They believe those people are going to burn in torment forever, remember? If you’re not spending every interaction trying to steer them towards God and doing everything you can to stop them from sinning, you’re supporting and condoning their decisions, and maybe going to hell with them.
The logic is faultless. But logic is no match for the hundreds of millions spent by the health insurance industry, in order to purchase legislators.
(You’d think that a pro-business party would like to see the yoke of health-insurance-provision be lifted off the backs of American businesses. But: no.)
Detaching it from businesses (specifically, businesses paying for it) would reveal to millions of people exactly how much their insurance is actually costing them for what little coverage it reluctantly provides. The removal of this layer of obfuscation would cause a sharp drop in support for privatized health insurance in general, which the pro-business mob can’t afford.
Then there is the case of Cidney Fisk, who claims that the Delta school district persecuted her for being an atheist, allegedly going so far as to shit on the 4.1-gpa-student’s chances for the National Honor Society and more than one college scholarship.
A couple days ago Judy Woodruff made Rep. Senator James Lankford squirm a little in this exchange:
Yeah especially those newfangled bumpstocked putters for rapid-fire multi-putting freedom.
At least McConnell, Ryan, Grassley, Thune, et al aren’t trying weasel out of this whole issue with their assurances that bump stocks need to be fully understood and studied before they come to any rash decisions about banning them, as underscored in this exchange:
My fantasy is that some religious group decides that reverence for our planet includes adherence to Zero Population Growth. Therefore, a company whose CEO is a member of that religion decides that their family insurance plan will cover the employee, spouse and up to 2 children. Should the family have 2 children and the wife gets pregnant, the insurance plan will not cover any pregnancy- or delivery-related expenses. Of course, no coverage for the child.
I suspect that if an employer guarantees that family coverage won’t include more than 2 children per employee, the rates charged for such coverage would be lower than that which could include many children. So it’s a cost-saving measure, too.
Two is a maximum under this plan, which is more consistent with ZPG than one or none. The objective of ZPG should not be to surrender the rearing of the next generation to the Quiverfull types, but to normalize breeding strictly at replacement rate. So we have two children, and so will you.
(Granted, two should be an average not a maximum if you’re shooting for Zero Population Growth and not Negative Population Growth. But in the present fisheries crisis, I think “maximum two” is a justifiable situational policy.)
I figured if the company did not allow any children on their employer-subsidize plan, they’d be labeled Anti-Family, which would probably be detrimental to the business.
And yes, their health insurance would cover all forms of birth control. It would also of course cover abortions.
Has anyone told the Trump administration that hormonal birth control is not just for stopping sluts from having kids? I am on HBC, and the birth control part of it is just a freebie in my case (I need it to prevent my uterus from killing me).
This one asshole may or may not be a Republican – it seems that there were ads he appeared in for a Democrat a few years back – but he has called himself a (3x)ultra-conservative. And he gets a lot of air time.
Fuck his ass. Fuck him sideways with a hedgehog into next month (and make him apologize to the hedgehog).
