YUMMY!
- Thread starter REFLOG
- Start date
- Dec 28, 2014
- 143
- 7
- 0
funny how 4-5% off the population is controlling the media, too bad there is nothing else important happening in the world!
the minority has become the majority in the country
I also thought gay population was more like 9% :shrug:
Are you referring to all the Indiana shit and the religious freedom law or whatever it's called?
What do you think about it personally, not politically so to speak, but do you think it is necessary to pass such a law and so on?
Personally, I see no true benefit from this type legislation. If I'm a business owner I'm not going to turn anyone away just because they are straight or gay. I have priced my estimates or quotes for services higher at times to avoid being hired by a particular customer or person, but it was because I didn't get the feeling that I was a good fit for them. Sometimes you get a feeling about people and what they expect from your services. I do decorative concrete and though it can be a spectacular look, it's still concrete and some people expect far too much for far too little. You can never please them and you end up losing money.
Anyway, I'm curious add to your thoughts on this. I think it's a waste of taxpayers money to legislate this stuff. I don't know what the plan was as far as what this law would address or curb.
You too hedge. Not a set up, I assure you. I know you're not a fan of gay marriage and that's fine but I am curious as to your personal thoughts on this. Do you think we need to pass laws for this? Is it a problem for our nation or will it divide the nation, etc....
I agree:scared.
Total waste of time & money.
I think its about promotion.
As a customer, why would you want to do business with a supplier who does not want to do biz with you?
My thoughts as well. I see no benefit or need for the law. Thanks for the reply.
I totally agree with you FDC, you are spot on. It was a law that should not have been passed, waste of time in my opinion.
you are correct I am not a fan of gay marriage, but if I own a business that makes cakes or a flower shop and I get asked to do a job for a gay wedding, money is money...its not my job to worry about what they do in the bedroom
Yeah you are really clever you hateful fuck.
How many usernames on you going to have on this board? Holy fuck.
Yep..sure does
Its about the if's that may happen. I read more about it after it was passed and thought it was a stupid law
- Apr 10, 2014
- 1,769
- 29
- 0
there are approx 340 million people in the US
you think there is only 30 million gay and lesbians total
I think the number is closer to 90 Million counting the ones in the closet
and they will all vote for Hillary
:0008
WASHINGTON -- Be grateful, gays of America. Instead of being potentially denied services at your local restaurant, you could be living in Iran, where they execute gays.
That warm comparison comes from freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the defense hawk who set off a firestorm of criticism last month when he authored a letter to the leaders of Iran warning them that any deal struck over its nuclear program could be revoked by future U.S. presidents or members of Congress.
Appearing on CNN Wednesday evening, Cotton was asked to respond to controversial "religious freedom" measures in Arkansas and Indiana that critics are calling discriminatory toward gay Americans.
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think it?s important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities,? Cotton said.
?In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."
..............................................................................................
keep talkin Cottonmouth
Hillary for 8 long years
That warm comparison comes from freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the defense hawk who set off a firestorm of criticism last month when he authored a letter to the leaders of Iran warning them that any deal struck over its nuclear program could be revoked by future U.S. presidents or members of Congress.
Appearing on CNN Wednesday evening, Cotton was asked to respond to controversial "religious freedom" measures in Arkansas and Indiana that critics are calling discriminatory toward gay Americans.
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his first year in office. These laws are modeled on that and a lot of the concerns of discrimination haven't been borne to bear over the last 20 years. But I also think it?s important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities,? Cotton said.
?In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay," he added. "They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities that our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat it poses ... is the most important thing we could be focusing on right now."
..............................................................................................
keep talkin Cottonmouth
Hillary for 8 long years
As Obamacare continues to operate successfully, conservative elites have renewed their pleas for the party to develop an alternative beyond demanding the law?s repeal. The trouble is that anti-Obamacare dogma sits so deeply at the GOP?s core that any discussion of health care must pay fealty to their belief that the law has failed utterly. The Republican Party in the Obamacare era is a doomsday cult after the world failed to end. Its entire analysis of the issue is built upon a foundation of falsehoods.
Michael Tanner, a health-care analyst at the Cato Institute, has a column for National Review usefully summarizing the most current iteration of anti-Obamacare talking points. Most of Tanner?s piece is devoted to arguing for alternative proposals, but he begins with the ritual incantation of Obamacare doomsaying. Tanner does not argue that Obamacare is wrong because conservatives philosophically object to using taxation and regulation to transfer resources from the rich and healthy to the poor and sick. Instead he makes eight substantive claims about the law?s impact on health-care access. Every single one of them is overblown or demonstrably wrong.
Here?s Tanner?s litany of failure:
Millions of Americans were forced to change insurance plans, and others found themselves pushed into smaller networks with few choices of providers. Premiums rose. Businesses, laboring under the higher costs imposed by the law, have slowed growth; many have delayed hiring, or shifted workers from full- to part-time. The potential impact on the quality of care remains troubling.
Let?s take these claims in order.
1.?Millions of Americans were forced to change insurance plans.? The specter of mass dislocation was a major anti-Obamacare talking point at the end of 2013 and 2014. The new health-care regulations banned a lot of unpopular practices, like lifetime limits on how much an insurer would pay, or discriminating against preexisting conditions. So it is true that many people who held insurers in the old, barely regulated insurance market needed to find new plans. On the other hand, that market had enormous year-to-year churn anyway. The main way for insurers to make money was to exclude customers who were likely to get sick, so they threw people off their insurance all the time.
We now know that the new churn created by Obamacare was much smaller than conservatives insisted at the time. A recent study by the Urban Institute found that policy cancellations were not ?millions,? but under a million. As the authors explain:
These estimates suggest that policy cancellations caused by noncompliance with the ACA were uncommon in 2014 in both the nongroup and ESI markets, and the number and rate of cancellations in the nongroup market in 2014 was far smaller than in 2013. The nongroup market has historically been characterized by high volatility: an analysis of pre-ACA nongroup coverage patterns from 2008?11 shows that only 42 percent of nongroup enrollees retained their coverage after 12 months.
2. ? ... and others found themselves pushed into smaller networks with few choices of providers.? It is true that many people who enrolled in the new exchanges have insurance plans that limit their choice of doctors and hospitals, which is called ?narrow networks.? There is no evidence that Obamacare caused this. The law overwhelmingly covers people who had no insurance to begin with. You can?t be ?pushed? into a ?smaller? network when your previous network was nonexistent.
As Jonathan Cohn laid out in an excellent and balanced explainer on this issue, insurers have been using narrow networks to control costs for decades. ?That?s been the case for decades,? Larry Levitt told him, ?The only real connection to the Affordable Care Act is that the health reform law is making insurers compete for customers more aggressively.?
If narrow networks are spreading, it is because the Obamacare exchanges are bringing consumer choice into the system. Overwhelmingly, the customers enrolling in plans with narrow networks are not being ?pushed? so much as they are choosing them. As a McKinsey study from last year found, 90 percent of eligible customers have access to broader networks of doctors and hospitals. But most customers choose plans with narrow networks because they would rather not pay the higher premiums required to access broader networks. If we think narrow networks are inadequate, one response would be to require insurers to include more doctors and hospitals in their plans, but this would add to costs ? an odd argument for a conservative to make.
Michael Tanner, a health-care analyst at the Cato Institute, has a column for National Review usefully summarizing the most current iteration of anti-Obamacare talking points. Most of Tanner?s piece is devoted to arguing for alternative proposals, but he begins with the ritual incantation of Obamacare doomsaying. Tanner does not argue that Obamacare is wrong because conservatives philosophically object to using taxation and regulation to transfer resources from the rich and healthy to the poor and sick. Instead he makes eight substantive claims about the law?s impact on health-care access. Every single one of them is overblown or demonstrably wrong.
Here?s Tanner?s litany of failure:
Millions of Americans were forced to change insurance plans, and others found themselves pushed into smaller networks with few choices of providers. Premiums rose. Businesses, laboring under the higher costs imposed by the law, have slowed growth; many have delayed hiring, or shifted workers from full- to part-time. The potential impact on the quality of care remains troubling.
Let?s take these claims in order.
1.?Millions of Americans were forced to change insurance plans.? The specter of mass dislocation was a major anti-Obamacare talking point at the end of 2013 and 2014. The new health-care regulations banned a lot of unpopular practices, like lifetime limits on how much an insurer would pay, or discriminating against preexisting conditions. So it is true that many people who held insurers in the old, barely regulated insurance market needed to find new plans. On the other hand, that market had enormous year-to-year churn anyway. The main way for insurers to make money was to exclude customers who were likely to get sick, so they threw people off their insurance all the time.
We now know that the new churn created by Obamacare was much smaller than conservatives insisted at the time. A recent study by the Urban Institute found that policy cancellations were not ?millions,? but under a million. As the authors explain:
These estimates suggest that policy cancellations caused by noncompliance with the ACA were uncommon in 2014 in both the nongroup and ESI markets, and the number and rate of cancellations in the nongroup market in 2014 was far smaller than in 2013. The nongroup market has historically been characterized by high volatility: an analysis of pre-ACA nongroup coverage patterns from 2008?11 shows that only 42 percent of nongroup enrollees retained their coverage after 12 months.
2. ? ... and others found themselves pushed into smaller networks with few choices of providers.? It is true that many people who enrolled in the new exchanges have insurance plans that limit their choice of doctors and hospitals, which is called ?narrow networks.? There is no evidence that Obamacare caused this. The law overwhelmingly covers people who had no insurance to begin with. You can?t be ?pushed? into a ?smaller? network when your previous network was nonexistent.
As Jonathan Cohn laid out in an excellent and balanced explainer on this issue, insurers have been using narrow networks to control costs for decades. ?That?s been the case for decades,? Larry Levitt told him, ?The only real connection to the Affordable Care Act is that the health reform law is making insurers compete for customers more aggressively.?
If narrow networks are spreading, it is because the Obamacare exchanges are bringing consumer choice into the system. Overwhelmingly, the customers enrolling in plans with narrow networks are not being ?pushed? so much as they are choosing them. As a McKinsey study from last year found, 90 percent of eligible customers have access to broader networks of doctors and hospitals. But most customers choose plans with narrow networks because they would rather not pay the higher premiums required to access broader networks. If we think narrow networks are inadequate, one response would be to require insurers to include more doctors and hospitals in their plans, but this would add to costs ? an odd argument for a conservative to make.
Maybe they get this amount of attention because people think discrimination is wrong and needs attention. Perhaps if they were allowed to live their lives like we live ours, they wouldn't be in the news all the time. Jeez.
Or maybe if they quit seeking attention nobody would give a shit whether they are gay or not. Keep shoving this crap in people faces you are going to get a reaction.
