Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So you are just going to make a blanket statement contradicting several things I said and then ask me not to say anything so your statement can stand unopposed? That sounds cowardly.

I disagree with your understanding of Obamacare. You disagree with mine. Fine, we're even. I'm not being cowardly, I just don't think there's any further point of discussing it.

That depends on how large of an employer you are. And no, it does not follow that because you chose a plan covering an elective abortion that it is your money funding it. It does not require squirming. It requires recognition that employer control over compensation ends when it is given to the employee.

"You only earned what I choose to give you." is crap. I earned whatever the plan covers. You select that within the bounds of federal and state law. An obsession with the employer's hands being clean is insane. Everything is not about the employer no matter how arrogant they may be.

You know, I don't think you are reading what I have written. I, the employer have agreed with you, the employee, that I will pay you such and such for your labor and time. Part of the such and such included the health insurance policy which I, the employer, decided to offer you, including whatever provisions I negotiated with the insurance company to provide in the policy which I, the employer selected. Yes, you earned it, and if I, the employer, decided to include elective abortion in the policy, then I am facilitating the obtaining of those abortions. On the other hand, if I, the employer, decided not to include elective abortion in the policy, then I am not facilitating it, and you can buy your abortion yourself.

I you cannot agree with this logic, then I don't know what to tell you.

But since Obamacare now specifies minimum requirements for all plans, this is no longer in play.

Some kinds. Some medication that can cause a spontaneous abortion or prevent conception is required to be covered. You would only have the option not to provide insurance if you have fewer than 50 employees. If you have more you would be required by law to provide insurance.

Whatever. You can cause a spontaneous abortion in other ways, too, but if you misuse a drug that is intended for another purpose then that's your lookout. I will admit that I am unclear on the issue of my being required to provide healthcare if I had 50+ employees. I do remember being employed by a company that definitely had more than 50, and they gave us the option of taking their company-provided health plan or receiving the monetary equivalent -- so it doesn't sound like they were THAT required to provide it.

The big conservative stink is that the tax credits that some poorer people receive to help them pay for insurance when they cannot get a plan from their employer and make little money may include abortion and for some reason they imagine this tax credit means that their "tax dollars" are funding abortions. A weak argument but it generates misinformed outrage so our public officials are milking it for all it is worth.

You think it's weak, but I still think that it's valid. Just as valid as my tax dollars going toward financing the US Military, and hence whatever the military is called upon to do.

That was one of the main drives. The relatively high taxation rates following World War II also led to hiding compensation under other benefits like company cars, club memberships, etc. Most of these exemptions were done away with when the tax rate fell which is why these kinds of non-monetary benefits have declined since the 80s.

The reason for the benefits is that due to the monopolization of the market and the almost requirement for people to have insurance have made private plans much more expensive then employer-provided programs due to employers having more room to bargain. If all were on the same playing field I agree with you but I have been an independent contractor and can tell you that my insurance cost much more than employer-provided programs I have had before and since even factoring in the cost my employer pays that does not appear on my paycheck but still counts to them as part of my compensation package.

Monopolization of healthcare is another pressing danger. Costs are rising. The United States people are being ripped off when it comes to health care.

Again, this depends on the size of your hypothetical business.

I don't necessarily disagree with all this, but the rising costs of medical care is due to so many factors that it is difficult to track them all. But if the government were to butt out of the equation I think this might do much towards making it less expensive. That hope is forlorn, I am sure.

My friend, I am not going to respond to this topic any further. I am trying to deal with multiple personal and family issues that are starting to cloud my mind, and this thread (and even the entire board) is starting to become very irrelevant in comparison. Sorry. See the Social Hall for my reasons, if you're interested.

Ciao.

Share this post


Link to post

Could outer darkness be a black hole?

 

No, black holes are time travel devices that allow you access to the back sides of bookshelves.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Not and hide its excesses and abuses behind religious law.

 

Like you said, it is i what it is right now, and as long as the IRS--a body that has no ability to judge theological issues or religious abuse--is in charge of who is or isn't a church then there is no reason scientology isn't a religion.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly.  Unfortunately, it will not happen.  Congress is out to lunch -- permanently.

 

I know. What as a country do we do when our elected leaders refuse to lead.

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with your understanding of Obamacare. You disagree with mine. Fine, we're even. I'm not being cowardly, I just don't think there's any further point of discussing it.

You know, I don't think you are reading what I have written. I, the employer have agreed with you, the employee, that I will pay you such and such for your labor and time. Part of the such and such included the health insurance policy which I, the employer, decided to offer you, including whatever provisions I negotiated with the insurance company to provide in the policy which I, the employer selected. Yes, you earned it, and if I, the employer, decided to include elective abortion in the policy, then I am facilitating the obtaining of those abortions. On the other hand, if I, the employer, decided not to include elective abortion in the policy, then I am not facilitating it, and you can buy your abortion yourself.

I you cannot agree with this logic, then I don't know what to tell you.

But since Obamacare now specifies minimum requirements for all plans, this is no longer in play.

Whatever. You can cause a spontaneous abortion in other ways, too, but if you misuse a drug that is intended for another purpose then that's your lookout. I will admit that I am unclear on the issue of my being required to provide healthcare if I had 50+ employees. I do remember being employed by a company that definitely had more than 50, and they gave us the option of taking their company-provided health plan or receiving the monetary equivalent -- so it doesn't sound like they were THAT required to provide it.

You think it's weak, but I still think that it's valid. Just as valid as my tax dollars going toward financing the US Military, and hence whatever the military is called upon to do.

I don't necessarily disagree with all this, but the rising costs of medical care is due to so many factors that it is difficult to track them all. But if the government were to butt out of the equation I think this might do much towards making it less expensive. That hope is forlorn, I am sure.

My friend, I am not going to respond to this topic any further. I am trying to deal with multiple personal and family issues that are starting to cloud my mind, and this thread (and even the entire board) is starting to become very irrelevant in comparison. Sorry. See the Social Hall for my reasons, if you're interested.

Ciao.

 

Say I don't believe in modern medicine, and insist that you as my employee can only use my prayer group for your health issues. How well does that work for you and your family.

 

Take care my friend.

Share this post


Link to post

I know. What as a country do we do when our elected leaders refuse to lead.

 

I want to found the Practical party that generally dispenses with ideology and just goes with what works but......too much work.

Share this post


Link to post

I want to found the Practical party that generally dispenses with ideology and just goes with what works but......too much work.

Similarly, my New Year's resolution was to overcome my tendency to procrastinate. I probably will start tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually the Republicans tried to shut down the government for a permanent lunch. It did not stick for some reason.

A parliamentary system would probably be more efficient but would lack each state having representation. I think we are better off with what we have. Congress gets a very low approval rating but studies show that most people approve of their own representatives. It is generally those other congressmen from other states that are perceived to be the problem.

Yes.  That's what we were taught in Political Science 101, Nehor, but I have always suspected that there was some deeper explanation for how things actually work.

Share this post


Link to post

No, black holes are time travel devices that allow you access to the back sides of bookshelves.

 

:P

I thought that was a wormhole, but, oh, you are citing "Interstellar" -- nice film.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes.  That's what we were taught in Political Science 101, Nehor, but I have always suspected that there was some deeper explanation for how things actually work.

There is. We have substandard leaders because we are a substandard people.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly.  Unfortunately, it will not happen.  Congress is out to lunch -- permanently.

So, government was the reason for the restrictions in pay that lead to employers giving a benefit to compete for employees. Essentially government is the reason for it. Now you all are bent out of shape for it and want the government to come in and "fix" the problem they created.  And none of you see a problem with that?

Share this post


Link to post

We've tried that and it doesn't turn out well.

Other countries tried the communist/ socialist way and that did not work out so well. You are a riot Saint.

 

For the record, I reject your premise that "we've tried that". No we haven't the reason things keep failing is because government keeps sticking it's nose were it doesn't belong.

 

When you have regulations you get special interest groups. Get rid of the regulation and you get rid of the special interests.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram

Share this post


Link to post

Other countries tried the communist/ socialist way and that did not work out so well. You are a riot Saint.

 

For the record, I reject your premise that "we've tried that". No we haven't the reason things keep failing is because government keeps sticking it's nose were it doesn't belong.

 

When you have regulations you get special interest groups. Get rid of the regulation and you get rid of the special interests.

 

Communism isn't socialism. Every industrialized nation on earth has some form of socialism even the US. Even our military is based on the very socialistic idea that the guy working next to you can get you killed so you better help him survive. I'm not in favor of riots. I'm more of a right to peaceably assemble type.

 

Governments were formed the second time Grog hit Mog over the head to take his wife.

 

There is nothing particularly wrong with special interest groups petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. IE; When the Church petitioned the government to oppose the MX Missile System it was just a "Special Interest" group doing what it legally was entitled to do. But if you want to do away with the First Amendment you're entitled to try.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I guess I am pleasantly surprised at Tyson's even-handedness on this.  Sometimes he seems at least borderline militant atheist himself.  Good on ya, Dr. Tyson!  I suppose that Tyson is thinking of the legend that Mormons get their own planets or something.  It would be nice to know what he thinks he knows about us.

 

Tyson is an unequivocal atheist, but he isn't "militant."

 

The idea that God is a humanoid with a body of flesh and bones from a planet orbiting Kolob is quite "space exotic."

Share this post


Link to post

Tyson is an unequivocal atheist, but he isn't "militant."

 

The idea that God is a humanoid with a body of flesh and bones from a planet orbiting Kolob is quite "space exotic."

The view which Tyson shares with most other astrophysicists is that the existence of advanced sentient beings elsewhere in the galaxy and universe is quite likely.  They admit that such advanced beings are likely to have technology which makes them "godlike" in many respects.  This makes most astrophysicists "space exotic" in some sense.

 

Since Mormon theology places such notions fully within natural law, even a humanist atheist ought to find something familiar and non-threatening to chew on.  Especially since Mormon theology eschews notions of the supernatural or miraculous.

Share this post


Link to post

I wanted to chime in on this since I'm somewhat familiar with the topic, as my mom was a Scientologist for 15 years. From what she told me the reason former members are fighting their tax exemption has nothing to do with doctrine. The only similarities it has with Mormonism is it is taught in a way where more info is revealed the further you go with confidential material in later levels, sort of like how we have the temple endowment, and freemasonry is probably a good comparison with its degree structure.

My mom told me she was selling new public self improvement courses while getting paid on a commision basis. Some who did this profited but when sales would drop pay was scarce. She was not sea org though, but was a field staff member, who sells the courses on commission. In fact, the church is conducted in this manner, as a series of courses and you pay for each one. This is why people say it is MLM and not a religion. When you add the human trafficking charges made in going clear, and the abuse in the sea org, you see there is no similarity to Mormonism.

Basically, if we had to pay for everything on a week by week basis, had to pay for each bit of doctrine earned, and the bishop got commission from the sales, then it would be a fair comparison. I think only charitable donations should be tax exempt, and they should advertise as a self improvement clinic or initiatory organization instead of religion.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the info, it is always interesting to hear from those more personally familiar/involved as opposed to just reporting what they read in a newspaper or even doing academic research.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a lot of truth in what he said, it's part of what drives our desire to see older and older manuscripts and archeological evidence, and to look to Joseph Smith rather than Thomas S Monson.

Share this post


Link to post

Tyson is an unequivocal atheist, but he isn't "militant."

 

The idea that God is a humanoid with a body of flesh and bones from a planet orbiting Kolob is quite "space exotic."

 

This idea that God is from Kolob is not LDS belief, even if some members might believe that it is.

 

Abraham 3:1-4 states that Kolob has the same temporal measurement standard that the Lord uses, and that it is nearest star to the throne of God.  Nowhere does it say anything about a planet orbiting Kolob.  In fact, it doesn't seem to be necessary to consider that the word "nearest" pertains to proximity to the physical location of God's throne.  It is "nearest" in terms of how closely its temporal measurement system tracks with God's. 

Share this post


Link to post

The view which Tyson shares with most other astrophysicists is that the existence of advanced sentient beings elsewhere in the galaxy and universe is quite likely.  They admit that such advanced beings are likely to have technology which makes them "godlike" in many respects.  This makes most astrophysicists "space exotic" in some sense.

 

Since Mormon theology places such notions fully within natural law, even a humanist atheist ought to find something familiar and non-threatening to chew on.  Especially since Mormon theology eschews notions of the supernatural or miraculous.

 

Yes, while Mormons believe in things that are normally thought of as supernatural, the theological explanations for miracles or spirits and the like is ultimately naturalistic.  Which is why I scratch my head whenever members of the church criticize naturalism. Understandable from a Baptist, but that doesn't make sense from a Mormon.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, while Mormons believe in things that are normally thought of as supernatural, the theological explanations for miracles or spirits and the like is ultimately naturalistic.  Which is why I scratch my head whenever members of the church criticize naturalism. Understandable from a Baptist, but that doesn't make sense from a Mormon.

Correct observation, Gray.

A huge proportion of Mormons comes from a supernaturalist background and having no idea how incompatible that is with Mormon theology.  However, since theology and doctrine have very little to do with conversion, that fact may not be too important.  Indeed, one's personal salvation isn't dependent upon such correct understanding.

Share this post


Link to post

Kolob not withstanding ALL Christians are space alien oriented. 

Not really. :D This idea presupposes a God that is part of nature. A God that has a species. Christian theology is, that God as Creator, exists outside of nature and has no species.

 

Or, if it helps, God is the author of nature, but as its transcendent ultimate cause, not as another natural cause alongside the other natural causes.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Not really. :D This idea presupposes a God that is part of nature. A God that has a species. Christian theology is, that God as Creator, exists outside of nature and has no species.

 

Or, if it helps, God is the author of nature, but as its transcendent ultimate cause, not as another natural cause alongside the other natural causes.

Right on, saemo.  That is the fundamental difference between Mormonism and normative Christian theology.  Very few Mormons understand that.

Share this post


Link to post

Not really. :D This idea presupposes a God that is part of nature. A God that has a species. Christian theology is, that God as Creator, exists outside of nature and has no species.

Or, if it helps, God is the author of nature, but as its transcendent ultimate cause, not as another natural cause alongside the other natural causes.

If somewhere in the universe God ever decides to create another planet like earth, and if he populates that planet with people just like us, I can just see all the guffawing, mockery and eye-rolling as the prophets of that planet tell the people that God was once a helpless little baby boy who was born to a mortal woman (shades of Greek mythology) and grew up on a watery planet in another galaxy called earth (shades of science fiction); that this planet called earth was held in the gravitational field of a smallish star called the Sun (shades of Carl Sagen); and that the supposedly immortal and eternal God whom they worship was executed by his enemies and buried on the same planet (shades of Star Wars) Alien orientation indeed! The only way God can prevent the great potential embarrassment that could result from the revelation of this "Kolob-like" story is to a) never create and populate another planet like earth. Or b) be sure to keep everyone on that planet, including the prophets, in the dark as to the nature of reality.

Looks like God has locked himself into never being able to create another Adam and Eve and Eden. After all, what would the people say if word ever got out? Heaven forbid, it sounds too much like "those crazy Mormons!"

Edited by Bobbieaware

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...