The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 32 of 58 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 1148
  1. #621
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Same thing as salary... two parties agree on terms of the transaction. You pay me such with such benefits. I work for you doing such at these hours. Either party may refuse then or in the future. It's not forced slavery, it's freedom.

    Why is it the assumption here, adults can't manage their life?

    Do women (most of this forum) not negotiate their employment terms?

    answering my own question: Seems so.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599...women-hesitate
    You do not get to negotiate the terms of your employer sponsored health care plan, however. It is what it is and covers what it covers, since they are group plans where everyone gets the same benefits.

    In theory, yeah, you could turn down jobs at companies with healthcare plans that excluded random things that you care about.

    In practice, however, it would create a very inequitable situation. I've been working for 30 years, for various Massachusetts based employers. Every health care plan I've been offered has been fair, with no bizarre exclusions and with reasonable benefits that meet a wide variety of employee needs. That is because 1) this is a progressive state that has long had laws on the books regarding what health care plans must cover (even before healthcare reform) 2) Most of the time (not always) unemployment is fairly low compared to the national average and there are a lot of professional jobs 3) I work in a field, and have qualifcations for it, that are usually in demand, so I am in a position to pick and choose who I work for.

    For people who live in a less progressive state, where jobs are harder to find and who do not have an unusually high demand set of skills (LOTS and LOTS of people)....employers randomly picking and choosing what to cover based on their own personal priorities could create a bad situation. And, it would be unfair. Not everyone can move to Mass, get a graduate degree and be in a position to be choosy.

    The Blunt amendment would have allowed employers (or insurance companies) to exclude any medical service they objected to on "moral grounds", not even specifically religious grounds. I'm not so sure this lawsuit isn't an attempt to get something like that in the back door, since the Blunt amendment was rejected by the Senate. Ugh.

    As LauraKY says, the REAL answer to stopping all of this silly nickel and diming and drama is national health care.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  2. #622
    Join Date
    Apr. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    you will not get any answer besides mine because your question isn't genuine... No one (Corp or gov't) is forcing anybody to carry a baby. Well maybe a relative or two ... but that's not corp or gov't. It is all about who pays for the BC, procedure, etc.
    Buy me a pony and I'll support your argument.
    actually, I find that to be a legit question. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, unless they are Quiverfull or Christian Patriarchy followers and they want MORE people so the ones who have children they can't afford will be adopted by the QF/CP population to promote their agenda.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #623
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by threedogpack View Post
    whew. I had to read through that several times Tarheel. Did I get this right?

    Congress can't view it as interstate (between states) commerce or business but they can view the choice not to comply as a tax? So by extension, the 1.3 mil is a tax for non compliance?
    I think you may be confusing two different provisions of the law: 1) the individual mandate which requires people with no health insurance to buy it; and 2) the requirement that employers of over a certain number of employees provide health insurance that includes certain things, such as birth control.

    The SCOTUS ruling on the individual mandate does not apply to the employer (Hobby Lobby) issue. The employer requirement aspect of the law has yet to make it up to the Supreme Court.

    But you do have it correct with respect to your statement that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause as a basis for forcing people with no insurance to buy it, but under its taxing power, it can fine people who refuse to buy health insurance.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson



  4. #624
    Join Date
    Apr. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TarheelJD View Post
    I think you may be confusing two different provisions of the law: 1) the individual mandate which requires people with no health insurance to buy it; and 2) the requirement that employers of over a certain number of employees provide health insurance that includes certain things, such as birth control.
    I thought I might be doing that. Thanks.



  5. #625
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2009
    Location
    Hunterdon County NJ
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    you will not get any answer besides mine because your question isn't genuine... No one (Corp or gov't) is forcing anybody to carry a baby. Well maybe a relative or two ... but that's not corp or gov't. It is all about who pays for the BC, procedure, etc.
    Buy me a pony and I'll support your argument.
    A pony does not require a public education. A pony cannot obtain a permit to carry a gun and go shoot people. A pony WILL NOT receive care if it shows up at the local ER. A pony is property that can be purchased or euthanized at will.

    A human person is a very, very, very long term investment. It is damned expensive to raise a human being, educate them, care for them OR clean up the mess they create if they are NOT educated and cared for......

    Paying for BC and preventing unwanted pregnancies is about managing our society so that there are NOT (primarily women) citizens who are overburdened with more children than they can care for, educate, etc. If it were just as easy as saying "sorry honey, I have a headache tonight" then the entire BC movement would never have been necessary in the first place.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.dmQ

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.dmQ

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.dmQ


    8 members found this post helpful.

  6. #626
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Isabeau Z Solace View Post
    A pony does not require a public education. A pony cannot obtain a permit to carry a gun and go shoot people. A pony WILL NOT receive care if it shows up at the local ER. A pony is property that can be purchased or euthanized at will.


    Paying for BC and preventing unwanted pregnancies is about managing our society
    Let me re phrase that. Pay for my horses and I'll support your argument.

    The answer was NOT about a PONY. Otherwise ...

    Pay for your own birth control!

    I fear you're actually suggesting gov't "manage our society" Wow !! how far we have fallen in the freedom imagined by the Founders.

    Next stop ... Nazi eugenics .... All a' board .. !!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #627
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,151

    Default

    hosspuller hasn't had a rational anwser since "Christ was a corporal"...it is not worth it.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  8. #628
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Pay for your own birth control!
    Yeah, so this is really what it is about...you don't want to pay for services that only OTHER people need. And/or, they should just NOT DO that thing that would require that service.

    My concern is not necessarily about birth control specifically, but the slippery slope allowing exclusions for procedures and drugs for religious, or moral, reasons could lead us down.

    My understanding is that you are a man. If that's the case, the only forms of birth control really available to you are condoms (cheap, plentiful, easily available) or vasectomy. I no longer have a personal interest in birth control myself, though I'm female, I'm past the age where preventing pregnancy is an issue. So, it's not really about MY birth control at all, I don't need it any more than you do.

    The whole issue, IMO, isn't about birth control, except in the very narrowest sense. Set a precedent for "morals" based exclusions (and this is what the Blunt Amendment was opening the door to) and what's next? No coverage for liver issues if you've EVER taken a single drink? No coverage for accident related injuries if you were riding a horse (known to be a dangerous endeavor)? No coverage for injuries related to a car accident, if you don't have a perfect driving record? No coverage for heart disease if you haven't been a vegetarian running 10 miles a day for your entire adult life? No coverage for asthma if you live in a polluted city...should have been smart enough to move to the country. There are all kinds of moralistic ways you could exclude people from receiving health care services by telling them they have to be 100% responsible for everything they do, or that happens to them, all the time. I doubt any of us would be eligible for much of any coverage .


    6 members found this post helpful.

  9. #629
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2001
    Posts
    15,232

    Default

    There is an equal slippery slope concern once you bring BC into the government.

    What will employers be required to pay for next in order to 'manage society.'

    You really want these men in DC to manage society? Really?


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #630
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canaqua View Post
    Yeah, so this is really what it is about...you don't want to pay for services that only OTHER people need.
    Finally .. Yes .. A thousand times yes. I don't wish to pay for other people's services as forced by the gov't.

    Obama phones, renewable energy, E10 gasoline, tele relay service, etc. Are far from the federal purpose .. to wit: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

    I believe in and support charity. Not coercive acts of redistribution.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #631
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2001
    Posts
    15,232

    Default

    ^THAT^


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #632
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Obama phones
    I believe in accuracy. Not the mindless repeating of bullshit.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
    Sheilah


    8 members found this post helpful.

  13. #633
    Join Date
    Oct. 4, 2003
    Location
    Hurdle Mills, NC
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    Seems relevant to me that nobody really pays for birth control under the law because (1) so-called "birth control" pills are actually used to treat many health problems quite distinct from pregnancy prevention, and (2) these products are sufficiently effective from a preventive standpoint that insurance companies don't increase premiums to include them in their coverage.

    Which kind of makes me wonder what companies like Hobby Lobby (and the courts) would do if they actually had to pay MORE to procure policies that restricted such access.

    And no, I do not support Hobby Lobby's position on Obamacare.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  14. #634
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,151

    Default

    Yah, Obama phones .....Gotta love the delusional....it just is comical here...


    3 members found this post helpful.

  15. #635
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    9,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    I believe in accuracy. Not the mindless repeating of bullshit.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
    Sheilah


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #636
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    E10 gasoline
    What part of E10 gas are you objecting to? The EPA 4 gallon mandate regarding E15 gas when dispensed from certain pumps that appears to be rescinded?
    http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2012/12/25/...cles-and-atvs/

    Or the way President Bush's administration supported E10?
    E10 is also commonly available in the Midwestern United States. It has also been mandated for use in all standard automobile fuel in the state of Florida by the end of 2010.[10] Due to the phasing out of MTBE as a gasoline additive and mainly due to the mandates established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, ethanol blends have increased throughout the United States, and by 2009, the ethanol market share in the U.S. gasoline supply reached almost 8% by volume
    Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_..._fuel_mixtures
    Sheilah


    2 members found this post helpful.

  17. #637
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Finally .. Yes .. A thousand times yes. I don't wish to pay for other people's services as forced by the gov't.

    Obama phones, renewable energy, E10 gasoline, tele relay service, etc. Are far from the federal purpose .. to wit: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

    I believe in and support charity. Not coercive acts of redistribution.
    But your OK with subsidizing oil companies, just as an example?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #638
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    But your OK with subsidizing oil companies, just as an example?
    as long as the roads have no pot holes...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  19. #639
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    renewable energy
    Again, which part? What time frame? I am sure that you took exception when President Bush first started the push to fund renewable energy. Right? Right? Right?
    http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-27/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS
    Sheilah


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #640
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    Again, which part? What time frame? I am sure that you took exception when President Bush first started the push to fund renewable energy. Right? Right? Right?
    http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-27/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS
    Sheilah
    Obama made him do it!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Fall flowers 80% off at Hobby Lobby!
    By NaniLio in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov. 17, 2012, 12:17 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Oct. 25, 2011, 02:26 PM
  3. Obamacare And Horseowners
    By Frank B in forum Off Course
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: Sep. 26, 2010, 07:08 PM
  4. Replies: 30
    Last Post: Oct. 7, 2009, 10:05 AM
  5. Spinoff- how do you support your dressage hobby?
    By CatOnLap in forum Dressage
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Jun. 13, 2008, 11:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •