|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 14:05:15 GMT -5
In all fairness to Paul, EVT1 and Angel, Paul did just what you are asking a previous post. Go back and read it.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 25, 2011 14:38:13 GMT -5
I thought it was because states have the right to set their own insurance rules and regulations. Every state has different reserve requirements,etc. My wife worked for an insurance company and had to be tested and licenced in every state she had juristiction over. Wouldn't you either have to let all insurance companies set up shop in the state most beneficial, to them,and inversly,harmful to consumers,or take away states right to regulate and replace them with federal regulations?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 15:00:22 GMT -5
This is why I never understood it when all the pres nominees kept talking about being able to buy insurance across state lines. Each state has a different set of rules, different COL/health costs, & has different doctors & hospitals in-network. So what good is it for a person in MA to buy a policy sold in CO? It sounded good in theory, but I never understood the pratical application.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 15:02:57 GMT -5
In all fairness to Paul, EVT1 and Angel, Paul did just what you are asking a previous post. Go back and read it. I don't see what you are referring to. My primary purpose here was to show that PBP does indeed feel the need to control morals & values, despite what he claims. He may do it under the guise of "a implanted egg is a person" & "gay people just want welfare benefits", but the ultimate result is the same - controlling social issues. BTW - PBP, did you marry your wife just for the welfare benefits?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 15:13:16 GMT -5
In all fairness to Paul, EVT1 and Angel, Paul did just what you are asking a previous post. Go back and read it. I don't see what you are referring to. My primary purpose here was to show that PBP does indeed feel the need to control morals & values, despite what he claims. He may do it under the guise of "a implanted egg is a person" & "gay people just want welfare benefits", but the ultimate result is the same - controlling social issues. BTW - PBP, did you marry your wife just for the welfare benefits? #50, first paragraph.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 25, 2011 15:27:35 GMT -5
No, it's about 'benefits'. It's really about radical, liberal gays getting their mitts on Social Security. That was his last word on it- evidently it is ok for conservative, heterosexual spouses to put their mitts on Social Security. He can't in one sentence say the government needs to not be involved in marriage and in the other decide which type of couples deserve special treatment from the government.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 15:31:18 GMT -5
No, it's about 'benefits'. It's really about radical, liberal gays getting their mitts on Social Security. That was his last word on it- evidently it is ok for conservative, heterosexual spouses to put their mitts on Social Security. He can't in one sentence say the government needs to not be involved in marriage and in the other decide which type of couples deserve special treatment from the government. You really don't get it, if Paul and many libertarians had their way Social Security would go the way of the dodo bird. Now a brief moment for the obligatory imagery of seniors dying in the streets.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 15:34:21 GMT -5
You're right he did answer that he had a problem with marriage period. I guess his point really got lost when he spent the entire next paragraph explaining the problems with gay marriage. If your problem is with marriage in general, then why go on & on about how bad gay marriage is?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 15:38:21 GMT -5
You really don't get it, if Paul and many libertarians had their way Social Security would go the way of the dodo bird. What does that have to do with gay vs. straight marriage? He seems to somehow think it is bad that gays want the same rights in marriage that straight people get. Whether or not married people get ss benefits is a whole other issue. If you are going to take the stand that gays only want to marry for welfare benefits, then by the same token doesn't that mean straight people only get married for welfare benefits? So why is gay bad & straight ok?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 15:46:02 GMT -5
You really don't get it, if Paul and many libertarians had their way Social Security would go the way of the dodo bird. What does that have to do with gay vs. straight marriage? He seems to somehow think it is bad that gays want the same rights in marriage that straight people get. Whether or not married people get ss benefits is a whole other issue. If you are going to take the stand that gays only want to marry for welfare benefits, then by the same token doesn't that mean straight people only get married for welfare benefits? So why is gay bad & straight ok? I'll get back to you as soon as you answer whether it is acceptable to cut 70% of the federal government to get gay marriage.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 15:48:02 GMT -5
What does that have to do with gay vs. straight marriage? He seems to somehow think it is bad that gays want the same rights in marriage that straight people get. Whether or not married people get ss benefits is a whole other issue. If you are going to take the stand that gays only want to marry for welfare benefits, then by the same token doesn't that mean straight people only get married for welfare benefits? So why is gay bad & straight ok? I'll get back to you as soon as you answer whether it is acceptable to cut 70% of the federal government to get gay marriage. Huh? Please explain why we need to cut 70% of the fed. govt. to get gay marriage. I am confused.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 15:55:31 GMT -5
Sigh....go back and read...you asked about abortion and gay marriage. I said yes I was okay with that stuff but you better be ready to cut 70% of the federal government.
No they really don't have to do with one another, but it all falls in line with my libertarian philosphies and I am willing to hold gay marriage hostage for a constitutional form of government.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 16:01:20 GMT -5
That was his last word on it- evidently it is ok for conservative, heterosexual spouses to put their mitts on Social Security. He can't in one sentence say the government needs to not be involved in marriage and in the other decide which type of couples deserve special treatment from the government. You really don't get it, if Paul and many libertarians had their way Social Security would go the way of the dodo bird. Now a brief moment for the obligatory imagery of seniors dying in the streets. Um, I don't know how to break this to you- but SS is already dead, and while it may support seniors now, and maybe these first few years of boomer retirees for a little while longer-- it's dodo-bird-like end is already looming. The question isn't whether or not to do away with SS, the question is now that we know SS faces an inevitable collapse, how do we prepare for its eventual end? Sure as hell don't need to expand the program to include new lifestyle choices.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 16:03:35 GMT -5
In all fairness to Paul, EVT1 and Angel, Paul did just what you are asking a previous post. Go back and read it. I don't see what you are referring to. My primary purpose here was to show that PBP does indeed feel the need to control morals & values, despite what he claims. He may do it under the guise of "a implanted egg is a person" & "gay people just want welfare benefits", but the ultimate result is the same - controlling social issues. BTW - PBP, did you marry your wife just for the welfare benefits? We got married in CHURCH, not a courthouse. We did so because of our personal feelings for each other, our religion, and our values-- none of which really requires a permission slip, or any kind of involvement by the state.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 16:04:23 GMT -5
You really don't get it, if Paul and many libertarians had their way Social Security would go the way of the dodo bird. Now a brief moment for the obligatory imagery of seniors dying in the streets. Um, I don't know how to break this to you- but SS is already dead, and while it may support seniors n ow, and maybe these first few years of boomer retirees for a little while longer-- it's dodo-bird-like end is already looming. The question isn't whether or not to do away with SS, the question is now that we know SS faces an inevitable collapse, how do we prepare for its eventual end? Sure as hell don't need to expand the program to include new lifestyle choices. I heard that a decade ago, I will believe when I see it. You underestimate the staying power of a strong central government. Go back and look at the 2008 Presidential Election returns to remind you that a 3rd party will not ever be viable and we are screwed.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 16:09:23 GMT -5
I don't see what you are referring to. My primary purpose here was to show that PBP does indeed feel the need to control morals & values, despite what he claims. He may do it under the guise of "a implanted egg is a person" & "gay people just want welfare benefits", but the ultimate result is the same - controlling social issues. BTW - PBP, did you marry your wife just for the welfare benefits? We got married in CHURCH, not a courthouse. We did so because of our personal feelings for each other, our religion, and our values-- none of which really requires a permission slip, or any kind of involvement by the state. So, why did you bother getting the marriage certificate & filing it with the county?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 16:15:50 GMT -5
You really don't get it, if Paul and many libertarians had their way Social Security would go the way of the dodo bird. Now a brief moment for the obligatory imagery of seniors dying in the streets. Um, I don't know how to break this to you- but SS is already dead, and while it may support seniors now, and maybe these first few years of boomer retirees for a little while longer-- it's dodo-bird-like end is already looming. The question isn't whether or not to do away with SS, the question is now that we know SS faces an inevitable collapse, how do we prepare for its eventual end? Sure as hell don't need to expand the program to include new lifestyle choices. SS is not dead, they merely need to either increase the taxes or reduce the benefit & it will be fine. Personally I would vote for reducing the benefits. Ultimately you are just using these things as an excuse as to why we shouldn't allow gay marriage. Proving my point that you do want to control morals & values. Because, really, how much do you think gay marriage is going to cost us when it comes to SS? Lets just reduce the overall benefit accordingly & call it even & let the gays marry.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 16:20:58 GMT -5
Sigh....go back and read...you asked about abortion and gay marriage. I said yes I was okay with that stuff but you better be ready to cut 70% of the federal government. No they really don't have to do with one another, but it all falls in line with my libertarian philosphies and I am willing to hold gay marriage hostage for a constitutional form of government. I see, you are bartering here. If we were actually some sort of govt body, this might work well. Seeing as we are just 2 anonymous posters on a message board, I don't think it really matters that you want to hold gay marriage hostage. Plus, in general, libertarians support same-sex rights. But, as for your issue- I do think the fed govt needs to be reduced. Probably not by 70% as that seems to be an arbitrary number you pulled out of the air.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 26, 2011 0:40:49 GMT -5
Um, I don't know how to break this to you- but SS is already dead, and while it may support seniors n ow, and maybe these first few years of boomer retirees for a little while longer-- it's dodo-bird-like end is already looming. The question isn't whether or not to do away with SS, the question is now that we know SS faces an inevitable collapse, how do we prepare for its eventual end? Sure as hell don't need to expand the program to include new lifestyle choices. I heard that a decade ago, I will believe when I see it. You underestimate the staying power of a strong central government. Go back and look at the 2008 Presidential Election returns to remind you that a 3rd party will not ever be viable and we are screwed. And statists underestimate the reality that their schemes always collapse under their own weight. We woke up one day with no USSR, and we WILL wake up one day with no Social Security.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 26, 2011 4:36:30 GMT -5
Most politicians would rather put our entire navy into mothballs than to allow SS to fail.
If there is one thing you can count on, it's that the elderly like to vote. And boy will they ever ...
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 26, 2011 7:21:11 GMT -5
Couldn't you also ask do you agree with the requirement that insurance companies be required to carry reserves to fish with? After all ,the government should not be controling private business,etc...... They are both attempts to protect the patient.Perhaps the bar is set too high ?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 26, 2011 9:27:33 GMT -5
Overhead- ha ha- I'd say they do when they have to cough up 10-20 million bucks for ONE PERSON"S SALARY! Then you have to pay for lobbyists, PR campaigns to try and convince people you care about your customers, lawyers to fight customers' claims you don't want to pay,etc. The hell with them. As I put on another thread- VT is giving them the finger for good- single payer is going into law there- can't wait to see the fight from the right. www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2011/03/24/vt_house_resumes_debate_on_health_care_bill/Whoa!!! If that's ONE person's SALARY, imagine what their corporate TAX BILL must have been!!! Maybe we need to free up all that tax on profits for patient care? I'm sure he paid taxes on that as well. As to the OP, no I don't agree with it. I think it sets a dangerous precedent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 23, 2024 7:24:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2011 15:11:23 GMT -5
"we have to determine scientifically when life begins and draw a line in the sand beyond which the natural rights of the human being developing in the womb supercedes the right of the mother to "choose". "
Right... a fetus should be granted all natural rights of a human being... but a born child... who did not choose his parents or their decisions, or his circumstances... should be denied social programs and 'have the sins of the father visited upon him'... ?? ....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 23, 2024 7:24:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2011 15:12:34 GMT -5
I'm sorry... how does paying a salary inflate a tax bill? ... Paying a salary decreases a tax bill...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 23, 2024 7:24:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2011 15:20:37 GMT -5
"So what good is it for a person in MA to buy a policy sold in CO?"
And obviously they have to have local relationships with 'in network' providers... ? And how much easier it must be to handle claims cross country...
"none of which really requires a permission slip, or any kind of involvement by the state. "
And yet the state extends you a lot of benefits based on that status...
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 27, 2011 12:06:04 GMT -5
Do I support the Obamacare requirement? In a word, no I do not. The salaries of several industry CEO's had been mentioned. They are part of the economy that drives the country. But there is another industry that only lives off the economy. The "industry of filling people's needs". . . . the charities we look to on occasion. Want to see some salaries that are paid out of school kids' nickles and dimes? That is where charitable giving is learned , , , in schools. Oh I kinow parents are in the picture, too, but the "joy of giving" is as much a part of the classroom as the three R's. The YMCA of San Diego County’s CEO Richard Collato was compensated $420,000 in 2003. San Diegans may remember when the American Red Cross, San Diego/Imperial Counties Chapter president two years ago left her $300,000-a-year job. (Note: that was after charges that 911 donations were not getting to the survivors of the Twin Towers disaster)
www.sarahzsleeper.com/sizing_up_san_diego_s_nonprofit_ceo_pay_69291.htm
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 7:22:24 GMT -5
After researching Obamacare for the past few days I have concluded it is going to costs tons more and will only benefit the INSURERS .
Why you might ask? Well here is why Insurers have to provide more coverage as required by the Federal Obamacare mandates and will include:
Acupuncture, Mammograms, Tobacco cessation, maternity care, expanded mental disorders, pain medication for special circumstance, fertility preservation, autism treatments to name just a few...
However have no fear the Senate Dems are looking into this and you may see more additional requirements for health insurers to cover more......bottom line health insurance is going to cost you or your employers much, much more and you can take that to the bank.
So once again thank you Mr Barrack Obama and Ms Nancy Pelosi for not telling us what was contained in the pages of Obamacare and to trust you two ole beauties...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 23, 2024 7:24:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 7:34:06 GMT -5
Do you have a link? Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 23, 2024 7:24:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 7:34:39 GMT -5
Specifically i'm interested in what 'fertility preservation' covers... thanks
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 7:38:30 GMT -5
We knew what was contained in it and knew it was a hoax. Anyone who supported it, you deserve what you get, which is going to be nothing but more taxes into the pockets of crooks. Obama is a hoax. Thanx for that Ma'am...Blue Shield issued a statement and said "that the more mandates added by the Federal Government or put on your coverage, the more expensive it's going to be" Ok fine but weren't we told that Obamacare was going to be the greatest thing since the invention of running water toilets and toilet paper?? Something is very wrong here and doesn't pass the smell test..IMHO excuse the pun ..hon !!!..
|
|