Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)

30. It's all so damned confusing

Reply to zipplewrath (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 13, 2012, 03:00 PM

Feb 2012

This is why we need single payor

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please help me understand the co-called controversy around the birth control compromise [View all] sudopod Feb 2012 OP

The only way to explain it is if you where completely and utterly insaine. /nt Drale Feb 2012 #1

Obama proposed it, the right wing and their media pundits want to make it an issue liberal N proud Feb 2012 #2

The nontroversy has been re-framed as a religious freedom issue gratuitous Feb 2012 #3

nontroversy is one of my favorite neologisms. :D sudopod Feb 2012 #5

Wouldn't it be great if we could ALL refuse to pay for things we disagree with? Sparkly Feb 2012 #4

Great post Sparkly! smirkymonkey Feb 2012 #9

Here's a case: what if I'm a pacifist Quaker? Can I refuse to pay any taxes, that go the military? Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #15

First question: sudopod Feb 2012 #21

Because it's an opportunity for the GOP Aerows Feb 2012 #6

The idea that McConnel actually cares one way or another is pretty funny. sudopod Feb 2012 #9

the controversy has been manufactured by the media and the cons bowens43 Feb 2012 #7

I just don't understand their argument at all. sudopod Feb 2012 #8

The argument doesn't make sense gratuitous Feb 2012 #11

Close, but not quite zipplewrath Feb 2012 #12

This is hugely informative. sudopod Feb 2012 #16

We get it with no co-pay here in MA Marrah_G Feb 2012 #24

you're talking the patient side zipplewrath Feb 2012 #28

It's all so damned confusing Marrah_G Feb 2012 #30

here's their (ridiculous) argument: unblock Feb 2012 #13

Your third paragraph really nails it. sudopod Feb 2012 #18

Actually, it was a pretty good deal; and the Chruch wasn't entirely closed to it. Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #14

Part of it is that money is fungible and this looks like a shell game/smoke and mirrors accounting HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #17

As a poster upthread noted, depending on how many transfers of ownership we follow the money through sudopod Feb 2012 #19

I appreciate the 'laundering argument' but I think the question hinges on a single question HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #25

Major consumers of insurance services, often negotiate their own independent deal Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #20

BUT, if a sine qua non for being a health insurer HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #26

Basically it's the employer being picky about how he spends the money you earned. JVS Feb 2012 #22

LOL sudopod Feb 2012 #23

An Episcopal priest friend of mine has summarized the absurdity of the RC bishops' position well... markpkessinger Feb 2012 #27

If they're sensible, they already pay for full health packages muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #29

exactly nt sudopod Feb 2012 #31

So? The original compromise offer was pretty good; the Church should reconsider Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #32