jawlz wrote:I suppose I will open a nice bottle of wine if he wins to 'celebrate' and a not-that-great bottle if he loses to drown my sorrows. I won't be moving to Canada either way (thankfully, the left continues to have a monopoly on celebrities who threaten to expatriate themselves should their preferred candidate lose, and then sadly never actually do).

I plan on sipping bubbly all evening as the results come in, regardless of who wins. It'll be fun either way. My Rack & Riddle order just arrived so I'm prepared.

I voted for Obama, but then voted for Republicans for senate, congress, and state assembly. I hated to do it, but then I look over there at California...

chemvictim wrote:I think Romney is going to win this election. Will any of you Anti-Obamites be throwing parties to celebrate if he does? Or if Obama wins, are you going into mourning, moving to Canada, etc.?

I'm flying LAX->FRA->ARN (Stockholm) on election day, so I'll have to get my news/results on the run. Either way this Canuck will be coming back to the US

chemvictim wrote:I think Romney is going to win this election. Will any of you Anti-Obamites be throwing parties to celebrate if he does? Or if Obama wins, are you going into mourning, moving to Canada, etc.?

See, I firmly think he's gonna lose. I won't be opening a bottle either way. A vein maybe if Romney wins.

(how's that for lefty extremism )

chemvictim wrote:I think Romney is going to win this election. Will any of you Anti-Obamites be throwing parties to celebrate if he does? Or if Obama wins, are you going into mourning, moving to Canada, etc.?

We may move to Canada if Obama wins and pushes/signs another stimulus package. Luckily my wife has tons of family still in Montreal. (she was born there) Of course, that was part of her reasoning to vote Obama. Damn Colorado being the purple-est state. Now all I need to do is learn french.

joelsisk wrote:We may move to Canada if Obama wins and pushes/signs another stimulus package. Luckily my wife has tons of family still in Montreal. (she was born there) Of course, that was part of her reasoning to vote Obama. Damn Colorado being the purple-est state. Now all I need to do is learn french.

Is it easy to move to Canada? Is it like immigrating here where you just kinda show up and you're there? Do you get bonus points since your wife was born there? Basically, I've always thought I'd like to live in Vancouver, but I looked at it once and moving to Canada seemed, not so easy.

bhodilee wrote:Is it easy to move to Canada? Is it like immigrating here where you just kinda show up and you're there? Do you get bonus points since your wife was born there? Basically, I've always thought I'd like to live in Vancouver, but I looked at it once and moving to Canada seemed, not so easy.

Being a Canadian citizen makes it trivial (just like how marrying an American citizen lets you immigrate to the country). If you want to emigrate to Canada you'd need to pass one of the various "objective" tests/checklists that the government supposedly uses. Finding a job in Canada would also work, but it's tough to get a publicly funded job if you're not Canadian.

klezman wrote:Being a Canadian citizen makes it trivial (just like how marrying an American citizen lets you immigrate to the country). If you want to emigrate to Canada you'd need to pass one of the various "objective" tests/checklists that the government supposedly uses. Finding a job in Canada would also work, but it's tough to get a publicly funded job if you're not Canadian.

yup, and my skill set trends towards "publicly funded"

boo

bhodilee wrote:Is it easy to move to Canada? Is it like immigrating here where you just kinda show up and you're there? Do you get bonus points since your wife was born there? Basically, I've always thought I'd like to live in Vancouver, but I looked at it once and moving to Canada seemed, not so easy.

My wife was born there, so a citizen, and my kid(s) are citizens, so it's a non-issue for us to move there LEGALLY. Now, there are plenty of folks who do similar things to the US... get in on a 6 month visa (or whatever the default stamp is when you arrive) and just stay.

You may have unique enough skillset that you could get sponsored via the Canadian equivalent to N1.

And in other news...everyone's heard of Bronco Bama, right? Damn that NPR.

Food for thought

Made me rethink things.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Food for thought

Made me rethink things.

Very interesting. Everybody already knows how I feel about this issue. Something that was new to me here though, was how the woman approached this via her own religious beliefs. The state is attempting to impose restrictions based on the religious beliefs of some, onto others who don't share those beliefs. Is there a religious freedom problem here?

chemvictim wrote:Very interesting. Everybody already knows how I feel about this issue. Something that was new to me here though, was how the woman approached this via her own religious beliefs. The state is attempting to impose restrictions based on the religious beliefs of some, onto others who don't share those beliefs. Is there a religious freedom problem here?

That is an interesting question.

chemvictim wrote:Very interesting. Everybody already knows how I feel about this issue. Something that was new to me here though, was how the woman approached this via her own religious beliefs. The state is attempting to impose restrictions based on the religious beliefs of some, onto others who don't share those beliefs. Is there a religious freedom problem here?

I've always thought this was one of the major problems with the anti-choice crowd. Yes, anti-choice. Thomas Friedman's op-ed (NY Times, a few days ago) on what pro-life means to him is, I think, a far better description.

klezman wrote:I've always thought this was one of the major problems with the anti-choice crowd. Yes, anti-choice. Thomas Friedman's op-ed (NY Times, a few days ago) on what pro-life means to him is, I think, a far better description.

Yeah, I don't think so. It's Nanny State & Gun Control hiding as Pro-Life. It's the "Here, let the Gov't tell you what to do and what to eat, because you are too stupid."


But then, that's what I expect from the NY Times.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Yeah, I don't think so. It's Nanny State & Gun Control hiding as Pro-Life. It's the "Here, let the Gov't tell you what to do and what to eat, because you are too stupid."

That's the attitude I expect from what is commonly called the pro-life crowd. They love telling other people what to do. When they're telling you what to do, it's the Nanny State. When they're telling me what to do, it's traditional values. (not you specifically)

chemvictim wrote:That's the attitude I expect from what is commonly called the pro-life crowd. They love telling other people what to do. When they're telling you what to do, it's the Nanny State. When they're telling me what to do, it's traditional values. (not you specifically)

Yep. Govt can tell you what to do as long as if fits in with my beliefs. Makes perfect sense, right?

klezman wrote:I've always thought this was one of the major problems with the anti-choice crowd. Yes, anti-choice. Thomas Friedman's op-ed (NY Times, a few days ago) on what pro-life means to him is, I think, a far better description.

Try being vocal about choice during this election cycle, and be assured that Republicans will tell you that 1. your concern is not valid, and 2. okay, maybe it is valid, but it's not as important as other issues, and finally 3. you're a silly girl obsessed with her lady parts, why are you so silly?

If it was framed as a religious issue, would that change? It would have to be the right religion, somehow I doubt they give a flip about what Wiccans (for example) believe.

chemvictim wrote:Try being vocal about choice during this election cycle, and be assured that Republicans will tell you that 1. your concern is not valid, and 2. okay, maybe it is valid, but it's not as important as other issues, and finally 3. you're a silly girl obsessed with her lady parts, why are you so silly?

If it was framed as a religious issue, would that change? It would have to be the right religion, somehow I doubt they give a flip about what Wiccans (for example) believe.

I can't vote here and I don't have ladyparts I am assured (by molarchae) on a daily basis, though, that I am quite silly. I think if folks would frame it as a religious debate it could get interesting. Probably not only in the obvious ways. I mean, somehow that debate also turned into "my religious freedom to not use birth control implies my right to prevent you from having access to it using health insurance my company sponsors".

chemvictim wrote:That's the attitude I expect from what is commonly called the pro-life crowd. They love telling other people what to do. When they're telling you what to do, it's the Nanny State. When they're telling me what to do, it's traditional values. (not you specifically)

Actually, they're (Pro-Life) trying to tell you what NOT to do.

We've gone over it before, but I have moved more to your side, due to the article I linked to.

But basically, I'll support your right to lady part issues when you support my right not to have to support it financially. Because basically you are telling me what to do.

klezman wrote:I can't vote here and I don't have ladyparts I am assured (by molarchae) on a daily basis, though, that I am quite silly. I think if folks would frame it as a religious debate it could get interesting. Probably not only in the obvious ways. I mean, somehow that debate also turned into "my religious freedom to not use birth control implies my right to prevent you from having access to it using health insurance my company sponsors".

So it's not okay for for one to say you can't, but it's okay for you to tell me I have to? The door swings both ways.

I agree that abortion should be covered, but I'm not sure up to what stage of "life". But if I as the father, have no say in if you keep the fetus or not, I still say I shouldn't have to financially support you and said child.


But as to the other, that is treading on Religious issues. Put it this way, is it better that the Catholic Church close all their medical hospitals and clinics so they don't have to support something that is anathema to them, or is it better to let them to opt out of having to allow Birth Control (due to their religion)?

MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, they're (Pro-Life) trying to tell you what NOT to do.

We've gone over it before, but I have moved more to your side, due to the article I linked to.

But basically, I'll support your right to lady part issues when you support my right not to have to support it financially. Because basically you are telling me what to do.

pretty much +1

MarkDaSpark wrote:So it's not okay for for one to say you can't, but it's okay for you to tell me I have to? The door swings both ways.

I agree that abortion should be covered, but I'm not sure up to what stage of "life". But if I as the father, have no say in if you keep the fetus or not, I still say I shouldn't have to financially support you and said child.


But as to the other, that is treading on Religious issues. Put it this way, is it better that the Catholic Church close all their medical hospitals and clinics so they don't have to support something that is anathema to them, or is it better to let them to opt out of having to allow Birth Control (due to their religion)?

I get where you're coming from, at least mostly. However, this still ends up leading down the path of everybody being able to veto any expenditure of any level of government or any rules promulgated from any branch of government simply because you have a religious objection. That's not sustainable in a pluralistic explicitly church-state separated country. Why does a Catholic-run hospital get to live by different rules than the rest? Why should my employer's religious beliefs dictate my personal medical insurance? What about other charitable organizations that would exist but for some law they currently disagree with? Seems that many in this country (not you) would be fine if Christian Evangelists were in charge of all policy, and that scares me.

MarkDaSpark wrote:But as to the other, that is treading on Religious issues. Put it this way, is it better that the Catholic Church close all their medical hospitals and clinics so they don't have to support something that is anathema to them, or is it better to let them to opt out of having to allow Birth Control (due to their religion)?

I agree with your post before this one.

As to this theoretical question, I would be fine with a Catholic hospital not performing abortions, for example, as long as that hospital isn't playing both sides. What I mean is, if Kyle's Catholic Hospital (a place no one would ever want to actually be treated at ) is completely and entirely self-supporting, then, as a private entity, I believe that they have every right to make their own decisions, free of gov't interference. However, if that hospital takes any public funding (which I'm against anyway, but that's beside the point), then I don't think they can stand behind their religion to deny something that "the public wants." (Of course, not every member of the public wants it, but I think I'm making sense.)

For some reason, people want health care treated as something besides what it is -- a business. I want the gov't dictating private hospitals as much as I want them dictating what soup a restaurant must serve. If I don't like what a hospital does or doesn't do, I can go to one that I agree with.

I think my argument is sound, except the insurance issue does come into play, I believe. What if my insurance doesn't have a contract with the hospital that will perform an abortion, but does with the hospital that won't. Hmmm....

klezman wrote:I get where you're coming from, at least mostly. However, this still ends up leading down the path of everybody being able to veto any expenditure of any level of government or any rules promulgated from any branch of government simply because you have a religious objection. That's not sustainable in a pluralistic explicitly church-state separated country. Why does a Catholic-run hospital get to live by different rules than the rest? Why should my employer's religious beliefs dictate my personal medical insurance? What about other charitable organizations that would exist but for some law they currently disagree with? Seems that many in this country (not you) would be fine if Christian Evangelists were in charge of all policy, and that scares me.

You are assuming that it applies to everyone, but that's not really the case.

Most of what we are talking about, is the Gov't forcing said hospital to include items in their employee's health insurance that is anathema to them. Said hospital only accepts "federal funds" for Medicare patients (i.e., as payment for services provided to Medicare patients), not as normal funding.

It's a marketplace scenario. If the health benefits provided at your workplace don't include what you want/need, you vote with your feet and find another place of employment.

Otherwise, you force the hospital to no longer provide services to Medicare patients, in order to not have to provide something they don't believe in.


Put it another way, if the Gov't decided that everyone needs to eat a slice of Ham or several slices of Bacon (well, maybe that!) a day for health reasons, isn't that over the line?

MarkDaSpark wrote:It's a marketplace scenario. If the health benefits provided at your workplace don't include what you want/need, you vote with your feet and find another place of employment.

This argument is always highly problematic to me. There isn't an oversupply of jobs out there, and "voting with your feet" sounds great in theory but I can't see how it's at all realistic.

Then there's my case, where I am explicitly not allowed to change jobs under the terms of my H1-B visa. Also, what if my employer decided that some major treatment was anathema to them for some religious reason, and my insurance would not be allowed to treat me to save my life? Then I have to leave the country or go bankrupt or find some other employer who would transfer my visa quickly enough (gvmt willing) to save my life? No, I don't like this (rather extreme) hypothetical world.

klezman wrote:This argument is always highly problematic to me. There isn't an oversupply of jobs out there, and "voting with your feet" sounds great in theory but I can't see how it's at all realistic.

Then there's my case, where I am explicitly not allowed to change jobs under the terms of my H1-B visa. Also, what if my employer decided that some major treatment was anathema to them for some religious reason, and my insurance would not be allowed to treat me to save my life? Then I have to leave the country or go bankrupt or find some other employer who would transfer my visa quickly enough (gvmt willing) to save my life? No, I don't like this (rather extreme) hypothetical world.

The better scenario, which would take some time to implement, would be to sever the connection between health insurance and employment: do not permit employers to deduct for health care costs, but allow employees to deduct the cost of insurance. (the opposite of the current situation) We're in this mess because the government (thank you FDR and liberal Democrats) used health insurance as a way around wage controls during WWII.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, they're (Pro-Life) trying to tell you what NOT to do.

We've gone over it before, but I have moved more to your side, due to the article I linked to.

But basically, I'll support your right to lady part issues when you support my right not to have to support it financially. Because basically you are telling me what to do.

I don't understand exactly what you mean here. Are you upset that insurance covers contraception and you're indirectly paying by virtue of being in the insurance pool?

rpm wrote:The better scenario, which would take some time to implement, would be to sever the connection between health insurance and employment: do not permit employers to deduct for health care costs, but allow employees to deduct the cost of insurance. (the opposite of the current situation) We're in this mess because the government (thank you FDR and liberal Democrats) used health insurance as a way around wage controls during WWII.

QFT! Or a hybrid of the two. You can use the employee health care or the employer will give you $X that they would have spent and you can find your own or subsidize the provided.

MarkDaSpark wrote:So it's not okay for for one to say you can't, but it's okay for you to tell me I have to? The door swings both ways.

I agree that abortion should be covered, but I'm not sure up to what stage of "life". But if I as the father, have no say in if you keep the fetus or not, I still say I shouldn't have to financially support you and said child.


But as to the other, that is treading on Religious issues. Put it this way, is it better that the Catholic Church close all their medical hospitals and clinics so they don't have to support something that is anathema to them, or is it better to let them to opt out of having to allow Birth Control (due to their religion)?

Two interesting issues here. The first one, I don't have a good answer for. If fathers can opt out of supporting their offspring, that will be a burden on the rest of us. Of course, often enough fathers don't support the kids anyway...so maybe it wouldn't be much of an additional burden after all.

We've talked about the Catholic hospitals before. You already know that I don't feel it's the employer's place to tell their employees how they may spend their compensation, and a health insurance benefit is compensation. Whether they should be "forced" to provide health insurance at all is a separate issue, in my mind. Accepting that my employer does provide health insurance which they fund to some extent (as far as I know, typically the employer pays part and the employee pays part), it's not their business what I do with it. If my employer has an aversion to vaccinations or blood transfusions, that's his problem. He doesn't get to tell me that I can't use the compensation I've EARNED to pay for those things. That's not religious freedom, that's just being a poll. Does that make sense?

I don't think Catholic hospitals are going anywhere...personally I avoid them if possible because my health is not priority one at a Catholic institution. However, if they want to close their doors rather than dictate how their employees may use their compensation, let them. They're not the only game in town - yet.

klezman wrote:This argument is always highly problematic to me. There isn't an oversupply of jobs out there, and "voting with your feet" sounds great in theory but I can't see how it's at all realistic.

Then there's my case, where I am explicitly not allowed to change jobs under the terms of my H1-B visa. Also, what if my employer decided that some major treatment was anathema to them for some religious reason, and my insurance would not be allowed to treat me to save my life? Then I have to leave the country or go bankrupt or find some other employer who would transfer my visa quickly enough (gvmt willing) to save my life? No, I don't like this (rather extreme) hypothetical world.

Agreed. We're giving a ridiculous amount of power to the employer. All he needs is some deeply held conviction (no matter how stupid I might think it is) and he can shut down whatever he wants via "religious freedom." It's nonsense.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Put it another way, if the Gov't decided that everyone needs to eat a slice of Ham or several slices of Bacon (well, maybe that!) a day for health reasons, isn't that over the line?

Does bacon = contraception in this analogy? So the gov't mandates that your insurance must cover some minimum amount of bacon purchase, for health. The gov't does not mandate that you eat the bacon. My employer has a religious objection to bacon, so he gets to decide whether my health insurance covers bacon? Maybe he should follow me around and make sure I don't spend any of my paycheck on bacon. He should definitely make sure that food stamps, etc. may not be used on bacon since his tax dollars indirectly fund it and he doesn't want to participate in the sinful bacon-eating. He should be assured that no bacon will be served to military personnel on his taxpayer dollar, either. It's my choice to eat bacon and he grudgingly accepts that, but damned if he's going to be forced to pay for my play. Is that about right?

edit: damn, I really wish I had some bacon.

chemvictim wrote:I don't understand exactly what you mean here. Are you upset that insurance covers contraception and you're indirectly paying by virtue of being in the insurance pool?

No, that males are expected to pay child support. No say, no pay.

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, that males are expected to pay child support. No say, no pay.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I get where you're coming from on this. It's not fair, but I honestly have no idea how to fix it.

chemvictim wrote:Two interesting issues here. The first one, I don't have a good answer for. If fathers can opt out of supporting their offspring, that will be a burden on the rest of us. Of course, often enough fathers don't support the kids anyway...so maybe it wouldn't be much of an additional burden after all.

We've talked about the Catholic hospitals before. You already know that I don't feel it's the employer's place to tell their employees how they may spend their compensation, and a health insurance benefit is compensation. Whether they should be "forced" to provide health insurance at all is a separate issue, in my mind. Accepting that my employer does provide health insurance which they fund to some extent (as far as I know, typically the employer pays part and the employee pays part), it's not their business what I do with it. If my employer has an aversion to vaccinations or blood transfusions, that's his problem. He doesn't get to tell me that I can't use the compensation I've EARNED to pay for those things. That's not religious freedom, that's just being a poll. Does that make sense?

I don't think Catholic hospitals are going anywhere...personally I avoid them if possible because my health is not priority one at a Catholic institution. However, if they want to close their doors rather than dictate how their employees may use their compensation, let them. They're not the only game in town - yet.

??? I'd like to see stats on that first. Fathers not financially supporting their kids? I bet there are more supporting than you think.

Balance that with those would be dads who miss out because someone insists it's their decision and not yours. It is a conundrum, because you shouldn't have to be forced to do something you don't want to do, yet if the other party is willing to pay all expenses and cover all costs (as well as let you opt-out from future responsibility) because they consider the baby important to them.


As to #2, it's not that one can't spend "your" compensation that way, it's that it's not included to begin with. Health Insurance is a benefit, not compensation. Otherwise you would be taxed on it.

And they aren't telling you that you can't go somewhere else to for it, they are just telling you they aren't covering it with insurance, nor will they provide it at work.

And one doesn't EARN anything with regards to benefits. It's provided by the employer to entice someone to work there. You EARN your salary, not your benefits.

MarkDaSpark wrote:??? I'd like to see stats on that first. Fathers not financially supporting their kids? I bet there are more supporting than you think.

And one doesn't EARN anything with regards to benefits. It's provided by the employer to entice someone to work there. You EARN your salary, not your benefits.

Point 1: I think you'd be surprised at how many don't. Remember, we're highbrow middle class. The numbers substantially fall when lower classes are considered.

Point 2: I think you're splitting hairs here. Even putting what RPM said about the inclusion of health care in the first place aside, you work for what you get -- salary, bonuses, and benefits. Call it what you want, but it's still something you get for working.

chemvictim wrote:Agreed. We're giving a ridiculous amount of power to the employer. All he needs is some deeply held conviction (no matter how stupid I might think it is) and he can shut down whatever he wants via "religious freedom." It's nonsense.

No, not at all. They can't "shut it down", because you can still go elsewhere for it. It just means you have to pay for it on your own. Or find another place to work (or don't go to work there in the first place!) where you do get it. Yes, times are tough right now, but you knew what the benefits were going in.

It's not like the Catholic Church has all of a sudden said this. It's centuries old, so it's not like it's a huge surprise.

And if the owner is that much of a politician, why did you go work there in the first place?

kylemittskus wrote:Point 1: I think you'd be surprised at how many don't. Remember, we're highbrow middle class. The numbers substantially fall when lower classes are considered.

Point 2: I think you're splitting hairs here. Even putting what RPM said about the inclusion of health care in the first place aside, you work for what you get -- salary, bonuses, and benefits. Call it what you want, but it's still something you get for working.

Not at all. Salary and bonuses are taxed, and you pay Social Security on them. Benefits are not taxed to you at all.

And most workplaces don't give you those benefits until you've worked that a set amount of time. Sometimes 3 months, sometimes 6 months, sometimes a year. So if you've "earned" those benefits, why is there a delay in getting them?

Because they are benefits, not compensation!!

chemvictim wrote:Does bacon = contraception in this analogy? So the gov't mandates that your insurance must cover some minimum amount of bacon purchase, for health. The gov't does not mandate that you eat the bacon. My employer has a religious objection to bacon, so he gets to decide whether my health insurance covers bacon? Maybe he should follow me around and make sure I don't spend any of my paycheck on bacon. He should definitely make sure that food stamps, etc. may not be used on bacon since his tax dollars indirectly fund it and he doesn't want to participate in the sinful bacon-eating. He should be assured that no bacon will be served to military personnel on his taxpayer dollar, either. It's my choice to eat bacon and he grudgingly accepts that, but damned if he's going to be forced to pay for my play. Is that about right?

edit: damn, I really wish I had some bacon.

Glad I have some!! Nom, nom, nom!!


You are reading too much into it. And the point was that the Gov't WAS forcing you to buy bacon. I think. At this point, I'm going to eat some more bacon!

I just laughed at this one ... hits both candidates.


Okay, now for some bacon!!!

MarkDaSpark wrote:


I just laughed at this one ... hits both candidates.


Okay, now for some bacon!!!

That one's pretty funny.