Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: And I respect that belief, sincerely. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that, in previous postings, you’ve actually argued the opposite, to wit, that moral relativism and ambiguity isn’t such a bad thing.
So, doesn’t that put you in the somewhat slippery position of picking and choosing, along the very same lines of what you’re accusing Hobby Lobby of?
Like I said, I have no ax to grind here. The type of Christianity as practiced by the proprietors of that company is not my own and I have no truck with foisting my beliefs on others, which is why I generally hugely appreciate the government staying the fuck out of my business.[/quote]
look, if i ahve to remember what i argued recently, im never going to be able to say anything, because i have no idea what i actually believe.[/quote]
Other than that bit earlier about the nefarious nature of Big Pharma, right?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…
actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]
You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.
You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.
I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.[/quote]
the goal of prviding some level of insurance to its citizens is not gov. running roughshod over everyone in its path…and the characterization of the debate this way is perhaps a good example of the tribal diviisions in this country and how fundamentally we do not give a crap about our fellow citizens so long as we have ours…[/quote]
I’m actually all for the single payer approach as exemplified by Medicare. But Obama wasn’t interested in actually providing a good product or program, he was interested in his legacy, and this the unworkable piece of shit we’re saddled with.
Where I have the most heartburn is the government compelling me to action, without considering what I may wish to do as a private citizen. Sorry, but that’s no bueno and fuck that. That is precisely government running roughshod, no two ways about it.[/quote]
kind of. although if you do’t ahve insurance, and you need help, you’ll run up a giant tab and declare bankruptcy. you won’t just die quietly with your principles. so i guess the real consistent thing to do would be to let you have your hardwon principles and also let you die int he gutter without your insurance.
but i guess we don’t do that because, well, we have the money as a nation, and because heoretically we give a shit about one another. sort of..[/quote]
Ah, but that’s not true. I can simply purchase catastrophic insurance and thus head off the scenario you mention above.
ACA grants even more power to those that profit most already, the private insurance companies.
They’re being allowed to limit coverage and doctors through the use of “narrow networks” and will have all of their downside risk covered by the taxpayers through the implementation of “risk corridors” per the ACA.
ParticipantScaredy: And I respect that belief, sincerely. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that, in previous postings, you’ve actually argued the opposite, to wit, that moral relativism and ambiguity isn’t such a bad thing.
So, doesn’t that put you in the somewhat slippery position of picking and choosing, along the very same lines of what you’re accusing Hobby Lobby of?
Like I said, I have no ax to grind here. The type of Christianity as practiced by the proprietors of that company is not my own and I have no truck with foisting my beliefs on others, which is why I generally hugely appreciate the government staying the fuck out of my business.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…
actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]
You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.
You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.
I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.[/quote]
the goal of prviding some level of insurance to its citizens is not gov. running roughshod over everyone in its path…and the characterization of the debate this way is perhaps a good example of the tribal diviisions in this country and how fundamentally we do not give a crap about our fellow citizens so long as we have ours…[/quote]
I’m actually all for the single payer approach as exemplified by Medicare. But Obama wasn’t interested in actually providing a good product or program, he was interested in his legacy, and this the unworkable piece of shit we’re saddled with.
Where I have the most heartburn is the government compelling me to action, without considering what I may wish to do as a private citizen. Sorry, but that’s no bueno and fuck that. That is precisely government running roughshod, no two ways about it.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]”turns out that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan, according to documents filed with the Labor Department and written about by Mother Jones, is heavily invested in the very pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the products the company refuses to cover for its employees.
Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million yuan invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.
In her 35-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from another case that underscores the importance of birth control to women: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey).
But the five male justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby just handed employers a powerful tool to opt out of laws they don’t like. Hear that, everyone? If you want the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you better check out the religious beliefs of your bosses.
How do they feel about your sex life? Are they cool with the monthly birth control pills you take to control your endometriosis? Do they think you or your children should be immunized, or is that against their religion?
The door is now open for all that.”[/quote]
Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.
Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?
This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]
yes. HYPOCRITES. if you are so sincerely aghast at these products, mr hobby lobby, you wouldn’t invest in their producer. if you are appalled by apartheid in the 80s, you don’t invest in south africa…or if you do, and people call you a HYPOCRITE you have no response other than, yeah, I want to make as much money as possible and have as few expenses as possible… you don’t stack krugerrands and pretend to support Mandela…
and in the current case cloak it all in Christianity for litigation purposes…
risible? red herring?
hobby lobby is the one pretedning to have these overwhelmingly improtant principles…but only insofar as they apply to providing coverage..and they’re not doctors…able to opine on its medical necessity..just a BUSINESS….but when it comes to profiteering and investing…there are NO PRINCIPLES..only profit…if they could get a decent return on a conglomerate that had a diviosn running highly profitable abortion mills and it was ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL, i suspect they’d pony up the cash…
and where does it end? obamacare is lame, yes, and it’sall ridiculous, and single payer makes much more sense, and maybe it doesn’t matter that our wealthy nation just doesn’t give a crap about it’s people enoughto give them some basic health care,…
i guess the goal is utimately profit…but to couch it all in terms of sicnerely held religious belief…sheesh…
i could vomit..[/quote]
Scaredy: How did we wind up in South Africa in the 1980s? I take your point and I don’t dispute it. However, and I’m not defending Hobby Lobby, but investing in South Africa during apartheid is way different than investing in a large pharma, which markets potentially thousands of products, of which less than four are objectionable. That makes the comparison something of a false equivalence.
Further, Obama had a legitimate crack at single payer and didn’t take it. He did, however, take the opportunity to involve private insurance companies in ACA through a series of backroom deals.
If you want to discuss the profit motive and disenfranchising those who should receive an adequate and free standard of care, shouldn’t we start there?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…
actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]
You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.
You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.
I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]if I’m a christian scientist, can I just provide a reading room instead of health insurance?
some religions don’t believe in blood transfusions…better check with your employer to see what they believe…why should I have to pay for your blood transfusion if it’s against my religion?
“That question is there, of course, because of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This Christian sect was founded in 1872 by Charles Russell, and its members’ stance on blood transfusion is derived from their interpretation of Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17 to “not eat from the bread of life,” as well as the verses in Acts 15:20, Acts 21:25, and elsewhere that Christians must “abstain from … blood.” Adherents do not accept blood products, regardless of the possibility of death. For Jehovah’s Witnesses, receiving blood products may lead to excommunication from their community and fear of eternal damnation.”
seems like there’s no way we can have jehovahs witnesses businesses cover blood transfusions. so i guess you can’t really have that surgery without the blood transfusion. this is going to be really great to have religion involved in deciding all kinds of medical care! awesome![/quote]
Versus all those waivers and exclusions already granted under the ACA to all manner of secular groups, including corporations, unions, etc?
How is this any different?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]”turns out that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan, according to documents filed with the Labor Department and written about by Mother Jones, is heavily invested in the very pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the products the company refuses to cover for its employees.
Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million yuan invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.
In her 35-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from another case that underscores the importance of birth control to women: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey).
But the five male justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby just handed employers a powerful tool to opt out of laws they don’t like. Hear that, everyone? If you want the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you better check out the religious beliefs of your bosses.
How do they feel about your sex life? Are they cool with the monthly birth control pills you take to control your endometriosis? Do they think you or your children should be immunized, or is that against their religion?
The door is now open for all that.”[/quote]
Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.
Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?
This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.
ParticipantBest laws are made in the courts.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]it’s true that the federal government has been accumulating powers over the last few decades.
it’s institutional momentum on the part of the executive. But it’s up to the Congress to do its job to limit executive power.
If people keep on using “weak on crime” and “weak on terrorism” charges, doesn’t it follow that law enforcement at all levels of government will argue “give us stronger powers if you want to be tougher on crime/terrorism.”[/quote]
Your third paragraph is essentially a tautology.
I agree that the last decades have seen a movement towards an imperial presidency, but would argue that, in addition to Congress, the judiciary needs to be more active in pushing back. Congress has been either complicit or compliant, depending on the situation. As egregious as certain examples of executive power have been, Patriot I/II, AUMF, NDAA, etc, have emerged from the legislative, not the executive.
A lapdog media, combined with an ill-informed and largely disinterested populace, have aided and abetted the problem.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Better that they have to ask permission than be allowed to take without asking. Anything that makes law enforcement’s life even a slight bit more onerous is good in my book and a given judge’s decisions are subject to scrutiny by other judges which might just decide to throw a case out.
Culture has swung too far in the violence industry’s favor since 9/11. Time for some pushback.[/quote]
Since 9/11? What about FISA? Or Hoover’s COINTELPRO program?
The US has been making war on its own poor and the 3rd world for decades. The technology has simply become better. No more pen registers, now they have supercomputers.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]”Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.[/quote]
bad analogy. Once there is a major policy implemented, there is institutional self-perpetuation as well as momentum. It takes a whole generation to right the ship.[/quote]
It’s all the same policy. They just change the names.
Participant[quote=CA renter]CE, do you think it’s because of, or done under the guise of “terrorism.” It seems as though they are using “terrorism” as an excuse to justify all manner of despicable behavior on the part of the govt and its agents.[/quote]
CAR: There’s votes and money to be had in the “War on Terror”, just as in the “War on Drugs”. You have the pork barrel politics of maintaining the Military – Industrial Complex in the former, and the Prison – Industrial Complex in the latter.
Meanwhile, you can use these various “Wars” to provide cover for all sorts of shitty programs and policies, all of which erode our freedom and civil liberties, under the rubric of “keeping us safe”.
For proof, you need look no further than our current president, who railed on the policies of his predecessor, only to continue down the same path.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Found this:
“Single lodger in a private residence
A lodger is a person who lives in a room in a house where the owner lives. The owner can enter all areas occupied by the lodger and has overall control of the house.9 Most lodgers have the same rights as tenants.10
However, in the case of a single lodger in a house where there are no other lodgers, the owner can evict the lodger without using formal eviction proceedings. The owner can give the lodger written notice that the lodger cannot continue to use the room. The amount of notice must be the same as the number of days between rent payments (for example, 30 days). (See “Tenant’s notice to end a periodic tenancy”.) When the owner has given the lodger proper notice and the time has expired, the lodger has no further right to remain in the owner’s house and may be removed as a trespasser.11″
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/whois.shtml
I don’t see anything requiring the lodger’s signature. To be safe, the owner should pay to have the notice formally served, but don’t think the nanny is required to sign to make it legal or official.
Am I wrong on this? Would a nanny be recognized differently than a lodger? IMO, it should be the same classification; the lodger is trading labor instead of money for shelter.[/quote]
CAR: Except, in this instance, you can make a strong case that the lodger, by refusing to perform said services, has reneged and breached the contract.
The suggestion below is a good one: Hire a company that does this professionally and have them deal with this.
-
AuthorPosts