Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range
    • From:

      To:


Re: “A really, really angry letter from a uterus to the U.S. Supreme Court

John Clary writes:

"..the ACA just changed a few rules about what "medical insurance" had to be to qualify for the tax break to employers."

Just curious. How many of the 900+ pages did it take to change those few rules? With such minor rules changes, certainly Nancy Pelosi needn't have told us we have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Posted by freefirezone on July 9, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Re: “A really, really angry letter from a uterus to the U.S. Supreme Court

Backing up SKG, employer-provided medical insurance started in WWII when wages were frozen for the war effort, so to attract employees some companies began offering paid medical insurance when they couldn't actually offer more money. It became entrenched in the decades that followed. So to reiterate, employer-paid insurance is part of your compensation, and the ACA just changed a few rules about what "medical insurance" had to be to qualify for the tax break to employers.

Posted by John Clary on July 9, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

Brewengineer,

It's not clear you read your own links. The princeton link states what the objection of Hobby Lobby was to the ECs and IUDs. They "may" prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

As is typical of liberals, they like to cloak their dogma in the arms of science.

"Where does it end?" One could also ask the same question as to the seemingly unlimited line of services to which liberals think they're entitled.

Employers need to disengage from health care and let you whiners go purchase on the open market the services you want.

Posted by freefirezone on July 9, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Re: “From Charleston to Los Angeles, New York to Miami, here are the bottom feeders of public office

Charleston City Paper, your Chris Haire displays his typical bigotry and ignorance in his whack job on Mark Sanford in his contribution to Bottom Feeders. Mark's generation grew up before central air. A window unit was the best we could manage. On a hot night, why wouldn't all the family sleep in the single cool room? The poor child drowned in a swimming pool, not some hole recreationally dug and you want to make a political point of that? For shame, everlasting damnable shame on you. And down here, boy, it is a great honor to the living and the dead to fashion a family member's coffin. I am unaware of Chris Haire's proclivities, but I will quote Mr. Twain: "Some men can resist temptation if the woman lacks in attractiveness." Chris Haire ought to spend a few nights in Buenos Aires before pronouncing judgment. If there is ever a feature on suck-egg journalists, please allow me to write a section on Chris Haire. Meanwhile, somebody needs to slap the fat out of him.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by Roger Pinckney Xi on July 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

landsnark,

Services related to a man's reproductive capacity are not required coverages under Obamacare. If you want to find the idiot, go look in the mirror.

Posted by freefirezone on July 9, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"They just can't force their employers to pay for it anymore." The way you're "forcing" employers to pay for strangers' Viagra and vasectomies? You might be a fucking idiot, IP.

0 of 1 people like this.
Posted by landsnark on July 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Re: “A really, really angry letter from a uterus to the U.S. Supreme Court

Wow, that's two conservatives for single-payer, universal healthcare in one thread. I like the way things are going.

2 of 3 people like this.
Posted by factoryconnection on July 9, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Re: “Ep. 2 Recap: Reckless turns up the heat by turning down the sexy

Good to see a local production on the air. I met a person on the bus today who got work as an extra at a time when he really needed it.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by wjhamilton29464 on July 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Re: “Ep. 2 Recap: Reckless turns up the heat by turning down the sexy

#ImissStephBarnaSoCharmRecaps

I guess u don't know what u got till it's gone....

0 of 1 people like this.
Posted by FairGayme on July 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Re: “George Orwell, Nikki Haley, and the penny sales tax scam

Which are the wasteful taxes may I ask?

0 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Theodore Darid Mauro on July 9, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"And if we all have to pay for your contraceptives, shouldn't we get to watch you using them?"

IP, I know I shouldn't respond to your trolling, but what exactly are YOU paying for? This is an insurance benefit, paid partially by the company and partially by the employee.

3 of 4 people like this.
Posted by brewengineer on July 9, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Re: “George Orwell, Nikki Haley, and the penny sales tax scam

Pay for roads and bridges with sales tax? I thought it was all gas tax that paid for that. Does this mean people on bikes pay taxes for roads to be built and maintained? Can't be.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by deckfinn on July 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Re: “After buying out several Piggly Wigglys, Bi-Lo tries to keep things local

Why doesn't City Paper do a story on how BI-LO is making all the full time employees part time now and they are losing their health insurance. Sure the employees can stay on but their hours are being cut and having to switch locations for some.

9 of 9 people like this.
Posted by runandtellthat on July 9, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Re: “A really, really angry letter from a uterus to the U.S. Supreme Court

I see an error/assumption that I keep seeing over and over:
"...my owner's husband's employer (which helps pay for our health insurance)..."

Your owner's husband's employer does not HELP you pay for your insurance. Insurance is part of your owner's husband's compensation package. Say, employer pays your husband $50,000 and contributes $12,000 to insurance. Your husband really makes $62,000. The employer is not "gifting" $12,000 to him. It is part of his wage and when my employer starts deciding what I get to spend MY wages on, I have a huge problem with that.

5 of 5 people like this.
Posted by Susan Kellett Gue on July 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Re: “Ristorante LIDI gets it right with housemade delights

I'm sorry, don't care how "authentic" the food is, those chincy red and white checkered table cloths have got to go. They scream "Welcome to Genaro's", or even worse La Fontana!

0 of 5 people like this.
Posted by FairGayme on July 9, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"If your idea of contraception is keeping your clothes on, does that mean you are entitled to have someone buy them for you?"

Horrible straw-man there. Insurance coverage is not an entitlement. It is a benefit in return for labor towards profitability of a company. Discrimination should not be allowed in medicine. I just don't get how anyone, who has actually tried to research the topic, can actually side with Hobby Lobby/SCOTUS. Oh wait, they are Republicans, so it is ok to go brain-dead and just follow your party. We need to outlaw the two party system in this country so people will actually start using their heads.

4 of 5 people like this.
Posted by brewengineer on July 9, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

Please, since when is the government mandated to pay for my birth control???? When I was a teenage girl, my periods were irregular and I just dealt with it. This reporter feels these girls need the pill to regulate them? Please, give me a break. In my 20's I paid for my own pills!!! They were not expensive. Then I had an IUD, also not expensive!!!! And now birth control pills are very cheap. They don't need to be covered on Obamacare. This is like the Salem Witch Hunt! Hysteria by the uber Left! And the poor girls with no money are on Medicaid and get their birth control paid for anyway. Women have their right. As far as getting an abortion. I am pro choice. I'm not keen that now pro lifers are allowed to be very close to abortion clinics. But, if a gal is going in for an aborton, just close your eyes and walk right by them. It's your choice to have one. But for Americans to pay for birth control is ridiculous. Women should be happy that we hv Roe v. Wade!!!! Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Move to Afaganistan and then talk to me about women's rights.

2 of 8 people like this.
Posted by lynnar on July 9, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"Women can now be denied contraception by their workplaces."

That's a lie. And not a little white lie. That's a great, big, Obama sized, "you can keep your health care plan" type of lie.

Women are free to purchase and use any form of contraception or abortifacients that they desire.

They just can't force their employers to pay for it anymore.

And if we all have to pay for your contraceptives, shouldn't we get to watch you using them?

0 of 8 people like this.
Posted by I P Yuengling on July 9, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

Maury, just like the ignorant people in SCOTUS, you are wrong. The science shows the truth: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/…
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.ht…
This ruling also allows them to deny coverage for IUDs, which are also not able to eliminate fertilized eggs. However, IUDs are very very effective and worry free birth control devices, which is important to women who need this.
http://boingboing.net/2014/04/19/hobby-lob…
Aside from that, the pills are easily forgotten, which renders them less effective. Ask any woman who went from pill to IUD what they think. Most I know thought the IUD was much better and didn't have the side effects that the shot carried.

But, it is cool to discriminate on medical coverage based on religious beliefs that aren't even affected by the medicine/devices covered in this ruling. Huzzah huzzah, a win for religion. Oh wait, my new religion says obesity is a deadly sin (sort of like Christianity). Therefore, all the lazy fat people that work for my massive company will not get insurance coverage for medical conditions related to their overweight lifestyle. If we are going to allow discrimination for legit medical coverage, where does it end? If a company is going to offer medical insurance (which usually the employee has to help pay for anyways), it should not discriminate. If they are going to cover dick pills for men who can't get it up anymore, they better offer all effective birth control options for women.

4 of 5 people like this.
Posted by brewengineer on July 9, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

The Constitution is a mess and should be rewritten?
And would you include the Declaration and Bill of Rights, too? Aww, fuck it, let's just burn 'em all and start over.

0 of 3 people like this.
Posted by Ima Oldman on July 9, 2014 at 12:45 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2014, Charleston City Paper   RSS