Slateman

John FREAKING Wall

The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

7.5/10

You know what? The Wizards didn't have a great game, Nene got ejected, and it took a hall of fame type effort from Dunleavy. While I'm not happy with a loss, at least it wasn't a blow out. But that third quarter has to be cleaned up.

Gooden has been huge

lol, F bomb got dropped on ESPN

John Wall

Beal, you haven't made that shot all night. Stop it. Go work yourself in to the corner and sink threes.

Nice defense.

Damnit Nene . . . are you kidding me!?!?!?!

You know, if someone could just guard Dunnlevy

Really? You're going to foul there?

Wall, just go take that to the rack baby. Make them foul you.

This is so weird. I can't remember the last time I was looking forward to a Wizards game more than a Nationals game . . .

They made the paloffs?

You mean that after they passed a law saying that everyone had to have health insurance and now the percentage of uninsured is at an all time low?

Medical bills are expensive because they can be. It won't change unless you go to single payer. Which I would never trust the US government to run efficiently.

Chip and slate,

As I understand it, it is possible for people's insurance costs to go down simply because there are more people in a plan.  With more people, the insurance company does not have to charge as much per person to cover the outlier expense (like my MS).  I was under the impression this was one of the reason the federal employee insurance plans all seem to cover so much in comparisson to similarly priced insurance plans offered by other employers.  There are a lot of government workers to spread the costs of covering the risks. 

 

This is a very broad assumption. Who was it that wasn't in the plan before but are now? There were far fewer healthy people who enrolled in the exchanges than people with previous conditions. The idea that somehow insurance went down because more people enrolled is naive at best, and illogical at worst. Do you not think there was a reason these people were not on an insurance plan before?

I can certainly understand the notion that fundamental rights should be interpreted broadly. Been known to advocate that notion a time or two, myself.

On the other hand, I do see there's various shades of "religiously affiliated".

I don't think that

1) a Catholic Church

2) a catholic school, next door to the church

3) a hospital, owned by the Catholic Church

4) investment property (say, the Watergate), owned by the Catholic Church

5) a 7-11 that's owned by a Catholic.

all deserve the same level of exemption from society's laws.

For example, there seems to be a lot of precedent that #1 should be exempt from property taxes. But I think that ought to end, somewhere around #3 or so.

I can see the notion that a church should be allowed to discriminate based on race. I don't think the hospital should be.

My social studies class mentioned this concept, quite some time ago.

Said it was called "liberty of contract". The notion that anything an employee agrees to, is just fine.

It was overturned.

In the 18th century.

Of course, if her plan had been cancelled, or if her rates had gone up, THAT would have been because of Obamacare.

It was not "overturned." The courts simply ruled that restrictions had to be based on equitable concerns and reasonableness and, sometimes, certain "inalienable rights." Of which, BC is definitely not one of them.

This is why companies are free to fire employees for talking to the media, bringing a gun to work, as well as subjecting their vehicles and personal items to searches on their property.

A private hospital should be  able to do whatever the heck they want. Should they choose to not admit people of a certain race, religion, ethnicity, sexual  orientation, gender, etc, they should simply lose government subsidies.

So far, it's covered in our Humana plan as preventive care. We were made to understand that there would only be a "per polyp" removal charge (if any), but when he called afterwards to make payment he was told there wasn't any payment due. I'll update if anything changes, and hope that your plan offers the same. You're welcome.

So let me get this straight:

Previously, you had to pay for this preventive care.

Now, you've "changed" plans, and this doesn't cost anything. Yet they didn't drop anything else. So who is it you think payed for it?

It was all the people who are also in your same company (and it's subsidiaries) whose premiums increased, as well as all the tax payers who payed for the subsidies to the company.

Really? Hobby Lobby is a church?

But thank you for your blanket (and completely unsupported) assertion that, when two people sign an employment contract, that one of them abandons all rights whatsoever, and the other one's rights expand to grant them the right to exert their rights over the other person.

Any organization/company that is religiously affiliated should be protected. I don't consider the Hobby Lobby any less of a church than LDS, Catholic Church, or Liberty University.

And yes, if you sign a contract saying you waive your rights, then you have abandoned them within the confines of your employment. So if you sign a contract that requires you to only have sexual relations within a marriage, or you sign a contract saying that you will not use any form of birth control, you signed of your own free will. You have chosen to give up those rights.

I could see arguments for ruling either way.

On one hand, you have religious freedom. (Although I can see arguments against that argument, too. Do religious employers have the right to impose their religion on employees? There's TWO people's religious freedoms involved, here). Something that's really important, in society.

What? Of course religious employers have the right to impose their religion on employees. Do you know how many churches won't employ you unless you're a member of that church? The person looking for employment waives their freedom when they sign the contract for employment.

Hubby's colonoscopy was $1800 only 5 years ago.

Last week, he had one, 7 benign polyps removed. Cost? $0.00.

You're welcome. So glad that the rest of us could pick up the cost for that.

Honestly, DS9 is the only thing I'd want to see. But not anything happy the last two years. Make it angry and dark. Make the Federation compromise it's values. Make it more like the Siege at AR-558 and less about Worf's wedding to the gut worm lady or Jake.

I just think between DS9's last couple of seasons and BSG, we've already been down that whole dark war. Granted, DS9 begged off, but it was covered.

If you're going to do another Star Trek, it has to be like the original. Exploration, finding  peace, and using SciFi to show current events and issues.

We had this talk a few years ago. My idea was another show in the TNG timeline...but 20-30 years in the future where the whole galaxy is at war. Very dark.....and the sense that the Federation could lose everything. Folks pointed me to the final season of DS9...and that was a start.

 

Its funny sometimes I'll find a TNG marathon on and watch one or two. Some of those were really good. Some were cheesy. But overall it was really good for last 80's early 90's visuals.

 

People always talk about shows that focus on Starfleet academy. Or even the NEXT Enterprise after the final TNG one. Maybe they could do the Enterprise with what I want with a war. An Enterprise where the Federation doesn't have the resources to always fix and clean up their ships. 

 

 

This was the Enterprise from the final TNG movie. What about this one...30-40 years older....and barely holding together?

I feel like that was already done with BSG though.

as to post #1719, if your taxes are paid correctly through the year, you're rewarded with nothing except being a responsible taxpayer.

No refund, you only gave up your share, and are not angry that you loaned the fed your money for no interest.

No bill, you still only gave up your share.

They can't take it from you later if they've had it all along.

Keep thinking that

Well, tell me it's not more reflective of fiscally conservative policy to mandate that the healthy (young people who are not likely to make a lot of claims) underwrite the cost for the rest of us?   That's how insurance is supposed to work, no?

They do with Medicaid. You're supposed to have a job your whole life and pay taxes.

So, you're saying that Congress should vote to give every American the same health care plan that members of Congress get? 

 

Just sayin'. 

 

I think everybody on Food Stamps should receive the same quality of food as the Senate Dining Room, too. 

They do. They just have to cook it for themselves.

I will admit I haven't studied the details, and it's based on a couple of things like the number of employees, overall company revenue, and profit.

It would be cheaper to drop all employees insurance and simply pay the penalty.

Short term, perhaps. But then the employees who are worth anything would go to that company's competitor who does over private insurance.

I'm asking because my company does offer private insurance, but I'm wondering if it would simply be  cheaper to get an ACA plan. I don't have kids and won't for another year and my wife and are are pretty healthy. The only reason I get insurance is because I know that if I don't, I'll have some sort of accident that requires the hospital. Why? Because Murphy and I are old friends and he likes to screw me every now and again.