In the next few days will we hear a reversal from the president that religious institutions will be able to apply for waivers from ObamaCare mandates that force them to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs?
I don't know, it just seems to be the modus operandi for President Obama's policies.
Kinda funny when you think of it. . .you promote programs that you claim will grow the economy, reduce burdens on the people, then you spend your time granting wavers because those policies hurt businesses and put burdens on people.
Perhaps he should just sell indulgences? Kills two birds with one stone. Detractors become donors, and everyone's happy!
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1J1JcL-OPtRLiN3VorXrQSN5-vO7sEcDJjhbHoWCrzp5bITG3-I483BWH)
CBS news made the claim this morning the reason for trying to leave the "contraception clause" in Obamacare has more to do with female votes than anything.
Nah, that couldn't' be it. Why should insurance companies pay for contraception for people who can afford it in the first place? Secondly, if you can't afford a box of jimmy hats, you probably shouldn't be bumping ugly in the first place.
JMO.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 09:29:36 AM
In the next few days will we hear a reversal from the president that religious institutions will be able to apply for wavers from ObamaCare mandates that force them to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs?
Where have you seen this info?
It's the leaders of these religious organizations that are getting the spit fits.
You think the average catholic wants to have unprotected sex and the consequences?
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 09:51:19 AM
Where have you seen this info?
You're asking him for a source? Really?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2012, 09:32:43 AM
Why should insurance companies pay for contraception for people who can afford it in the first place? Secondly, if you can't afford a box of jimmy hats, you probably shouldn't be bumping ugly in the first place.
Or buy tobacco, booze, junk food, do drugs, gamble...they still will.
Quote from: Hoss on February 09, 2012, 09:54:06 AM
You're asking him for a source? Really?
Re-read it. He was positing a question. It says: "will we" not "we will".
Stalker.
Bahahahaha!
Quote from: Hoss on February 09, 2012, 09:54:06 AM
You're asking him for a source? Really?
It'd be nice to see one every once in a while.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
Re-read it. He was positing a question. It says: "will we" not "we will".
Like Hannity does.
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 09:51:19 AM
Where have you seen this info?
Haven't yet.
It's the same pattern for everything else. Pass, push for reversal, refusal, implementation of waver application process.
Gives government great power when they can burden the public with laws and then simply "bless" the institutions and individuals of their choosing.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 09:59:26 AM
Haven't yet.
It's the same pattern for everything else. Pass, push for reversal, refusal, implementation of waver application process.
Gives government great power when they can burden the public with laws and then simply "bless" the institutions and individuals of their choosing.
Need to tax them. They're already "blessed" by the government. Tax free confidence scams.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
Re-read it. He was positing a question. It says: "will we" not "we will".
Stalker.
Bahahahaha!
Helps to avoid the conversation.
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 10:00:49 AM
Need to tax them. They're already "blessed" by the government. Tax free confidence scams.
Now that's a good post!
You are implying that religious groups should be taxed.
What would you base that taxation on, and if they operate in charitable capacities, then shouldn't all non-religious charitable groups be taxed at the same rate?
I believe in wavers. I wave at people all the time. Even religious people. They especially like wavers.
As far as waivers? Tempest in a tea pot. I've always heard that contraception among Catholics is pretty popular. About 80% utilize it. Non-issue with them but fresh meat for the wingers.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 10:04:48 AM
Now that's a good post!
You are implying that religious groups should be taxed.
What would you base that taxation on, and if they operate in charitable capacities, then shouldn't all non-religious charitable groups be taxed at the same rate?
Nothing with large income is taxed at the same rate.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 10:02:33 AM
Helps to avoid the conversation.
This coming from the master of it...sourced, anyway.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 10:04:48 AM
You are implying that religious groups should be taxed.
Of course they should be taxed. They're a business.
You think the Jethro Dollar is in on the game for Jesus?
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 10:18:50 AM
Of course they should be taxed. They're a business.
You think the Jethro Dollar is in on the game for Jesus?
So, if that is the case, what about the charitable offsets that we grant for other "Businesses" like Community Health charities, or Planned Parenthood, or educational institutions, or other institutions that pay no taxes because their charitable expenditures exceed their tax liability?
Would we have to mandate that church, synagogue, mosque expenditures such as religious education, outreach, and other programs do not count as charitable expenditures?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 10:26:36 AM
So, if that is the case, what about the charitable offsets that we grant for other "Businesses" like Community Health charities, or Planned Parenthood, or educational institutions, or other institutions that pay no taxes because their charitable expenditures exceed their tax liability?
Would we have to mandate that church, synagogue, mosque expenditures such as religious education, outreach, and other programs do not count as charitable expenditures?
So no taxes no matter what? If the church buys a number of sports cars and wonderful homes for the use of the church leaders with no charitable function, it's ok? It's for God?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 09, 2012, 10:10:17 AM
fresh meat for the swingers.
???
(http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/98885/934638.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2012, 11:59:01 AM
???
(http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/98885/934638.jpg)
Handsome guy. Yeh, baby.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2012, 11:59:01 AM
(http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/98885/934638.jpg)
He aged a lot during those movies.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2012, 09:32:43 AM
Nah, that couldn't' be it. Why should insurance companies pay for contraception for people who can afford it in the first place?
Because it's a lot cheaper than paying for an unintended pregnancy? Why should insurance companies pay for prenatal care for people who can afford it in the first place?
Also, I think it's funny that Gaspar is running so low on material he has to make stuff up to trash Obama with.
Quote from: nathanm on February 09, 2012, 12:21:21 PM
Also, I think it's funny that Gaspar is running so low on material he has to make stuff up to trash Obama with.
He's deflecting. Have you seen the wealth of material provided by the GOP this go 'round?
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 10:28:52 AM
So no taxes no matter what? If the church buys a number of sports cars and wonderful homes for the use of the church leaders with no charitable function, it's ok? It's for God?
You didn't answer the questions.
QuoteSo, if that is the case, what about the charitable offsets that we grant for other "Businesses" like Community Health charities, or Planned Parenthood, or educational institutions, or other institutions that pay no taxes because their charitable expenditures exceed their tax liability?
Would we have to mandate that church, synagogue, mosque expenditures such as religious education, outreach, and other programs do not count as charitable expenditures?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:10:12 PM
You didn't answer the questions.
You set the example for that. Why act surprised when others do the same to you?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 09, 2012, 01:12:53 PM
You set the example for that. Why act surprised when others do the same to you?
No. He won't answer those questions and neither will you because both of you are intelligent logical thinkers and know exactly where your answer would lead.
It must be exhausting to just follow people around and offer one-line snipes to everything that they post.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:10:12 PM
You didn't answer the questions.
Aquaman's right. While you have helpful tech and bbq posts, your political and financial posts tend to suck.
Your political posts seem to be all about pointless arguments and made up crap.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:21:09 PM
It must be exhausting to just follow people around and offer one-line snipes to everything that they post.
Jesus Gaspar, you really think your political posts are helpful?
My posts sure aren't award winners but I try to post informative, helpful things on the forum.
If they're not helpful, I hope they're interesting.
What I take away from yours is just spiteful, anti-administration garbage meant to start arguments.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:10:12 PM
You didn't answer the questions.
You asked a really stupid question.
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 01:28:23 PM
What I take away from yours is just spiteful, anti-administration garbage meant to start arguments.
What's wrong with that? That's 1/2 the fun on political forums.
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 01:23:18 PM
Jesus Gaspar, you really think your political posts are helpful?
Typically there is conversation, but there are always the Haiku posters that feel it necessary to get a line in. Kinda like that guy at a party who walks into the middle of a conversation that is above his head, and starts talking about his Corvette, or automatically offers disagreement on the subject matter as a juvinile means to inclusion.
If you feel that these posts have no importance, then ignore them, or if you do feel that the subject matter is worth discussion, please participate. You stuck your foot in the pool when you offered the related topic of taxing religious institutions. I was thrilled that you were actually going to pose a position, so I engaged your line of reasoning. Unfortunately the water was not to your liking so you went back to discussing your Corvette.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:32:51 PM
Typically there is conversation, but there are always the Haiku posters that feel it necessary to get a line in. Kinda like that guy at a party who walks into the middle of a conversation that is above his head, and starts talking about his Corvette, or automatically offers disagreement on the subject matter as a juvinile means to inclusion.
If you feel that these posts have no importance, then ignore them, or if you do feel that the subject matter is worth discussion, please participate. You stuck your foot in the pool when you offered the related topic of taxing religious institutions. I was thrilled that you were actually going to pose a position, so I engaged your line of reasoning. Unfortunately the water was not to your liking so you went back to discussing your Corvette.
You're giving me crap for making fun? Putting yourself up on some pedestal saying you're having some amazing conversation is nuts.
These conversations are all Corvettes.
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 01:37:45 PM
You're giving me crap for making fun? Putting yourself up on some pedestal saying you're having some amazing conversation is nuts.
These conversations are all Corvettes.
So, lets forgive and re-engage then. Do you think that the administration will reverse the mandate, push forward, or create a waiver program as they have done with other burdensome regulations?
If you don't wish to answer the follow up questions on your post about taxing religious organizations, I will leave that alone.
Interesting, IMO point of view.
Catholic Birth Control Fight About Healthcare, Not Just Religion
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/02/09/catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion?s_cid=rss:susan-milligan:catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/02/09/catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion?s_cid=rss:susan-milligan:catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion)
QuoteCasting the issue as an assault on Catholicism or faith is insulting to people of faith. For people who believe in God, the faith is personal, deep, and unshakeable. It provides guidance during times of tumult, comfort during times of tragedy. For someone who truly believes in God, nothing can take away that faith—certainly not a coworker whose birth control pills are covered under their employer's insurance plan.
Critics have argued that the rule allows the government to dictate rules to a religious institution, and there is some truth to that. But 98 percent of Catholics have used birth control, despite the teachings of the church. If Catholic-affiliated institutions are allowed an exception, is that not arguably asking the government to try to buttress a religious rule the church has not been successful in enforcing?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
So, lets forgive and re-engage then. Do you think that the administration will reverse the mandate, push forward, or create a waiver program as they have done with other burdensome regulations?
If you don't wish to answer the follow up questions on your post about taxing religious organizations, I will leave that alone.
I really have no idea what these guys will do. It never seems, to me, decisions are made for the betterment of us all but for elections.
The lobbyists will make the decision.
I have no faith in organized religion to do the right thing unless it's to their own benefit. Do I believe they should be taxed? Yes. Did the Komen thing bring some of that mess to light? Yes. If things are done for political or financial gain then tax them.
If the organization gets big enough, look for taxable income and tax it. If I make enough money, I'm taxed. I am charitable and I'm still taxed.
I feel as though many of these organizations do good for society but I also feel as though they have been serving to the humans on the top of the organizaions. Tax 'em.
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Interesting, IMO point of view.
Catholic Birth Control Fight About Healthcare, Not Just Religion
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/02/09/catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion?s_cid=rss:susan-milligan:catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/02/09/catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion?s_cid=rss:susan-milligan:catholic-birth-control-fight-about-healthcare-not-just-religion)
The only thing that that article fails to acknowledge is that the leaders of the faith consider it an assault on the faith, and stirs controversy that will hurt his campaign. Two groups are fighting behind the scenes. Women's health organizations and religious groups (not just Catholic). No matter how you stand on the issue, or what you view to be logical, the fact remains that it creates burdens for the religious institutions and it causes controversy for the president.
IMO he will do one of two things to silence this. He will either reverse the mandate (unlikely), or he will offer another waver system (par for the course).
I just don't see him letting this thing fester as a symbol of the exact kind of intrusion that Republicans warned the people about. Why would he want to subsidize ammunition for his opponents.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-contraceptives-idUSTRE8181MX20120209
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:58:30 PM
I just don't see him letting this thing fester as a symbol of the exact kind of intrusion that Republicans warned the people about. Why would he want to subsidize ammunition for his opponents.
It blows my mind that Republicans would say anything about "intrusion" on this subject.
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 01:56:31 PM
I really have no idea what these guys will do. It never seems, to me, decisions are made for the betterment of us all but for elections.
The lobbyists will make the decision.
I have no faith in organized religion to do the right thing unless it's to their own benefit. Do I believe they should be taxed? Yes. Did the Komen thing bring some of that mess to light? Yes. If things are done for political or financial gain then tax them.
If the organization gets big enough, look for taxable income and tax it. If I make enough money, I'm taxed. I am charitable and I'm still taxed.
I feel as though many of these organizations do good for society but I also feel as though they have been serving to the humans on the top of the organizaions. Tax 'em.
I find no reason not to tax the activities of a religious organization. If they cannot offset that income with charitable expenditure then it gets taxed like any other organization. Unfortunately there is a catch.
What would you consider "charitable"? Organizations that provide educational enrichment programs are considered charitable. The time and resources devoted to many of those activities represent an offset to any taxes that they incur. Non-Profit organizations like Planed Parenthood, and others have numerous offsets as well as government funding, yet their "ministers" still make massive salaries, live in posh homes and drive fancy cars.
So the question becomes, do you abolish the 501(c)(3) designation, or abolish the entire 501 system and treat all sources of income and charitable activities equally?
Schools
Clubs
Veterans groups
Civic Legues
Social Welfare Organizations
Labor Groups
Churches
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:58:30 PM
The only thing that that article fails to acknowledge is that the leaders of the faith consider it an assault on the faith, and stirs controversy that will hurt his campaign. Two groups are fighting behind the scenes. Women's health organizations and religious groups (not just Catholic). No matter how you stand on the issue, or what you view to be logical, the fact remains that it creates burdens for the religious institutions and it causes controversy for the president.
It causes problems for religious leaders who are too stubborn to change a bad rule.
The burden is inflexibility.
The controversy is pushed by the religious leaders who are stubborn and inflexible.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 02:17:18 PM
Non-Profit organizations like Planed Parenthood, and others have numerous offsets as well as government funding, yet their "ministers" still make massive salaries, live in posh homes and drive fancy cars.
Do their "ministers" pay tax on these items?
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 02:21:01 PM
Do their "ministers" pay tax on these items?
Yes, as do "ministers" of churches.
Church ministers are required to pay Self-employment taxes and/or payroll taxes under the same levels as anyone else, unless they file form 4361 claiming that insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare are against their belief system. With that exemption they are still liable for taxes but not SS or medicare, and have no claim to those benefits in the future.
If you are speaking of property only, churches do not pay property taxes, but only on property used "exclusively for worship activities."
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 02:17:18 PM
So the question becomes, do you abolish the 501(c)(3) designation, or abolish the entire 501 system and treat all sources of income and charitable activities equally?
501(C)(3) doesn't change my giving choice at all. I don't have enough deductions to itemize. If I give anything, it's because I want to, not because I get a tax break.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 09, 2012, 02:56:46 PM
501(C)(3) doesn't change my giving choice at all. I don't have enough deductions to itemize. If I give anything, it's because I want to, not because I get a tax break.
+1. I'd need to be Guido rich to do that.
;D
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 02:55:10 PM
If you are speaking of property only, churches do not pay property taxes, but only on property used "exclusively for worship activities."
How open to interpretation is that?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 02:55:10 PM
If you are speaking of property only, churches do not pay property taxes, but only on property used "exclusively for worship activities."
Are the parking lots next to the worship building used "exclusively for worship activities."?
What do they pay property tax on?
This is one of the problems with choosing to use employers as the vehicle for getting the populace insured. Employers then get to choose (or believe they should get to choose) the terms under which they should insure their employees, based either on moral conviction, cost, or any combination of the two. This means, among other things, that they might have a moral stake in what your covered contraception might be. This particular thing might be of small consequence on the cost front (getting a box of condoms from Walgreens ain't so expensive) but it sets a very bad precedent for further questions of health that would be expensive indeed. In this case, the Catholic Church might very well have a moral objection to contraception, and that's their right, but they are also in charge of offering comprehensive healthcare to their employees who may or may not be Catholic. The science on contraception is clear: it's a good thing in a variety of ways. Is it right, then, for the non-Catholics who are nonetheless employed by the Catholic Church to have to abide by the Church's moral beliefs?
Or, another way, who's responsibility is it to make the moral choice about whether to use or not use contraceptives? The company helping to provide the healthcare or the person who will be using the healthcare?
Quote from: Townsend on February 09, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
How open to interpretation is that?
As far as I can tell, it's tight.
You cannot claim property tax exemption unless the structure is exclusively used for worship.
If anything it is more open to negative interpretation from the taxing entity. If you have a church that operates as a business 2 days a week, and a place of worship 1 day a week. You would not be eligible.
The homes of pastors are subject to property taxes. Many churches own the pastors home and lease it or offer it free of charge to the pastor, but the church is still liable for paying taxes on that property.
The worship facility itself is the only exemption. Depending on state, I think they get some minimal license exemptions on the purchase of vehicles, but I believe they too must fall under that exclusive to worship umbrella.
My godness, this is todaze TNF circle jerk.
5013c's serve a useful purpose, but like so much in the tax code loopholes exist and are abused. Gassiuos,
QuoteYou cannot claim property tax exemption unless the structure is exclusively used for worship
: not so. 61st and Yale....
I always love to look into how much administrators pay themselves and how much they utilize the expenses to cover for personal uses...
I'm off this thread.... too sticky.
Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years
The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
Quote from: we vs us on February 09, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
This is one of the problems with choosing to use employers as the vehicle for getting the populace insured. Employers then get to choose (or believe they should get to choose) the terms under which they should insure their employees, based either on moral conviction, cost, or any combination of the two. This means, among other things, that they might have a moral stake in what your covered contraception might be. This particular thing might be of small consequence on the cost front (getting a box of condoms from Walgreens ain't so expensive) but it sets a very bad precedent for further questions of health that would be expensive indeed. In this case, the Catholic Church might very well have a moral objection to contraception, and that's their right, but they are also in charge of offering comprehensive healthcare to their employees who may or may not be Catholic. The science on contraception is clear: it's a good thing in a variety of ways. Is it right, then, for the non-Catholics who are nonetheless employed by the Catholic Church to have to abide by the Church's moral beliefs?
Or, another way, who's responsibility is it to make the moral choice about whether to use or not use contraceptives? The company helping to provide the healthcare or the person who will be using the healthcare?
Bingo!
You always have a way of hitting the nail on the head. We just always disagree on the tool to hit it with.
Reliance on an employeer to carry the responsibility of healthcare builds all kinds of webs of dependency for the worker. There are all kinds of spiders in those webs.
A free system where employees are free to choose whatever coverage they wish, go to whatever hospital they wish, and choose their medical practitioner is my idea of a solution.
You probably choose to take the other road where the government is the answer, but as you can see, government is no better than one giant uncaring employer wielding its mass to force the minimum for the minimum. More dependency, no web, just all spiders.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 09, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
My godness, this is todaze TNF circle jerk.
5013c's serve a useful purpose, but like so much in the tax code loopholes exist and are abused. Gassiuos,: not so. 61st and Yale....
I always love to look into how much administrators pay themselves and how much they utilize the expenses to cover for personal uses...
I'm off this thread.... too sticky.
Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years
The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
We will miss you.
61st and yale. Property under charitable trust, not under religious filing.
Hospital is tax exempt as are most non profits.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 03:25:49 PM
We will miss you.
61st and yale. Property under charitable trust, not under religious filing.
Hospital is tax exempt as are most non profits.
I get TTC's point, but...
SFH is one of the most "profitable" companies in the city of Tulsa. It's just that those profits end up in the shape of 500,000 square foot additions, doctor's buildings, and very good pay for administration and upper staff. I'm not a hater, nor complaining, just stating the facts. My company certainly has benefitted from their re-investing of profits into their power plant.
One could make the argument that St. Francis' contribution to area payroll, both in terms of direct employment and all the construction workers, engineers, designers, architects, and equipment vendors is huge. I suspect they might rival American Airlines as far as overall economic impact in direct and indirect employment. Yet I don't hear anyone complaining about sweetheart property tax deals, land leases, tax gifts for improvements, or sales tax exemptions that the now bankrupt AA has enjoyed for a number of years.
This issue is a gamble for the Obama administration. From what I've read and heard so far, it's church leadership which is really upset about the issue. We aren't hearing many man-on-the-street comments out of Catholic followers who actually do tend to vote slightly more to the Democrat side. The Church can be pissed all it wants, what matters is what the followers do. I suspect a high number manage to separate political conviction from religious conviction, otherwise I'd think a Democrat Catholic would be rare simply due to the pro-choice stance of the Democrat Party.
I suspect what is going on is the Obama campaign is trying to gather information from focus groups before rendering a final decision. If the focus groups say that a large bloc of Catholic voters will go elsewhere this time around, waivers will be granted.
My personal opinion? If the employee is a member of the religious organization they work for, said religious organization should have the option of not buying insurance that covers contraception. If the employee isn't, they shouldn't be punished for views they don't subscribe to, as evidenced by their choice not to be a member of the religious organization.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
So, lets forgive and re-engage then. Do you think that the administration will reverse the mandate, push forward, or create a waiver program as they have done with other burdensome regulations?
If you don't wish to answer the follow up questions on your post about taxing religious organizations, I will leave that alone.
Since you brought up the topic of burdensome regulations - I will repeat a question that I have asked many times here and that has been ducked all those times - which burdensome regulations are they? We keep hearing that particular phrase out of "The Script", yet there are no real examples to offer. This one is not actually all that burdensome due to Obama, since, as noted, it has pretty much been covered since Bush.
I know there is no desire to answer the primary question, let alone follow up questions, but there it is....again.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 03:19:00 PM
Bingo!
You always have a way of hitting the nail on the head. We just always disagree on the tool to hit it with.
Reliance on an employeer to carry the responsibility of healthcare builds all kinds of webs of dependency for the worker. There are all kinds of spiders in those webs.
A free system where employees are free to choose whatever coverage they wish, go to whatever hospital they wish, and choose their medical practitioner is my idea of a solution.
You probably choose to take the other road where the government is the answer, but as you can see, government is no better than one giant uncaring employer wielding its mass to force the minimum for the minimum. More dependency, no web, just all spiders.
The problem with a "free" system based on price only is that it's not particularly free. Just like with anything else, service will segregate out into income segments to accommodate people's ability to pay. Unfortunately, though, people's ability to pay and their needs will not necessarily align, and so what happens when someone making $30k a year needs a heart transplant? If the buying process for the heart transplant mirrored the buying process of any other consumer good, you'd choose the cut rate option or choose to put off the purchase or at worst go into debt. But unfortunately, there is no "bargain" heart transplant option. There might be differences in cost, but all will be out of reach for someone making $30k a year.
Choosing the bargain insurance option doesn't ameliorate that problem. The heart transplant is still something you need, and adding insurance adds a middleman with -- possibly -- some attendant services, but not a solution to the insoluble core problem, which is price.
I don't disagree that people should be free to chose their provider, their coverage, etc. But your version of libertarianism is based at least in part on having an option of opting out of a given purchase entirely. In order to be truly free, you must also be free not to buy at all. With healthcare, that's frequently not an option. Often, it's a purchase you must make, and therefore you lose whatever freedom and leverage you might otherwise have. Another market-warping mechanism is the Hippocratic Oath, which dictates that if you need a service you will be treated regardless of ability to pay. There's no other transaction in our economy where service is guaranteed whether or not you finally pay.
Both of these things, IMO, make the libertarian argument moot. In fact, they make most economic arguments based on customer-side incentive moot.
And just FYI, I don't always believe the government is the right center of power, but I believe that markets are fundamentally unstable things, are never perfect (and therefore almost never offer the freedom that libertarianism suggests is possible) and often subject to capture by powerful players. The government is the only entity that plays both inside and outside the economy, that has the ability to institute anything resembling "fairness" when markets get out of control.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2012, 01:58:30 PM
The only thing that that article fails to acknowledge is that the leaders of the faith consider it an assault on the faith, and stirs controversy that will hurt his campaign. Two groups are fighting behind the scenes. Women's health organizations and religious groups (not just Catholic).
Isn't that what this is all about? You want to replace a leader or leaders of our country who don't represent what you view as the majority view. The faith folks should do the same. Its not the flock that is burdened, they don't mind having their contraceptives covered by St. John's insurance, its their leadership seizing an opportunity, who feels burdened.
This in effect becomes a squabble between religious leaders and their followers that the leaders are hoping the government will settle for them. Such hypocrisy.
BTW, I am offended. I owned a classic Corvette. You sir, have Corvette envy. I worshiped that car and felt the government had no right to force me to carry insurance on it. Had I been clever enough at the time I would have formed a group of other Corvette owners, met each Saturday night and imbibed the sacred fluids and honored Duntov while performing cleansing rituals. Then I could be on Fox TV complaining about intrusion.
The Administration offers a workaround: (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/white-house-announces-contraception-accommodation-for-religious-orgs)
QuoteOn a conference call with reporters Friday, a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.
"All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.
Quote from: we vs us on February 10, 2012, 10:12:23 AM
The Administration offers a reach-around: (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/white-house-announces-contraception-accommodation-for-religious-orgs)
I tried to resist. Really, I did.
Quote from: we vs us on February 10, 2012, 10:12:23 AM
The Administration offers a workaround: (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/white-house-announces-contraception-accommodation-for-religious-orgs)
So can all employers refuse on religious grounds?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 09, 2012, 05:05:16 PM
Since you brought up the topic of burdensome regulations - I will repeat a question that I have asked many times here and that has been ducked all those times - which burdensome regulations are they? We keep hearing that particular phrase out of "The Script", yet there are no real examples to offer. This one is not actually all that burdensome due to Obama, since, as noted, it has pretty much been covered since Bush.
I know there is no desire to answer the primary question, let alone follow up questions, but there it is....again.
Sure.
In his first two years in office the federal government issued 132 "economically significant" rules, according to Susan Dudley of George Washington University. That is about 40% more than the annual rate under both George Bush junior and Bill Clinton. Many rules associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform laws are still to come.
Members of congress have issued several reports detailing how these regulatory changes effect industry and negatively impact the economy. Mostly by increasing energy costs.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=ba11c7e3-2078-4e37-817c-04c72190be70
Here are the top 10 according to Eric Cantor that Congress has/will/is attempting to repeal.
NLRB's Boeing Ruling (Week of September 12): On April 20, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against The Boeing Company for the alleged transfer of an assembly line from Washington to South Carolina. Yet, not one union employee at Boeing's Puget Sound facility has lost his or her job as a result of the proposed South Carolina plant. Still, the NLRB is pursuing a "restoration order" against Boeing that would cost South Carolina thousands of jobs and deter future investment in the United States. H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, sponsored by Rep. Tim Scott (SC), would take the common sense step of preventing the NLRB from restricting where an employer can create jobs in the United States.
Utility MACT and CSAPR (Week of September 19): The Administration's new maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) for utility plants will affect electricity prices for nearly all American consumers. In total, 1,000 power plants are expected to be affected. The result for middle class Americans? Annual electricity bill increases in many parts of the country of anywhere from 12 to 24 percent. H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would require a cumulative economic analysis for specific EPA rules, and specifically delay the final date for both the utility MACT and CSAPR rules until the full impact of the Obama Administration's regulatory agenda has been studied.
Boiler MACT (Week of October 3): From hospitals to factories to colleges, thousands of major American employers use boilers that will be impacted by the EPA's new "boiler MACT" rules. These new stringent rules will impose billions of dollars in capital and compliance costs, increase the cost of many goods and services, and put over 200,000 jobs at risk. The American forest and paper industry, for example, will see an additional burden of at least $5-7 billion. H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA), would provide a legislative stay of four interrelated rules issued by the EPA in March of this year. The legislation would also provide the EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period.
Cement MACT (Week of October 3): The "cement MACT" and two related rules are expected to affect approximately 100 cement plants in America, setting exceedingly stringent requirements that will be cost-prohibitive or technically infeasible to achieve. Increased costs and regulatory uncertainty for the American cement industry—the foundation of nearly all infrastructure projects—are likely to offshore thousands of American jobs. Ragland, Alabama, for example, recently saw the suspension of a $350 million cement production facility, putting 1,500 construction jobs on hold and additional permanent and high-paying plant operation jobs in limbo. H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would provide a legislative stay of these three rules and provide EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period.
Coal Ash (October/November): These anti-infrastructure regulations, commonly referred to as the "coal ash" rules, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, affecting everything from concrete production to building products like wall board. The result is an estimated loss of well over 100,000 jobs. H.R. 2273, the Coals Residuals Reuse and Management Act, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (WV), would create an enforceable minimum standard for the regulation of coal ash by the states, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs.
Grandfathered Health Plans (November/December): We all remember when President Obama promised Americans that if they liked their health care plan they could keep it. Now, the Obama Administration has been issuing further restrictions against those previously protected plans. The result, by the Administration's own estimates, will be a loss of 49 to 80 percent of small employer plans, 34 to 64 percent of large employer plans, and 40 to 67 percent of individual insurance plans. Meanwhile, employers losing their grandfathered status will face steep penalties, increasing their costs and negatively affecting wages and job growth. The Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce committees will soon be working on legislation to repeal these ObamaCare restrictions.
Ozone Rule (Winter): This effective ban or restriction on construction and industrial growth for much of America is possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations. Consequences would reach far across the U.S. economy, resulting in an estimated cost of $1 trillion or more over a decade and millions of jobs. Unlike her predecessors, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is pushing for a premature readjustment of the current ozone standards, dramatically increasing the number of "nonattainment" areas. The new readjustment rule is expected early this fall and I expect the Energy and Commerce Committee to act swiftly to prevent its implementation, in order to protect American jobs.
Farm Dust (Winter): The EPA is expected to issue revised standards for particulate matter (PM) in the near future. Any downward revision to PM standards will significantly impact economic growth and jobs for businesses and people throughout rural America that create dust, like the farmer in Atkinson, Illinois, who raised his concerns with the President at a town hall earlier this month. While the President may have sent him on a bureaucratic wild goose chase, the House will act promptly on H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (SD). H.R. 1633 would protect American farmers and jobs by establishing a one year prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse PM and limiting federal regulation of dust where it is already regulated under state and local laws.
Greenhouse Gas (Winter): The EPA's upcoming greenhouse gas new source performance standards (NSPS) will affect new and existing oil, natural gas, and coal-fired power plants, as well as oil refineries, nationwide. While the impact on the economy and jobs are likely to be severe, the rules are quickly moving forward, once again revealing the Administration's disregard for the consequences of their policies on our jobs crisis. Again, I expect Chairman Upton and the Energy and Commerce Committee to move swiftly in the coming months to protect American jobs and consumers.
NLRB's Ambush Elections (Winter): This summer, the NLRB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that could significantly alter current union representation election procedures, giving both employers and employees little time to react to union formations in the future. The result will increase labor costs and uncertainty for nearly all private employers in the U.S. The House will soon consider legislation that will bring common sense to union organizing procedures to protect the interests of both employers and their workers.
http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2011/08/memo-on-upcoming-jobs-agenda.html
75 major regulations and 219 "economically significant" regulations are set to go into effect sucking over $380 billion out of the economy over the next 10 years.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-report-cites-regulatory-tsunami-under-obama
This report covers most of them:
http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/9.13.11_Broken_Government_Report.pdf
I need to read further into it, but the boiler MACT may mean I will retire a wealthy man while everyone else gets fleeced. Screw you guys, I'm getting mine!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 10, 2012, 01:25:17 PM
Screw you guys, I'm getting mine!
You're a televangelist?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 10, 2012, 01:25:17 PM
I need to read further into it, but the boiler MACT may mean I will retire a wealthy man BECAUSE OF OBAMA while everyone else gets fleeced. Screw you guys, I'm getting mine!
Oh, that's rich.
Towney, good line.
While everyone is criticizing the pres on this Catholics being forced to pay for birth control, many think he has screwed up, and handed the right an issue of religious freedom.
The reality is, in this week where the economy, Romney's issue, is getting better, Rick Santorum is racing to the top on social issues. Now the GOP is poised to coalesce around a guy who wants the government to come into your bedroom and take your birth control pills away. Good luck getting women's votes for him. This controversy helps Rick and hurts Mitt and that helps Obama. Now that he has announced his compromise, the idea that Obama hates Christians looks silly, and for normal people, the issue goes away. But GOP voters will vote on it, Santorum will campaign on it and Mitt will leap even further to the right on it and have to defend opposing birth control in the general election. They have been played, and they don't even know it.
Bonus: the controversy has served to inform all women that the health care law means no more co-pays for birth control pills. For the average woman, that's worth several hundred dollars a year. Money they will lose if they elect a GOP president.
Obama may not have intended this from the beginning, but he's like Tiger in his prime. He may not have intended to hit the ball into the sand trap. But his game is so good, he can still birdie from the trap.
You can tell Fox thinks its a losing issue now...they have drummed up a new story on Fast and Furious.
I kinda like better fly ash regulations:
(http://jeffreymsanders.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/tva-kingston-tn-plant.jpg?w=500)
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 10, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
Bonus: the controversy has served to inform all women that the health care law means no more co-pays for birth control pills. For the average woman, that's worth several hundred dollars a year. Money they will lose if they elect a GOP president.
Jimmy hats are cheaper and pose less danger to a woman's health.
Hey, if the EPA has it's way, I might just have to vote for Obama in November.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 10, 2012, 03:03:31 PM
Jimmy hats are cheaper and pose less danger to a woman's health.
For nonsmoking women and women over 35, there are essentially no health risks from low-dose hormonal birth control, and even less from an IUD unless the doc messes up the insertion. Also, generic BCP is cheaper than the hats even when you have to pay full price. IDK if you're aware of what condoms cost these days, but you might take a glance next time you're at the grocery store or pharmacy.
The cost and health risks involved in pregnancy are far higher than the cost and health risks involved in any birth control.
Quote from: nathanm on February 10, 2012, 03:10:31 PM
For nonsmoking women and women over 35, there are essentially no health risks from low-dose hormonal birth control, and even less from an IUD unless the doc messes up the insertion. Also, generic BCP is cheaper than the hats even when you have to pay full price. IDK if you're aware of what condoms cost these days, but you might take a glance next time you're at the grocery store or pharmacy.
The cost and health risks involved in pregnancy are far higher than the cost and health risks involved in any birth control.
You obviously didn't see my tongue sticking through my cheek did you?
Unless a woman has a real strong sex drive, I don't imagine she'd run up a higher raincoat tab than the cost of pills (w/o insurance of course).
Quote from: Conan71 on February 10, 2012, 03:37:11 PM
Unless a woman has a real strong sex drive, I don't imagine she'd run up a higher raincoat tab than the cost of pills (w/o insurance of course).
I don't know, four bucks a month doesn't seem like it would buy that much..protection.
Quote from: nathanm on February 10, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
I don't know, four bucks a month doesn't seem like it would buy that much..protection.
That would be more than enough for someone I used to date. Note the
used to date part of that.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 10, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
While everyone is criticizing the pres on this Catholics being forced to pay for birth control, many think he has screwed up, and handed the right an issue of religious freedom.
The reality is, in this week where the economy, Romney's issue, is getting better, Rick Santorum is racing to the top on social issues. Now the GOP is poised to coalesce around a guy who wants the government to come into your bedroom and take your birth control pills away. Good luck getting women's votes for him. This controversy helps Rick and hurts Mitt and that helps Obama. Now that he has announced his compromise, the idea that Obama hates Christians looks silly, and for normal people, the issue goes away. But GOP voters will vote on it, Santorum will campaign on it and Mitt will leap even further to the right on it and have to defend opposing birth control in the general election. They have been played, and they don't even know it.
Bonus: the controversy has served to inform all women that the health care law means no more co-pays for birth control pills. For the average woman, that's worth several hundred dollars a year. Money they will lose if they elect a GOP president.
Obama may not have intended this from the beginning, but he's like Tiger in his prime. He may not have intended to hit the ball into the sand trap. But his game is so good, he can still birdie from the trap.
You can tell Fox thinks its a losing issue now...they have drummed up a new story on Fast and Furious.
Smart post. Either Obama is an unrecognized political genius or he just improvises well. Either way the republicans running for office look more like CPAC devotees. Completely out of step with women's interests and Santorum is their guy. Mitt announces he's " Severely Conservative" which might as wll be "demonically, dementedly, insanely, bizarrely, maniacly, heroically" conservative.
Okay, we get it. You're against contraception, personhood begins at the moment the sperm enters the egg, and you can't be too far right. Let's see how that plays with a moderate public.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 11, 2012, 10:28:11 AM
Smart post. Either Obama is an unrecognized political genius or he just improvises well. Either way the republicans running for office look more like CPAC devotees. Completely out of step with women's interests and Santorum is their guy. Mitt announces he's " Severely Conservative" which might as wll be "demonically, dementedly, insanely, bizarrely, maniacly, heroically" conservative.
Okay, we get it. You're against contraception, personhood begins at the moment the sperm enters the egg, and you can't be too far right. Let's see how that plays with a moderate public.
That's known as 'alienating independents'...
Trial balloons early in the process so will be forgotten in the din later on.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 10, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
You can tell Fox thinks its a losing issue now...they have drummed up a new story on Fast and Furious.
Ah, the quandry of having to argue the merits of institutional liberty (church) versus individual liberty (women)....
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvf508QaWJ1qcc8ul.jpg)
Having unlimited babies, or opportunities for same, is a semi-religious cultural/societal thing - not a mandate from God. Jesus didn't say to have or avoid having kids - he did however advocate taking care of the ones you breed... (THAT is an issue that needs to get some traction.)
Unless it is also a mandate from a Supreme Being to use mushrooms, etc in religious ceremonies. Or polygamy. Or various other religious beliefs.
I have a feeling when I get my face-to-face with God, he won't be angry with me for getting a vasectomy. In fact, he will probably thank me for not procreating any more than I did.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 13, 2012, 09:24:11 AM
I have a feeling when I get my face-to-face with God, he won't be angry with me for getting a vasectomy. In fact, he will probably thank me for not procreating any more than I did.
You liberal, you!!!
But yes, I suspect you are correct - I feel exactly the same.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 13, 2012, 09:30:33 AM
You liberal, you!!!
But yes, I suspect you are correct - I feel exactly the same.
Yep, I'm thankful you didn't have any more spawn either ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on February 13, 2012, 09:36:43 AM
Yep, I'm thankful you didn't have any more spawn either ;D
Don't worry...there are plenty out there!
And remember - rust never sleeps!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 13, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Don't worry...there are plenty out there!
That's enough to cause worry right there.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 13, 2012, 06:36:58 PM
That's enough to cause worry right there.
Yes. That's a good thing. Keep you on your toes.