Previous 11 - 20 Next
clidke: I think your right about the direct involvement. They can turn a blind eye to any sinful activity purchased by the wages they paid while the health care makes that more difficult. Yet I wonder, since no one is forced to use these services and they have no way of knowing if any employee has, it seems they have just as much plausible deniability that they have always had.
clidke: Well, the law says they have to pay me; and now, in essence it says they have to provide health insurance; but they don’t have to provide other benefits like retirement funds. So for all intents, whether ski trip of birth control, the funds that paid for it are mine, not my employers.
IHave. Of course; those taxes are legitimate (your opinion) because they are for legitimate (according to your opinion) functions of government. And by coincidence, your opinion, which you used to support your opinion, just happens to be for things with which you agree. In short, you support your hypocrisy with self-righteousness.
IHave: The physical should be covered because it can detect health problems before they become critical and ultimately save money not to mention lives if that has any meaning for you. In short, it is good business. Insurance companies are gambling that we don’t use too much of our benefits. Preventative care is important to that goal.
Not necessarily. A great deal of preventative care is now included in health plans as studies have shown it to be better in the long run. By your strict definition of insurance, one of the most useful tools of healthcare, a physical examination would not be covered.
And now the same can be said for your style of conservatism. The question you raise is actually based on how one view employee provided insurance. My employer considered it to be part of my “Total Compensation Package”. As such, it was not a gift but something I earned through my labors. That makes your comparison moot. I like the name though. It’s a clever statement of beliefs except that unless you oppose all forms of taxation, then it’s basically a hypocritical one.
The same could be said of any medication. This has been an issue with health insurance for a long time but has never been used as an argument against employer provided insurance.
I’ve read about the Christian philosophy that the owners of Hobby Lobby follow and it is very laudable. What I don’t’ understand is the difference between the dollar they pay in wages and the dollar they pay in health benefits? This addresses not only the religious objection but the people who believe things like birth control should be paid by the user.
Mud: I haven’t noticed that either but that is not the point. I am trying to get to the point of the matter. And of course no one asked me. I’m asking C’mon man. No one asked you, but that didn’t stop you from responding. It’s bad enough that lack the ability to understand the question, but do you have to throw hypocrisy into it too?
M444ss: No, I am saying outright that the author and TH as a whole have a vested interest in generating business and to do that they appeal to emotionalism rather than facts. I am saying nothing about the opposition other than they come here too drawn by the same emotionalism. Otherwise, you can draw from my argument that any similar business will utilize the same tactic to increase readership. That you came up with a partisan conclusion is proof that TH targets an audience that reacts with emotion rather than takes time to think.
Jim, you don't read very well, do you?
Previous 11 - 20 Next