Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

#52 Mar 01 2012 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,968 posts
gbaji wrote:

Um... Except they aren't. The White House doesn't write the laws Joph. Congress does. And the Congress just failed to pass an amendment which would have exempted churches. If they had passed this amendment, then what you say would be true. But they didn't.

Interesting. I was under the impression that exemptions for houses of worship were already a part of the healthcare reform, and the Blunt Amendment would have just extended them to their affiliated organizations (ie, schools, hospitals, etc). You're saying there is NO exemption for houses of worship right now, and that the healthcare reform would force churches themselves to carry this insurance for their clergy?

Edit: I should say, that houses of worship can apply for waivers to show that covering certain procedures violates their beliefs. I don't expect the legislation went denomination by denomination to outline them.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 9:24pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#53 Mar 01 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji is simply wrong. The executive branch has considerable latitude to set regulations and exemptions under the law.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Mar 01 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Wait.... so if congress makes the laws and not the WHite House.... I THOUGHT WE BLAMED OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING DAMMIT!!!! Smiley: mad
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#55 Mar 01 2012 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A point of clarification. Is the law that every insurance policy has to cover contraception, or is it the law that the insurance companies have to offer the option to have contraception covered?

The first doesn't really make sense to me, the second does. Gbaji is indicating that it's the first.


IMO it is the latter, if Jane doesn't want contraception then she doesn't go to her doctor to get a prescribed contraceptive. Thus the company does not have to pay out the coverage.


But it's still "covered". It is the former case. Every insurance policy must cover contraceptives. Whether the customer uses that coverage or not, it's still there and you (and/or your employer) are paying for it. That's the point here. If the Catholic buys insurance for their employees, it *must* buy an insurance policy which includes contraception. It's against the law for the insurance policy to not provide it, thus they have no choice. That's the mandate in the law.

The law doesn't explicitly say "the Catholic Church must pay for contraceptives for anyone working for it within the US", but what it does say is that the Catholic church must provide health insurance for its employees in the US, and all health insurers must cover contraception as part of their coverage. Ergo, for the Church to meet the legal requirement to provide health care for their employees, they must buy health insurance which includes contraception. They have no choice.

And even the proposed exemption (by Obama, which still isn't legally binding at all) doesn't really change anything. They're still paying for the insurance. Choosing not to use something you paid for, doesn't change the fact that you're being charged for it. So now, their health insurance dollars are paying to provide contraception for someone else. Yeah. That's such an improvement!


Quote:
Regardless of whether or not it is mandatory to fund or optional in a package, it all comes down to a persons free will to use or not use contraception.


No one's debating this, and no one is denying anyone else the right to obtain contraceptives. The issue is requiring someone to pay for something they don't want. What matters is the free will to not have to buy something you don't want to buy.

Quote:
If it is used it is covered (like other prescriptions) if it is not used it doesn't need to be covered (thus isn't).



Again. That's not how insurance works. It's either covered or not. If it's covered, you can get that service paid for. If it's not, you can't. There is no middle ground here. It's not just covered if you choose to buy some contraception and charge it to your insurer. You were covered the whole time. Just like you're covered if you break your arm and need a cast, even if you don't actually break your arm and need a cast.


That's the whole point of insurance. That's how it works. It's also an incredibly moronic way to pay for people's birth control, but that's yet another reason why this whole thing is silly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Mar 01 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Guenny wrote:
The sad thing is, as we exit the age of Pisces (fish, Jesus) and enter into the age of Aquarius (humanitarianism, radical liberalism) it

You knew this was coming.



Thank you, I was too lazy to provide my own cite.
#57 Mar 01 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is simply wrong. The executive branch has considerable latitude to set regulations and exemptions under the law.

Here, I'm too lazy to go chasing all the strings here but this is what I'm talking about...
The federal register, on the topic of contraceptive regulation, wrote:
The Departments note that PHS Act section 2713(a)(4) gives HRSA the authority to develop comprehensive guidelines for additional preventive care and screenings for women "for purposes of this paragraph." In other words, the statute contemplated HRSA Guidelines that would be developed with the knowledge that certain group health plans and health insurance issuers would be required to cover the services recommended without cost-sharing, unlike the other guidelines referenced in section 2713(a), which pre-dated the Affordable Care Act and were originally issued for purposes of identifying the non-binding recommended care that providers should provide to patients.

If regulatory bodies couldn't create and enforce (or waive) their own regulations, they would be pretty pointless.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Mar 01 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Um... Except they aren't. The White House doesn't write the laws Joph. Congress does. And the Congress just failed to pass an amendment which would have exempted churches. If they had passed this amendment, then what you say would be true. But they didn't.

Interesting. I was under the impression that exemptions for houses of worship were already a part of the healthcare reform, and the Blunt Amendment would have just extended them to their affiliated organizations (ie, schools, hospitals, etc). You're saying there is NO exemption for houses of worship right now, and that the healthcare reform would force churches themselves to carry this insurance for their clergy?

Edit: I should say, that houses of worship can apply for waivers to show that covering certain procedures violates their beliefs. I don't expect the legislation went denomination by denomination to outline them.


As Joph naively points out, the White House has promised to exempt them in some cases, but that has no force of law, and can't be counted on at all. The White House promised not to fund research into embryonic stem cell research when congress first began funding stem cell research and folks objected to the lack of limits placed in the law. Wait? And who changed that with an executive order? That would be Obama, right?

So why on earth do you suppose the religious folks should take his word on this? Absent an exemption in the law, an exemption doesn't really exist. If the Dems in congress are unwilling to pass an exemption into law, why assume that the Obama white house will apply such exemptions promptly and as desired by those seeking them? They wont. They'll make the process so onerous that most people will just give up (or go out of business waiting for the exemption).


We should not have to rely on executive action to undo each individual instance of a law which violates our rights, and promising to do so should never be acceptable to anyone. The law should not be written that way, and if written it should not stand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Mar 01 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
As Joph naively points out, the White House has promised to exempt them in some cases, but that has no force of law, and can't be counted on at all.

Way to backpedal from "It doesn't matter what Obama says because he can't change this at all ever!" Smiley: laugh I guess "naively points out" was your way of admitting you were wrong. Smiley: smile

The exemptions are based on tax filing status. If your building is considered to be a church by the IRS, you're exempt. you don't need to beg for it or hope you'll be blessed with an exemption. If it's not a church but considered by the IRS to be a religiously-affiliated nonprofit then you have the compromise regulations (not directly offered by employer, accessible via insurance company direct).

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 8:46pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Mar 01 2012 at 8:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is simply wrong. The executive branch has considerable latitude to set regulations and exemptions under the law.

Here, I'm too lazy to go chasing all the strings here but this is what I'm talking about...
The federal register, on the topic of contraceptive regulation, wrote:
The Departments note that PHS Act section 2713(a)(4) gives HRSA the authority to develop comprehensive guidelines for additional preventive care and screenings for women "for purposes of this paragraph." In other words, the statute contemplated HRSA Guidelines that would be developed with the knowledge that certain group health plans and health insurance issuers would be required to cover the services recommended without cost-sharing, unlike the other guidelines referenced in section 2713(a), which pre-dated the Affordable Care Act and were originally issued for purposes of identifying the non-binding recommended care that providers should provide to patients.

If regulatory bodies couldn't create and enforce (or waive) their own regulations, they would be pretty pointless.


That's BS doubletalk though Joph. That's saying that some health care providers and insurers may choose to provide additional care and coverage without requiring others in the same system to help cover the cost, but it does not allow for reducing the mandated coverage. So if I want my employees to get 5 breast exams a year, I can negotiate that with an insurance company and create a health plan just for my employees, and I'll get charged extra for that, but the extra cost will not be passed into the total pool the insurer uses (so other folks don't pay extra on their premiums because I want more coverage in my plan).


This doesn't address the issue at hand at all. But I imagine that whoever quoted it figured most people's reading comprehension level would be too low to notice.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Mar 01 2012 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's BS doubletalk though Joph.

Hahaha... sure. As always, your understanding of legislation and how government works is sterling.

I should have remembered your repeated proclamations of how repealing DADT would force the military to ban all homosexuals and not even tried once again explaining stuff to you.

Who "quoted it" was the federal register. I took that section from the government PDF scintillatingly titled "Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

A document most likely written with hopes that low-reading-comprehension people would seek it out at every opportunity Smiley: laugh

Quote:
but it does not allow for reducing the mandated coverage

Yeah, here's the thing: the "mandate" in the law itself is rather vague, consisting largely of talking about "women's health". Go look up the full text of the law, do a word search for "contraceptives" (or just "contracep" so you can include variants) and tell me how many hits there are. Or I can save you the trouble... there's four and all are related to discussions about educational programs. There isn't a line saying "And everyone has to give contraceptives to women". It's a regulation based off the authority of the DHHS and the goals stated in the law.
The LAW! wrote:
‘‘SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for
‘‘(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;
‘‘(2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved; and
‘‘(3) with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for
in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.
‘‘(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.
‘‘(5) for the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009.


It's a "mandate" exclusively because the DHHS made it one. The next president can, by fiat, direct his Sec. of Health & Human Services to change it and remove contraceptives from the list. Or not change it. Whatever. In any event, it's not Congress.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 9:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Mar 01 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As Joph naively points out, the White House has promised to exempt them in some cases, but that has no force of law, and can't be counted on at all.

Way to backpedal from "It doesn't matter what Obama says because he can't change this at all ever!" Smiley: laugh I guess "naively points out" was your way of admitting you were wrong. Smiley: smile


Um.. Naively in this case means you place great trust in the promise of exemption, while I place none in it.

Quote:
The exemptions are based on tax filing status.


No it's not. You just made that up.

Quote:
If your building is considered to be a church by the IRS, you're exempt.


Not true. If your building is a church, you will be considered for exemption. Didn't you (or someone) just provide a quote about how exemptions would be approved based on being able to show not just that one is a church, but that the mandate would violate their beliefs? I thought someone did.

How do you suppose that process would work Joph? So any church can just opt out of the entire health care mandate? Or will the government get to decide who can opt out, and how much of the mandate they can opt out of? Which means that being a church doesn't give you any more control over this than anyone else. As long as the White House gets to decide what is allowed, it's no longer about free choices.

Quote:
you don't need to beg for it or hope you'll be blessed with an exemption.


Of course you do. Anything short of anyone saying "I don't want the mandate to apply because I believe this is a violation of my beliefs" being allowed to opt out, then the decision about who can opt out and how much they can opt out of is made, not by the people, and not by the churches, but by the government.


Quote:
If it's not a church but considered by the IRS to be a religiously-affiliated nonprofit then you have the compromise regulations (not directly offered by employer, accessible via insurance company direct).


Which isn't sufficient by a long shot either. And let's not forget that the 1st amendment doesn't just apply to religious institutions. It also applies to people.
'

Is the white house going to allow anyone to be exempt from the mandates if they claim it violates their religion? If not, then the mandates still violate the constitution on this grounds. As I've been saying all along, the problems with churches and church organizations and church run hospitals and the mandates is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole concept of the health care mandates is a terrible mistake.

Promising exemptions to some, but not all, and for some things, but not all things, is a pretty pathetic bandaid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Mar 01 2012 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
But I imagine that whoever quoted it figured most people's my reading comprehension level would be too low to notice.


MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#64 Mar 01 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
No it's not. You just made that up.


Smiley: laugh

Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#65 Mar 01 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The exemptions are based on tax filing status.
No it's not. You just made that up.

The scary government wrote:
The amendment to the interim final rules provides HRSA with the discretion to establish this exemption. Consistent with most States that have such exemptions, as described below, the amended regulations specify that, for purposes of this policy, a religious employer is one that: (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.


Ok, have fun just ranting and screaming about how the government is gonna trick ya and getcha Smiley: laugh

It should go without mentioning, but Lord knows it'll need to be mentioned, that the tax status granted in (4) already requires 1-3 as a prerequisite. If you have a church tax status, you qualify.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 9:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Mar 01 2012 at 9:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The exemptions are based on tax filing status.
No it's not. You just made that up.


The scary government wrote:
The amendment to the interim final rules provides HRSA with the discretion to establish this exemption. Consistent with most States that have such exemptions, as described below, the amended regulations specify that, for purposes of this policy, a religious employer is one that: (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.



So it's based on more than just tax filing status. Thank you for proving my point.


You do know what the word "discretion" means, right? This only says that those groups *can* receive an exemption. It does not say that the government must grant them one, or how broad the exemption may be.


Quote:
It should go without mentioning, but Lord knows it'll need to be mentioned, that the tax status granted in (4) already requires 1-3 as a prerequisite. If you have a church tax status, you qualify.


Yes. Congratulations for pointing out what everyone already knew and understood. The point is that simply having a given tax status does not automatically exempt you from any health care mandates in the health care law. Saying "it's based on tax status" is only true if the only criteria was the tax status. Tax status is a limitation in terms of who can apply for an exemption at all. That's not the same as what you said, doubly so when you were responding to my specific argument that the granting of an exemption was subject to the whim of the executive branch of the federal government.


My original claim is correct. Your insistence that "it's based on tax status" does not actually counter what I said. The government has the power to decide who gets an exemption, and what they are exempt from. My argument is that this is backwards. We should not apply a mandate and then have to go to the government, hat in hand, and ask for our liberty back. We should not have created the mandate in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Mar 01 2012 at 9:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So it's based on more than just tax filing status. Thank you for proving my point.

Smiley: laugh Ah, you.

Quote:
You do know what the word "discretion" means, right?

Yes, they have the ability to set exemptions. Which they did. At the department level, without needing special authorization, etc from Congress.

Quote:
My original claim is correct.

Sure, sport. Sure.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Mar 01 2012 at 9:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
And just because you apparently lost track of the point I was making to which you responded and spun off into a semantic argument, here's the full argument I was making:

gbaji wrote:
As Joph naively points out, the White House has promised to exempt them in some cases, but that has no force of law, and can't be counted on at all. The White House promised not to fund research into embryonic stem cell research when congress first began funding stem cell research and folks objected to the lack of limits placed in the law. Wait? And who changed that with an executive order? That would be Obama, right?

So why on earth do you suppose the religious folks should take his word on this? Absent an exemption in the law, an exemption doesn't really exist. If the Dems in congress are unwilling to pass an exemption into law, why assume that the Obama white house will apply such exemptions promptly and as desired by those seeking them? They wont. They'll make the process so onerous that most people will just give up (or go out of business waiting for the exemption).


We should not have to rely on executive action to undo each individual instance of a law which violates our rights, and promising to do so should never be acceptable to anyone. The law should not be written that way, and if written it should not stand.


Jophiel wrote:
The exemptions are based on tax filing status. If your building is considered to be a church by the IRS, you're exempt. you don't need to beg for it or hope you'll be blessed with an exemption. If it's not a church but considered by the IRS to be a religiously-affiliated nonprofit then you have the compromise regulations (not directly offered by employer, accessible via insurance company direct).



Since the granting of an exemption is at the "discretion" of the government, you do have to beg for it. It's not automatically granted based on tax status. I was right. You were wrong. Are we done here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Mar 01 2012 at 9:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Are we done here?

Smiley: laugh Yes. Yes, we are.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Mar 02 2012 at 3:02 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
Since the granting of an exemption is at the "discretion" of the government, you do have to beg make a case for it. It's not automatically granted based on tax status. I was right wrong. You were wrong right. Are we done here?

____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#71 Mar 02 2012 at 6:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,990 posts
Guenny wrote:
You know, it's all kind of amusing watching the conservatives/Christians strive to hang on to the only tradition they can grasp being white Americans. The sad thing is, as we exit the age of Pisces (fish, Jesus) and enter into the age of Aquarius (humanitarianism, radical liberalism) it is inevitable that we will soon have "socialized" everything. The human race will evolve beyond its tribal, secular tendencies of misanthropic anti-socialism and embrace the ideals of unity as people, creatures who require a social order and society to function.

Now, this is a change in motion that won't come to its full fruition for a few more centuries (if we last that long), as each "age" lasts 2700 years, but it's inevitable. It's amusing as gbaji and others struggle against the current of change hoping that for the few short years they have left, they can cling to their moral, white, male superiority and systems created to uphold such.

Woah, woah woah, too much moon magic.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#72 Mar 02 2012 at 6:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
It messes with his Trine.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#73 Mar 02 2012 at 6:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Since the granting of an exemption is at the "discretion" of the government, you do have to beg make a case for it. It's not automatically granted based on tax status. I was right wrong. You were wrong right. Are we done here?

Even more to the point, Gbaji was trying to paint a picture where the DHHS was going to make ten thousand individual cases, dragging its feet on each, etc. This is ignoring his instance that this was a solid legislative mandate (it's not) and Obama has no authority to override it (he does).

The regulation is done. The exemption is made. Get your tax papers out to prove you qualify and rock on. I do love how the argument has gone from "Obama can't block this set-in-stone mandate that Congress made" to "Well, you were right about everything except... umm... I bet they won't!"

Typing it out, this sounds a lot like his argument about Obama and nuclear power. I assume the root of it is his lack of understanding how government works beyond the 6th grade "Congress makes laws" level and can't grasp the idea of department level regulation that occurs across the government at the consent of Congress.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2012 6:31am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Mar 02 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,886 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Typing it out, this sounds a lot like his argument about Obama and nuclear power.
Dems wrong, Pubs right. Sounds like all of his arguments.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Mar 02 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,250 posts
This bill really should have been about legalizing pot.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#76 Mar 02 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The regulation is done. The exemption is made.


Where? Show me exactly what exemptions exist, in writing, and the entire set of requirements to qualify for them. All you've shown so far is a bit of text saying that DHHS *may* provide exemptions to churches. No specifics about what they are exempt from, or guarantee that any and all churches will get it.


The amendment (allegedly) failed for the very reason that it exempted all churches and church run organizations, and exempted them from all health care mandates. That was viewed as too broad by opponents. But you seem to be trying to claim that the existing promised exemption by the White house is also just as broad, so there's no reason to pass a law.


You claim that we don't need to actually write something into law because existing regulations are sufficient. But clearly that's not the case. If the exemptions actually provided every church organization with full exemptions to all the health care mandates, then there would be no reason not to have passed the amendment. Clearly, those DHHS exemptions will be more restricted.


Care to clarify what those restrictions will be so we can decide if the result is actually sufficient?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Mar 02 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Where? Show me exactly what exemptions exist, in writing, and the entire set of requirements to qualify for them.

I already did. The fact that you refuse to accept them doesn't bother me in the slightest. The fact that you misread the section about discretion goes the opposite and mildly amuses me.

Here's the thing though: I don't especially care if you're not convinced. You're the one making the case that this law is travesty of freedom and all that. I've read the materials and am satisfied with how it's being handled. I'm not concerned if you're not and (a) don't care if you want to go on about how this just proves whatever and (b) am not especially worried that anyone else is going to think I didn't provide sufficient material to back my position.

So have fun. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Mar 02 2012 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Where? Show me exactly what exemptions exist, in writing, and the entire set of requirements to qualify for them.

I already did. The fact that you refuse to accept them doesn't bother me in the slightest. The fact that you misread the section about discretion goes the opposite and mildly amuses me.


The quote you provided earlier does not say what exactly churches are exempt from, nor does it say that all churches and church organizations will get exemptions. And it doesn't say that DHHS *will* grant them, much less that it will *always* grant them. Just that it can.

Quote:
You're the one making the case that this law is travesty of freedom and all that.


And you're the one saying that it's not. I've clearly outlined my reasons for believing that the mandates represent an unnecessary violation of our rights, doubly so in the case of some religious organizations. In response, you've just kinda hand waved it all away with some vague language that has no legally binding force and doesn't guarantee anything (and it certainly doesn't protect individuals from the manage either, which is still problematic).

Quote:
I'm not concerned if you're not and (a) don't care if you want to go on about how this just proves whatever and (b) am not especially worried that anyone else is going to think I didn't provide sufficient material to back my position.



Um... Ok. I'm just writing my analysis of the effect of the failure to pass the proposed amendment. If you recall, my initial point was that by failing to pass the amendment, the case for the unconstitutionality of the mandates in the health care law just got a lot stronger. You're the one who seems to have wanted to embark on some grand argument about how the mandates aren't really important because some people, in some situations, might be able to get exemptions.


You're obviously free to disagree with me, but I think the very fact that we're talking about handing out exemptions is the first sign that something is pretty wrong with the law itself. We shouldn't be relying on exemptions to try to prevent a law from violating our rights. IMO, that's just backwards. How about we not write laws that violate them in the first place? Make the exemptions for those who want to have the government tell them what to do instead of the other way around? ****. Let's make it an opt in system. So anyone who doesn't mind paying into some kind of public health care fund is free to do so.


We know that wont work though, hence the mandates. And also, at the risk of being obvious, why the mandates are wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Mar 02 2012 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I've clearly outlined my reasons for believing that the mandates represent an unnecessary violation of our rights, doubly so in the case of some religious organizations. In response, you've just kinda hand waved it all away with some vague language that has no legally binding force and doesn't guarantee anything

You don't understand law or government. We know. You've proven that adequately by getting aspect after aspect of the law wrong. You don't need to keep driving the point home.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Mar 04 2012 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Given "Life" is the first fundamental Right, theoretically, in your constitution (does it count if it's just in the preamble? Where is it?) it blows my mind that you are a taxing-and-service providing nation (at least to a minimal extent) and yet the first thing you don't publicly provide, after a standing Defence Force, is healthcare.

Defence, Healthcare, Education, Subsistance Welfare to those who cannot work or are out of work and provenly jobseeking (the means to buy food, water and shelter). They are the fundamental group foundations of a civilised society. Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#81 Mar 04 2012 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Come on this is America, why let taxes support that when you can pay out rageous sums of money to have it privatized.

Yay Capitalism!.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#82 Mar 04 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
I came here to make a pot joke.....something about the joint committee defeating the blunt amendment......
Then there was ranting about religious hospitals getting the shaft. Then there was hairy hippies. I don't know why I come here.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#83 Mar 05 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,886 posts
Kills time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Mar 05 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Given "Life" is the first fundamental Right, theoretically, in your constitution (does it count if it's just in the preamble? Where is it?) it blows my mind that you are a taxing-and-service providing nation (at least to a minimal extent) and yet the first thing you don't publicly provide, after a standing Defence Force, is healthcare.


Because "life" and "health care" are two different (although related) things. And because having a right to something is not the same as requiring that someone must provide that thing for you. The right to life is the right not to have your life taken from you. It does not require that others provide you with something to make your life "better".

Quote:
Defence, Healthcare, Education, Subsistance Welfare to those who cannot work or are out of work and provenly jobseeking (the means to buy food, water and shelter). They are the fundamental group foundations of a civilised society.


Wrong. Those are the foundations of a socialist society. And socialists have conveniently labeled their form of government "civilized", but it does not make it so.

The key word you're missing (even though you spoke of "rights" earlier) is: Liberty. That's the more important thing here. A society in which the citizens have as much liberty as possible will be a better society in every way to one which calls civilized the act of empowering its government to buy the good will of the people at the expense of their own liberty.


Quote:
Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.



I'd put liberty ahead of all of those.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Mar 05 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
speaking of killing time.

Quote:
Wrong. Those are the foundations of a socialist society. And socialists have conveniently labeled their form of government "civilized", but it does not make it so.


Smiley: lol
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#86 Mar 05 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Seriously Ari, didn't you know that if your body can't stop the knife, it isn't a violation of your right to life? It's your own fault for being so weak.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#87 Mar 05 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.



I'd put liberty ahead of all of those.


So long as you still get to have all those nice things along with it, of course.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#88 Mar 05 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,324 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.



I'd put liberty ahead of all of those.


a) Come back and talk to us after drinking water contaminated with sewage for a week or two.

b) What the **** does Liberty even mean to you if it doesn't include the basics required to live a happy and healthy life? I mean seriously. If you think that "Liberty" doesn't include clean water and breathable air - what good is it?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 4:12pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#89 Mar 05 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,886 posts
He said that he believes liberty goes before clean water and breathable air, not that water and air don't belong or anything along those lines. He's stupid and the arguments he copies from other people don't make much sense in reality, but at least read them.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 7:14pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#90 Mar 05 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Note that garbaji never said he'd trade liberty for those things.Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#91 Mar 05 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
gbaji wrote:
The right to life is the right not to have your life taken from you.


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Seriously Ari, didn't you know that if your body can't stop the knife, it isn't a violation of your right to life? It's your own fault for being so weak.


And you wonder why I continually talk about you failing (either deliberately or via a complete lack of reading comprehension) to even get onto the same page with regard to what I'm talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#92 Mar 05 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Note that garbaji never said he'd trade liberty for those things.Smiley: schooled


I said I place liberty ahead of those things. The point being that when we make decisions we should be aware of the costs of the things we're deciding. The problem with liberal social policy is that they proceed as though there not only isn't a liberty cost to what they're doing, but that somehow the act of providing free education, health care, stronger environmental laws, etc is what actually gives people liberty. Those things are not liberty. And when we forget that, liberty is often the price of those things.


I believe in a balanced approach that takes into account that cost of liberty. It's not all or nothing to me. I know that many people seem to want to frame it that way, but that's just not the case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Mar 05 2012 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
Gbaji only believes in corporate socialism. Gotta have those fat oil subsidies!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#94 Mar 05 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,848 posts
And I fail to see how providing health care for all of your citizens in any way impedes liberty.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#95 Mar 05 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Note that garbaji never said he'd trade liberty for those things.Smiley: schooled


I said I place liberty ahead of those things. The point being that when we make decisions we should be aware of the costs of the things we're deciding. The problem with liberal social policy is that they proceed as though there not only isn't a liberty cost to what they're doing, but that somehow the act of providing free education, health care, stronger environmental laws, etc is what actually gives people liberty. Those things are not liberty. And when we forget that, liberty is often the price of those things.


I believe in a balanced approach that takes into account that cost of liberty. It's not all or nothing to me. I know that many people seem to want to frame it that way, but that's just not the case.


Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.

Do you understand now?


BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.



On a related note, please prove your rise from "sleeping in my car because I was that poor" to your current state, because I still don't believe that fairy tale.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#96 Mar 05 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie


SORRY BIJOU AND GBAJI, LEAVING THE LULZ, GOING TO BED. (yay for cheap pitcher mondays)

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 10:33pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#97 Mar 05 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie

You're quoting bijou and responding to gbaji. Get the **** out of here until you **** weed wears off.
#98 Mar 05 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie

You're quoting bijou and responding to gbaji. Get the **** out of here until you **** weed wears off.


Everyone is a gbaji sock.

That's not a pleasant thought.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#99 Mar 05 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie

You're quoting bijou and responding to gbaji. Get the **** out of here until you **** weed wears off.


Everyone is a gbaji sock.

That's not a pleasant thought.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#100 Mar 05 2012 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Smiley: blush guess it was bedtime after all.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#101 Mar 05 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Olorinus wrote:
b) What the **** does Liberty even mean to you if it doesn't include the basics required to live a happy and healthy life? I mean seriously. If you think that "Liberty" doesn't include clean water and breathable air - what good is it?


It does not "include" those things at all. In the same way that food does not include air, and poetry does not include dog. Those are things which may be important to us, but do not have to be especially linked. You seem to want to insist that if we don't have something, we can't have the other thing. But that's just not the case.

While I happen to believe that the greater liberty we have the greater chance we have of having a happy and healthy life, it's a gross mistake to assume that anything which might improve the happiness or health of one's life also increases their liberty. They are completely different things. Liberty does not "include" those things, nor does it require them.


What good is it? Liberty means we have the freedom to pursue those other things. You're trying to trade liberty *for* those other things, but the problem is that once you do that, you no longer really have them. I honestly think that most people don't get this. In the process of the government giving you health, happiness, education, housing, etc, it must infringe the liberties of the citizenry. The health care mandates are just one example of this. But the problem is that if you have health, happiness, education, housing, etc but *only* because the government gives them to you, do you really have them?

A government that is empowered to give you a thing is also empowered to take it away. While not perfect, what you have in a state of liberty is actually yours. The concept of liberty is of things not being taken from you, so what you have is yours and can't be taken. IMO, it's more important to have less, but know that what you have is actually yours, than to have more, but only because of the continual intervention of an authoritarian government.


Don't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help