A Voting Primer - Reason Over Emotion

I've seen many liberal friends post about how this candidate is Pro-Something and that makes them a bad person that shouldn't be allowed to hold public office, much less even consider running for dog catcher.  It's time to take a step back and consider these ideas from a rational standpoint.

Presidents and Vice Presidents don't introduce ANY legislation in Congress.  The President submits a budget, he/she can talk a Congressional leader/member into writing and introducing legislation into Congress, but The President cannot.  The Vice President cannot.

The Federal Government is responsible for spending OUR money (using some common sense would be nice), regulating commerce between states and defending our borders.    They're not Constitutionally responsible for much else.  So let's not ask them to do much more than that.  Let those things fall back to the states which are more aware of what needs to be done locally.

The State Legislature is where the Pro-Something really matters.  These are the people who can pass those laws that are so controversial.  The State Level is going to be more responsive and accessible to citizens. 

Suspend emotion and vote with reason.  Do you like your money going to fund something overseas, or would you rather spend that money yourself?   If companies are allowed to keep more of their money, would that not benefit you?  That money will be spent somewhere.  Who knows more about what's going on locally?  Somebody who lives in the community or someone who lives 600 miles away? 

Vote on the economy in Federal elections.

Vote on Pro-Something in State elections. 

This Debate Again....

I'm pro-choice (and I'm not going to argue with anyone about it-I'm not changing my mind), but I also support these folks.

Might need to head up to the Cullman store and see what they've got.

Hobby shop chain faces backlash for stance against ObamaCare 

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby filed the suit with the U.S. District court, alleging that the Health and Human services mandate should not be enforced upon them because it is unconstitutional but critics are responding, saying that the company is denying basic human rights to its employees.

Young Yankee Friend You support people who don't believe in science and want to be counted as a "religious employer" just because the company owner goes to a whacko church?

Kat The Geekess How is a conservative Baptist church 'wacko'? They're free to practice their religion in this country, like you are, like I am, like everybody that wants to pray before a HS football game. And like Chick-Fil-A, their employees know the score when they go to work there.


Teacher Friend They are free to believe whatever they want. They are not free to impose their beliefs on anyone, including their employees and their private medical decisions.


If that is offensive to them, perhaps they should close their for-profit business, and do volunteer work.


Young Yankee Friend They do not actually have the right to impose their beliefs on their employees, that's the whole point of the law. And they're whacko because they don't believe in science and they think birth control pills cause abortions.

Kat The Geekess The employees who work there know the corporate culture. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads to make them work there. I bet those working there don't have a BIT of problem with the way the company is run.


From the article:
"The company does not object to providing coverage that includes birth control pills, but refuses to provide or pay for two specific abortion-inducing drugs such as the so-called "morning after" pill, because Green's "most deeply held religious belief" is that life beginning at conception, the family said in a statement released through its attorneys."

So, if an employee wants an abortion, they pay for it themselves. I've had many health insurance policies through employers that wouldn't pay for termination of pregnancy.

Kat The Geekess How are they imposing their beliefs? When I worked at the hospital, there was scheduled prayer over the intercom every day. When I was in HS, one of the students broadcast a prayer over the intercom every day-my only complaint was the timing (which he graciously changed). There was prayer before every football game, every band and theatre performance. I bowed my head with the rest, but my thoughts are my own.

The First Amendment says that we have freedom of religion and the FREE expression thereof and Congress can't take that away. And if you think they should be shut down, then are you going to shut down all the Christian bookstores that are out there? I'm willing to bet that they have daily prayer.

Teacher Friend They are selective about their employees and outspoken about their beliefs and outspoken about their corporate culture.

If they are concerned that one of their Conservative Christian employees may find herself in the position that the morning after pill may be her only option, they should look into solving THAT problem.

Minimum wage, benefits to cover family members being prohibitively expensive...

And they may want to read up on what the morning after pill *actually* does. Because it isn't an abortion pill.

I -DON'T- think they should be shut down. I -NEVER- said that. But they are running a profitable business in the United States. They FREE to EXPRESS whatever they damn well want. But they cannot IMPOSE or FORCE it on anyone.

I said that if they wish to operate only in the bubble of their beliefs and avoid conflicts of having a business in the public sector then they may CHOOSE to drop out.

That's a choice that many homeschoolers make.

Kat The Geekess So let the employee pay for it out of her funds. Insurance didn't cover The Teen's braces. I paid for them. Should the Feds have forced the insurance to cover those braces?

I -DON'T- think they should be shut down. I -NEVER- said that. But they are running >a profitable business in the United States. They FREE to EXPRESS whatever they damn well want. But they cannot IMPOSE or FORCE it on anyone.

And again, how are they imposing or forcing it?

Teacher Friend It is basic medical coverage, not dental. Apples/Oranges.

They may not meddle in a decision that is only between a woman and her doctor. By picking and choosing which medical treatments they'll allow their employees to access, they are hoping to impose their beliefs and misinformation about how that pill works.

They have a right to challenge the law. And they should lose.

Kat The Geekess They are not meddling. At all. But I don't see why they should be responsible for paying for it. No more than I see why a Catholic institution should be required to pay for such services. If you don't like the insurance benefits/coverage the employer provides, you are always free to pay for your own insurance.


Teacher Friend On the other hand, I don't really get the boycott.

I understand the Chick-fil-a boycott.

It wasn't just their beliefs, they were funneling millions of dollars into, what *I* consider a hate group. I won't split hairs about whether the owners are hateful themselves. I choose to not spend my money where it will be transferred over to a hate group.

But these Hobby Lobby folk are peacefully challenging a law. Which they have every right to do. How does my buying a model airplane kit effect that? Not at all.


Teacher Friend They offer a benefit though Whatever Insurance. That is an earned benefit of that employee. They WOULDN'T be paying for it. Nobody is asking them to give their employes gift certificates to Abortions-R-Us. But they can't meddle in their medical decisions.

It is NO DIFFERENT than if an employee were to use their Hobby Lobby salary to pay out of pocket for the morning after pill. Except that at minimum wage, there's a good chance they wouldn't have the money in time.


Kat The Geekess A company paying for the insurance of the employees is not an "earned" benefit, it's a really nice perk. I've worked places where I had to pay the total cost of my insurance. I've also worked for companies that 'self-insured'. I've worked for companies that covered the entire cost of my insurance and those that I split the cost of the insurance. The only place I've worked where I was required to have insurance was when I was employed by the hospital.


"Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. said Monday that the company is bumping up the minimum wage to $13 per hour for full-time hourly employees and $9 per hour for part-time hourly employees."
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2012/04/16/hobby-lobby-increasing-the-minimum-pay.html



Teacher Friend Cookies in the lounge are a perk.

Health insurance is an *earned* benefit, not a treat the employer gives out of the kindness of their heart and out of the employer's pocket. It makes the competitive in hiring the conservative family types they desire.


"Obamacare" requires basic medical coverage for companies meeting a minimum size. Who gets to define what basic is? Not employers.



I think their position on the morning after pill is grossly misinformed, but I don't think it's extreme. I'm sorry to apply the slippery slope, but where is the line for employers meddling in medical decisions? Can they choose to not cover contraceptives all together? What about refusing to cover treatment for an STD? After all, an STD is a natural consequence of promiscuity given by God. Right?


Nope. Sorry. Employers should not get to define what is basic medical care if they wish to operate in the public sector. And with good reason.


Young Yankee Friend If it's a self-insured plan, they may technically be paying for it. Most employers of any decent size self-insure these days. But the morning after pill does NOT cause abortions, so there is no scientific basis for their belief. And at least in what I read, they were considering regular BC pills in that same category too. They can challenge the law if they want, I don't believe they will be successful, but I don't support their desire to control the reproductive choices of their employees. I don't even think bonafide religious employers should be able to do this, though I understand the law does allow it. The law says (at this time), you don't have to offer medical insurance, but if you do, you can't exclude coverage for birth control. Eventually, I think the law will require them to offer it. But the idea is that the burden to pay for BC should not be shifted back to the woman who pays her premiums for her insurance, or who works the hours required if the premiums are fully paid by the employer, it should be covered like every other medical treatment that she chooses to get. Women should have access to birth control if they want it, because the cost to society when women can't afford it is much higher.


Kat The Geekess Please explain how they are meddling. If a woman wants the Oh-No! pill, then she can pay for it. Her having to pay for it out-of-pocket is not the company infringing on her rights. The company has no say on how she spends her money.


Kat The Geekess You keep saying this. You do realize what 'public sector' means, right?

"The public sector, sometimes referred to as the state sector or the government sector, is a part of the state that deals with either the production, ownership, sale, provision, delivery and allocation of goods and services by and for the government or its citizens, whether national, regional or local/municipal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector


Last time I checked, this company was not owned or operated by the government. That makes them 'private sector'.

"In economics, the private sector is that part of the economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled by the state. By contrast, enterprises that are part of the state are part of the public sector; private, non-profit organizations are regarded as part of the voluntary sector."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector





Teacher Friend Doh! Damnit. You're right. I am using the wrong term.



The are not a non-profit. They conduct business with and receive money from the general public. They're not enclosed on a Conservative Christian only island where medical science does not exist.



Their employees, male and female, pay premiums for health insurance. They should be able to use it as they and their medical professionals see fit.


Kat The Geekess Read your health insurance COB. You'll see what isn't covered and what is. You'd be surprised. If it's not covered, you pay out-of-pocket. Some plans don't cover vision. Some don't cover dental. Some don't cover mental health-I've not seen any that have any kind of parity with physical health vs mental health coverage. But if your insurance doesn't cover it, then you buy a supplemental policy. You find other insurance elsewhere. Then you're NOT dependent on what insurance plan your employer offers. The employer doesn't matter then, because you are paying for the plan you want. Like my auto insurance; I have full comprehensive on one vehicle and liability only on the other. If I purchase my own health insurance, I can decide what kind of coverage I need, not what the employer offers in its plan.


As far as this: "The are not a non-profit. They conduct business with and receive money from the general public."



That's what having a business is all about. Is it any of the PUBLIC's business how a business owner spends HIS money?

It's NOT About Birth Control.... It's About Government Mandates!

This link posted this morning on FB prompted the following discussion by some friends…..
The idiocy is spreading
www.boortz.com
"This contraception thing … are you operating under the mistaken impression that what we’ve been talking about here is a right to use contraception?...."


Friend 1 Let me think -- oh yeah, insurance will pay for VIAGRA for men to get erections to have sex but not for birth control to prevent pregnancy? How about insurance stop paying for the little blue pills? Or mandate that if insurance pays for Viagra or other erection starters then it MUST pay for birth control to prevent pregnancy? How about that?

Kat the Geekess Suits me. I don't want to pay for anyone's Viagra, either. (And it's Connecticut that mandates Viagra/hair transplants be covered by Insurance policies, IIRC.)

Friend 1 Other insurance companies also have Viagra covered but NOT birth control.

Friend 2: It depends on the insurance companies. Most companies DONT cover viagra.

Kat the Geekess It's about mandates. Government shouldn't mandate that you HAVE to buy this or that. No matter what this or that is.

Friend 3 Birth control is basic medical care.
AND it is WAY less expensive than a BABY.

People that don't believe in birth control and even abortion (which has only ever been covered in extremely specific situations) shouldn't use it themselves.

Kat the Geekess It's not about birth control. That's the distraction in this issue.

Friend 1 ‎Kat the Geekess, no one is mandating ANYONE buy birth control. They are setting minimums for what insurance MUST cover. At one point they wouldn't cover pregnancy. Then it was mandated.

Friend 3 ‎"Hypocricy: Demanding that the government stay out of your bedroom while demanding they pay for your birth control and abortions."

That's *exactly what it's about. Yeah. Insurance should cover it. And it is *not hypocricy at all.

Kat the Geekess And once again, it's NOT about BC. This started with PrezBO saying that the church owned organizations (particularly the Catholic Church) would have to provide BC for their employees. Then PrezBO decided after the initial outcry that the INSURANCE companies would have to pay for it (and that would mean an increase in rates for EVERYBODY who has that company's policy). Then this chick (Fluke-Google her-she's a radical, might be a plant) pops up at a CATHOLIC JESUIT university demanding they pay for her BC. She's a distraction from the real story: The GOVERNMENT is trying to MANDATE to a RELIGIOUS group (or any other group, for that matter).

Friend 1 The government is in our bedrooms.. The moment they decided that Marriage is between a man and woman because the religious groups demand that, they are in our bedrooms. The moment they outlawed polygamy they were in our bedrooms. The government has been in our bedrooms for a long long time. At the behest of the religious groups.

Friend 1 Obama did not state that church organizations would have to provide it -- he stated all employers would have to provide it and then shifted to all insurance companies. It was not singling out religions.

Friend 3 Religious groups running a profitable company hiring and serving the secular?

Abso-damn-loutely they should cover birth control. That they don't pay taxes because they are a "non-profit" "religious" institution is bull.

Kat the Geekess Alrighty, then. I'd prefer government NOT mandate to private businesses, citizens or anybody else. Guess that's just the libertarian in me.

Friend 4 Insurance pays for penis pumps and viagra. Why should it not also cover BC? In addition, I don't want employers determining what medications or treatments should be covered for their employees.

Kat the Geekess Then purchase your own health insurance. Let's get rid of the employee based health insurance and purchase our own. Then, you can have covered what you feel is important and I can have covered what I feel is important. Let's open up health insurance sales across state lines, create some competition.

Friend 3 Again, just because it is *availible for coverage doesn't mean that it *must be used.

Anyone supporting freedom of choice should support people deciding what is right for them. I personally don't want my boss making decisions about my family planning. I don't see why a religious organzation or any other should make such decisions for its employees either.

Friend 5 Insurance should be for emergencies. House burn down? Car wreck? Heart attack? Yes

Penis pump, no, Viagra, no, birth control, no. Offer it on the free market for $4 a pack. Over the counter. Problem solved.

Friend 5 Government should not control your life, or finance your life. Leave people alone to be free!!!

Friend 4 Kat, would you give me an example of what you are suggesting where it has been implemented? I would like to see some information that is not based on a model or theory.

Friend 3 ‎$4, Friend 5?
Even *with insurance my BC costs me $15. The *cheapest option would cost me $8.
Too far to run over to Mexico or Canada to grab some.
And birth control should involve a gyn. OTC? Scary.

Kat the Geekess Auto insurance. Cars. Consumer goods in general. Health insurance is regulated by each state and health insurance companies not allowed to sell policies across state lines. That's why there's 50BCBS's and not one. It's the economics of scale, among other things.

When you buy car insurance, you can buy a policy online, at the local office or through the mail. You get to choose how much insurance you want and what will be covered. The companies all compete for your business and will offer you the lowest rate they can to get your dollar in their pocket. Health insurance doesn't work like that. And it should.

Friend 5 Why? You can buy aspirin, Tylenol, ibuphrophen, naproxin OTC. If birth control were free market like Mexico, it would be $4 just like all their meds

Friend 5 It's all a scheme buy govt and ins companies. Let citizens decide what to spend their money on. This fight isn't about birth control. It's about govt controlling our lives

Friend 5 And 1, it's a false argument to say"govt sometimes pays for Viagra, THEREFORE, they must pay for birth control." govt should pay for NEITHER, but govt has a real problem repealing bad mandates. We need to slag everything but emergencies, then let people pay for what they want.

Kat the Geekess There's the FDA tromping around like an elephant in a china shop, creating more regulations and driving up prices for compliance (and we're talking compounds that have proven effective and safe over the passage of time; they want paperwork, which costs money-and costs you money-because the companies that have the money for the paperwork will charge you more for the product without the competition of the smaller company with less overhead who can't afford to do the studies to back up the history of the product).

Mr. Newt Campaigns in Bama

Went to the Newt Gingrich rally yesterday in Pell City, AL. Large, enthusiastic crowd; but they didn't know what to do with the signs handed out before the event.

Having listened to Mr. Newt's interviews with Neal Boortz and others since he began his campaign, I find his message is consistent, common-sense and on-target.

His plan for Inauguration Day: Sign the Repeal of ObamaCare; Executive Orders getting rid of the White House Czars and authorizing the Keystone Pipeline. His long-term plans: Bringing America back from the brink.

When Mr. Newt was in the House of Representatives the budget was balanced, taxes were lowered and the Federal Deficit was lessened. Though some of the 10 points of the Contract With America did not make it through the Senate, they made it through the House. While he was Speaker of the House, he was third in line for the Presidency and received briefings reflective of such.

Mr. Newt is a historian; he understands what makes America great. He has that sense of history. He is also pragmatic and practical. He is offering solutions instead of excuses. You can read them at his website here.

Bottom line: Mr. Newt is the man that America needs at this point in time.


The Opponents:
Sanctorum: We're not electing a Pope; we're electing the Leader of the Free World. His focus on Social Issues merely feed into the perceived notion that the GOP wants to control what happens in a citizen's private life.

Romney: Yeah. Obama Lite.

Any are preferable to the current incumbent. But Mr. Newt Gringrich is the one to get the job done. Let's not waste this chance.