Battlezone Forums

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org ... etail/7524

I make several assumptions that are not made clear, The business concerned is a Pharmacy? They are of course required to have insurance against claim/damages the products they sell may cause. That nobody is demanding that they actually sell the items concerned, just that they be insured to do so, as they are with every other product they do sell.
In short this is bull-hoot and they are being irresponsible by wishing to not be insured for certain products they disapprove of.
Many of the substances they do sell could be misused to achieve the same effect of the drugs they do not wish to sell, So they definitely DO need to be insured as they're decision to NOT sell them may lead to people doing stupid things with other substances they sold them...
Just deny them a licence to run a pharmacy, they are clearly not responsible enough to be doing it.

MrTwosheds wrote:

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org ... etail/7524

I make several assumptions that are not made clear, The business concerned is a Pharmacy? They are of course required to have insurance against claim/damages the products they sell may cause. That nobody is demanding that they actually sell the items concerned, just that they be insured to do so, as they are with every other product they do sell.
In short this is bull-hoot and they are being irresponsible by wishing to not be insured for certain products they disapprove of.
Many of the substances they do sell could be misused to achieve the same effect of the drugs they do not wish to sell, So they definitely DO need to be insured as they're decision to NOT sell them may lead to people doing stupid things with other substances they sold them...
Just deny them a licence to run a pharmacy, they are clearly not responsible enough to be doing it.

What the hell are you getting all that from. That has NOTHING to do with the article. It is about forcing companies to provide insurance to their employees that specifically pays for the outlined things. I mean, FFS, even the picture in the article doesn't agree with you, it has massive rolls of steel, clearly some industrial company.

The fact of the matter is that the government is requiring that employers provide insurance for procedures and medications that are considered elective (ignoring situations where it is actually medically required).

This Is Not Legal under *any* possibly reading of the Constitution. Business should have the choice weather or not to cover certain elective procedures. I mean, FFS, they have a choice in what NON-ELECTIVE procedures they can cover!

What the hell are you getting all that from.

The article writer chose to include so little information about what they were talking about, that I made assumptions, as I said. You cannot expect us foreigners to understand your insane politics.
Why the hell would a steel manufacturer need to insure their staff over the possible effects of a specific drug they have nothing to do with?...
Is this the depths of insanity that your "capitalist style" healthcare reforms have got to? Where employers are forced to provide private health insurance policies, wether they can afford to or not, and are arguing over the tiny details of cover over specific drugs? Seems to me the only people getting their "healthcare" covered properly are the lawyers.

your "capitalist style" healthcare reforms

If anything it's a socialist style reform.

If anything it's a socialist style reform.

Only from your relative perspective. Any system of health care that aims to serve everyone is an enormous task the only way to make it work is to do things on a big scale. Attempting to get every employer to insure every employee, rather than just have every citizen insured by default, is daft and doomed to be very expensive and dragged down by its micro-administration costs.
I describe it as "capitalist" because of the way it is being constructed.
I can see why they are trying to do it that way, a very profitable private sector needs to be protected from unfair competition from the state system and they have to be included, so they are trying to expand private insurance down to those who cannot really afford it, rather than extend state service up to cover everyone. The result will be a legion of middlemen draining the system with micro management costs and prats, like these, who don't want to pay their share for treatments they disapprove of.
And of course the costs are placed squarely on the shoulders of business, rather than a unified tax funded service.
You wouldn't set up your armed forces like that, would you?

I disagree. I have 'group insurance' for the company I work for, which means a small portion of my cheque is shaved off but I get extra insurance, and on top of that my company basically matches what I already pay. So if my company is paying for more expensive insurance than so am I. That said, my country has universal health care which means higher base coverage of the most essential health care procedures while group insurance covers the rest. It's a win-win solution because nobody is getting saddled with a huge bill (neither I, nor my employer, nor the government), everyone kicks a little something in -- and because the insurance company is a private one they do have to be competitive which recoups much of the efficiency lost through 3 different parties kicking in for healthcare. I think this is the *best* way to do things because everyone is given a stake on having things done efficiently. I as an individual am not forced to pay absurd hospital bills if I ever get sick, and neither does the government (they most likely will choose to only provide the most basic level of care), and neither does my insurance provider (since basic procedures are already covered by the Govt, they just need to provide for things that aren't).

That said, it sounds as if the way that the Obama administration is going about things is just one way to substitute real universal healthcare by making employers provide comprehensive insurance coverage. I'm not sure that's exactly a bad thing -- not all employers are willing to 'take care' of their employees and some will DEFINITELY try to get away with the lowest quality health care/insurance policies possible in order to save a few bucks.

the best way to fix this is to get gubmint *out* of medicine.

medicare and medicaid were just ways to get more votes. before that, the elderly were taken care of very well because healthcare costs were *very* low.

after gubmint stepped in, insurance and hospital costs were forced to rise to compensate for the artificial costs imposed on them by the gubmint saying you could only charge patients *below* what it cost the healthcare providers.

The very basis of the United States of America is that the government is supposed to step out of the way. So things like this go against the very origin of this country.

Are we still on this?:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Aires.html

P.S: This album is awesome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox_ho7y1 ... re=related

Favorites are Suite Sister Mary and Eyes of a Stranger

Marriage is a legal institution that grants to people protections and rules not afforded by common-law status. That's why it's even relevant at all to gay people. Doesnt matter what your opinion of marriage 'should' be like -- the point is that this social contract and laws that protect it are only available via marriage. Slippery slope argument is irrelevant here, that bridge will be crossed if societies even get there.

I for one can take it or leave it, but I believe for one that individuals, whether they are obese, gay, or any other trait I find unappealing should be afforded the same rights and freedoms as other individuals -- so long as it does no harm to others. Offending their delicate sensibilities does not count.

while in brasil, i found out from the locals that argentinians are italians who speak spanish and think they're americans.

They are. South americans.

that'd be like canadians or mexicans saying they're americans.

only way for that to work is if'n we annex canada and mexico.

hmmmm...52 states...have to add a couple stars, but it's doable.

Americans are anyone in North or South America. United States Citizens do not hold a monopoly on the term.