DanG
-
Content
6,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by DanG
-
A story by the AP is crickets in the dark? I also heard a story about this on (gasp) NPR. - Dan G
-
Do you not have qualifying health insurance? - Dan G
-
That's his point, genius. Celebrity status has nothing to do with SS investigation, but it has everything to do with media coverage of said investigation. Fucking duh. - Dan G
-
Taliban commander turns self in... for reward on ‘Wanted’ poster
DanG replied to ryoder's topic in Speakers Corner
I realize you were making a joke, but some of them are. The Taliban will promise to take care of their families if they just do this one job... - Dan G -
What about the disabled, elderly, students, you know, PEOPLE WITH NO INCOME? - Dan G
-
Yeah, but what they are doing is already against the law. What ever happened to enforcing the laws that already exist instead of adding new ones? At least the Buffet Rule modifies the tax code. Brown's law apparently just makes tax evasion extra-super wrong, instead of just extra wrong. And I bet it will cost more than it produces. Talk about feel good BS. - Dan G
-
And they do. See the "Happy Wealth Redistribution Day" thread, particularly the unintendedly fair-mainded article linked by the OP. - Dan G
-
Right, Brown's bill adds additional reporting and monitoring requirements, and will likely cost more to implement than it collects. Very smart, and totally apolitical. - Dan G
-
Brilliant response, as usual. - Dan G
-
Interesting article. Did you read it? I somehow doubt it. Salient point: - Dan G
-
Perhaps, but that's only because your side is populated entirely by poopie-heads. - Dan G
-
Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how? - Dan G
-
Agree. I'm pissed he hasn't closed it. Of course, for people who want it closed, Romney is definitely not our man. Obama will claim it helped, Romney will say it didn't. This issue is not a real decider. When did the President start passing legislation? I agree he shouldn't have promised transparency he couldn't deliver, but he'll just lay this at the feet of Congress. Which ones? Taxes have not gone up under Obama. What about it? You think he'll get blamed for prosecuting a war he promised to prosecute? Huh? Then please go on. - Dan G
-
I'm guessing all those business travelers would rather keep their jobs. Or, in other words, you first. - Dan G
-
Are you really trying to put that at the feet of the Democrats? Ever hear of "secret holds"? Guess what, it's not the Democrats who are holding up all the appointments, judicial or otherwise. - Dan G
-
http://flickeringpictures.com/2009/01/02/the-man-who-ate-an-airplane/ - Dan G
-
I think we're on the same page regarding the ideal end state. I'm fine with discussing that, but certain people here (not you) then try to correlate the perfect end state with current policy, and it ends up being a mess. If we were to scrap the employer based health insurance system tomorrow, I'd be all for it. That's not going to happen. As far as the "war on women" stuff, I personally think none of this would have ever come up if it weren't about women's health. I don't see the religious right complaining about covering Viagra or vasectomies. But the pill and girl part stuff? That shit's evil. - Dan G
-
Again, in a perfect world, employers would have nothing to do with health insurance. Our world is far from perfect. - Dan G
-
Well, I don't want to pay for a triple bypass, either for myself or for another. Should employers be allowed to declare that a triple bypass is offensive to them, and stop covering it? - Dan G
-
The right wing wants to be able to deny coverage for birth control, and anything else they find "offensive". In an ideal health insurance system, I would agree. The problem is that our health insurance system has evolved so that employers are providing health insurance to their employees. I don't think this is a good system at all, but it's what we currently have. The question is whether or not employers (not doctors, patients, insurance companies, or the government) should be able to pick and choose what coverage an individual can receive. I think if you're going to stick with the employer provided system, then we all need to agree on what a basic level of coverage includes. I think it should include birth control. - Dan G
-
So when the right wing says they don't want to pay for birth control, that's not the same as saying it shouldn't be covered? The whole point of health insurance is to pay for threatments. The attempted insult at the end of your post makes no sense. - Dan G
-
As usual, you have no thoughts of your own. Doesn't the little skirt on your cheerleading outfit bind? - Dan G
-
Do you have something to add? Maybe I should have said "extreme social conservatives, who are dominated by the religious right wing." - Dan G
-
Life is a voluntary activity. If you're going to say that sex is a voluntary activity, and that sexually related items shouldn't be covered, then why should pregnancy be covered? You don't need a presciption to get condoms. The pill has to be prescribed by a doctor. The health insurers definitely want to cover birth control. It saves them a ton of money. Pregnancy is expensive as hell, and if all goes well they have another expensive little person they have to cover. The only people who don't want birth control covered are the religious right. This isn't a financial question, it is a social one. - Dan G
-
Spiritual warfare between whom and whom? Between you and gays? Between you and liberals (or at least what you think liberals are like)? Between "good" and "evil"? Between Jesus and everyone except you and the PGR? What? "It's spiritual warfare," is not a complete answer to, "do you agree with Westboro on all fundamental beliefs?" - Dan G