious institutions, we should respect the will of the Founders in crafting the first amendment separation.


Really, health insurance and business have been an unholy alliance since day 1, and I think we can all agree with that one.


I certainly do, but I don't think we "all" would agree.


I don't know who would disagree. I'd much rather see the government as single-payer and totally divorce my health insurance from my employer.
10 
 Thumb up
0.27
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
mb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

Perhaps we should let each business decide which is the better business decision. Or if we're talking about religious institutions, we should respect the will of the Founders in crafting the first amendment separation.


Really, health insurance and business have been an unholy alliance since day 1, and I think we can all agree with that one.


I certainly do, but I don't think we "all" would agree.


I don't know who would disagree. I'd much rather see the government as single-payer and totally divorce my health insurance from my employer.


While we may disagree/agree on that point (I agree)... at least it would be one bad set of problems.

As it stands now, you have a profit motivated company picking another profit motivated company to provide a service that at least the first company knows absolutely nothing about.

...and then we're supposed to pick our companies based on salaries, speak nothing of the healthcare either provides.

It's neither capitalistic, nor social... it's like a perfect shit system where you have no choice, yet all the profit motives are well in place.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
El Chupacabratwurst
mbmbmbmbmb
bippi wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

Perhaps we should let each business decide which is the better business decision. Or if we're talking about religious institutions, we should respect the will of the Founders in crafting the first amendment separation.


Really, health insurance and business have been an unholy alliance since day 1, and I think we can all agree with that one.


I certainly do, but I don't think we "all" would agree.


I don't know who would disagree. I'd much rather see the government as single-payer and totally divorce my health insurance from my employer.


While we may disagree/agree on that point (I agree)... at least it would be one bad set of problems.

As it stands now, you have a profit motivated company picking another profit motivated company to provide a service that at least the first company knows absolutely nothing about.

...and then we're supposed to pick our companies based on salaries, speak nothing of the healthcare either provides.

It's neither capitalistic, nor social... it's like a perfect shit system where you have no choice, yet all the profit motives are well in place.


Exactly. You're stuck with whatever shitty deal your employer has in place. That's if you're lucky enough to be in such demand as an employee to have a choice, which is hardly guaranteed these days. And you're shit out of luck if you can't find a job.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
mbmbmbmbmb
All medical coverage infringes on a Christian Scientist's beliefs. We should prohibit any medical care to make sure that they can keep their religious freedoms.
12 
 Thumb up
0.03
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sisteray wrote:
All medical coverage infringes on a Christian Scientist's beliefs. We should prohibit any medical care to make sure that they can keep their religious freedoms.

They actually want health insurance to be required to cover prayer.
3 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
sisteray wrote:
All medical coverage infringes on a Christian Scientist's beliefs. We should prohibit any medical care to make sure that they can keep their religious freedoms.

They actually want health insurance to be required to cover prayer.


It's just like those prayer sluts to leech off us.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
badge
"No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you."
mb
Prior to Obamacare, a "Christian Science owner of a running shoe store" could decide on not having health insurance. Dick Durbin thinks that's terrible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We make them pay taxes that go to fund the military, too. The horror!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
El Chupacabratwurst
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Prior to Obamacare, a "Christian Science owner of a running shoe store" could decide on not having health insurance. Dick Durbin thinks that's terrible.


That does sound terrible. What's your point?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
badge
"No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you."
mb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Prior to Obamacare, a "Christian Science owner of a running shoe store" could decide on not having health insurance. Dick Durbin thinks that's terrible.


That does sound terrible. What's your point?


Well, the starting point is that before Obamacare started mandating insurance coverage, people were free to choose. Businesses were free to choose. Durbin apparently hates that sort of freedom. And to introduce an amendment that would retain that freedom (The Blunt Amendment discussed above, which makes the same allowances as this Arizona bill if I understand it correctly) is just terrible.

Now, if you really want to avoid the mandates of Obamacare, then you have to be one of his big donors. Then he gives you a waiver.

But is it really terrible for the owner of a small business to not provide health insurance for his employees? What if he can't afford to? What if it's the difference between keeping the business open or closing down? I've worked at a few small businesses where I had to buy my own. I didn't cry to Mommy Government to come save me from my evil employer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guidance is internal.
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
I'll bet you think the word "Christianist" is cute.


You have to admit it's less offensive than Christianista.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
El Chupacabratwurst
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Prior to Obamacare, a "Christian Science owner of a running shoe store" could decide on not having health insurance. Dick Durbin thinks that's terrible.


That does sound terrible. What's your point?


Well, the starting point is that before Obamacare started mandating insurance coverage, people were free to choose. Businesses were free to choose. Durbin apparently hates that sort of freedom. And to introduce an amendment that would retain that freedom (The Blunt Amendment discussed above, which makes the same allowances as this Arizona bill if I understand it correctly) is just terrible.

Now, if you really want to avoid the mandates of Obamacare, then you have to be one of his big donors. Then he gives you a waiver.

But is it really terrible for the owner of a small business to not provide health insurance for his employees? What if he can't afford to? What if it's the difference between keeping the business open or closing down? I've worked at a few small businesses where I had to buy my own. I didn't cry to Mommy Government to come save me from my evil employer.


You don't think it's terrible. I do, as I think in our current system where you can only get decent health insurance without a lot of prerequisites and a fair rate through an employer it would be terrible to allow employers to abuse "religious objections" to get out of it. I don't think a religious objection is sufficient to get out of it if the government says it's required. We disagree, clearly, but I'm not seeing anything to convince me I'm wrong.

Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship. Small business owners wouldn't have to worry about the company growing too large and requiring them to buy insurance plans. Large businesses could compete for the best employees purely on salary and the merits of the job, without this insurance issue muddying the water on how much good people cost the company. It's a win-win!
12 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
badge
"No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you."
mb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.

Obamacare was sold partly as a cost-cutting measure.

Guess what?

Quote:
President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
mb
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.


Do you have a cell phone plan?

Capitalism isn't always awesome.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.


They said that when they decided to make energy public in Pennsylvania. That didn't work, did it?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.

Obamacare was sold partly as a cost-cutting measure.

Guess what?

Quote:
President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.


I don't understand. I looked at the CBO report referenced in that link, and there's no mention of $1.76 trillion. The 10-year projections run from 2012-2021, and the net costs come in at just shy of $1.1 trillion, which according to the CBO is about $50 billion less than previously expected. The report also includes estimates through 2022 that come to $1.252 trillion.

Ah, check that. I found this in the CBO blog entry on the report:

Quote:
The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources).


So gross costs (estimated through 2022) are about $1.76 trillion. Net will be less than that. It appears there are a variety of factors contributing to the changes in estimates. I'd like to review it further.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
mb
sisteray wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.


They said that when they decided to make energy public in Pennsylvania. That didn't work, did it?


For those of us who are nowhere near Pennsylvania, what happened exactly?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
badge
"No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you."
mb
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.


Do you have a cell phone plan?


Nope. What should I glean from that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
mb
Drew1365 wrote:
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.


Do you have a cell phone plan?


Nope. What should I glean from that?


Just one area where capitalism doesn't make it all nice and rosy.
EDIT (unfortunately after drew quoted me)
instead of being a smartass, I'll actually make a point that does speak to the issue. Healthcare isn't something that you can either:
a) Go to verizon and get a data plan
b) Go to phone-shak and get a minute-to-minute trac phone.

We're all supposed to get our arms fixed if we break them. There's no "can't afford it" for a broken arm. We're all supposed to get a new heart if we need it. There's no 'goodwill' for a new heart, if I'm poor.

So advocating capitalist solutions to something that's a 'need' like air, water, etc... I don't buy it.

It sounds great. Like, penalties for us fatties forcing me to get in shape or pay for it...

...but what ends up happening is that we stop covering elderly because they're too much (medicare), then the young because they need a shitload of visits (medicaid), then what's it going to be?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
badge
"No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you."
mb
Golux13 wrote:
Ah, check that. I found this in the CBO blog entry on the report:

Quote:
The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources).


So gross costs (estimated through 2022) are about $1.76 trillion. Net will be less than that. It appears there are a variety of factors contributing to the changes in estimates. I'd like to review it further.


Factor this in.

Obama said that Obamacare would be deficit neutral. It's not.
Obama said that it would bend the cost curve down. Costs are rising.
Obama said you could keep your insurance plan if you liked it. No, you can't.

Obamacare delenda est!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
badge
"No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you."
mb
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bippi wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Like I said, I'd love to take the employers out of the mix. Make it a public good and let's cut out the whole employer/insurance company relationship.


The way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable again is to get the government out of it entirely.


Do you have a cell phone plan?


Nope. What should I glean from that?


Just one area where capitalism doesn't make it all nice and rosy.


Er . . . but I don't know what you mean. Do you want the government to regulate cell phone plans? Are you convinced this will keep costs down?

(Isn't there some stupid government plan to give free cell phones to the homeless anyway? Just become homeless and you're in!)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
mb
I edited my post to be more cogent. sorry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.