You wanted to keep your job? Shouldn't have taken those whore pills.
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Tagged with : he drills a tooth , iron and despair , phildo pherp , sonic the phaildo What are tags? |
It's okay by me as long as they don't expect me to subsidize the breeders.
And don't even think about asking for a day off to give birth.
And don't even think about asking for a day off to give birth.
Defend this, Phildo.
Phildo Pherp
The results of a successful argument that religious freedom can be imposed on others.
You do realize that there's a serious amount of stupid going on in this country right now.
vushtrriboy: The results of a successful argument that religious freedom can be imposed on others.
The slope is becoming slippery indeed.
The slope is becoming slippery indeed.
cousin dupree: You do realize that there's a serious amount of stupid going on in this country right now.
Theres always been this much stupid, sometimes even more, theres just more media coverage of it now.
Theres always been this much stupid, sometimes even more, theres just more media coverage of it now.
cousin dupree: You do realize that there's a serious amount of stupid going on in this country right now.
Yeah. Why is that?
Yeah. Why is that?
And why shouldn't employers have the right to fire their employees for any/all/no reason, as they see fit? Why shouldn't employers have the right to require their employees to surrender their medical records, bN handles, facebook passwords and privacy?
Why shouldn't business owners have the right to discriminate against black people and homosexuals?
Fucking feudalism, is what it is. The nobles have the right to do as they like, and the peasants have the right to suffer as they must.
Why shouldn't business owners have the right to discriminate against black people and homosexuals?
Fucking feudalism, is what it is. The nobles have the right to do as they like, and the peasants have the right to suffer as they must.
iadtatami: And why shouldn't employers have the right to fire their employees for any/all/no reason, as they see fit? Why shouldn't employers have the right to require their employees to surrender their medical records, bN handles, facebook passwords and privacy?
Why shouldn't business owners have the right to discriminate against black people and homosexuals?
Fucking feudalism, is what it is. The nobles have the right to do as they like, and the peasants have the right to suffer as they must.
ROFL, anything else is just entitlement! For the wrong people. That is. wait,..
Why shouldn't business owners have the right to discriminate against black people and homosexuals?
Fucking feudalism, is what it is. The nobles have the right to do as they like, and the peasants have the right to suffer as they must.
ROFL, anything else is just entitlement! For the wrong people. That is. wait,..
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act would like a word.
This entire problem is created by employer funded healthcare.
Remove that, remove the problem. POOF.
It's an entirely invented issue for the Reps and Dems to make LOUD NOISES over.
Remove that, remove the problem. POOF.
It's an entirely invented issue for the Reps and Dems to make LOUD NOISES over.
"If things were the way they should be, instead of the ways things are, this wouldn't even be a problem.
Therefore, this isn't a legitimate issue. Even though it's happening."
Therefore, this isn't a legitimate issue. Even though it's happening."
so vote republican: This entire problem is created by employer funded healthcare.
Remove that, remove the problem. POOF.
It's an entirely invented issue for the Reps and Dems to make LOUD NOISES over.
Ask yourself; How did employer funded healthcare start?
It started because employers wanted healthy people working for them for the long haul.
Now since that factor has been taken out of the American work force, you can all go fuck yourselves and die. But not even with dignity.
Fuck REPUBLICANS. They deserve to go the way of the Whig party.
Remove that, remove the problem. POOF.
It's an entirely invented issue for the Reps and Dems to make LOUD NOISES over.
Ask yourself; How did employer funded healthcare start?
It started because employers wanted healthy people working for them for the long haul.
Now since that factor has been taken out of the American work force, you can all go fuck yourselves and die. But not even with dignity.
Fuck REPUBLICANS. They deserve to go the way of the Whig party.
swingingjohnson: Ask yourself; How did employer funded healthcare start?
It started because employers wanted healthy people working for them for the long haul.
No, actually. It occurred during WWII due to wage and price controls. From wikipedia:
Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a result of wage controls during World War II.[6] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers raising wages high enough to attract sufficient workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased benefits.[6] Between 1940 and 1950, the total number of people enrolled in health insurance plans grew from 20,662,000 to 142,334,000,[9] and by 1958, 75% of Americans had some form of health coverage.[10]
It is a government created problem, and now we get to watch them fight over it.
Because they love and care about us.
It started because employers wanted healthy people working for them for the long haul.
No, actually. It occurred during WWII due to wage and price controls. From wikipedia:
Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a result of wage controls during World War II.[6] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers raising wages high enough to attract sufficient workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased benefits.[6] Between 1940 and 1950, the total number of people enrolled in health insurance plans grew from 20,662,000 to 142,334,000,[9] and by 1958, 75% of Americans had some form of health coverage.[10]
It is a government created problem, and now we get to watch them fight over it.
Because they love and care about us.
so vote republican: No, actually. It occurred during WWII due to wage and price controls. From wikipedia:
Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a result of wage controls during World War II.[6] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers raising wages high enough to attract sufficient workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased benefits.[6] Between 1940 and 1950, the total number of people enrolled in health insurance plans grew from 20,662,000 to 142,334,000,[9] and by 1958, 75% of Americans had some form of health coverage.[10]
It is a government created problem, and now we get to watch them fight over it.
Because they love and care about us.
Oh.
Shut up!
Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a result of wage controls during World War II.[6] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers raising wages high enough to attract sufficient workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased benefits.[6] Between 1940 and 1950, the total number of people enrolled in health insurance plans grew from 20,662,000 to 142,334,000,[9] and by 1958, 75% of Americans had some form of health coverage.[10]
It is a government created problem, and now we get to watch them fight over it.
Because they love and care about us.
Oh.
Shut up!
paranoyd: Defend this, Phildo.
Sounds like hyperbole to me about the right to fire an employee for taking BCPs. It makes no logical sense.
I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking.
Sounds like hyperbole to me about the right to fire an employee for taking BCPs. It makes no logical sense.
I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking.
swingingjohnson: Ask yourself; How did employer funded healthcare start?
It started because employers wanted healthy people working for them for the long haul.
Now since that factor has been taken out of the American work force, you can all go fuck yourselves and die. But not even with dignity.
.
Sounds like employer funded health insurance (not care) is a "luxury" not a requirement.
Is it a law that an employer MUST provide health insurance to it employees?
It started because employers wanted healthy people working for them for the long haul.
Now since that factor has been taken out of the American work force, you can all go fuck yourselves and die. But not even with dignity.
.
Sounds like employer funded health insurance (not care) is a "luxury" not a requirement.
Is it a law that an employer MUST provide health insurance to it employees?
The husband creature says we can't move to the micronesian islands because they will be underwater in a few years. But if the stupid in this country keeps up the way it is, I don't think I'd mind lying on a beach somewhere while the tide rolls in permanently.
And people wonder why I'm so critical about employers dictating behavior on personal time?
sabine: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act would like a word.
How does that come into play in regards to what the employer has to pay for in health insurance? ... and this does not seem to discriminate on any of the levels from Title VII either.
How does that come into play in regards to what the employer has to pay for in health insurance? ... and this does not seem to discriminate on any of the levels from Title VII either.
eddyatwork: And people wonder why I'm so critical about employers dictating behavior on personal time?
You are right, they should mind their own business outside of work.
You are right, they should mind their own business outside of work.
eddyatwork: And people wonder why I'm so critical about employers dictating behavior on personal time?
And people wonder why I keep saying that our system has to be rebuilt from the bottom up in a fashion that takes the employers right the fuck out of health care decisions entirely. Imagine if your car insurance was tied to your employment, and your boss got to choose which insurance coverage was best for you. Does that makes sense?
And people wonder why I keep saying that our system has to be rebuilt from the bottom up in a fashion that takes the employers right the fuck out of health care decisions entirely. Imagine if your car insurance was tied to your employment, and your boss got to choose which insurance coverage was best for you. Does that makes sense?
sloth: And people wonder why I keep saying that our system has to be rebuilt from the bottom up in a fashion that takes the employers right the fuck out of health care decisions entirely. Imagine if your car insurance was tied to your employment, and your boss got to choose which insurance coverage was best for you. Does that makes sense?
You know, that's a beautiful analogy and I'm going to use it from now on.
You know, that's a beautiful analogy and I'm going to use it from now on.
sloth: And people wonder why I keep saying that our system has to be rebuilt from the bottom up in a fashion that takes the employers right the fuck out of health care decisions entirely. Imagine if your car insurance was tied to your employment, and your boss got to choose which insurance coverage was best for you. Does that makes sense?
John McCain had the plan to just that. But he wan't a shiny and handsome novelty.
John McCain had the plan to just that. But he wan't a shiny and handsome novelty.
the sonic dildo: John McCain had the plan to just that. But he wan't a shiny and handsome novelty.
In order for McCain's plan to work, all we would need is for employers to act completely differently than they traditionally have acted ever in history.
In order for McCain's plan to work, all we would need is for employers to act completely differently than they traditionally have acted ever in history.
sloth: And people wonder why I keep saying that our system has to be rebuilt from the bottom up in a fashion that takes the employers right the fuck out of health care decisions entirely. Imagine if your car insurance was tied to your employment, and your boss got to choose which insurance coverage was best for you. Does that makes sense?
How exactly would that work? Individual rates are prohibitively expensive for a great many people.
How exactly would that work? Individual rates are prohibitively expensive for a great many people.
iadtatami: "If things were the way they should be, instead of the ways things are, this wouldn't even be a problem.
Therefore, this isn't a legitimate issue. Even though it's happening."
Ohai untrustworthy!
/snicker
Therefore, this isn't a legitimate issue. Even though it's happening."
Ohai untrustworthy!
/snicker
so vote republican: It is a government created problem, and now we get to watch them fight over it.
Forced, FORCED to offer healthcare to get the best employees!
Forced, FORCED to offer healthcare to get the best employees!
gradivus: Theres always been this much stupid, sometimes even more, theres just more media coverage of it now.
ther has always been stupid, but it is gettin a better foothold daily now
ther has always been stupid, but it is gettin a better foothold daily now
jimmythehutt: How exactly would that work? Individual rates are prohibitively expensive for a great many people.
Single payer.
Single payer.
nately's whore: Single payer.
That's highly unlikely in the U.S. The end result of decoupling health insurance from employment is going to result in a lower customer base paying insanely high rates. I don't really see how that's going to help any part of the situation.
Well, it will help the employers.
That's highly unlikely in the U.S. The end result of decoupling health insurance from employment is going to result in a lower customer base paying insanely high rates. I don't really see how that's going to help any part of the situation.
Well, it will help the employers.
On an article related note, I'd just like to mention how much I hate this state sometimes.
pajamas: In order for McCain's plan to work, all we would need is for employers to act completely differently than they traditionally have acted ever in history
•Cool from whitebread
•Cool from quick1
OK you three, with the attention to pajamas.... WTF do you mean by that?
The goal was to empower the employee by offering plans that the employee owns and purchases themselves. Of course the it was going to be funded by after tax dollars so the government could fund the deductables.
No surprise teh unions had issues with that.
•Cool from whitebread
•Cool from quick1
OK you three, with the attention to pajamas.... WTF do you mean by that?
The goal was to empower the employee by offering plans that the employee owns and purchases themselves. Of course the it was going to be funded by after tax dollars so the government could fund the deductables.
No surprise teh unions had issues with that.
jimmythehutt: How exactly would that work? Individual rates are prohibitively expensive for a great many people.
The McCain plan offered High Deductable Catatstrophic insurance, whith government taking care of the deductibles. It was real insurance, that the indidual owned.
High Deductable insurance has low monthly premiums.
The McCain plan offered High Deductable Catatstrophic insurance, whith government taking care of the deductibles. It was real insurance, that the indidual owned.
High Deductable insurance has low monthly premiums.
Oh man, since Dems are just like Republicans that means Obama is gonna start this when he is re-elected.
so vote republican: This entire problem is created by employer funded healthcare.
Remove that, remove the problem. POOF.
It's an entirely invented issue for the Reps and Dems to make LOUD NOISES over.
Replace it with what? We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
so vote republican: This entire problem is created by employer funded healthcare.
Remove that, remove the problem. POOF.
It's an entirely invented issue for the Reps and Dems to make LOUD NOISES over.
Replace it with what? We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
so vote republican:
It is a government created problem, and now we get to watch them fight over it.
Because they love and care about us.
Sounds more like a clever way to cock punch the greedy corporations trying to make more money to the detriment of the war effort :P
It is a government created problem, and now we get to watch them fight over it.
Because they love and care about us.
Sounds more like a clever way to cock punch the greedy corporations trying to make more money to the detriment of the war effort :P
fatsean:
We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
What very good reason?
We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
What very good reason?
the sonic dildo: Sounds like hyperbole to me about the right to fire an employee for taking BCPs. It makes no logical sense.
I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking.
Well, at least your consistent in your irrationality in this matter.
I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking.
Well, at least your consistent in your irrationality in this matter.
little hands of concrete: Well, at least your consistent in your irrationality in this matter.
What is irrational?
What is irrational?
nately's whore: What very good reason?
Someone quoted a paragraph on that above. Patriotic American companies were poaching workers from the war effort.
Someone quoted a paragraph on that above. Patriotic American companies were poaching workers from the war effort.
the sonic dildo: What is irrational?
Your entire stance on the employer has the right to dictate which coverage their employees get ... What if the employer decides he doesn't want heart issues covered? Diabetes? Etc. Do you also assume that the employers are also paying the full boat of the premium, so they get the final say of what is covered? You have abandoned common sense in order to, somehow, rationalize why dumbass republicans/conservatives have "won" or should "win" on this whole birth control debacle. I am being generous in suggesting that, at some point, you had common sense.
Your entire stance on the employer has the right to dictate which coverage their employees get ... What if the employer decides he doesn't want heart issues covered? Diabetes? Etc. Do you also assume that the employers are also paying the full boat of the premium, so they get the final say of what is covered? You have abandoned common sense in order to, somehow, rationalize why dumbass republicans/conservatives have "won" or should "win" on this whole birth control debacle. I am being generous in suggesting that, at some point, you had common sense.
fatsean: Oh man, since Dems are just like Republicans that means Obama is gonna start this when he is re-elected.
Replace it with what? We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
Lack of anything else is not necessarily a "good" reason, though it is a reason.
Replace it with what? We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
Lack of anything else is not necessarily a "good" reason, though it is a reason.
It wasn't "just" poaching, there were several factors over the last century that created the employer-based system. A good, relatively short overview can be found at eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us
whitebread: Lack of anything else is not necessarily a "good" reason, though it is a reason.
Well it was kind of a side effect really. Then at some point offering insurance became mandatory for businesses of a certain size. I'd like to see some kind of "bare minimum free service" funded by taxes. The argument over what constitutes bare minimum would be quite interesting.
Well it was kind of a side effect really. Then at some point offering insurance became mandatory for businesses of a certain size. I'd like to see some kind of "bare minimum free service" funded by taxes. The argument over what constitutes bare minimum would be quite interesting.
the sonic dildo: Sounds like hyperbole to me about the right to fire an employee for taking BCPs. It makes no logical sense.
I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking.
Hyperbole? Do you know what that word means? This is real, man. They are doing this, or at least giving it the old college try. It's disgusting, and no employer should have this right.
I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking.
Hyperbole? Do you know what that word means? This is real, man. They are doing this, or at least giving it the old college try. It's disgusting, and no employer should have this right.
the sonic dildo: OK you three, with the attention to pajamas.... WTF do you mean by that?
The goal was to empower the employee by offering plans that the employee owns and purchases themselves. Of course the it was going to be funded by after tax dollars so the government could fund the deductables.
No surprise teh unions had issues with that.
His plan removed the incentive businesses had to offer insuance, assuming that once they stopped doing so that they would increase wages by thousands iof dollars. This is not concurrent with reality
The goal was to empower the employee by offering plans that the employee owns and purchases themselves. Of course the it was going to be funded by after tax dollars so the government could fund the deductables.
No surprise teh unions had issues with that.
His plan removed the incentive businesses had to offer insuance, assuming that once they stopped doing so that they would increase wages by thousands iof dollars. This is not concurrent with reality
the sonic dildo: John McCain had the plan to just that. But he wan't a shiny and handsome novelty.
You mean a black guy.
You mean a black guy.
little hands of concrete: Your entire stance on the employer has the right to dictate which coverage their employees get ... What if the employer decides he doesn't want heart issues covered? Diabetes? Etc. Do you also assume that the employers are also paying the full boat of the premium, so they get the final say of what is covered? You have abandoned common sense in order to, somehow, rationalize why dumbass republicans/conservatives have "won" or should "win" on this whole birth control debacle. I am being generous in suggesting that, at some point, you had common sense.
•Cool from fatsean
I am only speaking in regards to the law. Your "what ifs" are what is completely irrational. The law does not give the employer leeway to provide insurance that does not cover medical conditions like diabetes.
You are the one who has abandoned common sense, as has the entire left wing on this issue. The argument is about "contaception" not reatment of medical conditions. I hae not seen or heard even one argument that makes a valid case for contraception as a mandate.
All left wing arguments fall short of the logic test in this issue.
•Cool from fatsean
I am only speaking in regards to the law. Your "what ifs" are what is completely irrational. The law does not give the employer leeway to provide insurance that does not cover medical conditions like diabetes.
You are the one who has abandoned common sense, as has the entire left wing on this issue. The argument is about "contaception" not reatment of medical conditions. I hae not seen or heard even one argument that makes a valid case for contraception as a mandate.
All left wing arguments fall short of the logic test in this issue.
the sonic dildo: I am only speaking in regards to the law. Your "what ifs" are what is completely irrational. The law does not give the employer leeway to provide insurance that does not cover medical conditions like diabetes.
You are the one who has abandoned common sense, as has the entire left wing on this issue. The argument is about "contaception" not reatment of medical conditions. I hae not seen or heard even one argument that makes a valid case for contraception as a mandate.
Yes you have, you just don't recognize them.
You are the one who has abandoned common sense, as has the entire left wing on this issue. The argument is about "contaception" not reatment of medical conditions. I hae not seen or heard even one argument that makes a valid case for contraception as a mandate.
Yes you have, you just don't recognize them.
Oh man, since Dems are just like Republicans that means Obama is gonna start this when he is re-elected.
They are not just the same. The net result is very similar (war/spending/broad issues remain unsolved).
Replace it with what? We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
"But that's the way we've always done it!" is a rather conservative viewpoint.
Single-payer by the individual state is always something I've said would work, and have the advantage of being, you know, Constitutional.
They are not just the same. The net result is very similar (war/spending/broad issues remain unsolved).
Replace it with what? We've seen flaws in the idea of employer provided health care but it was implemented for a very good reason.
"But that's the way we've always done it!" is a rather conservative viewpoint.
Single-payer by the individual state is always something I've said would work, and have the advantage of being, you know, Constitutional.
paranoyd: Yes you have, you just don't recognize them.
I have them all so far. All of them fall short and are nothing more than despeate false equivalences.
Yesterday I hear a left winger trying to make the comparison between a vasectomy and contraception. that was funny. Yes health plans cover vasectomies, and on the female side they cover tubal ligations.
Go get a tubal ligation whroes, those are covered.
I have them all so far. All of them fall short and are nothing more than despeate false equivalences.
Yesterday I hear a left winger trying to make the comparison between a vasectomy and contraception. that was funny. Yes health plans cover vasectomies, and on the female side they cover tubal ligations.
Go get a tubal ligation whroes, those are covered.
the sonic dildo: ^^^ •Uncool from paranoyd ^^^
what the matter bro? Don't like the truth?
From you I've never heard it.
what the matter bro? Don't like the truth?
From you I've never heard it.
the sonic dildo: I have them all so far. All of them fall short and are nothing more than despeate false equivalences.
Yesterday I hear a left winger trying to make the comparison between a vasectomy and contraception. that was funny. Yes health plans cover vasectomies, and on the female side they cover tubal ligations.
Go get a tubal ligation whroes, those are covered.
And much more terribly invasive and not reversible like many vasectomies.
Disgusting.
Yesterday I hear a left winger trying to make the comparison between a vasectomy and contraception. that was funny. Yes health plans cover vasectomies, and on the female side they cover tubal ligations.
Go get a tubal ligation whroes, those are covered.
And much more terribly invasive and not reversible like many vasectomies.
Disgusting.
paranoyd: And much more terribly invasive and not reversible like many vasectomies. Disgusting.
I am just making the correct coreleations here. You obviously have no idea what the truth or the facts are.
The reversability of either of these procedures is neveer guaranteed either, and not part of why anyone gets them. They are designed to be permanent. Why you felt the need to add that point into the argument is odd as well.
I am just making the correct coreleations here. You obviously have no idea what the truth or the facts are.
The reversability of either of these procedures is neveer guaranteed either, and not part of why anyone gets them. They are designed to be permanent. Why you felt the need to add that point into the argument is odd as well.
the sonic dildo: Sounds like hyperbole to me about the right to fire an employee for taking BCPs. It makes no logical sense.
...
Huh? Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. How is this a rhetorical device or figure of speech?
...
Huh? Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. How is this a rhetorical device or figure of speech?
fatsean: Well it was kind of a side effect really. Then at some point offering insurance became mandatory for businesses of a certain size. I'd like to see some kind of "bare minimum free service" funded by taxes. The argument over what constitutes bare minimum would be quite interesting.
As far as the ACA, it's pretty much over. It will come down to "don't like the choices your state Leg made? Move."
As far as the ACA, it's pretty much over. It will come down to "don't like the choices your state Leg made? Move."
quinblake: Huh? Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. How is this a rhetorical device or figure of speech?
How? Saying someone could be fired for simply using BCPs. The actual "law" was not quoted, rather this was simply comentary on it. So yes, hyperbole.
As if tje left has never resorted to gross exaggerhtion to distort the truth before quin.
How? Saying someone could be fired for simply using BCPs. The actual "law" was not quoted, rather this was simply comentary on it. So yes, hyperbole.
As if tje left has never resorted to gross exaggerhtion to distort the truth before quin.
the sonic dildo: How? Saying someone could be fired for simply using BCPs. The actual "law" was not quoted, rather this was simply comentary on it. So yes, hyperbole.
As if tje left has never resorted to gross exaggerhtion to distort the truth before quin.
Do you even read the articles?
"The Arizona bill has, incredibly, already passed one house"
As if tje left has never resorted to gross exaggerhtion to distort the truth before quin.
Do you even read the articles?
"The Arizona bill has, incredibly, already passed one house"
jimmythehutt: How exactly would that work? Individual rates are prohibitively expensive for a great many people.
Sounds like he could benefit from some volunteer work in his community. Some people are just out of touch, and need a reminder of how little m many people live on in this country.
Sounds like he could benefit from some volunteer work in his community. Some people are just out of touch, and need a reminder of how little m many people live on in this country.
whitebread: As far as the ACA, it's pretty much over. It will come down to "don't like the choices your state Leg made? Move."
Really... the ACA... (AKA ObamaCare) is now a state program?
You think it is settled as well? It is going before the Supreme Court soon. Did you know that?
Really... the ACA... (AKA ObamaCare) is now a state program?
You think it is settled as well? It is going before the Supreme Court soon. Did you know that?
quinblake: Do you even read the articles?"The Arizona bill has, incredibly, already passed one house"
No quote of the actual law quin. That was what I was referring to and I thought I made that clear.
No quote of the actual law quin. That was what I was referring to and I thought I made that clear.
the sonic dildo: I am just making the correct coreleations here. You obviously have no idea what the truth or the facts are.
The reversability of either of these procedures is neveer guaranteed either, and not part of why anyone gets them. They are designed to be permanent. Why you felt the need to add that point into the argument is odd as well.
They are not equivalent. It's like saying clipping your fingernails is the same as amputating your finger. Both get rid of that pesky nail, yes.
As far as them being reversible, it is a relevant point. I know you can't see that, though.
The reversability of either of these procedures is neveer guaranteed either, and not part of why anyone gets them. They are designed to be permanent. Why you felt the need to add that point into the argument is odd as well.
They are not equivalent. It's like saying clipping your fingernails is the same as amputating your finger. Both get rid of that pesky nail, yes.
As far as them being reversible, it is a relevant point. I know you can't see that, though.
the sonic dildo: No quote of the actual law quin. That was what I was referring to and I thought I made that clear.
I didn't think it was a law yet. Isn't it just a bill at this point?
I didn't think it was a law yet. Isn't it just a bill at this point?
paranoyd: Yes you have, you just don't recognize them.
Including the fact that contraception acts as prophylactic care to avoid the condition known commonly as pregnancy. Insurance covers, luckily, many kinds of prophylactic care, which has been shown consistently to be the most cost effective care available.
Including the fact that contraception acts as prophylactic care to avoid the condition known commonly as pregnancy. Insurance covers, luckily, many kinds of prophylactic care, which has been shown consistently to be the most cost effective care available.
quinblake: I didn't think it was a law yet. Isn't it just a bill at this point?
"Oh, well, if it's not a law then it's just hyperbole, until it's not, then it's the fault of the left."
"Oh, well, if it's not a law then it's just hyperbole, until it's not, then it's the fault of the left."
pajamas: Including the fact that contraception acts as prophylactic care to avoid the condition known commonly as pregnancy. Insurance covers, luckily, many kinds of prophylactic care, which has been shown consistently to be the most cost effective care available.
This is but another attack on women that Phildo has no problem with because it comes from the authoritarian right.
This is but another attack on women that Phildo has no problem with because it comes from the authoritarian right.
paranoyd: They are not equivalent. It's like saying clipping your fingernails is the same as amputating your finger.
They are both equaivalnet paranoyd. Just because one is a simpler procedure does not change the euivalence.
The idea of comparing BCPs to vasectomies is retarded, and that was the original point.
paranoyd: As far as them being reversible, it is a relevant point. I know you can't see that, though.
Please don't try and pretend to know more about surgical outcomes now paranoyd, and that I can't see them.
They are both equaivalnet paranoyd. Just because one is a simpler procedure does not change the euivalence.
The idea of comparing BCPs to vasectomies is retarded, and that was the original point.
paranoyd: As far as them being reversible, it is a relevant point. I know you can't see that, though.
Please don't try and pretend to know more about surgical outcomes now paranoyd, and that I can't see them.
pajamas: Including the fact that contraception acts as prophylactic care to avoid the condition known commonly as pregnancy. Insurance covers, luckily, many kinds of prophylactic care, which has been shown consistently to be the most cost effective care available.
I've have already taken you apart on this pajamas. You are too dishonest to start again and waste my time with you however.
I've have already taken you apart on this pajamas. You are too dishonest to start again and waste my time with you however.
the sonic dildo: No quote of the actual law quin. That was what I was referring to and I thought I made that clear.
I don't see how these are considered examples of "hyperbole".
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake-havasu-city-az/TE6NKSQ64IELVC4CO
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/arizonas_hb_2625_could_allow_bosses_to_fire_employees_for_using_birth_control.html
http://investmentwatchblog.com/arizona-house-bill-2625-would-permit-employers-to-ask-their-employees-for-proof-of-medical-prescription-if-they-seek-contraceptives-for-non-reproductive-purposes-such-as-hormone-control-or-acne-treat/#.T2C_sP_Knng
I don't see how these are considered examples of "hyperbole".
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake-havasu-city-az/TE6NKSQ64IELVC4CO
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/arizonas_hb_2625_could_allow_bosses_to_fire_employees_for_using_birth_control.html
http://investmentwatchblog.com/arizona-house-bill-2625-would-permit-employers-to-ask-their-employees-for-proof-of-medical-prescription-if-they-seek-contraceptives-for-non-reproductive-purposes-such-as-hormone-control-or-acne-treat/#.T2C_sP_Knng
the sonic dildo: I am only speaking in regards to the law. Your "what ifs" are what is completely irrational. The law does not give the employer leeway to provide insurance that does not cover medical conditions like diabetes.
You are the one who has abandoned common sense, as has the entire left wing on this issue. The argument is about "contaception" not reatment of medical conditions. I hae not seen or heard even one argument that makes a valid case for contraception as a mandate.
All left wing arguments fall short of the logic test in this issue.
I wasn't talking about the law. I was commenting on your silly assertion of "I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking." in order to try to make yourself consistent in trying to "win" the birth control debacle. You're the one performing logic gymnastics and abandoning common sense. LOL. You lost. Get over it.
You are the one who has abandoned common sense, as has the entire left wing on this issue. The argument is about "contaception" not reatment of medical conditions. I hae not seen or heard even one argument that makes a valid case for contraception as a mandate.
All left wing arguments fall short of the logic test in this issue.
I wasn't talking about the law. I was commenting on your silly assertion of "I do believe the employer has a right to decide what level of coverage he is willing to pay and provide his employees however. If the employee does not like the coverage they are free to get a job elsewhere where the benefits may be more to their liking." in order to try to make yourself consistent in trying to "win" the birth control debacle. You're the one performing logic gymnastics and abandoning common sense. LOL. You lost. Get over it.
the sonic dildo: They are both equaivalnet paranoyd. Just because one is a simpler procedure does not change the euivalence.
The idea of comparing BCPs to vasectomies is retarded, and that was the original point.
Please don't try and pretend to know more about surgical outcomes now paranoyd, and that I can't see them.
No, sorry. You're wrong.
The idea of comparing BCPs to vasectomies is retarded, and that was the original point.
Please don't try and pretend to know more about surgical outcomes now paranoyd, and that I can't see them.
No, sorry. You're wrong.
the sonic dildo: I've have already taken you apart on this pajamas. You are too dishonest to start again and waste my time with you however.
Stop being a dick. You're wrong.
Stop being a dick. You're wrong.
paranoyd: Stop being a dick. You're wrong.
Indeed, you know when the accusation of "dishonest" makes an appearance the poster is full of shit.
Indeed, you know when the accusation of "dishonest" makes an appearance the poster is full of shit.
paranoyd: No, sorry. You're wrong.
I am not wrong, about any of this crap.
paranoyd: Stop being a dick. You're wrong.
I am not being a dick. Pajamas has done nothing but obfuscte the entire time.
I am not wrong, about any of this crap.
paranoyd: Stop being a dick. You're wrong.
I am not being a dick. Pajamas has done nothing but obfuscte the entire time.
quinblake: Indeed, you know when the accusation of "dishonest" makes an appearance the poster is full of shit.
Oh quin, keep dreaming that is the case. You are a major culprit of being dishonest.
Oh quin, keep dreaming that is the case. You are a major culprit of being dishonest.
the sonic dildo: I am not wrong, about any of this crap.
I am not being a dick. Pajamas has done nothing but obfuscte the entire time.
Just because she uses big words that you don't understand doesn't mean she's obfuscating.
I am not being a dick. Pajamas has done nothing but obfuscte the entire time.
Just because she uses big words that you don't understand doesn't mean she's obfuscating.
little hands of concrete: I wasn't talking about the law.
well that is kind of important now isn't it?
little hands of concrete: You're the one performing logic gymnastics and abandoning common sense. LOL. You lost. Get over it.
Riiiight. You don't even want to talk about the law, but I m the one who lost.
well that is kind of important now isn't it?
little hands of concrete: You're the one performing logic gymnastics and abandoning common sense. LOL. You lost. Get over it.
Riiiight. You don't even want to talk about the law, but I m the one who lost.
the sonic dildo: Oh quin, keep dreaming that is the case. You are a major culprit of being dishonest.
Quinblake may be a lot of things, but dishonest has never been one of them that I've seen.
Quinblake may be a lot of things, but dishonest has never been one of them that I've seen.
paranoyd: Just because she uses big words that you don't understand doesn't mean she's obfuscating.
Oh please..
Oh please..
the sonic dildo: Oh quin, keep dreaming that is the case. You are a major culprit of being dishonest.
We've been through this before, putting my name in the post does not make your statement any more valid or true.
You've got nothing man, you're not even worth having a reasonable argument with at this point. Pathetic.
We've been through this before, putting my name in the post does not make your statement any more valid or true.
You've got nothing man, you're not even worth having a reasonable argument with at this point. Pathetic.
the sonic dildo: well that is kind of important now isn't it?
Riiiight. You don't even want to talk about the law, but I m the one who lost.
I believe I read that in 28 states, the law requires insurance companies to cover birth control pills. I also understand that insurance companies WANT to cover birth control pills because it makes common and financial sense. However, I was just countering your abandonment of common sense, as though you may have possessed some, in order to win on this issue.
Do yourself a favor and just admit that dumbassery partisanship has caused you to stake out such a silly and irresponsible position and we can move onto other things. Like, why do 50% of republicans in Alabama and Mississippi believe that President Obama is a muslim and why isn't that an embarrassment to the GOP?
Riiiight. You don't even want to talk about the law, but I m the one who lost.
I believe I read that in 28 states, the law requires insurance companies to cover birth control pills. I also understand that insurance companies WANT to cover birth control pills because it makes common and financial sense. However, I was just countering your abandonment of common sense, as though you may have possessed some, in order to win on this issue.
Do yourself a favor and just admit that dumbassery partisanship has caused you to stake out such a silly and irresponsible position and we can move onto other things. Like, why do 50% of republicans in Alabama and Mississippi believe that President Obama is a muslim and why isn't that an embarrassment to the GOP?
the sonic dildo: Oh quin, keep dreaming that is the case. You are a major culprit of being dishonest.
What meds are you on?
What meds are you on?
osirisothedead: For his impotence, mycoxafloppin.
May cause excessive hyperbole, hurring, derp, and trolling. Stop using mycoxafloppin if you have a sudden swelling of the head, myopic vison, or delusions of grandeur.
May cause excessive hyperbole, hurring, derp, and trolling. Stop using mycoxafloppin if you have a sudden swelling of the head, myopic vison, or delusions of grandeur.
paranoyd: Quinblake may be a lot of things, but dishonest has never been one of them that I've seen.
Not to you I'm sure.
And I am not implyng she is a dishonest person either. Rather it is in her debating when she can't keep up.
Not to you I'm sure.
And I am not implyng she is a dishonest person either. Rather it is in her debating when she can't keep up.
the sonic dildo: Not to you I'm sure.
And I am not implyng she is a dishonest person either. Rather it is in her debating when she can't keep up.
You're so far behind you thing you're first.
And I am not implyng she is a dishonest person either. Rather it is in her debating when she can't keep up.
You're so far behind you thing you're first.
think, not thing.
quinblake: We've been through this before, putting my name in the post does not make your statement any more valid or true.You've got nothing man, you're not even worth having a reasonable argument with at this point. Pathetic.
quin there have been numerous times I have encounterd and calle dyou out on our dishonesty. You making these bold assertions does not change what you and I both know.
quin there have been numerous times I have encounterd and calle dyou out on our dishonesty. You making these bold assertions does not change what you and I both know.
quin .. make that your dishonesty, not our
the sonic dildo: Not to you I'm sure.
And I am not implyng she is a dishonest person either. Rather it is in her debating when she can't keep up.
Implying? You outright said it.
the sonic dildo: Oh quin, keep dreaming that is the case. You are a major culprit of being dishonest.
Whatcha on, mang! I want some of that!
And I am not implyng she is a dishonest person either. Rather it is in her debating when she can't keep up.
Implying? You outright said it.
the sonic dildo: Oh quin, keep dreaming that is the case. You are a major culprit of being dishonest.
Whatcha on, mang! I want some of that!
little hands of concrete: I believe I read that in 28 states, the law requires insurance companies to cover birth control pills. I also understand that insurance companies WANT to cover birth control pills because it makes common and financial sense. However, I was just countering your abandonment of common sense, as though you may have possessed some, in order to win on this issue.
Do yourself a favor and just admit that dumbassery partisanship has caused you to stake out such a silly and irresponsible position and we can move onto other things. Like, why do 50% of republicans in Alabama and Mississippi believe that President Obama is a muslim and why isn't that an embarrassment to the GOP?
According to Hannity, the new spin is that evil Dems are painting the South as racist and uneducated.
Something about the possibility of footwear being properly sized...
Do yourself a favor and just admit that dumbassery partisanship has caused you to stake out such a silly and irresponsible position and we can move onto other things. Like, why do 50% of republicans in Alabama and Mississippi believe that President Obama is a muslim and why isn't that an embarrassment to the GOP?
According to Hannity, the new spin is that evil Dems are painting the South as racist and uneducated.
Something about the possibility of footwear being properly sized...
If you logged in, you could post here.