Our Country's Voters Are Stupid

[Apotheoun]

Posted in wrong thread.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1352471437' post='2507146']
I can 100% guarentee you that the insurance premium is more to cover the both of you and have the new Government mandated terms and limits. If he isn't paying the additional premium, then the Company is paying for it and is taking the money out of other benefits, hiring new people, not upgrading machinery, or somewhere else. The additional money just doesn't come out of profit and everything else stays the same.
[/quote]

I agree. The money has to come from somewhere. Insurance premiums are based on claim and loss experience. If a group has higher claims, the rates go up. Now, the soundbite is that Obamacare is mandating that insurance companies spend X percentage of their revenue on actual claims and that will result in refunds. It may in the short term. But what happens when the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions and the removal of lifetime caps go into effect? Insurance premiums will either have to go up due to increased claim experience or insurance companies may decide to exit the underage individual insurance market in some states or completely (think of what happened in the 1990s as a result of some states barring blood tests to screen out HIV cases in the underwriting process). And there will be increased claim experience; one of the lessons I learned early at work was when my late boss told me that when you waive pre-existing conditions, you essentially "buy a claim". The only thing that may mitigate that effect might be the influx of younger healthier people into the pool due to the individual mandate to buy coverage.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1352555094' post='2507691']
It is sad how they keep rolling it back. Mt kids are done so I don't know the exact current status. Do you owe for tuition, or for books, fees, and living expenses? It never paid for living expenses or books.
[/quote]
Bright futures now (for my class, c/o 2010) only pays for something like $120 per credit hour per semester (and that's with the "100%" award) up to 15 hours a semester, while cost per hour is somewhere around $170/hour here (and I've taken more than 15 hours every semester, the excess of which are full price...luckily I have parents who have means enough to afford me the difference). As I understand it, the kids who will graduate high school in or after 2015 or so will have no Bright Futures assistance, as the program will be completely bust by then.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1352584668' post='2507873']
Bright futures now [b](for my class, c/o 2010)[/b] only pays for something like $120 per credit hour per semester (and that's with the "100%" award) up to 15 hours a semester, while cost per hour is somewhere around $170/hour here (and I've taken more than 15 hours every semester, the excess of which are full price...luckily I have parents who have means enough to afford me the difference). As I understand it, the kids who will graduate high school in or after 2015 or so will have no Bright Futures assistance, as the program will be completely bust by then.
[/quote]

I had no idea you are so young!! I really thought you were a middle aged man. I need to read profiles more.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1352588235' post='2507886']

I had no idea you are so young!! I really thought you were a middle aged man. I need to read profiles more.
[/quote]
He is; it just took him a bit longer than usual to finish high school.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352588303' post='2507888']
He is; it just took him a bit longer than usual to finish high school.
[/quote]
I have attended public schools in the South for my whole life...

[Winchester]

Explains so much.

[StMichael]

Never is a long time.

Firstly, if the country was returned to a Constitutional platform, Roe V Wade would be abolished as it is unconstitutional. Its decision was based on a newly minted, from the bench "right to privacy." If you look at the constitution, there is no right to privacy and therefore the house of cards fall apart on this, from the Federal level. Now of course you will argue that yes, I have a right to privacy, even though such a thing is nonexistent in the constitution, but aren't crimes committed in private? Evil acts are done in private. If there was such a right, then it would cover things you could not imagine.

Where did this "right to privacy" originate? You guessed it. Planned Parenthood in 1961 brought a case in CT. This is what we know as the condom case as CT banned the sale of all contraceptives. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court, but one of the judges, in dissent, established wording that was then utilized by the ACLU in a 1965 challenge. It was from this case Griswold v. Connecticut, that the wording right to privacy was established for use of contraception sales in CT. If you look into the case, you will see that the FDR appointed judge went off the rails.

Fast forward to 1973 and you have an unconstitutional law, that was heard to decided whether Texas' abortion ban was Constitutional, instead, the outcome, based on policy, not Constitutional law, was applied to all 50 states.

Roe, hangs in the balance, in that the 14th Amendment would undo it, if invoked. We can be fined or imprisoned for destroying endangered wildlife or even wetlands, and these laws have been ruled constitutional. Therefore, what we know now about the unborn, via cold science would give protection to the unborn. We see today if someone kills a pregnant woman, that person is charged with the murder of 2 people. More recently, the Fort hood terrorist, who shot and killed a pregnant woman is being held accountable for the death of that unborn.

Now, this is not to say that abortion would be unavailable on a state by state basis. If the people of a particular state chose they want it available, depending on the courts description of personhood, then that state would decide for itself. But as it stands today, the states, which gave the federal government power, is now made powerless by this unconstitutional decision. Planned Parenthood is allowed to function on a national level with funding from the federal government, which they get that money from people who want it and many who don't. I would imagine you wouldn't want your money, going to say subsidizing issues you are against.

So, never is hard to sit on, but time are exactly as they were when Woodrow Wilson was President and Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood back in the teens. Heck this has been going on for 100+ years. Learn your history and you will see that we are exactly where we were long before we here were all born.

Here is a video you might enjoy and see how different you are and the times are...

http://youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQ


[quote name='zabbazooey' timestamp='1352339790' post='2506272']
The US will never have a pro-life, 100% bonafide, overturn-Roe-v-Wade president. Ever. Sorry guys. Just the way times are changing!
[/quote]

[StMichael]

Additionally, a President, regardless of party can't overturn this as the power to do so rests in the other 2 branches. The house could introduce a bill, but unless it was written where the Court ruling can't reach, would end up in front of the court and depending if Justice Roberts were to again show his anti-Consitutional side, would allow Roe to prevail. The other pathway is that a case is raised and the Court sides with the Constitution which would wipe Roe off the books.

So, regardless of who is President, they are simply bystanders in the latter, and a rubber stamper in the former.

Edited November 11, 2012 by StMichael

[Winchester]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1352671261' post='2508215']
Never is a long time.

Firstly, if the country was returned to a Constitutional platform, Roe V Wade would be abolished as it is unconstitutional. Its decision was based on a newly minted, from the bench "right to privacy." If you look at the constitution, there is no right to privacy and therefore the house of cards fall apart on this, from the Federal level. Now of course you will argue that yes, I have a right to privacy, even though such a thing is nonexistent in the constitution, but aren't crimes committed in private? Evil acts are done in private. If there was such a right, then it would cover things you could not imagine.

[/quote]
The Bill of Rights did not enumerate our rights, it just addressed specifically a few things the Federal Government may not do. Not a good argument against Roe v. Wade. A more solid argument against RvW is that the Feds were never granted the power to decide to allow or disallow abortion. It's not an enumerated power.

[Jesus_lol]

No no no, Win, you must realize, if something isnt explicitly allowed in the constitution, then it both isnt allowed and doesnt exist.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1352682627' post='2508319']
No no no, Win, you must realize, if something isnt explicitly allowed in the constitution, then it both isnt allowed and doesnt exist.
[/quote]
This is the most common argument against spawnkills.

[4588686]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1352671261' post='2508215']

Where did this "right to privacy" originate? You guessed it. Planned Parenthood in 1961 brought a case in CT.
[/quote]


As is your habit, you are incorrect.

[StMichael]

Well Hasan, with such a convincing argument made on your behalf, it appears that simply stating it is incorrect is enough.

Thanks for the enlightenment you always provide.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1352701064' post='2508511']


As is your habit, you are incorrect.
[/quote]