Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The tax code gives you a tremendous amount of power over an employees health care. Even if you gave them a cash-equivalent, they could not buy the same amount of coverage since for them buying insurance is not tax deductible. As a result, any items that you refuse to cover constitute a pay cut for them. Which makes the "conscience carve-out" exactly the same as if you told an employee that you'd cut their pay if they ever bought a condom.

I don't care if the employee's buy condoms with their wages and I didn't care that the company HC plan covered birth control pills. I don't have an issue with people having sex or women using birth control. Literally speaking, I'm quite liberal. BTW, a tax deduction is an expense. If I can simply remove that expense or shift it then I'd come out roughly 75% ahead. In other words, I would actually be ahead by eliminating the total expense of HC and paying the taxes on the revenue.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

No, the mandate assumes that when the government has tilted the playing field toward certain people, that it is appropriate to prevent those who benefit from abusing that power.

No, the mandate assumes that the government has the power. The mandate itself would not exist without that assumption already being in place.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I don't care if the employee's buy condoms with their wages and I didn't care that the company HC plan covered birth control pills. I don't have an issue with people having sex or women using birth control. Literally speaking, I'm quite liberal.



No, the mandate assumes that the government has the power. The mandate itself would not exist without that assumption already being in place.

Right. I do not, Either. The problem is thinking this is the government's power.

Still serves the catholic church right. Now they get it.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The tax code gives you a tremendous amount of power over an employees health care...

One more reason to nail these pigs.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

... No, the mandate assumes that the government has the power. The mandate itself would not exist without that assumption already being in place.

It needs to be there.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yep. There's no point even debating them. Their views are based on fantasy, and therefore illegitimate. They should lose the right to vote on the basis of cognitive impairment. They're sub-human. At some point we may have to round them all up into camps.

Of course, the ideology of the left bears no resemblence to religion. It's all based on reason, science and fact. Therefore all other views should simply be outlawed.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Mmmm... what delicious irony. "Help, I'm being repressed!!!!1!"

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-No, it's the employer's money, because it's part of a package to which both employer and employee have to agree. The employee agrees to work for an employer in return for the compensation package which the employer offers (and pays for). Sheesh.

Wages are also "part of a package to which both employer and employee have to agree." So therefore, wages are also "the employer's money" (and subject to their say on how it is spent)? No, they are the employee's money, earned in exchange for the work and services they perform for their employer. This really isn't rocket science.

-No, that's "direct." "Indirect" would be when they pay the employee, and the employee uses that money top buy condoms or what have you. It would be the same thing if I pay you as my employee, and then you use it to pay dues to the KKK or whatever. My moral responsibility only goes so far.

How is it "direct"? Seriously, it is a health plan with a huge array of services that are optional to the employee. Contraception is just one of many of those. It is still the employee's decision whether or not to use the plan to get contraception, just as it is the employee's decision to use some of his wages to buy whatever he will. If he gets contraception with either his health plan or his wages--since it is not mandatory that he do either--it is the employee's decision and "sin", not the employer's, since the employer has no control of how the employee uses his compensation. So no, the gummint isn't forcing employers to commit sin and "violate their conscience"--that's just another bunch of crying and drama designed to rile people up against the evil democrats who will put opposition into camps, as JPT so passively-aggressively put it.

Besides, as I said, the policy was changed, and now the insurance companies are mandated to provide the coverage free of charge. So this isn't even an issue anymore.

And of course, the fungibility of money adds another layer of assininity to these arguments....

And you know, I might actually agree with you that contraception might be cheap enough in most cases--as a single guy, all *I* know the cost of are condoms, which are less effective than many other means of contraception. But supposedly "the pill" is hard to get (suppliers few and far between) in some areas of the country. But again, whether an employee obtains it through the part of his compensation that is wages, or the part of his compensation that is medical insurance, the employer bears no responsibility for that since that spending decision is the employee's (just because contraception is on the plan doesn't mean the employee will get it). So, tomato, tomahto, and much drama about nothing... but what else is new in our politics?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

If someone doesn't want to pay for it at all, or would rather use the money to get a benfit which isn't "standard," they should be able to.

Great idea. Maybe we shouldn't have a tax system where employers can buy insurance cheaper than employees can. Then people would be able to buy the precise coverage they want, without penalty. But since we don't have that system . . .

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) If, as you say, birth control is so cheap, then it is little burden for those who want it to pay for it.

It is not particularly cheap, but it is cheaper than abortion or pregnancy.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

OTOH, if it is expensive, then it might be worth their while to find an employer more in line with their needs, don't you think? . . . If you honestly can't tell the difference between getting a job under free market terms vs. serfdom, you need help.

There are so many problems with this, that I'll have to make a list:

1) Finding a new employer is a significant cost for an employee, particularly in labor markets where job supply is restricted (like, say, health care). Covering something that is typically covered is cost-free for an employer -- other than psychic costs due to "moral" objections.

2) Employers in general have control over health care due to our tax system. We didn't create this tax incentive so that employers could control their employee's off-the-clock lifestyles -- it was created to encourage wider availability of health care. Letting employer's abuse their position, runs counter to the stated purpose of the tax deduction for health insurance.

3) While an employee could switch jobs, you are advocating a world where their next employer could also pick and choose what is covered -- and do so retroactively.

4) In the specific case of employees in Catholic hospitals, many currently have contraception coverage. Should their employer be able to take it away, without cause? Normally pay cuts are done for reasons of cost or poor performance of the employee, not because the employer wants to control how the employee spends their compensation.

5) Also, in the specific case of the Catholic hospitals, these are institutions which receive substantial tax money to serve the general public. They either need to provide all forms of health care, or give the money back. If they want to be so "moral" they need to not be on the dole.

6) Actual competitive markets in labor are hard to come by in our society. Few, if any, labor markets in this country are completely free, and many are highly constrained (primarily due to small numbers of firms that hire in a particular industry). Also, subsidizing employer-provided health care grants tremendous bargaining power to employers. So, technically, in that respect no labor market is this country is truly free.

7) For someone who doesn't like serfdom, and does like markets, you seem really eager to live in a world where employers micromanage the lives of their employees.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-No, it's the employer's money, because it's part of a package to which both employer and employee have to agree. The employee agrees to work for an employer in return for the compensation package which the employer offers (and pays for). Sheesh.

So are their wages! Why is this argument so hard for you to understand? Both wages and benefits are compensation for labor provided to the employer. If it's OK for employers to control what you spend your benefits on, then the same is true for wages. So, I have to ask, is it OK for an employer to dictate how an employee can spend their wages? If yes, when precisely do those wages actually become the employee's property?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I don't care if the employee's buy condoms with their wages and I didn't care that the company HC plan covered birth control pills. I don't have an issue with people having sex or women using birth control. Literally speaking, I'm quite liberal. BTW, a tax deduction is an expense. If I can simply remove that expense or shift it then I'd come out roughly 75% ahead. In other words, I would actually be ahead by eliminating the total expense of HC and paying the taxes on the revenue.

Huh? If you did remove that expense, you would be substantially reducing the total compensation of your employees. You would lose a lot of good workers, and have difficulty hiring new ones. The total compensation paid represents the cost of getting the labor you need. All I'm saying is that if you paid them enough wages for them to purchase equivalent health care coverage on top of their current wages (i.e. getting the same value) it would cost you more money than providing insurance does. That's why nearly all employers who pay more than a few bucks over minimum wage provide health insurance in this country. It's cheaper than the alternative.

But that means that employees usually cannot find an employer who pays more wages, and offers no health care. And it's even rarer to find an employer that does that and offers an amount of additional wages sufficient to compensate for the missing benefits.

If the cost of health care coverage was the same for everyone and employees could take a cash-equivalent instead of coverage, then I don't really care if employers want to offer restricted coverage. It's only because the playing field isn't level, that adjustments must be made.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Right. I do not, Either. The problem is thinking this is the government's power.

Still serves the catholic church right. Now they get it.

Do they? I don't see them giving back the billions of dollars of public money they receive. No, they want to take public money and restrict what the public gets.

But hold on a sec. Do you agree that the employer tax cut tilts the playing field? If so, we can agree that this policy should change. However, in the meantime why should we allow employers to abuse the power granted to them by the state? Why would you prioritize leaving employees to the mercy of their employers rather than taking away the subsidy? Why are you evaluating the contraception mandate in complete isolation from the actual context in which it is being implemented?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Interesting. Depending on how you judge it, job growth recovered in MAR 2009, long before anything the Obama administration did could posibly have had effect. But then, in 2010, after he'd been in charge for over a year, jobs slumped. Now, its all rather pekid- far weaker than in previous recoveries. Huh. Go figure.

The spike in jobs in Spring 2009 had to do with the United States Census, namely temporary jobs to collect data. The drop in jobs in Summer 2009 was the ending of these temporary jobs. Just an FYI.

I have watched and taught that movie many times because it's the best movie ever about Xer childhoods, and Rani, I have no idea what you are talking about. In fact I suspect you are confusing it with some other movie. I'm pretty certain there's no pun on assume in Bad News Bears.

Corporations are chartered by governments for specific purposes. That certainly gives governments the power to limit what they can and cannot do, and thus, for a century we recognized government power to limit their influence on the political process. But the conservative Boomers on the Supreme Court are of course smarter than their Progressive, Missionary, Lost, GI and Silent predecessors, so they threw them out.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Huh? If you did remove that expense, you would be substantially reducing the total compensation of your employees. You would lose a lot of good workers, and have difficulty hiring new ones. The total compensation paid represents the cost of getting the labor you need. All I'm saying is that if you paid them enough wages for them to purchase equivalent health care coverage on top of their current wages (i.e. getting the same value) it would cost you more money than providing insurance does. That's why nearly all employers who pay more than a few bucks over minimum wage provide health insurance in this country. It's cheaper than the alternative.

But that means that employees usually cannot find an employer who pays more wages, and offers no health care. And it's even rarer to find an employer that does that and offers an amount of additional wages sufficient to compensate for the missing benefits.

If the cost of health care coverage was the same for everyone and employees could take a cash-equivalent instead of coverage, then I don't really care if employers want to offer restricted coverage. It's only because the playing field isn't level, that adjustments must be made.

You're in the young and healthy group who currently pays/costs the least. I'm in the kinda old but not so feable group who currently pays/costs twice as much as you. Now, equaling the playing field as you mentioned would actually shift a portion of that higher expense from me to you unless you're dirt poor or a deadbeat or a slacker of some sort. If you happen to be any one of them then your cost will shift to me and the workers.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Interesting. Depending on how you judge it, job growth recovered in MAR 2009, long before anything the Obama administration did could posibly have had effect. But then, in 2010, after he'd been in charge for over a year, jobs slumped. Now, its all rather pekid- far weaker than in previous recoveries. Huh. Go figure.

Did PW give us this chart to make Obama look good?

Yea, keep grasping at straws. Too funny.

Any one comparing our Great Recession to any other economic contraction since the Great Depression is truly showing their complete and utter ignorance of what is going on.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Notice that PW NEVER actually takes us to what the SS Ponzi Scheme actuaries have to say:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2011/tr2011.pdf

That completely ignores a very long thread on SS where I schooled you for over a year... and you still don't get it.

Within the paradigm of the Trustees (and nearly everyone else), they are assuming wage growth that means, even after their projected 22% cut to scheduled benefits in 20 years from now, those retirees will be getting 125% of what today's retirees' get, and in constant dollars. We've been over that a lot and you know it.

How is it that you poo-pooh the lack of real wage growth over the last 30 years and then base your entire argument that the SS is going to cause the world to end on a model/projection that is based on the assumption that wage growth will occur? Do you guys every feel hypocritical or are you just too dumb to know when your swimming in it?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

As for this:

...PW misses out on the fact that the pyramid had a narrow apex of people born in the 1930s, followed by a wide bulge of people at the bottom who were born 1946-1964 propping it up. Now, it's the other way around. The difference in the Euro welfare states, like Germany, is even more extreme. Tick tock!

Those are discussions for people who believe in magic ponies and that federal taxes actually pay for federal spending. I believe in neither. The ignorance of those that do basically just bores me at this point.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I am sort of shocked that you have "taught" this movie (whatever that means) but somehow managed to miss the most memorable line. It was featured heavily in the trailers.
I couldn't find the clip, but all you gotta do is hit google to find lots of stuff like this:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h427046xm401482r/
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/3890

Taught the movie means I've used it in my class at least ten times. Sorry, my friend, but I'm positive Walter Matthau never uses a clipboard or chalkboard in the movie and 99% certain that that line is not part of it. Perhaps you should try watching it yourself.

All legit polls starting to show Obama pulling away vis-a-vis all GOP contenders.

Likely not just the economy but women deciding they may not be too interested in living under the GOP mullahs

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-win-2012

An Effing Mess: Republicans Grow Pessimistic About Defeating Obama

Obama’s reelection bid is gaining momentum, and trapped in the debacle that is the Republican primary, GOP insiders are getting pessimistic about November.

For months GOP insiders have been expecting an Obama win, but their despair has reached a new low as reported by John Heilemann in New York Magazine, “A loss is what the GOP’s political class now expects. “Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama,’ ” says former Reagan strategist Ed Rollins. “Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a fucking mess.’ ”

How badly has the Republican Party f**ked this up?
.
.
.
What we are seeing is a political party moving towards total meltdown, or as Ed Rollins put it, “a fucking mess.” This is a party that is likely to have very little going for it come November. Whoever the nominee is will have to face a personally popular incumbent president with an improved economy to run on.

When all of the above factors are taken together, it is no surprise that Republicans are not optimistic about beating Obama and are already looking ahead to 2016. There is a lot of time until November, but Republican pessimism is on the rise in a big way concerning 2012.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Taught the movie means I've used it in my class at least ten times. Sorry, my friend, but I'm positive Walter Matthau never uses a clipboard or chalkboard in the movie and 99% certain that that line is not part of it. Perhaps you should try watching it yourself.

Funny thing is, I do recall a chalkboard scene. I remember it not ending well.

~Chas'88

I'll apologize in advance for not researching the entirety of what appears to be a discussion concerning "Assume" i/r/t The Bad News Bears.

A scene from The Odd Couple(Tony Randall as Felix Unger).

Maybe the "Ass-U-Me" is from TBNB, maybe from TOC, or maybe both.

Update: O.K. I found it. It was Mr. Manning played by Dolph Sweet from The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training.
(Note: The clip is in this trailer).


Prince

Originally Posted by The Rani

Thank you!
I didn't think that me and some other kids from the 70s all had the same hallucination.

I also think that Kaiser's own "assumption" illustrates the point beautifully.

Well, David is actually correct that the clip isn't from The Bad News Bears(Its occurance being from The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training).

Prince

PS: Personally, I like both movies for different reasons; Breaking Training is very under-rated, IMO.

O.K. Back to the political-"Blah, Blah Blah".

Originally Posted by The Rani

I had forgotten that there was a sequel. I saw one or the other and thought it was terrible, and I guess that was over 30 years ago now.
What I remember most was that TV commercial, which you just couldn't get away from the year the movie came out.
If it helps Kaiser get the bug out of his ass, I'll be glad to go back and add "in Breaking Training" to my original post. Though, again, I think the exchange proved the point more beautifully than I ever could have.

Two sequels. The second one involved them going to Japan.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

I had forgotten that there was a sequel. I saw one or the other and thought it was terrible, and I guess that was over 30 years ago now.
What I remember most was that TV commercial, which you just couldn't get away from the year the movie came out.
If it helps Kaiser get the bug out of his ass, I'll be glad to go back and add "in Breaking Training" to my original post. Though, again, I think the exchange proved the point more beautifully than I ever could have.

You know, I don't know many people who can take such unseemly pride in being wrong as you can. I was right, but I'm still the bad guy. Interesting. And regarding your reliance in "The Wisdom of the Internet," Matthau is not a "replacement coach" in The Bad News Bears, he's the one and only coach, and Matthau didn't appear in either of the sequels.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Originally Posted by JDG 66-Interesting. Depending on how you judge it, job growth recovered in MAR 2009, long before anything the Obama administration did could posibly have had effect. But then, in 2010, after he'd been in charge for over a year, jobs slumped. Now, its all rather pekid- far weaker than in previous recoveries. Huh. Go figure.

Did PW give us this chart to make Obama look good?

Yea, keep grasping at straws. Too funny.

To paraphrase Carville, et al in 1992, It was the Census, Stupid.

Back on topic. I posted about a week ago that I thought Santorum had a self-destructive side. Thank you, Mr. Santorum. Today he says he does not believe in the separation of church and state, said JFK's 1960 speech promising that his faith would not inform his decisions made him sick, and called Obama a snob for suggesting that everyone should go to college. I don't think he's going to be able to overtake Romney.

Best...

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Do they? I don't see them giving back the billions of dollars of public money they receive. No, they want to take public money and restrict what the public gets.

But hold on a sec. Do you agree that the employer tax cut tilts the playing field? If so, we can agree that this policy should change. However, in the meantime why should we allow employers to abuse the power granted to them by the state? Why would you prioritize leaving employees to the mercy of their employers rather than taking away the subsidy? Why are you evaluating the contraception mandate in complete isolation from the actual context in which it is being implemented?

From what I see of some of the other posts, you might be confusing employee benefits as business expenses with "tax cuts."

otoh, there are special tax cuts for hiring (welfare types for example), which I think are nonsense. I would rather see a flat tax, fwiw.

As for churches, my point is that they were pushing Obamacare. No they understand what it means to have the government in charge.

fwiw, I think religious organizations should be taxed like any business that provide a service.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

fwiw, I think religious organizations should be taxed like any business that provide a service.

Good for you! That would be an interesting calculaton ... how much "deficit" (Sorry, PW) would be fixed by a nice flat tax on all church revenues? That's MY kind of theocracy.