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]
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
VA
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
Avatar
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
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
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
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
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
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
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
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
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
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
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
VA
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
Avatar
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
badge
Avatar
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
badge
Avatar
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
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
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
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
I edited my post to be more cogent. sorry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
bippi wrote:
...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?


Uh . . . but that's exactly what'll happen if we all get shoved into the government single-payer plan. "Nah, that surgery you need is too expensive. Here, take a pain pill."

We shouldn't want the government controlling every aspect of health care. When only the government controls access, then the government can easily deny access.


Whereas when corporate interests control health care, then those corporate interests can easily deny access. As they have shown a marked propensity to do over the years.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Suggesting that it's "multiple points of access" vs. "one point of access" is a straw man. Most nations with national health care policies also maintain multiple points of access. The vast majority of them, in fact. Even the birthplace of nationalized health care (The UK) has both public and private access to health care.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
[
Obamacare was sold partly as a cost-cutting measure.

Guess what?



by Philip Klein Senior Editorial Writer
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
It's a moronic law and it'll never pass.

This is AZ we're talking about. I'd call their recent immigration bills idiotic and they passed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
perfalbion wrote:
Suggesting that it's "multiple points of access" vs. "one point of access" is a straw man.


No, you're wrong again. This is a straw man.





Nice 403 error.

It's really funny that you'll frequently accuse me of not discussing the issue when what you really mean is "you won't discuss the issue within the parameters I chose to place around them so that I can demonstrate that I'm right and you're wrong."

I have to ask, do you honestly care about problems like the cost of health care? Getting deficits under control? Enacting real tax reform? Economic growth? I ask because it's impossible to actually tell when your response to just about anything substantive is to say "you're wrong" and either leave it at that or post a picture that adds nothing to the conversation.

I'm genuinely curious since you'll regularly accuse anyone that posts in opposition to your position of being mindless, brainwashed, ignorant, or misinformed with sufficient wit to avoid moderator action, but provide just about nothing to actually address what they said.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexis Carlough
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bippi wrote:
I love it when the ACLU takes a side.

Banning circumcision: hey, don't trample on our religious freedom.

Banning contraception: hey, don't let your religious beliefs trample on us.

I do realize that one is more of an edict than the other, but how is what the pope says any more or less than what the old testament says, legally?


I'm pretty sure the ACLU would oppose allowing your employer to mandate that you do or do not have a circumcision. I'm pretty sure if this law was 'allow Jewish employers to REQUIRE their employees to have their kids circumcised because its their religious beliefs' the ACLU (and EVERY SANE PERSON) would say that is CRAZY to allow religious people to force their beliefs on others.

This is not about religious freedom--it's about people thinking they have the right to force their religious views on their employees.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
alexiscarlough wrote:
bippi wrote:
I love it when the ACLU takes a side.

Banning circumcision: hey, don't trample on our religious freedom.

Banning contraception: hey, don't let your religious beliefs trample on us.

I do realize that one is more of an edict than the other, but how is what the pope says any more or less than what the old testament says, legally?


I'm pretty sure the ACLU would oppose allowing your employer to mandate that you do or do not have a circumcision. I'm pretty sure if this law was 'allow Jewish employers to REQUIRE their employees to have their kids circumcised because its their religious beliefs' the ACLU (and EVERY SANE PERSON) would say that is CRAZY to allow religious people to force their beliefs on others.

This is not about religious freedom--it's about people thinking they have the right to force their religious views on their employees.


Ahh, so the line is employers-employee relationships. Got it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
The difference is between multiple points of access to healthcare vs. one. Surely you can see that multiple points of access is far better for everyone.

Yes. If we can actually achieve this in a non-theoretical way that would be fantastic.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Drew1365 wrote:
Golux13 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bippi wrote:
...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?


Uh . . . but that's exactly what'll happen if we all get shoved into the government single-payer plan. "Nah, that surgery you need is too expensive. Here, take a pain pill."

We shouldn't want the government controlling every aspect of health care. When only the government controls access, then the government can easily deny access.


Whereas when corporate interests control health care, then those corporate interests can easily deny access. As they have shown a marked propensity to do over the years.


The difference is between multiple points of access to healthcare vs. one. Surely you can see that multiple points of access is far better for everyone.


Couldn't they have worked it a bit like aflac or something?

Like, have the government-cheese core services that you can count on. "x happens, you get y treatment" and you can make that call about whether that's appropriate coverage or not when you're not bleeding in the emergency room.

If it's not enough coverage, you can:
a) buy additional insurance
b) bitch to your congressmen

Which, right now, is more choice than I have. "Oh, hey, how was I to know that my company's in-network hospital had out-of-network doctors when I visited the ER?" (my wife and I got bit by that last year) (and I do realize we're talking about what could be, and we all agree that what exists now---what I'm complaining about, sucks major balls)

I do realize that 'a' flies in the face that we should all have some services regardless of what we can afford, but at least it would be a start.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexis Carlough
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bippi wrote:
alexiscarlough wrote:
bippi wrote:
I love it when the ACLU takes a side.

Banning circumcision: hey, don't trample on our religious freedom.

Banning contraception: hey, don't let your religious beliefs trample on us.

I do realize that one is more of an edict than the other, but how is what the pope says any more or less than what the old testament says, legally?


I'm pretty sure the ACLU would oppose allowing your employer to mandate that you do or do not have a circumcision. I'm pretty sure if this law was 'allow Jewish employers to REQUIRE their employees to have their kids circumcised because its their religious beliefs' the ACLU (and EVERY SANE PERSON) would say that is CRAZY to allow religious people to force their beliefs on others.

This is not about religious freedom--it's about people thinking they have the right to force their religious views on their employees.


Ahh, so the line is employers-employee relationships. Got it.


Saying its religious freedom to be allowed to *impose your religious views on others* is just ridiculous. Lawmakers should not be able to outlaw contraceptives for religious reasons (thus forcing me to live by their religious convictions), and employers should not be able to make contraception prohibitively expensive (thus effectively outlawing it for many people and forcing their employers to live by their religious affiliations).

For any job where your primary job responsibilities, the work to be done, etc don't have anything to do with religion, religion should have no place in the workplace. Not allowing a religious exemption applies only to church-AFFILIATED institutions like hospitals which just so happen to get a lot of our tax payer dollars. Asking citizens and organizations that receive taxpayer dollars to follow the laws of the land really shouldn't be that fucking crazy an idea.

Churches can still do whatever the fuck they want because they are a CHURCH and can claim a legitimate reason to expect all their employees to follow their religion, etc (or else why would you work for this church). But expecting an enormous hospital or university to follow Catholicism just because the school was founded 200 years ago by the Church? Ridiculous.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bippi wrote:
Like, have the government-cheese core services that you can count on. "x happens, you get y treatment" and you can make that call about whether that's appropriate coverage or not when you're not bleeding in the emergency room.


This is the way lots of countries do it. Many mix a mandated basic amount of coverage (subsidized for low-income families/individuals) which you can supplement if you choose (France, Germany, Switzerland all have some flavor of this). Others provide a national service (Britain) that you can supplement privately. But Canada's the only example you'll ever hear about from opponents of reform because it's Britain minus the private options and provides fodder for lots of comparisons.

But remember, this is a debate that had a pretty significant number of people saying "don't socialize Medicare," so looking at examples of other models that aren't the "horror story" of fully nationalized, government controlled health care aren't applicable. We might learn something from them.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
VA
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


The difference is between multiple points of access to healthcare vs. one. Surely you can see that multiple points of access is far better for everyone.


Right now the only realistic point of access is either through your employer or through a spouse's or SO's employer (usually at a higher cost).
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Why did they feel the burning need to delete this language from the current law?

A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.

I think the response has been that there have never been any discrimination cases on the issue before making the amendment to the current bill which did allow exceptions to coverage based on "religious tenets prohibit the use of prescribed contraceptive methods". I still find it curious that they would bother when they are making other amendments to the bill.

If it is only about government coercion then why do they give a crap if women take out a separate policy that does cover contraception?


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexis Carlough
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
alexiscarlough wrote:
Saying its religious freedom to be allowed to *impose your religious views on others* is just ridiculous. Lawmakers should not be able to outlaw contraceptives for religious reasons (thus forcing me to live by their religious convictions), and employers should not be able to make contraception prohibitively expensive (thus effectively outlawing it for many people and forcing their employers to live by their religious affiliations).


1) Not a single lawmaker is trying to outlaw contraception. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying for partisan purposes.

2) Employers do not make contraception prohibitively expensive. a) Most employers don't sell contraception to their employees directly, and b) contraception is dirt cheap.

Quote:
For any job where your primary job responsibilities, the work to be done, etc don't have anything to do with religion, religion should have no place in the workplace. Not allowing a religious exemption applies only to church-AFFILIATED institutions like hospitals which just so happen to get a lot of our tax payer dollars. Asking citizens and organizations that receive taxpayer dollars to follow the laws of the land really shouldn't be that fucking crazy an idea.


No, I agree that everyone should follow the law of the land. Where does the constitution say that I must buy condoms for you?


Contraceptives are not 'dirt cheap'. With insurance, my contraceptives are $17/month--without, they're $60/month. The 'dirt cheap' number of $9 at Target is still the price of a meal plus the hour it would require me to go way out of my way to Target, plus transportation etc. The cost of not having the pill, even if I'm not having sex, is about $100/month for the crippling cramps that keep me home from work/school vomiting with the pain for a day or two.

The constitution is not the only law of the land, in case you hadn't noticed. The constitution is a tiny fraction of the laws we live under. Oh, the constitution doesn't say anything about not being allowed to run you over with my car, so that's ok, right? That's not illegal, since the constitution doesn't say it is?

The 'where does the consititution say...' is just a way of being argumentative while saying nothing of value. It's meaningless. It adds no value to the conversation.
12 
 Thumb up
0.01
 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.