The only one mising hte point is you. Promoting proper safety in line with typical traffic engineering and intersetction timing best practices is not craziness.
See? This only proves how much we don't need NASA. Daggone big gubmint boondoggles! Now we can add NASA to the privatization list by letting GE or Boeing or someone outsource our space program to India!
(i'm merely impersonating other inviduals around here; i in no way believe we should actually do this)
theyve talked about vibrating sidewalks, but i havent personally seen it in use yet. last i heard was concerns of concrete integrity, cause being cheap cities dont want to have to repave the sidewalk more often than normally expected.
though come to think of it, if you're posting on slashdot, i think its fair to assume you can read. (though that me be assuming too much for some people around here:P)
given the size of some intersections, it needs to be visible from about 200 feet away (also why its so loud). cities and contruction companies rather like only buying one type of device, not 2 or 3, cheaper that way.
In atlanta at least, the countdown is already accompanied by an audible chirp. Intended for blind or otherwise disabled folks (except deaf folks, naturally), it also serves as a cue for regular folks as well to hurry up on some of hte larger/wider intersections.
Really all that should be fixed is to put a bigger gap between the countdown reaching 0 and the light actually changing. My experience with signal timing (and this is my trafic engineering schooling showing through) is roughly half-half: about half the intersections I saw with the countdown change immediately, others still have the standard 4-5 second "intersection clearance delay" between the countdown ending, and the light actually changing. The clearance delay exists for obvious reasons to put a delay between one side turning red and another green. It should simply also take the crosswalk into consideration as well as a best practice.
also note that "insurance being tied to your job as a matter of law" is NOT what the ACA does. when you state that, you imply that it is required for you to get your insurance from your job, which is most definitely NOT the case. the ACA in fact does all it can to prevent and FIX the "job lock" problem, and you can get your insurance from anyplace you like.
you dont have to accept your company's plan. you can go to the marketplace and get insurance on the individual buyer market. you just wont qualify for a subsidy (cost offsets to match the cost savings and employer contribution of an employer plan) if your employers plan meets the minimum requirements.
NO. Your assertion was the entire concept of health insurance being tied to a job was the creation of, ie invented by, the ACA. Those are your words. And your assertion is factually wrong.
Which is what I was pointing out. I pointed out how employer insurance dates back to WW2, is incentivized through generous tax breaks, how all the ACA did is further incentivize it by providing for penalties for companies (over a certain size) who did not provide insurance. I then also pointed out how it's been allowed to flourish (become ingrained in the american workplace) because it's generally led to lower prices for employee's thus far, which is the main reason the ACA further incentivized emlpoyer insurance, which is in fact very relevent to the discussion.
And I didn't even get into how the majority of busineses don't even fall under the mandate, because it only applies to businesses over a certain size. And also didnt get into how the overwhelming majority of companies that it would apply to also already offer that insurance, because again: generous tax breaks.
The employer mandate as an issue is a nonstarter. It's neither a big deal, nor big stumbling block. It actually only affects a tiny minority of large companies. And it has also been delayed thus far. And as well, due to the overwhelming effectiveness of the other parts of the law, and other studies over time, the mandate may remain unenforced because it's looking more and more the employer mandate actually does very little to expand and increase access to insurance (The Incidental Economist talks about this further). The biggest thing employer insurance does is keep costs down, though this has become less of a factor over time, and recently history has been showing it to have less of an effect as well, again reinfircing that the employer mandate may very well fall by the wayside.
And the fact you bring up "armed agents" indicates that not only are you ignorant, but that I am wasting my time trying to correct that ignorance.
hobby lobby was not buying it for them in the first place. if you're going to have an opinion itneeds to have a solid factual foundation.
and contraception (note, this is not limited to drugs, we're actually talking about contraception in general...the actual case was NOT about abortificants, ie, drugs to induced abortion) is special because fell under what came to be called the contraception mandate (the press made everything a mandate) which is itself simply part of the preventitive care rules. namely, preventitive care is cheaper than the altnernative. therefore, preventative care will be covered by all plans, without requiring any forms of cost sharing (ie, copays, coinsurance, etc). this does NOT mean its free, nor that the employer is paying it. it means its paid for by the premiums. so its still paid for, just not out of pocket.
ill be clear: NO EMPLOYER MONEY goes to these things, even when your employer provides insurance. its a legal fiction of sorts. insurance is still compensation, its a benefit provided in lieu of higher wages. effectively, its your time and labor which is buying the insurance. all you've done is eliminate a step of two of the money chain by not simply having the employer give you a wad of cash that you spent yourself. the chief advantage of this system is that an employer, by essentially buying in bulk, is able to get a discount which is cheaper for everyone all around. but it is ultimately still your money that pays for everything, not the employers.
that's a primary reason why employer sponsored helathcare needs to go away.
while one part of the ACA continues to incentivize it (and for good reason: by buying in volume, the company can get a discount), another side has done much to fix the individual market.
ideally, and if we accept a "market driven" approach instead of a move to single payer or nationalized health insurance, everyone will move to the individual market, eliminating job lock, and giving the consumer the ultimate best choice over where his money/compenstaion goes.
but for the time being, the lower costs that can be obtained by employers is a big plus in their favor. and given the ACA's hodgepodge of various ideas, and that its ultimate goal was not fixing the entire system in one swoop, but simply expanding acess and preserving/expanding some existent lower cost venues, I can see why it was retained.
The fact only 1 out of 3 was harrassed recently has something to do with 2 of the 3 changing their opinion. Largely because they were harassed about it. Whether you want to believe a politician actually changing his/her mind, is up to you.
MYTH: This Case Is About Abortion, Not Contraceptives Fox News Contributor Steve Hayes: The President Wants Health Insurance Plans To Cover Not Only "These Abortifacients," But Abortion Too. In an appearance on Fox News with America's Newsroom co-host Bill Hemmer, Hayes described a different challenge to the contraception mandate by falsely equating contraception with abortifacients and speculated government coverage of "abortions themselves" was the president's goal:
HEMMER: The point for this group of Catholic nuns is that if you make us provide birth control, not only does it violate our religious beliefs, but if we do not do it and adhere to the law, we will suffer fines that will cause us to go bankrupt.
HAYES: Right. And the administration -- remember, back in the spring -- proposed what they called a compromise, which would have allowed these non-profit groups to sort of certify that they weren't providing, actually providing this contraceptive and abortifacient coverage but then the insurance companies would be doing so on their behalf and the argument that you hear from those representing this group and others is that's not good enough because in effect what we would be doing is signing off and facilitating the coverage of these kinds of contraceptives and abortifacients for our employees.
HEMMER: Steve, just back up a little bit. Why did the administration think it was necessary to include this contraception mandate in the health care bill to begin with?
HAYES: Well, I think we've heard from the president pretty consistently that he believes that the government should be in the business of covering all of women's health and that is to include birth control, other contraceptives and these abortifacients -- and, I think if they had their way, abortions themselves. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/2/14, via Media Matters]
FACT: The Health Benefits Challenged In Hobby Lobby Are Contraceptives, Not Abortifacients The New York Times: Contraceptives At Issue "Would Not Meet Abortion Opponents' Definition Of Abortion-Inducing Drugs." Although the plaintiffs argue that they "sincerely believe" that certain forms of birth control actually work by inducing an abortion, a report by the Times indicates this belief goes against scientific consensus:
Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg's ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, "the moral equivalent of homicide," as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives "abortive pills." And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements.
But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.
It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents' definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.
We have provided a tax benefit to companies for doing it since World War 2, beacuse the company, by buying in bulk, can get a discount as compared to if all the employees had to obtain insurance individually.
The ACA itself CONTINUES to incentivize this business practice, by retaining the tax break (carrot) and adding a penalty (the "employer mandate") for not providing this benefit (a stick). Again: they incentivize it precisely because its overall cheaper for the end consumer, the employee.
By your own words, you admit he right, whilst saying he is wrong. Compensation is by definition earned by the employee.
The facts are simple: Employer sonsored health insurance IS a benefit provided to the employee in lieu of higher wages.
It's why the majority of companies provide you with cash if you decline the company plan (because otherwise, your compensation is lower than everyone else for the same work). We allow this system to function, indeed we have provided a tax benefit to companies for doing it since World War 2, beacuse the company, by buying in bulk, can get a discount as compared to if all the employees had to obtain insurance individually.
The ACA itself CONTINUES to incentivize this business practice, by retaining the tax break (carrot) and adding a penalty for not providing this benefit (a stick). Again: they incentivize it precisely because its overall cheaper for the end consumer, the employee.
I hope by this post I alleviated some portion of your ignorance.
the companys is not paying for it in the first place. You, the employee did, via your premiums. But, you say, "the employer kicks in funds".... yes, funds that you earned by your work and accepted in lieu of additional wages. It's a basic economic truth that those funds the employer kicks are YOURS not the employer's. The are two reason for the employer to engage in this behaviour: 1) Tax breaks (which the ACA further enhanced) to incentivize it, and 2) the employer, essentially buying insurance in bulk can get a better price as compared to if every employee bought insurance individually.
SCOTUS has actually stated that this decision is restricted to just contraception. Which opens up a whole nothing can of worms. It indicates this isnt a 1st A issue, because its really not about religious beliefs (basically just about religious beliefs about sex, and controlling women). But it undeniably also cracks the door open slightly for further cases to to widen it later.
Not quite. The law requires, as part of that "minimum level of coverage" that preventive healthcare to be covered by all insurance plans at zero out of pocket cost. ie, no copays, no cost sharing, no coinsurance, etc. Instead they are paid out of premiums only. One of those preventitive things is contraception.
So if a company buys a plan for its employees, it much meet those minimums. Hobby Lobby objected to the requirement for contraception.
The legal way out for HL was just NOT PROVIDE INSURANCE, in which another part of the law would kick in, and the employees, having no employer sponsored plan, would then be eligible for subsidies on the exchange, and the company would pay a pentaly (the stick of the carrot/stick approach in the law to incentivizing companies into sponsoring insurance; the carrot is the massive tax break they get for it).
But HL didnt want to pay a penalty. And HL also still wanted their tax break. So, HL still wanted to ffer insurance....just without meeting the minimum requirements.
HL wanted all the benefits of hte law, without the requirements of it. They wanted their cake, and to eat it too. And unfortunately for the country, they got it.
they may believe it do so. but every scientist in the world could tell them they are wrong, their beliefs not withstanding.
But the court has now decided that science does not matter, only sincerely held beliefs. That is a huge, and hugely disturbing, precedent.
Also: the corprate veil is now meaningless. The door to corporations having religious rights is now open. Such a thing has the potential to establish the same thing as all those "religious freedom" bills in various states (aka, legal to discriminate because God), only even broader. Can you imagine being able to be fired because you don't go to Church often enough?
This was NEVER about abortificants. That is a lie. You are completely and totally misinformed. Hobby Lobby may believe it to cause an abortion, but their belief does not trump scientific fact. The scientific facts is that is it NOT an abortion inducing treatment. Unfortunately the Roberts court has decided that they do not care about science, only about a "genuinely held belief", regardless of its accuracy.
You need to read this, and then you will understand just how badly the Court screwed up. And maybe you'll stop repeating myths as well. http://mediamatters.org/resear...
1) They aren't free. The law simply requires that any plan offered by a company must meet some set of minimum coverage. Among that was a requirement that all preventative healthcare must have zero cost sharing or copays. IE, paid for entirely by premiums, no out of pocket cost when you go to get them done. Why? Because preventitive care and tests are a helluva lot cheaper than the alternatives. And that included basic contraception.
2) They never paid for it in the first place. You, the employee did, via your premiums.
But, you say, "the employer kicks in funds".... yes, funds that you earned by your work and accepted in lieu of additional wages. It's a basic economic truth that those funds the employer kicks are YOURS not the employer's. The are two reason for the employer to engage in this behaviour: 1) Tax breaks (which the ACA further enhanced) to incentivize it, and 2) the employer, essentially buying insurance in bulk can get a better price as compared to if every employee bought insurance individually.
3) This decision is exceptionally broad. It breaks the corporate viel rendering it meaningless. They say it's limited to JUST contraceptives (and thus, religious ideas agaisnt vaccines and bloodtransfusions are in theory not allowed, and thus THOSE mandatory coverages must still occur)...but that's actually quite doubtful. This is the first step down the road of "Bob, I didn't see you at morning prayers. I really need to be there on time."
This is not a step towards freedom and if you believe that, you're an idiot.
economists are not scientists. economics is not a science as we commonly accept the word. it is a behavioural science, which by nature incorporates a large measure of unpredictibilty and irrationality, because it by default deals with human behaviour.
As for GW: Not only have the models successfully reproduce all historical data since 1900, but the actual results of the past several years have continually been within the predictions of the models. So I dont know what your expectations are, but we've covered this many times and I expect your expectations are neither realistic, nor relevent. They are accurate to actual climate scientists expectations (though they naturally continually work to refine them, to narrow that margin of error), and you aren't one.
Its just the evolution of terrain following radar. No one here remembers the F111 family, capable of flying on autopilot through canyons at penetration speed, wingtips just feet from the walls?
and that's why youre data is lacking. your comments are based on an assumption. that assumption is itself wrong. Mexico is not some 3rd world nation people cannot wait to get out of.
Their governement has a corruption problem, but really not vastly different from the revolving door in our own, and the lovemaking we see between congress critters and corporate lobbyists. the biggest problem the mexican government has is efective adminstration in rural areas, where cartels can actually rule, which does occur. And its not as all encompassing as people like to believe. Mexico has cartels, America has mafias and gangs and aryan nations. Most folks never see either unless they actually live in a cartel town, or a gang neighborhood. But Mexico is also HUGE, just like the US and Canada, which combined with the following comments on status as a "newly industrialized nation" makes the idea of weak federal adminstration in the far flung reaches hardly surprising. We see the same in Appalachia, Montana, Alaska, and similar far rural areas where a lot of folks have almost no interaction with our government.
Mexico also has world class universities, a top rate healthcare system, and a diversified economy. Point is this: as a country, it may not be as advanced as other western nations, on total par with the US, England and Germany, but it's also not some backwater 3rd world cess pit. It's relatively new to the club ("newly industrialized"), but it is a member of the club.
In terms of immigration, the flow of immigrants has declined in the past 10 years. Many of the illegals crossing the mexican border arent mexicans, but from even further south: honduras, nicaragua, even columbia. The children in Ft Sill, waiting to see if theyre allowed to stay (local Senator hopeful (and idiot) Lankford wants to send them home....back to the violence they were fleeing) under asylum or not, are from Guatemala. but it seems to me youre conflating the number of persons living here illegally already with the number of folks actually crossing the border. two different numbers.
plus the concept of whether its better here or not is much like car insurance ads. Every ad says "the average person saved 500 odd dollars by switching to X". But that's a self selecting statistic. You arent going to switch unless you can get a good enough deal. It's a pain and hassle. There's early termination fees. Etc. Immigration is much the same way: there may be X leaving the country because for them it IS better, but theres also also a quantity Y who isnt because for them everything is fine. And for most of recent history that Y is still far larger than X.
Presently there are an estimated 11 million persons living in the US illegally; that is actually lower than peak. And theyre not all Mexican, only about 6.6million are, so that's X. That's not a rate, thats just total present number, many of which may have been here for decades. Lets also consider the method of entry: about 5 million illegals are whats called "visa overstay", as in they entered legally, for work, vacation, whatever, and simply didnt leave when supposed to. (note that I dont have data handy about how these two data sets intersect, so for now just assume all 6.6mil crossed the border rather than overstaying a visa; it doesnt really change my point anyway)
So only about 6 million actually crossed the border. Some portion also goes back across the border, having only come up temporarily and having no intention of staying. The number actually crossing and entering hte country yearly is only ~300k. Call that R. Now consider that Mexico's population is ~110million people.
So to recap and break it down: X = 6.6 million, with a R of 300k/yr Y = 110million.
So in conclusion, the notion that everyone is in a hurry to flee Mexico because its just sooo bad down there, is completely misguided.
its not about personal freedom. reagan didnt do anything to increase personel or worker freedom. the people he gave freedom to was the corporations.
and the result of all that deregulation was an isntant decoupling of productivity and wages, after they had tracked in parallel for over 6 decades,. wages have been stagnant ever since, while revenues go ever higher, leaving the ACTUAL producers with a smaller and smaller piece of the pie they are creating.
Slashdot Mirror
The only one mising hte point is you. Promoting proper safety in line with typical traffic engineering and intersetction timing best practices is not craziness.
However rejecting such things, as you are, is.
See? This only proves how much we don't need NASA. Daggone big gubmint boondoggles!
Now we can add NASA to the privatization list by letting GE or Boeing or someone outsource our space program to India!
(i'm merely impersonating other inviduals around here; i in no way believe we should actually do this)
At the risk of playing a true scotsman, a proper engineer doesnt use a fancy solution when a simpler one is called for anyway. :P
theyve talked about vibrating sidewalks, but i havent personally seen it in use yet. last i heard was concerns of concrete integrity, cause being cheap cities dont want to have to repave the sidewalk more often than normally expected.
though come to think of it, if you're posting on slashdot, i think its fair to assume you can read. :P)
(though that me be assuming too much for some people around here
given the size of some intersections, it needs to be visible from about 200 feet away (also why its so loud).
cities and contruction companies rather like only buying one type of device, not 2 or 3, cheaper that way.
In atlanta at least, the countdown is already accompanied by an audible chirp.
Intended for blind or otherwise disabled folks (except deaf folks, naturally), it also serves as a cue for regular folks as well to hurry up on some of hte larger/wider intersections.
Really all that should be fixed is to put a bigger gap between the countdown reaching 0 and the light actually changing. My experience with signal timing (and this is my trafic engineering schooling showing through) is roughly half-half: about half the intersections I saw with the countdown change immediately, others still have the standard 4-5 second "intersection clearance delay" between the countdown ending, and the light actually changing. The clearance delay exists for obvious reasons to put a delay between one side turning red and another green. It should simply also take the crosswalk into consideration as well as a best practice.
also note that "insurance being tied to your job as a matter of law" is NOT what the ACA does.
when you state that, you imply that it is required for you to get your insurance from your job, which is most definitely NOT the case.
the ACA in fact does all it can to prevent and FIX the "job lock" problem, and you can get your insurance from anyplace you like.
you dont have to accept your company's plan. you can go to the marketplace and get insurance on the individual buyer market. you just wont qualify for a subsidy (cost offsets to match the cost savings and employer contribution of an employer plan) if your employers plan meets the minimum requirements.
NO.
Your assertion was the entire concept of health insurance being tied to a job was the creation of, ie invented by, the ACA. Those are your words.
And your assertion is factually wrong.
Which is what I was pointing out.
I pointed out how employer insurance dates back to WW2, is incentivized through generous tax breaks, how all the ACA did is further incentivize it by providing for penalties for companies (over a certain size) who did not provide insurance. I then also pointed out how it's been allowed to flourish (become ingrained in the american workplace) because it's generally led to lower prices for employee's thus far, which is the main reason the ACA further incentivized emlpoyer insurance, which is in fact very relevent to the discussion.
And I didn't even get into how the majority of busineses don't even fall under the mandate, because it only applies to businesses over a certain size. And also didnt get into how the overwhelming majority of companies that it would apply to also already offer that insurance, because again: generous tax breaks.
The employer mandate as an issue is a nonstarter. It's neither a big deal, nor big stumbling block. It actually only affects a tiny minority of large companies. And it has also been delayed thus far. And as well, due to the overwhelming effectiveness of the other parts of the law, and other studies over time, the mandate may remain unenforced because it's looking more and more the employer mandate actually does very little to expand and increase access to insurance (The Incidental Economist talks about this further). The biggest thing employer insurance does is keep costs down, though this has become less of a factor over time, and recently history has been showing it to have less of an effect as well, again reinfircing that the employer mandate may very well fall by the wayside.
And the fact you bring up "armed agents" indicates that not only are you ignorant, but that I am wasting my time trying to correct that ignorance.
hobby lobby was not buying it for them in the first place. if you're going to have an opinion itneeds to have a solid factual foundation.
and contraception (note, this is not limited to drugs, we're actually talking about contraception in general...the actual case was NOT about abortificants, ie, drugs to induced abortion) is special because fell under what came to be called the contraception mandate (the press made everything a mandate) which is itself simply part of the preventitive care rules. namely, preventitive care is cheaper than the altnernative. therefore, preventative care will be covered by all plans, without requiring any forms of cost sharing (ie, copays, coinsurance, etc). this does NOT mean its free, nor that the employer is paying it. it means its paid for by the premiums. so its still paid for, just not out of pocket.
ill be clear: NO EMPLOYER MONEY goes to these things, even when your employer provides insurance. its a legal fiction of sorts. insurance is still compensation, its a benefit provided in lieu of higher wages. effectively, its your time and labor which is buying the insurance. all you've done is eliminate a step of two of the money chain by not simply having the employer give you a wad of cash that you spent yourself. the chief advantage of this system is that an employer, by essentially buying in bulk, is able to get a discount which is cheaper for everyone all around. but it is ultimately still your money that pays for everything, not the employers.
that's a primary reason why employer sponsored helathcare needs to go away.
while one part of the ACA continues to incentivize it (and for good reason: by buying in volume, the company can get a discount), another side has done much to fix the individual market.
ideally, and if we accept a "market driven" approach instead of a move to single payer or nationalized health insurance, everyone will move to the individual market, eliminating job lock, and giving the consumer the ultimate best choice over where his money/compenstaion goes.
but for the time being, the lower costs that can be obtained by employers is a big plus in their favor.
and given the ACA's hodgepodge of various ideas, and that its ultimate goal was not fixing the entire system in one swoop, but simply expanding acess and preserving/expanding some existent lower cost venues, I can see why it was retained.
The fact only 1 out of 3 was harrassed recently has something to do with 2 of the 3 changing their opinion.
Largely because they were harassed about it.
Whether you want to believe a politician actually changing his/her mind, is up to you.
Wrong.
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
(copy pasta)
MYTH: This Case Is About Abortion, Not Contraceptives
Fox News Contributor Steve Hayes: The President Wants Health Insurance Plans To Cover Not Only "These Abortifacients," But Abortion Too. In an appearance on Fox News with America's Newsroom co-host Bill Hemmer, Hayes described a different challenge to the contraception mandate by falsely equating contraception with abortifacients and speculated government coverage of "abortions themselves" was the president's goal:
HEMMER: The point for this group of Catholic nuns is that if you make us provide birth control, not only does it violate our religious beliefs, but if we do not do it and adhere to the law, we will suffer fines that will cause us to go bankrupt.
HAYES: Right. And the administration -- remember, back in the spring -- proposed what they called a compromise, which would have allowed these non-profit groups to sort of certify that they weren't providing, actually providing this contraceptive and abortifacient coverage but then the insurance companies would be doing so on their behalf and the argument that you hear from those representing this group and others is that's not good enough because in effect what we would be doing is signing off and facilitating the coverage of these kinds of contraceptives and abortifacients for our employees.
HEMMER: Steve, just back up a little bit. Why did the administration think it was necessary to include this contraception mandate in the health care bill to begin with?
HAYES: Well, I think we've heard from the president pretty consistently that he believes that the government should be in the business of covering all of women's health and that is to include birth control, other contraceptives and these abortifacients -- and, I think if they had their way, abortions themselves. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/2/14, via Media Matters]
FACT: The Health Benefits Challenged In Hobby Lobby Are Contraceptives, Not Abortifacients
The New York Times: Contraceptives At Issue "Would Not Meet Abortion Opponents' Definition Of Abortion-Inducing Drugs." Although the plaintiffs argue that they "sincerely believe" that certain forms of birth control actually work by inducing an abortion, a report by the Times indicates this belief goes against scientific consensus:
Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg's ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, "the moral equivalent of homicide," as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives "abortive pills." And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements.
But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.
It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents' definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.
The notion that morning-after pills prevent egg
Its not new to the ACA.
We have provided a tax benefit to companies for doing it since World War 2, beacuse the company, by buying in bulk, can get a discount as compared to if all the employees had to obtain insurance individually.
The ACA itself CONTINUES to incentivize this business practice, by retaining the tax break (carrot) and adding a penalty (the "employer mandate") for not providing this benefit (a stick). Again: they incentivize it precisely because its overall cheaper for the end consumer, the employee.
By your own words, you admit he right, whilst saying he is wrong.
Compensation is by definition earned by the employee.
The facts are simple:
Employer sonsored health insurance IS a benefit provided to the employee in lieu of higher wages.
It's why the majority of companies provide you with cash if you decline the company plan (because otherwise, your compensation is lower than everyone else for the same work). We allow this system to function, indeed we have provided a tax benefit to companies for doing it since World War 2, beacuse the company, by buying in bulk, can get a discount as compared to if all the employees had to obtain insurance individually.
The ACA itself CONTINUES to incentivize this business practice, by retaining the tax break (carrot) and adding a penalty for not providing this benefit (a stick). Again: they incentivize it precisely because its overall cheaper for the end consumer, the employee.
I hope by this post I alleviated some portion of your ignorance.
the companys is not paying for it in the first place. .... yes, funds that you earned by your work and accepted in lieu of additional wages. It's a basic economic truth that those funds the employer kicks are YOURS not the employer's. The are two reason for the employer to engage in this behaviour: 1) Tax breaks (which the ACA further enhanced) to incentivize it, and 2) the employer, essentially buying insurance in bulk can get a better price as compared to if every employee bought insurance individually.
You, the employee did, via your premiums.
But, you say, "the employer kicks in funds"
SCOTUS has actually stated that this decision is restricted to just contraception.
Which opens up a whole nothing can of worms.
It indicates this isnt a 1st A issue, because its really not about religious beliefs (basically just about religious beliefs about sex, and controlling women).
But it undeniably also cracks the door open slightly for further cases to to widen it later.
Not quite.
The law requires, as part of that "minimum level of coverage" that preventive healthcare to be covered by all insurance plans at zero out of pocket cost. ie, no copays, no cost sharing, no coinsurance, etc. Instead they are paid out of premiums only. One of those preventitive things is contraception.
So if a company buys a plan for its employees, it much meet those minimums.
Hobby Lobby objected to the requirement for contraception.
The legal way out for HL was just NOT PROVIDE INSURANCE, in which another part of the law would kick in, and the employees, having no employer sponsored plan, would then be eligible for subsidies on the exchange, and the company would pay a pentaly (the stick of the carrot/stick approach in the law to incentivizing companies into sponsoring insurance; the carrot is the massive tax break they get for it).
But HL didnt want to pay a penalty.
And HL also still wanted their tax break.
So, HL still wanted to ffer insurance....just without meeting the minimum requirements.
HL wanted all the benefits of hte law, without the requirements of it.
They wanted their cake, and to eat it too.
And unfortunately for the country, they got it.
they may believe it do so.
but every scientist in the world could tell them they are wrong, their beliefs not withstanding.
But the court has now decided that science does not matter, only sincerely held beliefs.
That is a huge, and hugely disturbing, precedent.
Also: the corprate veil is now meaningless. The door to corporations having religious rights is now open.
Such a thing has the potential to establish the same thing as all those "religious freedom" bills in various states (aka, legal to discriminate because God), only even broader. Can you imagine being able to be fired because you don't go to Church often enough?
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
WRONG.
This was NEVER about abortificants.
That is a lie. You are completely and totally misinformed.
Hobby Lobby may believe it to cause an abortion, but their belief does not trump scientific fact.
The scientific facts is that is it NOT an abortion inducing treatment.
Unfortunately the Roberts court has decided that they do not care about science, only about a "genuinely held belief", regardless of its accuracy.
You need to read this, and then you will understand just how badly the Court screwed up.
And maybe you'll stop repeating myths as well.
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
Ignorance of the rankest degree.
1) They aren't free.
The law simply requires that any plan offered by a company must meet some set of minimum coverage. Among that was a requirement that all preventative healthcare must have zero cost sharing or copays. IE, paid for entirely by premiums, no out of pocket cost when you go to get them done. Why? Because preventitive care and tests are a helluva lot cheaper than the alternatives. And that included basic contraception.
2) They never paid for it in the first place.
You, the employee did, via your premiums.
But, you say, "the employer kicks in funds" .... yes, funds that you earned by your work and accepted in lieu of additional wages. It's a basic economic truth that those funds the employer kicks are YOURS not the employer's. The are two reason for the employer to engage in this behaviour: 1) Tax breaks (which the ACA further enhanced) to incentivize it, and 2) the employer, essentially buying insurance in bulk can get a better price as compared to if every employee bought insurance individually.
3) This decision is exceptionally broad. It breaks the corporate viel rendering it meaningless. They say it's limited to JUST contraceptives (and thus, religious ideas agaisnt vaccines and bloodtransfusions are in theory not allowed, and thus THOSE mandatory coverages must still occur)...but that's actually quite doubtful. This is the first step down the road of "Bob, I didn't see you at morning prayers. I really need to be there on time."
This is not a step towards freedom and if you believe that, you're an idiot.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
economists are not scientists.
economics is not a science as we commonly accept the word.
it is a behavioural science, which by nature incorporates a large measure of unpredictibilty and irrationality, because it by default deals with human behaviour.
As for GW: Not only have the models successfully reproduce all historical data since 1900, but the actual results of the past several years have continually been within the predictions of the models. So I dont know what your expectations are, but we've covered this many times and I expect your expectations are neither realistic, nor relevent. They are accurate to actual climate scientists expectations (though they naturally continually work to refine them, to narrow that margin of error), and you aren't one.
Its just the evolution of terrain following radar.
No one here remembers the F111 family, capable of flying on autopilot through canyons at penetration speed, wingtips just feet from the walls?
and that's why youre data is lacking. your comments are based on an assumption. that assumption is itself wrong. Mexico is not some 3rd world nation people cannot wait to get out of.
Their governement has a corruption problem, but really not vastly different from the revolving door in our own, and the lovemaking we see between congress critters and corporate lobbyists. the biggest problem the mexican government has is efective adminstration in rural areas, where cartels can actually rule, which does occur. And its not as all encompassing as people like to believe. Mexico has cartels, America has mafias and gangs and aryan nations. Most folks never see either unless they actually live in a cartel town, or a gang neighborhood. But Mexico is also HUGE, just like the US and Canada, which combined with the following comments on status as a "newly industrialized nation" makes the idea of weak federal adminstration in the far flung reaches hardly surprising. We see the same in Appalachia, Montana, Alaska, and similar far rural areas where a lot of folks have almost no interaction with our government.
Mexico also has world class universities, a top rate healthcare system, and a diversified economy.
Point is this: as a country, it may not be as advanced as other western nations, on total par with the US, England and Germany, but it's also not some backwater 3rd world cess pit. It's relatively new to the club ("newly industrialized"), but it is a member of the club.
In terms of immigration, the flow of immigrants has declined in the past 10 years. Many of the illegals crossing the mexican border arent mexicans, but from even further south: honduras, nicaragua, even columbia. The children in Ft Sill, waiting to see if theyre allowed to stay (local Senator hopeful (and idiot) Lankford wants to send them home....back to the violence they were fleeing) under asylum or not, are from Guatemala. but it seems to me youre conflating the number of persons living here illegally already with the number of folks actually crossing the border. two different numbers.
plus the concept of whether its better here or not is much like car insurance ads. Every ad says "the average person saved 500 odd dollars by switching to X". But that's a self selecting statistic. You arent going to switch unless you can get a good enough deal. It's a pain and hassle. There's early termination fees. Etc. Immigration is much the same way: there may be X leaving the country because for them it IS better, but theres also also a quantity Y who isnt because for them everything is fine. And for most of recent history that Y is still far larger than X.
Presently there are an estimated 11 million persons living in the US illegally; that is actually lower than peak. And theyre not all Mexican, only about 6.6million are, so that's X. That's not a rate, thats just total present number, many of which may have been here for decades. Lets also consider the method of entry: about 5 million illegals are whats called "visa overstay", as in they entered legally, for work, vacation, whatever, and simply didnt leave when supposed to. (note that I dont have data handy about how these two data sets intersect, so for now just assume all 6.6mil crossed the border rather than overstaying a visa; it doesnt really change my point anyway)
So only about 6 million actually crossed the border. Some portion also goes back across the border, having only come up temporarily and having no intention of staying. The number actually crossing and entering hte country yearly is only ~300k. Call that R. Now consider that Mexico's population is ~110million people.
So to recap and break it down:
X = 6.6 million, with a R of 300k/yr
Y = 110million.
So in conclusion, the notion that everyone is in a hurry to flee Mexico because its just sooo bad down there, is completely misguided.
its not about personal freedom.
reagan didnt do anything to increase personel or worker freedom.
the people he gave freedom to was the corporations.
and the result of all that deregulation was an isntant decoupling of productivity and wages, after they had tracked in parallel for over 6 decades,. wages have been stagnant ever since, while revenues go ever higher, leaving the ACTUAL producers with a smaller and smaller piece of the pie they are creating.