• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

A workaround for the healthcare.gov site

Veloise said:
From my FB buddy Michael Moore.

http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/

And a success story from a FB friend:
DONE !
Mark and I are signed up for health and dental insurance. We'll be receiving our packets and health cards toward the end of this month.
Total monthly cost for health and dental?
$152.23
We can live with that!​

That's for two people...
Click to expand...

When I went looking at this site, it took me straight to :mi: Blue Cross/Blue Shield. My friend above has signed up for one of their silver plans.

Another hint: dig until you find the forms to fill out, do that off-line, then submit.
 
hilldweller said:
^Try putting in your personal info and it fails, I know this because I tried to help a family member get coverage in FL. It's a game of bait and switch with this thing.
Click to expand...

That sucks. Does it freeze or kick you out or what? I've only been using it to find what plans cost in various places.
 
imaplanner said:
That sucks. Does it freeze or kick you out or what? I've only been using it to find what plans cost in various places.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't let us create an account when we tried a couple of weeks ago. Maybe things have been fixed now though. I hope there isnt a backlog or wait period to get registered by Jan. 1st as my MIL is paying a ridiculous amount for her insurance now (preexisting condition).

If the Health Sherpa site is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then I assume it is possible to sign up by contacting the providers directly?
 
hilldweller said:
...

If the Health Sherpa site is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then I assume it is possible to sign up by contacting the providers directly?
Click to expand...

Yes. When you click the link on a plan, it takes you directly to the provider site. As I mentioned, it shot me over to BC/BS. There I was able to compare plans, and then I found a treasure: application forms to download!

My friend with the $152.23/month/two aging boomers plan said she spent about an hour on the phone with the Blues, much consumed by them reading her disclaimers to agree with. A form would alleviate all that.
~~~~~~~~~~
Article about "revenge of the insurance industry"

My parents' amazing Obamacare story
Quick summary:
the writer's folks were paying $18,520/year out of pocket, not including coinsurance.

Under the ACA:
"If you're like my parents, you'll see a premium subsidy that takes the bite out of the insurance company price-gouging. For my parents, their subsidy is a hefty one. They choose a silver plan where the premium will now be $53 (fifty-three dollars) a month.
Their new plan covers my mom's pulmonary specialist, all of her screenings (x-rays, CTs, etc), requires only a $1,500 deductible and $4,500 max out of pocket cost and the insurance company kicks in 100 percent after the deductible is met."
 
I can't believe I have to explain this again, but the Hand up instead of a handout thread makes it apparent that I need to explain this yet again.

I believe in the principles and the intent that our founding fathers put forth to create this nation. I support and agree with some of the changes that have been made since (freedom regardless of race and a vote of everyone over the age of 18 for example is a good thing.) I don't like the Federal Reserve, The IRS, Federal Income Tax, or that Senators are elected and not appointed.

I believe that the federal government should be limited in their actions and ability only to the duties as expressed in the Constitution of the United States. I believe that each individual State should have the ability to pass laws and actions that the Federal Government can not. For example, I think that Pot should be legalized. I voted in favor of it's decriminalization in my current city. However, there are stupid federal laws that keep it a illegal. If a State government put forth Obamacare, I would be opposed to it and might move... but that is where the discussion should be held... not a federal mandate.

Since I have moved to my City, I have only voted for 0 republicans for City Council, 0 at the county level, and it has been a 50/50 mix at the state level. At the federal level, most of the time it is a libertarian or a republican who intends to do the least amount of damage. Given the totals blanket totals, I have voted for more democrats or undeclared democrats (they don't post parties for locals) than any other party. I believe that a strong local government can be far more effective and efficient than the federal government.

I don't like either party at the federal level. They are all idiots. Right now, because the democrats have control of the Senate and the Presidency and they are doing things that are not expressly permitted as part of the constitution.
 
michaelskis said:
I can't believe I have to explain this again, but the Hand up instead of a handout thread makes it apparent that I need to explain this yet again.

I believe in the principles and the intent that our founding fathers put forth to create this nation. I support and agree with some of the changes that have been made since (freedom regardless of race and a vote of everyone over the age of 18 for example is a good thing.) I don't like the Federal Reserve, The IRS, Federal Income Tax, or that Senators are elected and not appointed.

I believe that the federal government should be limited in their actions and ability only to the duties as expressed in the Constitution of the United States. I believe that each individual State should have the ability to pass laws and actions that the Federal Government can not. For example, I think that Pot should be legalized. I voted in favor of it's decriminalization in my current city. However, there are stupid federal laws that keep it a illegal. If a State government put forth Obamacare, I would be opposed to it and might move... but that is where the discussion should be held... not a federal mandate.

Since I have moved to my City, I have only voted for 0 republicans for City Council, 0 at the county level, and it has been a 50/50 mix at the state level. At the federal level, most of the time it is a libertarian or a republican who intends to do the least amount of damage. Given the totals blanket totals, I have voted for more democrats or undeclared democrats (they don't post parties for locals) than any other party. I believe that a strong local government can be far more effective and efficient than the federal government.

I don't like either party at the federal level. They are all idiots. Right now, because the democrats have control of the Senate and the Presidency and they are doing things that are not expressly permitted as part of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that.
 
michaelskis said:
I can't believe I have to explain this again, but the Hand up instead of a handout thread makes it apparent that I need to explain this yet again.

I believe in the principles and the intent that our founding fathers put forth to create this nation. I support and agree with some of the changes that have been made since (freedom regardless of race and a vote of everyone over the age of 18 for example is a good thing.) I don't like the Federal Reserve, The IRS, Federal Income Tax, or that Senators are elected and not appointed.


I don't like either party at the federal level. They are all idiots. Right now, because the democrats have control of the Senate and the Presidency and they are doing things that are not expressly permitted as part of the constitution.
Click to expand...

You don't own the constitution or the intent of the founders. Only a ________ would claim to speak for the founders when its obvious they had many disagreements on these topics in their own time.
 
imaplanner said:
You don't own the constitution or the intent of the founders. Only a ________ would claim to speak for the founders when its obvious they had many disagreements on these topics in their own time.
Click to expand...

Only a ________ would make such a statement given you also claim that SCOTUS ruled on ACA when it was a one vote swing. The majority speaks for the whole. Furthermore, the intent is clear if you read up on your history but you seem to avoid it.

I have suggested a list of books in this post, I will take your comments into consideration once you have completed that list.



ON topic, it looks like I am not the only one who thinks that Obama is out of line regarding the ACA "You can keep your plan" lies. Bill Clinton and several other democrats, including Nancy Pelosi seem to be saying that it needs to be changed.
 
I'm so tired of hearing about the ACA website on the news every single day... yes, it should have been handled differently but montrous websites can't be repaired overnight, give us all a reprieve for a few days, news outlets. You are driving me to read your stories about Kim and Kanye instead. Oh, the humanity...
 
terraplnr said:
I'm so tired of hearing about the ACA website on the news every single day... yes, it should have been handled differently but montrous websites can't be repaired overnight, give us all a reprieve for a few days, news outlets. You are driving me to read your stories about Kim and Kanye instead. Oh, the humanity...
Click to expand...

How about ACA advertisements since only 700,000 have applied where the target was 7 Million, (CNN LINK since FOX lies)


And just think, our tax dollars might be going to help these two get it on...
b3lq.jpg
 
michaelskis said:
Only a ________ would make such a statement given you also claim that SCOTUS ruled on ACA when it was a one vote swing. The majority speaks for the whole. Furthermore, the intent is clear if you read up on your history but you seem to avoid it.

I have suggested a list of books in this post, I will take your comments into consideration once you have completed that list.



ON topic, it looks like I am not the only one who thinks that Obama is out of line regarding the ACA "You can keep your plan" lies. Bill Clinton and several other democrats, including Nancy Pelosi seem to be saying that it needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

I've read some of those materials and they in no way support the idea that the founders had a single vision that aligns with your political beliefs. I truly find it hard to believe you've read those works yourself rather than just the nonsense written by mark levin that you previousy claimed to read. Your nonsense mirrors his misappropriation of the writings of the founders nearly exactly. Take the federalist papers for instance, which i have read, its a collection of arguments between founders on the nature of the government. They disagree on many topics- thats the whole point of their correspondence with each other. There is simply no way you read that and come away with the idea that they supported your politics.

Go back and read the writings of Franklin. In particularly I think is obvious he would find your lack of critical thinking and overall rejection of scientific principles to be appalling. You clearly didn't take any of his writings to heart.

Scholars of the founders have long acknowledged their divergent beliefs on the nature of the government and the constitution. It's your insistence that you alone speak for the founders and the constitution that makes you such an annoying little twit.
 
What should've happened is just a gradual expansion of Medicare over several years until everyone is covered. Much simpler. The system already exists. Perhaps add some means testing. Single-payer system. Healthier country. Exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted - a government that supports its people - a government that realizes a healthy populace will be more productive.
 
btrage said:
What should've happened is just a gradual expansion of Medicare over several years until everyone is covered...
Click to expand...

I've often wondered why they didn't start with a gradual expansion of Medicare maybe in a few phases starting with having it cover all children under the age of 18, regardless of how much their parents/guardians may earn. Well, I mean I know why they don't do that - kids don't vote. But who can really argue against covering children?

Maybe a second phase would be for Medicare to cover folks up to the age of 26 as long as they are enrolled in school. A third phase could be for it to cover everybody else up to 26. Fourth could be mothers of children who are currently covered, then in the fifth phase cover the fathers or partners. And so on.

A universal, single-payer system, untied to your employment, might be more palatable to folks if it is achieved incrementally over a decade or so.

Same thing with the phasing out of the home mortgage income tax credit.
 
imaplanner said:
I've read some of those materials and they in no way support the idea that the founders had a single vision that aligns with your political beliefs. I truly find it hard to believe you've read those works yourself rather than just the nonsense written by mark levin that you previousy claimed to read. Your nonsense mirrors his misappropriation of the writings of the founders nearly exactly. Take the federalist papers for instance, which i have read, its a collection of arguments between founders on the nature of the government. They disagree on many topics- thats the whole point of their correspondence with each other. There is simply no way you read that and come away with the idea that they supported your politics.

Go back and read the writings of Franklin. In particularly I think is obvious he would find your lack of critical thinking and overall rejection of scientific principles to be appalling. You clearly didn't take any of his writings to heart.

Scholars of the founders have long acknowledged their divergent beliefs on the nature of the government and the constitution. It's your insistence that you alone speak for the founders and the constitution that makes you such an annoying little twit.
Click to expand...

I think it is great that you have read some of those. Which ones? You keep assuming that I am under this crazy disillusioned idea that everyone agreed on everything and sang in perfect harmony. Not only did they not get along all the time, some of them shot each other. (Burr and Hamilton) But what is clear, specifically in the writings of Jefferson is that the federal government was intended to take a lesser role to the state governments but still provide a foundation of a unified nation. This is how it mostly was until 1913.

The federalist papers are a collection of letters written under the pseudonym Publius as a way to help encourage each state to ratify it. According to several historians, this was done to present the intent and meaning in a clear simple manner such that everyone, including farmers, would understand its purpose. I find it ironic today that there is such debate on what it actually says yet a farmer more than 200 years ago would understand it.

I love that you bring up Franklin, mainly because during is life he had quite the transformation. For a long he worked diligently as a loyal British subject until he realized that the oppression being placed on the American people to pay for a war was just too much. As time progressed he believed in self-governance insofar as possible and always with the aid of our creator. In fact at the second constitutional convention, there was upheaval and turmoil during the debate and finally one of the representatives asked Mr. Franklin for advice. He suggested that the adjourn for a period, then reopen the session, but this time with prayer for our creator to help guide their discussion. (Link)

As for his scientific endeavors, several scientists told him that it was scientifically impossible to harness the wild forces of electricity. We all know what happened there. I agree that there are absolutes in this world, but not everything.


WSU MUP Student said:
Same thing with the phasing out of the home mortgage income tax credit.
Click to expand...
WHOOO HOOOO Something we a agree on. :D

That, along with all tax credits as part of a total revamp of the tax system... one where the IRS and accountants would not be needed to do you taxes. I made this much... I pay this much. (OH, and people pay taxes out of pocket... not out of paycheck.)
 
michaelskis said:
I think it is great that you have read some of those. Which ones? You keep assuming that I am under this crazy disillusioned idea that everyone agreed on everything and sang in perfect harmony. Not only did they not get along all the time, some of them shot each other. (Burr and Hamilton) But what is clear, specifically in the writings of Jefferson is that the federal government was intended to take a lesser role to the state governments but still provide a foundation of a unified nation. This is how it mostly was until 1913.
Click to expand...

Jefferson did not favor a strong federal government. Nor did Madison. But they were only a few voices among many and their writings did not speak for all. There were just as many divergent Federalist voices as there were anti-Federalist voices.

Even with Jefferson and Madison, it is argued that they abandoned their "weak federal government" during the Louisiana Purchase and when Madison later signed a bill authorizing the creation of the 2nd national bank.

It is not as simple as "this was how it was intended to be". The founders of this country had many divergent views that were shaped by the times they lived in. The country was formed by a mixing of the ideas of many, not by the domination of one or two individuals.
 
michaelskis said:
How about ACA advertisements since only 700,000 have applied where the target was 7 Million, (CNN LINK since FOX lies)


And just think, our tax dollars might be going to help these two get it on...
b3lq.jpg
Click to expand...

Birth control doesn't help people "get it on". It help them prevent pregnancies, which can have a major impact on the health care system and financial impact on families, society, etc., especially when the parents are of a lower socio-economic status.
 
btrage said:
Birth control doesn't help people "get it on". It help them prevent pregnancies, which can have a major impact on the health care system and financial impact on families, society, etc., especially when the parents are of a lower socio-economic status.
Click to expand...

And so what if they get it on :D

I agree that covering contraception and related doctor's visits is much more economical in the long run with averting unintended pregnancies.

Funny snippet I heard today about men and post menopausal women needing insurance policies that cover maternity care, "well women pay for policies that cover prostate care and you don't see them sounding the alarm..."
 
kjel said:
And so what if they get it on :D

I agree that covering contraception and related doctor's visits is much more economical in the long run with averting unintended pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Banning alcohol as perceived as more economical too, but we saw how well that one worked. There are a ton of things that might be better... but are the ethical. That is the question.

I loved some of the other adds... these are just screaming for a Saturday Night Live skit.
 
106,000 sign up for Obamacare in the month of October, 27,000 of them use healthcare.gov while 2 to 5 million lost their current coverage. Sound about par for the course.
 
ColoGI said:
I wonder if it would be helpful for the commonweal if the dying party actually wanted to improve health care for those people. I wonder if this would make our country stronger. I wonder...I wonnnnnderrrrrrr...
Click to expand...

Yeah, things are working so well.. I wonder if Obama even read the ACA legislation. Or was he too busy playing golf?
 
michaelskis said:
106,000 sign up for Obamacare in the month of October, 27,000 of them use healthcare.gov while 2 to 5 million lost their current coverage. Sound about par for the course.
Click to expand...



I'd bet most have not lost anything yet. Yes they have been notified that their plans are going away. Most have been offered compliant plans similar to their old plans by their carrier. None of this will happen until Jan 1.
Some plans will cost more, some will cost less depending upon age. You will be happy to know that the ACA allows a 50% premium hike for smokers. I'll bet by Jan 1, 99% of the 2-5 million will be covered. The right loves to try to make people believe that 5 million people can't go to the Dr tomorrow and be covered. There will likely be an extension worked out, giving the best chance to get as many people signed up as possible.

The main reason this is such a mess is because the parties can't compromise, the US government has become win/lose and the idea that ideals from both sides come together to make good law is gone. Until that is fixed we are screwed.
 
michaelskis said:
Banning alcohol as perceived as more economical too, but we saw how well that one worked. There are a ton of things that might be better... but are the ethical. That is the question.

I loved some of the other adds... these are just screaming for a Saturday Night Live skit.
Click to expand...

Right, so if you don't cover contraception, are you saying that people will stop having sex? If so, that's laughable.
 
btrage said:
Right, so if you don't cover contraception, are you saying that people will stop having sex? If so, that's laughable.
Click to expand...

No... people will have sex. Just like people produced and drank alcohol during prohibition.

I don't think that we should be funding contraception with tax dollars. Besides, if a person is not responsible enough to have sex, then they should be responsible enough to spend the 50 cents to a dollar to buy a condom if they want to avoid pregnancy.

giff57 said:
I'd bet most have not lost anything yet. Yes they have been notified that their plans are going away. Most have been offered compliant plans similar to their old plans by their carrier. None of this will happen until Jan 1.
Some plans will cost more, some will cost less depending upon age. You will be happy to know that the ACA allows a 50% premium hike for smokers. I'll bet by Jan 1, 99% of the 2-5 million will be covered. The right loves to try to make people believe that 5 million people can't go to the Dr tomorrow and be covered. There will likely be an extension worked out, giving the best chance to get as many people signed up as possible.

The main reason this is such a mess is because the parties can't compromise, the US government has become win/lose and the idea that ideals from both sides come together to make good law is gone. Until that is fixed we are screwed.
Click to expand...

I agree, most of them won't loose their existing coverage (which the President promised that if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan) until Jan 1.
The assessor for one of my clients is a contract employee too, and she received a letter saying that her plan would not continue after Jan 1 because it did not meet the ACA requirements. She loved her plan and as a diabetic, it covered all of her needs. But some suit in DC says otherwise.

I also agree that by January 1, most of them will be covered because they will be forced to find a new plan. They had insurance, realized that it was a good idea to have a plan, found a plan that they liked, but the Government decided it was not 'good enough' so they now have to go back and find something else that will likely cost more.

The main reason that this is happening is because for 100 years DC the camel has been sticking it's nose under the tent flap. Now, he is hosting a freaking party for him and all his camel pals in it. Freedoms don't disappear over night... this has been a long progression.
 
michaelskis said:
No... people will have sex. Just like people produced and drank alcohol during prohibition.

I don't think that we should be funding contraception with tax dollars. Besides, if a person is not responsible enough to have sex, then they should be responsible enough to spend the 50 cents to a dollar to buy a condom if they want to avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Is your stance on contraception a moral one or an economic one?
 
michaelskis said:
No... people will have sex. Just like people produced and drank alcohol during prohibition.

I don't think that we should be funding contraception with tax dollars. Besides, if a person is not responsible enough to have sex, then they should be responsible enough to spend the 50 cents to a dollar to buy a condom if they want to avoid pregnancy.



I agree, most of them won't loose their existing coverage (which the President promised that if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan) until Jan 1. The assessor for one of my clients is a contract employee too, and she received a letter saying that her plan would not continue after Jan 1 because it did not meet the ACA requirements. She loved her plan and as a diabetic, it covered all of her needs. But some suit in DC says otherwise.
Click to expand...

You do know that there are significant benefits associated with "the pill" beyond just birth control, right? You also do know that it is more effective than condoms, right? This particular argument is a red herring at best.

And two, I do not think you understand why certain plans were dropped. One, either a plan was made after the grandfather date and never was going to meet the ACA and was going to have to be dropped anyways, or the insurance company had a grandfathered plan, and they decided to drop it. This isn't some suit in DC saying "let's screw those people."
 
btrage said:
Is your stance on contraception a moral one or an economic one?
Click to expand...

You know, I had to think about that a bit more in detail, but in the end I think it is a little of both, and more. People will do what they want to do regardless of my personal, moral, ethical, economic, or religious beliefs. I understand it and it is their free will to do as they choose. But what gets me is when the government funds it.
 
michaelskis said:
You know, I had to think about that a bit more in detail, but in the end I think it is a little of both, and more. People will do what they want to do regardless of my personal, moral, ethical, economic, or religious beliefs. I understand it and it is their free will to do as they choose. But what gets me is when the government funds it.
Click to expand...

I understand. My view is that unwanted pregnancies can have a negative impact on the economy, especially those children born to low-income parents who are then trying to access further government social services. It just seems a hell of a lot cheaper to fund contraception through health insurance, as opposed to paying the economic costs of all these low-income babies.
 
btrage said:
I understand. My view is that unwanted pregnancies can have a negative impact on the economy, especially those children born to low-income parents who are then trying to access further government social services. It just seems a hell of a lot cheaper to fund contraception through health insurance, as opposed to paying the economic costs of all these low-income babies.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would be far less expensive, if they were used... we will be paying to make them available, but I question if someone is suddenly going to go on the pill or faithfully use a box of condoms just because they are covered in their insurance plan.

Furthermore, it would also be more economical for the federal government to require hospitals let people who are ironically ill or severely injured die in the streets. It doesn't make it right though. It would also be more economical for the Federal Government to require everyone in the US to become a vegan. The cost to produce a pound of beef is substantially higher than the cost to produce a pound of wheat. Both are subsided by the feds.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree, it would be far less expensive, if they were used... we will be paying to make them available, but I question if someone is suddenly going to go on the pill or faithfully use a box of condoms just because they are covered in their insurance plan.

Furthermore, it would also be more economical for the federal government to require hospitals let people who are ironically ill or severely injured die in the streets. It doesn't make it right though. It would also be more economical for the Federal Government to require everyone in the US to become a vegan. The cost to produce a pound of beef is substantially higher than the cost to produce a pound of wheat. Both are subsided by the feds.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt people are purchasing condoms via their health insurance plans. They are utilizing their plans for access to birth control pills, IUDs, vasectomies, etc., which are much more reliable than condoms. Some forms of birth control are also effective for certain medical conditions.

Condoms are one of the least reliable forms of contraception out there. Not much better than the withdrawal method.

As to your second point, the federal government is not forcing people to use birth control. The individual is still able to make that decision themselves.
 
btrage said:
I highly doubt people are purchasing condoms via their health insurance plans. They are utilizing their plans for access to birth control pills, IUDs, vasectomies, etc., which are much more reliable than condoms. Some forms of birth control are also effective for certain medical conditions.

Condoms are one of the least reliable forms of contraception out there. Not much better than the withdrawal method.

As to your second point, the federal government is not forcing people to use birth control. The individual is still able to make that decision themselves.
Click to expand...

The government is not forcing people to use it, but they are forcing people to pay for it, even if they are morally, ethically, or religiously opposed to the use of it.

As for effectiveness, I agree... that is why I also mentioned the pill, which is not effective when combined with some other medications such as antibiotics.
 
michaelskis said:
The government is not forcing people to use it, but they are forcing people to pay for it, even if they are morally, ethically, or religiously opposed to the use of it.

As for effectiveness, I agree... that is why I also mentioned the pill, which is not effective when combined with some other medications such as antibiotics.
Click to expand...

If they insurance plans covers it 100% how are people paying for it?
 
michaelskis said:
Furthermore, it would also be more economical for the federal government to require hospitals let people who are ironically ill or severely injured die in the streets.
Click to expand...

It's so sad, hospitals won't treat hipsters anymore! Who slipped that into Obamacare?!

:)
 
michaelskis said:
The government is not forcing people to use it, but they are forcing people to pay for it, even if they are morally, ethically, or religiously opposed to the use of it.

As for effectiveness, I agree... that is why I also mentioned the pill, which is not effective when combined with some other medications such as antibiotics.
Click to expand...

Again, there are other benefits of "the pill" than just birth control. I see little need to impose your beliefs on everyone regarding one of the benefits of a particular drug available.
 
terraplnr said:
It's so sad, hospitals won't treat hipsters anymore! Who slipped that into Obamacare?!

:)
Click to expand...

You got me there... :-$

dw914er said:
Again, there are other benefits of "the pill" than just birth control. I see little need to impose your beliefs on everyone regarding one of the benefits of a particular drug available.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that can't use it... that would be imposing my beliefs. I am saying that I don't think that it should be funded by the Federal Government.
 
michaelskis said:
You got me there... :-$



I am not saying that can't use it... that would be imposing my beliefs. I am saying that I don't think that it should be funded by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

You are imposing your beliefs on what my legally binding policy can cover. And I pay for my healthcare with some help from my employer. And again, there are still the additional benefits (which was why my GF started using "the pill" in the first place.)
 
dw914er said:
You are imposing your beliefs on what my legally binding policy can cover. And I pay for my healthcare with some help from my employer. And again, there are still the additional benefits (which was why my GF started using "the pill" in the first place.)
Click to expand...

Nope... if you plan wants to cover it, then it should. But the plans that are funded by the federal government and/or subsidized by the federal government should not be required to include it.. (or should include it for that matter) But then again, the federal government should stay out of insurance all together.

Are you saying that the government should buy your GF's birth control pills?

On a side but related noted...

Obama Folds... You can keep your plan... for now.
CNN LINK (because Fox would be lying if they reported it.

I wonder how many people will be getting a letter informing people that their coverage will continue or how many companies will just say damage is done and the plan is gone in 2015 anyways.
 
michaelskis said:
Nope... if you plan wants to cover it, then it should. But the plans that are funded by the federal government and/or subsidized by the federal government should not be required to include it.. (or should include it for that matter) But then again, the federal government should stay out of insurance all together.

Are you saying that the government should buy your GF's birth control pills?.
Click to expand...

So Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished?
 
michaelskis said:
Nope... if you plan wants to cover it, then it should. But the plans that are funded by the federal government and/or subsidized by the federal government should not be required to include it.. (or should include it for that matter) But then again, the federal government should stay out of insurance all together.

Are you saying that the government should buy your GF's birth control pills?
Click to expand...

An irrational question deserves an irrational response. WIC/SNAPs funding allows people to purchase pork and non-kosher products, and I do not see some sort of random argument from you about that. I look at this issue very plainly. I do think there should be some sort of minimum standard in terms of what can or cannot be provided. Call it overstepping the Founding Fathers or whatever, but Healthcare is a very complex and expensive industry, and some protections for consumers seems reasonable. I personally see birth control pills as almost a non-issue; it is a prescription drug that is somewhat widely used and contains a variety of benefits (the typical health and hormone benefits, to even the societal benefits associated with the liberation of women). If you don't want it, don't use it, but the argument that your tax dollars are paying for something immoral seems laughable; the cost to you for that specific option is non-existent. But instead, you are using your religious beliefs to influence policies and regulations.
 
This is what I think about some of the arguments made in this thread.

 
michaelskis said:
The government is not forcing people to use it, but they are forcing people to pay for it, even if they are morally, ethically, or religiously opposed to the use of it.
Click to expand...

Should we also exclude coverage for trichinosis because Muslims and Jews are religiously compelled to not eat pork? This wouldn’t be forcing people to not eat pork. But if you do and you get sick, don’t expect the government to pay for your treatment...
 
The keep your plan thing is just straight misleading on the part of pretty much everybody. What has barely been reported is that plans not compliant with the ACA were grandfathered and could continue if insurers wanted to continue to provide them to their customers, but as many of those plans became less profitable to the insurance companies they cancelled them. And then people started blaming the ACA and Obama and he panicked. The insurance companies don't want to keep offering the plans they cancelled- otherwise they would have kept them grandfathered. So this will do almost nothing other than make the insurance companies the fall guy for the media hyped "keep your plan" gate.

Except now you have a proposal supported by some democrats and republicans to FORCE insurance companies to keep offering plans that are unprofitable for them. Amazing that now many of the same people decrying the ACA as too much gov't interference in the market want the government to force insurance companies to offer something that is unprofitable. What a nightmare of misinformation and straight politicking for partisan gain on absolutely everyones part.
 
dw914er said:
You are imposing your beliefs on what my legally binding policy can cover. And I pay for my healthcare with some help from my employer. And again, there are still the additional benefits (which was why my GF started using "the pill" in the first place.)
Click to expand...

He fails to recognize certain parts of your question and won't respond because there is no debate to be had from it.

I had a GF once who took the pill for medical reasons to ease excessive cramps and bigger than normal visits from Aunt Flo.

There is a going crowd in this country who take a combative view - I'm right and you're wrong attitude & I don't like my tax money paying for schools cause I don't have any kids or my kid goes to private school - rather than a cooperative view - I understand taxes go to the public good of our entire country and benefits everyone. There in lines what is happening in our government today. Sorry but there is no cafeteria plan for taxes & I doubt seriously that's what our founding fathers wanted (but I can't say for sure because I wasn't there 250 years ago).
 
dw914er said:
An irrational question deserves an irrational response. WIC/SNAPs funding allows people to purchase pork and non-kosher products, and I do not see some sort of random argument from you about that. I look at this issue very plainly. I do think there should be some sort of minimum standard in terms of what can or cannot be provided. Call it overstepping the Founding Fathers or whatever, but Healthcare is a very complex and expensive industry, and some protections for consumers seems reasonable. I personally see birth control pills as almost a non-issue; it is a prescription drug that is somewhat widely used and contains a variety of benefits (the typical health and hormone benefits, to even the societal benefits associated with the liberation of women). If you don't want it, don't use it, but the argument that your tax dollars are paying for something immoral seems laughable; the cost to you for that specific option is non-existent. But instead, you are using your religious beliefs to influence policies and regulations.
Click to expand...

Your point about non-kosher products is a very good point and I had not thought about that. You are correct in my interpretation of what I believe the roll of the federal government is, and I will state that if a State wants to offer something like this, it is their business. But I don't think that the federal government should take on things that were not expressly permitted under Article 8 of the US Constitution. WIC/SNAP are not one of them. I think that WIC/SNAP are still important programs and should fully funded and controlled on a state by state basis.

imaplanner said:
The keep your plan thing is just straight misleading on the part of pretty much everybody. What has barely been reported is that plans not compliant with the ACA were grandfathered and could continue if insurers wanted to continue to provide them to their customers, but as many of those plans became less profitable to the insurance companies they cancelled them. And then people started blaming the ACA and Obama and he panicked. The insurance companies don't want to keep offering the plans they cancelled- otherwise they would have kept them grandfathered. So this will do almost nothing other than make the insurance companies the fall guy for the media hyped "keep your plan" gate.

Except now you have a proposal supported by some democrats and republicans to FORCE insurance companies to keep offering plans that are unprofitable for them. Amazing that now many of the same people decrying the ACA as too much gov't interference in the market want the government to force insurance companies to offer something that is unprofitable. What a nightmare of misinformation and straight politicking for partisan gain on absolutely everyones part.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that CNN is lying?
 
btrage said:
Jefferson did not favor a strong federal government. Nor did Madison. But they were only a few voices among many and their writings did not speak for all. There were just as many divergent Federalist voices as there were anti-Federalist voices.

Even with Jefferson and Madison, it is argued that they abandoned their "weak federal government" during the Louisiana Purchase and when Madison later signed a bill authorizing the creation of the 2nd national bank.

It is not as simple as "this was how it was intended to be". The founders of this country had many divergent views that were shaped by the times they lived in. The country was formed by a mixing of the ideas of many, not by the domination of one or two individuals.
Click to expand...

Planit said:
He fails to recognize certain parts of your question and won't respond because there is no debate to be had from it.

I had a GF once who took the pill for medical reasons to ease excessive cramps and bigger than normal visits from Aunt Flo.

There is a going crowd in this country who take a combative view - I'm right and you're wrong attitude & I don't like my tax money paying for schools cause I don't have any kids or my kid goes to private school - rather than a cooperative view - I understand taxes go to the public good of our entire country and benefits everyone. There in lines what is happening in our government today. Sorry but there is no cafeteria plan for taxes & I doubt seriously that's what our founding fathers wanted (but I can't say for sure because I wasn't there 250 years ago).
Click to expand...

I was hoping I would've received a response to my above post about Jefferson, the founding fathers, etc., but alas.
 
btrage said:
I was hoping I would've received a response to my above post about Jefferson, the founding fathers, etc., but alas.
Click to expand...

Sorry... my answer is Article 8 of the US constitution. It was drafted, approved, and ratified by each colony/state at the time and all new states were formed under its regulations. It provides a limited government and what is not expressly permitted at the federal level was intended to be the digression of each state. Furthermore the states had further control in that the two senators from each state were appointed by the state governments and were to oversee the money that was given to the federal government by the states. This was the structure until 1913 when senators became elected by the general populous, direct taxation to the federal was established with an federal income tax, and the whole thing was established using a cartel of privately owned banks (most of which are foreign based) that ran parallel but separate from the federal government. We call this the federal reserve. By then all of the founding fathers were long gone.... and well after the Louisiana Purchase.

So my answer once again is the opinion of the majority is the official opinion. No different that SCOTUS.
 
Back
Top