$1.00 in Insurance Premiums to pay for Abortion

reply to post by milominderbinder


Why not put a name or names to those individuals for everything wrong with this
world instead of blaming all of us baby boomers for it.

Your main beef seems to center around the fact that I don't like money being
spent to pay for abortions.I am a pro-lifer and I won't back down from my beliefs.
Abortion is murdering the unborn! The impression that I get from your rants is that
you blame the baby boomers for everything.I am wondering how long will it be before
others with your type of thinking decide to do something to us evil baby boomers?

Bottom line seems to be...murder the unborn,the baby boomers and the elderly!
This type of thinking is just how the NWO wants you to think.Take no personal responsibilty
for the ills of the world,find someone else to blame!
Just what have you done to improve our world situation,besides belly aching on a board?

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Why not put a name or names to those individuals for everything wrong with this
world instead of blaming all of us baby boomers for it.

Your main beef seems to center around the fact that I don't like money being
spent to pay for abortions.I am a pro-lifer and I won't back down from my beliefs.
Abortion is murdering the unborn! The impression that I get from your rants is that
you blame the baby boomers for everything.I am wondering how long will it be before
others with your type of thinking decide to do something to us evil baby boomers?

Bottom line seems to be...murder the unborn,the baby boomers and the elderly!
This type of thinking is just how the NWO wants you to think.Take no personal responsibilty
for the ills of the world,find someone else to blame!
Just what have you done to improve our world situation,besides belly aching on a board?

You clearly don't understand the literary device called Irony. It's defined as, "is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is a sharp incongruity or discordance that goes beyond the simple and evident intention of words or actions".

Baby boomers aside...let's just focus on the irrationality of your thought processes.

1. "I won't back down from my beliefs!"- Nobody is asking you to. Go ahead...have your beliefs. Express them, whatever they may be. Vote for your beliefs. But don't expect special treatment for a pro-life stance on abortion that is not afforded to any other individuals for THEIR beliefs.

2. "Abortion is murder of the unborn!"- And war is murder of the already-born. It's also murder when police needlessly tase people and they have a heart attack. Why do you feel that YOUR "beliefs" about abortion should allow you to skip out on paying your fair share for this medical procedure...but seemingly think nothing is wrong with OTHER PEOPLE being forced to pay for warfare and a fascist police force with THEIR tax money? I've posed the question and illustrated the point several times...you have yet to address it.

3. "My insurance premiums come from my paycheck"- As do mine. Why is perfectly fine if MY PREMIUMS get pooled into YOUR HYSTERECTOMY, but it's such an issue for you to have YOUR PREMIUMS pooled into abortions because (and I quote) "I am pro-life and I will refuse to pay for abortion premiums on my
insurance. Why should I pay this when I am 57 years old and have had a hysterectomy?" I guess it's only OK when it's all about you, huh?

I can't help but notice how touchy you get with my cold disregard for selfish Baby Boomers who think this way. It's abhorrent to you that I would be OK with letting your generation die in the streets uncared for...but clearly you don't feel the same about others. What if your $1.00 was going to assist a women who needed an abortion because her life was in danger? If your "beliefs" allow you to direct your taxation or insurance premiums to only causes you believe in...then is it OK for certain hard-line Muslims to demand that their premiums go to female circumcisions? Why not...that's what they "believe"? If I believe that the future is more important than the past, can I refuse to pay for your social security and elect that my money goes into education instead?

Of course not. AND YOUR PRO-LIFE STANCE DOESN'T GET SPECIAL RULES EITHER. I encourage you to vote for your beliefs, write your congressman, etc...but not just having a temper tantrum over $1, stomping your feet, and "refusing". Any way you cut it...SOMEBODY is always paying for something they don't necessarily agree with.

I'm all for changing the system...but then the system has to be changed fairly across boards. If YOU want the right to deny public funding for things YOU object to....don't act so surprised, shocked, and appalled when somebody else wants to do the same thing to you.

Demographically speaking, your age bracket needs the younger people a hell of a lot more than we need your generation. Given that the Baby Boomer Reign of Terror (as a generation) only has about another 10 years or so holding the majority of leadership positions in government and business...I would think long and hard about the wisdom of setting a precedent for individuals refusing to fund causes based solely upon their "belief" and whims.

Again...this isn't to say "all Baby Boomers are selfish". However, your comments have illustrated that a great many ARE not only selfish...but see nothing wrong with it at all.

Be careful of the world you wish for...things might just turn out the way you want them to.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

I went back to my first post on this thread,this was your answer to
my question.Who seems to be angry here now?Who is having the
online temper tantrum?

edit on 16-3-2012 by mamabeth because: changed

In what way am I angry or having a temper tantrum? I'm pretty calmly and carefully illustrating how obnoxious your logic is by extrapolating out the same logic but applying it to your situation or your demographic via a variety of literary devices?

You keep trying to deflect attention from the selfish nature of your viewpoint at the at the onset of the thread by addressing anything and everything EXCEPT for why you feel that you deserve a special pass on funding government programs that you, yourself, do not support while everybody else in the country does not have this same privilege when it comes to things you want for free.

Contrary to what you stated earlier, you're "paying in your entire life" into Social Security and Medicare does not in any way entitle you to that money. That money has been spent long ago. Social Security was implemented after the Great Depression at a time when young, working people, VASTLY outnumbered the elderly and the average life expectancy was 59.9 years for males and 63.9 years for females. With the rise in medical technology today's life expectancy is 78.7 and 81.1 respectively (as of 2010)....however at least you guys still VASTLY outnumber the generations receiving the "old age" entitlements.

Given that technology increases exponentially, 'Boomer's are going to average out to live to be 100 and there are a lot less of us than there are you of you. So however hard you think you had it...rest assured it pales in comparison to the generational burden the 'Boomer's have placed upon their heirs...even while you hand us a broken government, eradicated manufacturing ability, bankrupted economy, inept educational system, corrupt judicial system, toxic environment, and a shattered reputation in the world's eyes.

The amazing part to me is that it was the 'Boomer generation who fought so hard for the right to HAVE ABORTIONS in the first place. This doesn't mean that "every 'Boomer wanted abortions in the '70's"...but demographically speaking do you see why you guys look a bit schizophrenic and selfish to GenX and the Millennials?

Now that the 'Boomers are mostly financially secure, done with their education, and past childbearing years themselves...publicly funded abortions are such a horrible thing. However in the '70's the VAST majority of those very same Baby Boomers viewed Roe v. Wade as a great stride in freeing women from sexual and economic slavery and the Planned Parenthood donations ROLLED in.

The reason I compare it to Social Security is because it's the same attitude you expressed in the "I'm 57 and had a hysterectomy so why should I pay for it?" attitude. Seriously...what could possibly be a more selfish statement? So often it's, "Do as I say because of my personal moral convictions...while I just go ahead and do whatever the hell is best for me and me alone".

What blows me away is just how horrified the 'Boomers get when people suggest that their demographic be treated the exact same way they treat others. What I proposed was nothing more than taking your own logic and applying to a situation in which someone who had a "belief" DIFFERENT than yours could hurt YOUR government hand-outs and insurance costs by not diversifying the expenses and risk.

You know...nobody will call you names if you want to change your opinion/stance a little bit. It's cool...opinions SHOULD change as you gain new information and new perspective about the world around you. Not doing so is the definition of willful ignorance. There is a rhythm and cadence to the generations in American history. It's been cycling in the EXACT same pattern for the last 500 yrs (even when we were still colonies), with the exception of one hiccup in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

If you want to read a book about it, I promise it will be one of the most influential books you ever read in your lifetime. You will never, ever, see American History, current events, yourself, or your loved ones the same way again. It's totally non-partisan and has been praised by BOTH Newt Gingrich AND Al Gore back in the early '90's when it was written. Not that either of them are so great...but it does go to show that it is more than simply rhetoric and political dogma. By the way...it was written by a pair of 'Boomers. Here is the link: www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331917799&sr=8-1
No hard feelings. I know some of what I said probably came across as harsh...but I'm glad I stirred some emotion. At least I know I got you thinking a bit

Originally posted by milominderbinder

However in the '70's the VAST majority of those very same Baby Boomers viewed Roe v. Wade as a great stride in freeing women from sexual and economic slavery and the Planned Parenthood donations ROLLED in.

I still do.

And women that don't support the Right of the Individual Woman - - - really pisses me off.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by milominderbinder
I still do.
And women that don't support the Right of the Individual Woman - - - really pisses me off.

I know. I've seen your other posts.

I was careful to mention that I don't think ALL 'boomers (if you are a 'boomer...not sure) fit into this self-centered, and self-righteous paradigm being pawned off under the veil of "morality", "beliefs", and "principles". However, to pretend that this phenomena of hypocrisy doesn't exist is to deny the observable reality around us.

Defining a generation is always a bit tricky since there is no absolute line temporal line of demarcation. However, a lot of scholars define the Baby Boomers generation as people born between 1943 and 1960. The traits which typify the Baby Boom (as a generation...not as individuals) are usually self-indulgence, excess, hypocrisy, self-centeredness, extremism, absolutism, conviction that they are on some sort of grand spiritual quest, and a surety that their "beliefs" ought to be your beliefs as well. Moreover, these tendencies are just as likely to be on the "right" side of the spectrum as they are on the "left".

We think of Baby Boomers as being "liberals" or "leftists" in their youth because we remember the Vietnam War protests and Woodstock. However...go youtube some videos of the "Campus Republican National Committee" demonstrations which good ol' Jack Ambramoff (born 1953) was so involved in during the late 70's. The "Republican Revolution" demonstrations featured these nuts burning effigies on college campuses, carrying machine guns, and forming semi-militant groups which actually went to Nicaragua to fight on the side of the Contras. In short, they were "radical conservatives"...despite the moron...er-oxymoron. Now...what exactly is the difference between this militant group of effigy burners and a Black Panther or a member of the SLA? Ideology...behaviorally they are almost identical.

Now look at Newt Gingrich. I personally consider Gingrich to be almost the physical manifestation of the Baby Boomers in the same way that Kurt Cobain may have been the physical incarnation of Generation X or Hemingway was the standard-bearer for The Lost. Newt was among the first of the Baby Boomers (born in 1943). He was a professor in the mid 70's when this whole right-wing kookery really started rolling on the campuses and used it to establish a base and formalize his rhetoric.

Newt become a junior congressman in 1978...but at this time both left and right wing 'Boomers were ALL still in junior positions. Fast fwd to the 90's when now the first wave of 'Boomers have taken a lot of the top positions in companies and government. We have Bill "Free-Love" Clinton in the White House and Newt "Family Values" Gingrich readying a "Conservative Revolution".

Now...let's look at those "family values". Despite the rhetoric...how are they BEHAVIORALLY different from one another? Gingrich and Clinton both have long histories of cheating on their wives. Gingrich gets extra douchebag points in my book for dumping his sick wives all the time...as well as being a deadbeat dad and not paying alimony or child support. What a "family man". Likewise...for all the "traditional" values the guy has changed religions THREE separate times...you know...just like in the olden days.

Likewise...this assclown STILL gets votes to this day by appealing to a set of "radical conservatives" who don't see any problem with a candidate who condemns irresponsible lending practices DESPITE receiving $1.6 million dollars as a LOBBYIST for Freddie Mac's SUBPRIME home loans. Similarly, listen to him speak about Iran sometime. His entire "policy" that he advocates is one based upon a stubborn refusal to negotiate, compromise, or attempt diplomacy because he is SOOOO confident in his "beliefs" that he demands Iran see the world the same as him or he'll bomb them into oblivion.

How is this possible? Easy. For a WHOLE LOT of 'Boomers (not all of them...but MANY of them) stubborness, a refusal to compromise, and a grasping for an unattainable utopia of either right OR left wing varieties is the only thing that matters. If "free markets" are usually good things...then by god we will still promote "free markets" even when they fail miserably...no compromise. No such thing as "mostly free". If Communism is "bad" then giving out free penicillin to low income sick children is also "bad". Healthcare can only be either "socialized" at great expense or "privately run" and the poor die in the street. The idea that we could maybe have BASIC medical care being socialized like flu shots, annual physical, and routine prescriptions...but maybe not millions of dollars of chemo and HIV drugs is alien.

Unfortunately, nobody told these guys "sticking true to your beliefs" is only a virtue if those "beliefs" are not steeped in hypocrisy and self-serving paradoxes.

edit on 16-3-2012 by milominderbinder because: minor formatting error.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
If you are a 'boomer...not sure

I'm as Boomer as you can get. I'm a Victory baby - - born 10 months after the war ended.

But as an individual - - I'm an independent thinker. I don't fall into any "cliche" group.

My position is take care of the LIVING CHILDREN.

My question was never answered. Provide ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason to bring another child into this world. There isn't any. However - - there are many many unselfish reasons to not bring another child into this world.

As far as "how does an aborted baby (cells) feel?". PLEASE - - have one call me. Have one post their opinion here on ATS.

LIVING CHILDREN could answer that call about how they feel.

reply to post by milominderbinder



That is a long post.

I'll have to get back to you. There was a lot of things wrong with the 50s/60s.

ONE is - - the government said Jump! And you said: "How High".

Another is the woman was blamed for any indiscretion (unless you lived where local law and a shotgun did justice). Men today say if a woman gets pregnant - - he should have say in if she aborts. I respond - - as woman have been told for centuries (at least). "You picked the wrong man - its your fault".

Isn't it mindblowing that the Civil Rights Act wasn't signed until 1964 - - the year I graduated high school. Fair Housing in 1968. The Disability Act 1990.

And in 2012 - - - people still think they have rights to legislate a woman's body.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by milominderbinder
If you are a 'boomer...not sure

I'm as Boomer as you can get. I'm a Victory baby - - born 10 months after the war ended.

But as an individual - - I'm an independent thinker. I don't fall into any "cliche" group.

Exactly. Trends are one thing...stereotyping is another. Saying that "all Mexicans drive low-riders" is racist and ignorant. Saying that "low-riders are universally far more popular nationwide with people of Mexican descent than they are with Hasidic Jews and the Amish" is simply a keen observation and a true statement of fact.

Stereotyping is ignorant, racist, sexist, and generational-ist (???...I don't think that's a word, really...oh well). Whereas, not being afraid to admit reality is simply pragmatic.

My position is take care of the LIVING CHILDREN.

My question was never answered. Provide ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason to bring another child into this world. There isn't any. However - - there are many many unselfish reasons to not bring another child into this world.

As far as "how does an aborted baby (cells) feel?". PLEASE - - have one call me. Have one post their opinion here on ATS.

LIVING CHILDREN could answer that call about how they feel.

I'd love to provide you with a reason/example of a non-selfish reason to procreate when there are so many kids in worldwide in need of a home. Unfortunately...none come to mind. I agree with you.

I'm married with two step-kids that I consider my own. Their Dad lives in town and has a good job...he's just an incredible ass to them mentally and emotionally. I did not adopt children from Africa or anything.

My wife and I have talked about having another child...one between us as I don't have any biological kids of my own and she wants another one. We might even do it someday. However...I won't sit here and tell you or anybody else that it isn't selfish to do so. It would be. In fact...it's immensely selfish when you consider how many kids need safe homes, loving families, etc. Clearly the more enlightened path would be to adopt one that is already out there.

However, my wife was adopted and she is (ironically) staunchly against the practice. She states that her entire life she felt like she never, ever, fit in with anyone in her entire family and was always ACCUTELY aware that there was no family resemblance. Her "brothers" always resented her and to this day do not consider her a "real part of the family" even after she basically raised her younger brother single-handedly at 12 years old while her mother went back to college...90 miles away. (They grew up on a farm) My wife acknowledges that living in an orphanage would also most likely been MORE terrible...but she feels as though she could never forgive herself if we adopted and our child grew up feeling like they didn't quite belong with us.

I can understand that. Is it selfish...you bet. But at least I will NEVER, EVER, EVER, try to justify MY selfish actions with a bunch of "morality" and "principles" nonsense that only seem to apply when it benefits me. All of us are somewhat selfish, with the exception of the very rare individuals who are Saints, Buddhas, Guru's, and Swami's.

I am no Saint and I don't pretend to be one...however I WILL at least treat others as I like to be treated. That's just being a human being and really isn't deserving of any special trophies or accolades.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

That is a long post.

I'll have to get back to you. There was a lot of things wrong with the 50s/60s.

ONE is - - the government said Jump! And you said: "How High".

Another is the woman was blamed for any indiscretion (unless you lived where local law and a shotgun did justice). Men today say if a woman gets pregnant - - he should have say in if she aborts. I respond - - as woman have been told for centuries (at least). "You picked the wrong man - its your fault".

Isn't it mindblowing that the Civil Rights Act wasn't signed until 1964 - - the year I graduated high school. Fair Housing in 1968. The Disability Act 1990.

Oh...absolutely. There was A LOT wrong in the '50's and 60's. In fact the only people who DIDN'T feel there was anything wrong was White Anglo-Saxon Males... mostly of the Protestant variety at that. Don't get me wrong...I'm not one of those people whose concept of "Heaven" looks just like 1957 or whatever. Far from it.

Personally and sadly, I think the ONLY reason that the civil rights movement occurred is because of the advent and dissemination of modern media. It's one thing for someone to read a newspaper article about how whites descended from a long line of slave-owners were treating blacks in the South unfairly. It's quite another to SEE IT on TV and printed in nice high-quality B&W photos in Time & Life magazine.

My undergrad is in history. One of the things I find most interesting about the Antebellum South is the treatment of slaves based upon their geographical location. All slave had it bad (of course...no excuse for slavery)...however the one thing you DID NOT WANT TO BE was "sold to Georgia" if you were a slave. Mothers used to actually use it as a "boogeyman" sort of threat to get kids to behave. The reason was that Georgia was by FAR the most rural of Southern states (save for the western territories which were not very inhabited of course). Slaves in the cities USUALLY had it better overall because there was a bit of a social stigma against treating your slaves badly, not clothing them somewhat decently, feeding them properly, etc. This usually had nothing to do with concern for the slaves...but rather it was another way to display wealth to society and socialites. The slave owner whose SLAVES wore silk MUST BE FILTHY RICH, right? That sort of thing. In other words...the public eye improved conditions for slaves via a combination of embarrassment and ego. But in Georgia...the next plantation over was 10 miles away and they treat their cattle better too...there was no "motivation" to treat them better save for human decency...which was pretty hard to come by at the time.

I don't think it's an accident that the vote came to women with the advent of radio and the civil rights movement occurred right along with the spread of TV's and glossy magazine print.

And in 2012 - - - people still think they have rights to legislate a woman's body.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

.

Indeed. I love what all those congresswomen are doing re: proposing legislation to regulate the male body. It's hilarious. My personal favorite is Oklahoma State Senator Constance Johnson who is pushing to declare that (and I quote) "...the unborn child at every stage of development (has) all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state. However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child."

Why not, right? By the logic of the whole "all life deserves a chance" crowd I have deprived entire CIVILIZATIONS of their "chance at life" on a daily basis from the ages of 13-17. Millions and millions of potential little bundles of joy wound up going down the drain of the shower and balled up in a truly abnormal increased usage of Kleenex. LOL.

Hell...who am I kidding...this trend still continues every now and then... and I'm 33 yrs old and happily married with a very healthy and active sex life.

I can't wait to see these right-wingers either try to explain how rubbing one out is "different" or conversely explaining to their constituents what a danger "self-abuse" is to our moral fabric or whatever. It will be quite a spectacle.

I don't agree with women using it as a form of birth control, however, I don't agree with a lot of things that I have no control over. I believe it is a woman's right to make the choice for herself. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is HER choice, and SHE has to live with it.

Originally posted by SteffieJo
I don't agree with women using it as a form of birth control, however, I don't agree with a lot of things that I have no control over. I believe it is a woman's right to make the choice for herself. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is HER choice, and SHE has to live with it.

Yes absolutely! I'm always Right of Choice.

But - I was totally against abortion for me - - until I was faced with that decision. Yes I live with it - - but I would do it again under the same circumstance. I would have been really pissed - if I didn't have that choice.

I had 2 LIVING CHILDREN. I was going through a divorce. I had been a stay at home mom with no career or work history. Try getting a job when you have no work history. I made this unselfish decision for the welfare of my 2 LIVING CHILDREN.

reply to post by milominderbinder


I don't think you know what you are talking about. What I am describing already exists, and works it is just not widespread yet (it will be in the future). Also your analogy doesn't really work outside of a mere resemblance. I think you need to think again before posting that something is idiotic.

I was actually describing something that does already exist which makes it ironic that you called it idiotic.

Originally posted by DelMar

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by mamabeth

 

Its really a fallacy that illegals don't contribute to the system.

They come here for jobs and education. If they have jobs they are paying taxes.

You staying home are not paying taxes.

Wait a sec, totally different topic but I couldn't let that slip by without commenting. A blanket statement saying "If they have jobs, they are paying taxes" is flat out false. I think you know better but didn't feel it necessary to drag the point out.

Also, if I never "worked" again, I'm still paying taxes. Property tax, gas tax, sales tax, just to name a few. If I cared to look it up, I could probably find dozens more.

Finally found you.

What do you base your opinion on?

I was working for a meat processing plant back when they had the last Amnesty (was that 1986?).

About 99% of those I had been working with were illegal with forged papers. They had regular jobs - - owned their own home - - owned their cars - - etc. Exactly as you pointed out in how you pay taxes.

Unless you want me to go with the Stereotype.

There is a cultural difference. But that has nothing to do with being legal or illegal. Mexicans (and others) were on this land long before White Man. Physical appearance does not tell you who is legal and who is illegal - - or who has been here for generations.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

I don't think you know what you are talking about. What I am describing already exists, and works it is just not widespread yet (it will be in the future). Also your analogy doesn't really work outside of a mere resemblance. I think you need to think again before posting that something is idiotic.

I was actually describing something that does already exist which makes it ironic that you called it idiotic.

Are you familiar at all with how insurance works? Even a little bit? The fundamental principles upon which it is based is diversification of risks and interests.

You pay your insurance premium. This is then pooled together into various forms of highly diversified investments. Lots of mutual funds and annuities of course, but also forex, commodities, real estate, venture capital, intellectual property, all sorts of bonds, loans, and mortgages, derivatives (sadly), and even throwing down on a horse or two every once in awhile if Guido gives them a good tip.

The insurance company is counting on superior rates of return they can produce by having more market clout (i.e. POOLED MONEY) which simply allows them to "buy up", attract, or gain better service from a dizzying array of traders and brokers making thousands, or tens of thousands of trades, swaps, calls, and puts each day. The real big boys will perform thousands of transactions every HOUR. This is how an insurance company can pull 17% ROI on their investments when all the peasants are lucky to get 1-3% as we have seen in recent years.

If an insurance company allowed people to self-direct their premiums...they wouldn't ever be able to pool the money. Each person's premiums would have to go into individualized accounts to make sure that my hard earned money that I want to fund free abortions to any woman who wants one, doesn't inadvertently be misdirected to keeping Republican Baby Boomers alive or providing anesthesia for them. I could never, ever, live with myself if I knew that MY money was helping Dick Cheney draw another breath or allowing him to be sedated the next time they crack his chest open.

Thus...if an insurance company ACTUALLY kept everybody's money separate, it is BY DEFINITION NOT AN INSURANCE COMPANY. IT'S SIMPLY A PERSONAL INVESTMENT BROKERAGE. Likewise...your account with them isn't called a "policy"...it's called a "HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT" OR "TAX DEFERRED HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT".

reply to post by milominderbinder


You said a lot, but it meant nothing because I never suggested keeping everyone's money separate. You can make different groupings for things that people would sensibly opt out of. People who will never have/are morally opposed to abortion wouldn't pay that premium, people that might in the future would. People that would never have certain elective or cosmetic surgeries that can be covered could do the same.

Most of your post was just psychobabble because you rambled forever about some imaginary point, obviously you didn't understand what I was saying.

Insurance has always been a scam anyways. Most of the deal they get from healthcare is simply because they pay in lump sum. Any single person can go to a hospital and try to lower their bill by offering to pay the full bill. Every try it?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

You said a lot, but it meant nothing because I never suggested keeping everyone's money separate. You can make different groupings for things that people would sensibly opt out of. People who will never have/are morally opposed to abortion wouldn't pay that premium, people that might in the future would. People that would never have certain elective or cosmetic surgeries that can be covered could do the same.

Most of your post was just psychobabble because you rambled forever about some imaginary point, obviously you didn't understand what I was saying.

Insurance has always been a scam anyways. Most of the deal they get from healthcare is simply because they pay in lump sum. Any single person can go to a hospital and try to lower their bill by offering to pay the full bill. Every try it?

edit on 18-3-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry. It's not "psychobabble" since it has nothing to do with psychology. I simply explained how the insurance system works and what insurance is, since you apparently still do not know.

Is insurance a scam? You bet.

Is it possible to separate out to any degree...big or small...how your premiums are invested? NO. It is absolutely, categorically, not possible...in this world...or "The Future World" of which you seem to have some kind of firsthand knowledge (?).

The root of the logical fallacy is contained in your idea of only separating out premiums for "sensible" moral objections. A strict Christian Scientist would find ALL surgeries, elective or otherwise, to be immoral. My morality dictates that your objection to funding free, government paid for abortions to any woman who wants one is immoral because any "sensible" person would never object to funding free abortions for others.

You see how that works? It starts out as "separating" things out on three or four "sensible" issues. But since everybody has wildly differing ideas of what constitutes "sensible" it winds up being such a fractured system that pooling money together is all but impossible. And if even if it IS possible...the insurance company loses all of the clout and advantage they once had in procuring a high ROI by pooling this money.

IT'S THE SAME REASON YOU DON'T GET TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL TRADES IN A MUTAL FUND!!! You pull money in and out...but you can't get on the horn and tell Janus that you don't want any of your money being invested in XYZ company today.

Mutual funds MARKET themselves based upon an IDEA or a TENDENCY to invest in certain sectors (technology, Asian emerging markets, energy, blue chips, etc)...but there is NO RULE, REGULATION, OR LAW that prevents them from snapping up a good deal if they see it. If you put a bunch of money into a mutual fund heavy in fossil fuels and six months from now the discovery of dirt-cheap, home-based, cold-fusion technology was announced you can bet your ass your money isn't going to be staying in coal, oil, and natural gas.

It's not an opinion...it's how things work.

Could it be changed in "The Future World"? Most assuredly. However, we will no longer be calling it "insurance" our financial district might be on Zoltan 12 in the Andromeda Sector of the InterGalactic Federation, instead if in Manhattan. Assuming we do not lose the war with the Thrax in 3152, of course.

So...in sticking to the point. As of today or anytime in the foreseeable future...the idea of self-directing where your insurance premiums go based upon your moral convictions is absolutely idiotic, given that it defeats the entire point and purpose of insurance in the first place.

Originally posted by Under Water
As of yesterday this is now law? www.onenewsnow.com...

I am pro life. I have looked at the evidence, I have paid close attention to my own body while I was pregnant. I have come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, and I see it as murder. I realize not everyone shares my views, and that is fine. But I refuse to support abortion because I believe it is murder.

BIG-TIME Star and Flag for bringing this to the attention of ATS, Ms. "Under Water"! I've been making the rounds of every forum I can find on the net to inform the public of this $1.00 Abortion-Pool Health Insurance Premium Surcharge since Sebelius "sneaked" it into the final insurance Exchange ruling on 3/12/2012...

Thankfully, I see that you also placed it in the ATS Political Madness forum, because that's EXACTLY what HHS's Kathleen Sebelius is morphing this Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) into... Insane MADNESS. Since I'm a health Benefits Advisor by profession, I follow this subject very closely.

Because the Affordable Care Act is nothing but a framework, she has wide latitude in formulating regulations. In effect, she's making it up as she goes. This $1.00 Premium Surcharge to fund an Abortion Pool is just one of many pet-projects that she directs HHS to include in the final ObamaCare regulations as they're finalized.

Since the only way to get a Federal Subsidy to help you pay your (more costly) insurance premiums starting on January 1, 2014 is to buy a policy sold via an "Exchange", the vast majority of people and businesses will dump their present coverage and purchase an Exchange policy. By accepting the government subsidy, you'll be on the hook for a lot of things you never bargained for, or will every know about. This $1.00 per month abortion pool surcharge is just one of those items.

I wonder what a Pastor (for instance) will choose to do when he's given the choice of paying $700.00 per month for insurance on his own, or accepting $500.00 per month from Uncle Sam to help him pay the $700 monthly premium? Will he "look the other way" and forget his morals as they relate to this added $1.00 surcharge? Or, will he keep his moral fortitude and pay the $700 monthly premium without any government help? I suppose the same question can be applied to any person in this country who claims to be "Religious" and/or Pro-Life. It will be interesting to see how many devout believers throw their religious beliefs under-the-bus just to get monthly premium assistance from Uncle Sam, on January 1, 2014!
-CWM

Do you think the HHS press release from last Friday

might affect this $1 surcharge ?

Or, will they "worm it in" nu-noticed ?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by carewemust

Originally posted by Under Water
As of yesterday this is now law? www.onenewsnow.com...

I am pro life. I have looked at the evidence, I have paid close attention to my own body while I was pregnant. I have come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, and I see it as murder. I realize not everyone shares my views, and that is fine. But I refuse to support abortion because I believe it is murder.

BIG-TIME Star and Flag for bringing this to the attention of ATS, Ms. "Under Water"! I've been making the rounds of every forum I can find on the net to inform the public of this $1.00 Abortion-Pool Health Insurance Premium Surcharge since Sebelius "sneaked" it into the final insurance Exchange ruling on 3/12/2012...

Thankfully, I see that you also placed it in the ATS Political Madness forum, because that's EXACTLY what HHS's Kathleen Sebelius is morphing this Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) into... Insane MADNESS. Since I'm a health Benefits Advisor by profession, I follow this subject very closely.

Because the Affordable Care Act is nothing but a framework, she has wide latitude in formulating regulations. In effect, she's making it up as she goes. This $1.00 Premium Surcharge to fund an Abortion Pool is just one of many pet-projects that she directs HHS to include in the final ObamaCare regulations as they're finalized.

Since the only way to get a Federal Subsidy to help you pay your (more costly) insurance premiums starting on January 1, 2014 is to buy a policy sold via an "Exchange", the vast majority of people and businesses will dump their present coverage and purchase an Exchange policy. By accepting the government subsidy, you'll be on the hook for a lot of things you never bargained for, or will every know about. This $1.00 per month abortion pool surcharge is just one of those items.

I wonder what a Pastor (for instance) will choose to do when he's given the choice of paying $700.00 per month for insurance on his own, or accepting $500.00 per month from Uncle Sam to help him pay the $700 monthly premium? Will he "look the other way" and forget his morals as they relate to this added $1.00 surcharge? Or, will he keep his moral fortitude and pay the $700 monthly premium without any government help? I suppose the same question can be applied to any person in this country who claims to be "Religious" and/or Pro-Life. It will be interesting to see how many devout believers throw their religious beliefs under-the-bus just to get monthly premium assistance from Uncle Sam, on January 1, 2014!
-CWM

edit on 18-3-2012 by carewemust because: correct a sentence

Again...

WHY IS THIS SILLY ISSUE ABOUT ABORTION AND RELIGION SOMEHOW MAKE PEOPLE FEEL THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SUDDENLY DIRECT WHERE THEIR PREMIUMS GO?

Does a Christian Scientist get to "decline" paying medicare taxes? They don't "believe" in doctors at all. Note: If the answer is "yes" I predict that the Christian Scientists are going to experience a sudden spike in popularity of 180,000% in the next couple of months so people can avoid Medicare taxes.

I know a lot of people think "abortion is murder"...however I personally feel that "murder is murder" and thus don't want to pay any taxes whatsoever because I think soldiers and police should purchase their own bullets, fighter jets, police cruisers, tasers, pepper spray, etc. I'm "totally against" these freeloading welfare queens using MY TAX dollars to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people...such as all those people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have done nothing except happen to be in the way of an American bomb and the countless citizens who the police "subdue" with electro-shock torture without being charged or having a trial that have a heart attack and die.

Do I get to not pay any taxes at all anymore because of my "beliefs"? The answer is a resounding "no". I hate to break it to you people...but IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!!!

If you don't like the policy, feel free to express that position, vote against it, etc. However, remember it's a two-way street. If you guys "win" the right to dictate which medical procedures can be funded in what manner with your insurance premiums, don't come whining to me when my "beliefs" dictate that my money not go towards the approximately $50 billion dollars per year worth of government handouts that religious institutions receive for their "faith-based" programs.

You will be the first one whining about "The War on Jesus".

I am sorry. Your "beliefs" and "convictions" do not give you a special pass to selectively be a member of society unless it goes both ways.