Jefferson in 2016 |
||||
|
scream-of-consciousness; "If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."
Saturday, February 07, 2015
Tom Jefferson, 2016
"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. " |
This will be the comment box |
5 comments:
- DougM said...
-
Yeah, can't go wrong erring on the side of the Jeffersonian view of religious liberty.
No, your personal sect may not get to run things 100% the way you want things run, but neither will "those heretics" in the other sects.
Plus you get to live.
I have a copy of the "Jefferson Bible" (the New Testament without the miracles). Good stuff for a growing kid to read, if you want the morality but don't want to get distracted by theological issues.
I have no problem with evangelicals, unless they promote theocracy (a form of totalitarianism).
Even if I take offense on occasion, I don't feel the need to behead 'em. Well, unless that's not mutual. - 2/7/15, 12:26 PM
- Skoonj said...
-
"compelling virgin nuns to pay for birth control"
This is confusing to me. The nuns won't be paying for birth control if none of them use it. I hate to stand opposite prevailing conservative notions, but if you check your current insurance company list of coverage, you will see many items you will never need. Pregnancy treatment, for instance. If you or your family don't need it, it doesn't matter, but it's available if needed. You don't pay extra for it.
That's why arguments that center on what is covered by Obamacare policies confuse me. So what if something is covered, but not used. Its presence in the list of covered conditions shouldn't add to the cost of the policy (though Obamacare is quite high). I have a hell of a lot of conditions covered by my policy that won't be treated because we won't need to treat it. But just because the coverage is available doesn't mean I am paying more for that possibility.
- 2/7/15, 12:27 PM
-
-
Skoonj, you're wrong about your policy not costing more because it provides coverage you won't need.
Without getting technical, premiums are based on average costs so everyone ends up picking up the costs of everyone else. To oversimplify the insurance company simply figures out how much it's going to pay out in claims for everyone and then divides that by the total number of people it insures. Load that for expenses and there you go. [There are some adjustments that are made for age and so forth but that's pretty much it.] So unless your coverage is provided as part of a group where no-one uses that coverage (your nun example would work) then your premium will include the cost of those coverages.
As for insurers not being able to charge for some particular cover (e.g., birth control) that simply gets dumped into the expense line as part of general and administrative costs - nothing is free and the insurance company won't simply give it away.
BTW, Hobby Lobby erred when they claimed that the birth control methods they were objecting to were abortifaceants - they aren't.
- 2/7/15, 2:55 PM
-
-
Anon....
"BTW, Hobby Lobby erred when they claimed that the birth control methods they were objecting to were abortifaceants - they aren't"
In your opinion, they aren't. Biologically, they absolutely are. If something prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting, it is an abortifaceant. - 2/7/15, 11:44 PM
- Linda Fox said...
-
The nuns weren't protesting THEIR use of contraceptives that could possibly cause abortion.*
They were protesting having to buy it at all - they do employ some lay people, who might want to procure the meds under their policy, and force them to comply with what they consider evil.
* WHY do the nuns and other religious people consider SOME of the meds to cause abortions, when medical science says that is NOT possible?
Because it's a trick on the part of the medical people to re-classify abortifacient meds. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' leadership rammed through an agreement that they would use the implantation of an embryo as the defining point of pregnancy, thereby making such practices as Plan B (the so-called emergency birth control) officially NOT abortion.
I discuss this further at:
http://outlawbloggers.blogspot.com/2015/02/when-is-abortion-not-abortion.html - 2/8/15, 8:36 AM