Catholics vs. Abortion vs. Obama's mandate...

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/240#post_3460526
Compassionate?
...
so to your mind the only compassion can come from the federal government?
It is not people should receive and give but rather the only way to do that is for the federal government. Because people are not to be trusted and only the state should handle such things.
it was correct that it is marxist/communist/solicalist/fascist.
The reason we have the mess we have now is because all these federal bailouts, welfare, and in this thread health care programs don't work. Otherwise we would already be down or below to the pre lib/dem congress unemployment levels.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

We were heading into one of the biggest recessions this country had ever seen by the end of 2007.  All that crap was dropped into Obama's lap when he got into office in 2008.  Why do you think there was a Democrat majority in botrh the House and Senate in 2008?  Because people saw what Bush stuck us with before he left office, and they didn't want that to continue.
Here's some light reading for you:
http://ftp.iza.org/dp4934.pdf
Ummm...the libs took over house and senate in 2006. 2 years before the crash and well before any signs of imminent economic decline.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

 
I think I posted the Timeline of what was going to get enacted every year over the next 5 years at least 5 times on thgis site.  It showed specifically the major changes that would occur each year, and gave a short synopsis of what benefits would be afforded when they did go into place.  Yes long-term benefits.  How about no exclusions for pre-exisiting medical conditions?  How about allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance plans until they're 26 so they don't have to be burdened with a $20,000 bill to pay for independent health insurance while they're going to college or further their education.  How about insurance pools where small businesses can pool their resources and offer similar policies to their employees that large corporations have access to that makes insurance premiums more affordable.  There's also multiple reductions in the various Medicare plans.
 
Costs? Tax increases? coverage losses? You skip right over that. I guess Jon Stewart must not joke about that enough for you to have learned it. Typical Liberal American, just like a child, only look at what YOU get, and not the whole picture.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
it's even more basic then all that.
the very month the libs/dems took over congress unemployment shot up and all this began.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/260#post_3460596
Costs? Tax increases? coverage losses? You skip right over that. I guess Jon Stewart must not joke about that enough for you to have learned it. Typical Liberal American, just like a child, only look at what YOU get, and not the whole picture.
Where in the plan has it stated that taxes needed to be raised to support it? The plan isn't giving out free health care. People have to pay some type of premium to get the services. What coverage losses? When Obama first introduce the bill, he stated, "If you have health care now, and you are satisfied with those services, do nothing." Where does it say that I'm forced to purchase healthcare from the providers that are in the Obamacare umbrella? The 2014 mandate is the most controversial piece of the legislation, and I've always stated that should be repealed. The premise behind the entire law is to have a way for every citizen in this country to have the ability to purchase affordable healthcare. Look what Flower and I have stated about the constant rising costs of the health insurance and medications we get in our current health plans. How's that any different? I already pay increased taxes as it stands to cover all these people who don't have health insurance, and walk into my local County Hospital and get any service they need for free. I'd rather have them pay SOMETHING to get those services.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Where in the plan has it stated that taxes needed to be raised to support it?  The plan isn't giving out free health care.  People have to pay some type of premium to get the services.  What coverage losses?  When Obama first introduce the bill, he stated, "If you have health care now, and you are satisfied with those services, do nothing."  Where does it say that I'm forced to purchase healthcare from the providers that are in the Obamacare umbrella?  The 2014 mandate is the most controversial piece of the legislation, and I've always stated that should be repealed.  The premise behind the entire law is to have a way for every citizen in this country to have the ability to purchase affordable healthcare.  Look what Flower and I have stated about the constant rising costs of the health insurance and medications we get in our current health plans.  How's that any different?  I already pay increased taxes as it stands to cover all these people who don't have health insurance, and walk into my local County Hospital and get any service they need for free.  I'd rather have them pay SOMETHING to get those services.
Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).
Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons
Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.
Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.
As to coverage loss....Didn't this do away with a portion of medicare? If that isn't coverage loss, I don't know what is.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/260#post_3460647
Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).
Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons
Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.
Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.
As to coverage loss....Didn't this do away with a portion of medicare? If that isn't coverage loss, I don't know what is.
But he knows more about the plan than we "ignorant" detractors.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/260#post_3460633
Where in the plan has it stated that taxes needed to be raised to support it? The plan isn't giving out free health care. People have to pay some type of premium to get the services. What coverage losses? When Obama first introduce the bill, he stated, "If you have health care now, and you are satisfied with those services, do nothing." Where does it say that I'm forced to purchase healthcare from the providers that are in the Obamacare umbrella? The 2014 mandate is the most controversial piece of the legislation, and I've always stated that should be repealed. The premise behind the entire law is to have a way for every citizen in this country to have the ability to purchase affordable healthcare. Look what Flower and I have stated about the constant rising costs of the health insurance and medications we get in our current health plans. How's that any different? I already pay increased taxes as it stands to cover all these people who don't have health insurance, and walk into my local County Hospital and get any service they need for free. I'd rather have them pay SOMETHING to get those services.
Hell dude, you take away the mandate you remove the only decent part of the plan. I think it's unconstitutional the way it's written but I like the idea of forcing people to buy health insurance if they can't pay out of pocket.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
The bottom line is that businesses are not going to just eat the added cost. That will be passed along to employees in less salary, less retirement options, less benefits, and, most important, less jobs.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
So what I have heard is that the premiums for a plan that does cover BC are actually lower then ones that don't. Seeing as this is what I HEARD, I can't vouch for it as a fact, but it makes me think:
IF this is true then can the arguement be used that the church has to pay for them?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/260#post_3460647
Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).
Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons
Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.
Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.
As to coverage loss....Didn't this do away with a portion of medicare? If that isn't coverage loss, I don't know what is.
Like I said, I disagree with the 2014 mandate. Interesting how you listed these:
Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Yet I have both an HSA and an FSA today with my health plan, and I just purchsed several OTC drugs just the other day using those dollars. This is 2012.
Hmmm. Never read one thing about an additional tax on any early withdrawals from my HSA, and I just read through that a couple months ago when my wife and I went over our options.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
I have BCBS. Never saw a thing about this from our plan coordinator.
Where'd you cut/paste your "sources"? Same place the Editorial Guru on Washington Time posted his theories on what will happen if the UN Gun Treaty is signed?
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Of course it is. Of course the Church will need to pay for it. That is their issue. By having to pay for it, they will have to be doing something that goes against their religious belief. That is what we have been debating here for days.
Ins co. isn't going to offer a services for free. I think we can all agree on that one.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/260#post_3460685
Of course it is. Of course the Church will need to pay for it. That is their issue. By having to pay for it, they will have to be doing something that goes against their religious belief. That is what we have been debating here for days.
Ins co. isn't going to offer a services for free. I think we can all agree on that one.
Exactly what is it costing the insurance companies? I'e had a prescription plan for years, and the cost for those "services" have always been bundled into my overall insurance plan. Where I've seen the difference is MY cost when I go purchase certain medications. I used to be able to get my Pravastatin 30-day supply for $3.50. Now it costs me $15. That's how the costs for any BC will be covered. The insurance company doesn't have to jack up rates. All they'll do is adjust what amount they will cover for the drug when a person goes to fill the prescription. If the insurance company has to provide BC for free, they'll simply recoup the cost by jacking up the price on another drug. The church won't pay for anything. The consumer will be picking up the cost. But of course, that's nothing new.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Every employer who buys a health ins plan negotiates the amount and level of services that plan will have with the ins. company. So, of course if Catholic health plans are going to include contraceptive drugs, and contraceptive devises, and the cost of doctors who prescribe contraceptives, then yes, the price to the employer, and to their employees, will go up. The insurance company isn't going to eat that cost.
However, the cost is not really the issue in this discussion. The issue is freedom of religion.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
I suppose I should have qualified my question with an IF...
Of course it does seem plausible to me, I mean if health coverage has to cover pregnancies it might actually be cheaper to prevent some unwanted or unintended pregnancies by supplying contraceptives to individuals who desire them. Of course I say 'might' since I do not know this to be true, being just a bored individual on a saltwaterfish forum I lack the desire to research to determine if what I heard from various outlets, regarding a lower cost being associated with a plan that includes BC vs. one that doesn't, is true.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Like I said, I disagree with the 2014 mandate.  Interesting how you listed these:
Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
 
Yet I have both an HSA and an FSA today with my health plan, and I just purchsed several OTC drugs just the other day using those dollars.  This is 2012.
Hmmm.  Never read one thing about an additional tax on any early withdrawals from my HSA, and I just read through that a couple months ago when my wife and I went over our options.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
I have BCBS.  Never saw a thing about this from our plan coordinator.
Where'd you cut/paste your "sources"?  Same place the Editorial Guru on Washington Time posted his theories on what will happen if the UN Gun Treaty is signed?
meant to not put in the medicine cabinet tax, that onne is questionable. why would the blue cross blue shield guys tell you your write off will be different based off clinical visit percentage of costs. that is a tax issue.....as it used to qualify as a write off. most of what i posted went into affect a couple years ago. ypu picked two that might be questionable but could not debunk the rest...therefore...i am correct about tax increases...as there are many. you said there were none. end of debate.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/260#post_3460712
I suppose I should have qualified my question with an IF...
Of course it does seem plausible to me, I mean if health coverage has to cover pregnancies it might actually be cheaper to prevent some unwanted or unintended pregnancies by supplying contraceptives to individuals who desire them. Of course I say 'might' since I do not know this to be true, being just a bored individual on a saltwaterfish forum I lack the desire to research to determine if what I heard from various outlets, regarding a lower cost being associated with a plan that includes BC vs. one that doesn't, is true.
Do you seriously think people who don't want kids will go ahead and have them because they don't get free BC? Insurance providing BC isn't going to lead in a measurable decrease in pregnancies.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/260#post_3460713
meant to not put in the medicine cabinet tax, that onne is questionable. why would the blue cross blue shield guys tell you your write off will be different based off clinical visit percentage of costs. that is a tax issue.....as it used to qualify as a write off. most of what i posted went into affect a couple years ago. ypu picked two that might be questionable but could not debunk the rest...therefore...i am correct about tax increases...as there are many. you said there were none. end of debate.
If those two examples apparently are wrong, how can you attest the rest are accurate? Again, where's your source? end of debate.
 
Top