(Close Window)
Topic: Well they certainly got off easy
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 8, 2015 08:41PM)
Http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/09/08/barbershop-fined-for-refusing-to-cut-womans-hair/

"A Pennsylvania barbershop has been fined $750 for refusing to cut a woman’s hair."

Wow, only $750! Peanuts compared to the bakers in Oregon who got fined $135,000.

I guess 'gay' trumps 'female' by a big, big margin.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 8, 2015 09:11PM)
The bakers were ordered to pay damages of $135,000 to the couple they refused service to. I'm not sure whether it was a "fine" per se. The couple lodged a complaint with a State agency and that agency brought charges. Perhaps in part because the bakers were sort of !@#$%^&es and doubled down with further damaging comments in the media.

OTOH, the barber paid the original basic fine and said he would be willing to serve ladies in future.

So it seems to me that there are a number of meaningful differences in the two cases. YMMV.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 8, 2015 11:17PM)
[quote]On Sep 8, 2015, rockwall wrote:


"A Pennsylvania barbershop has been fined $750 for refusing to cut a woman’s hair."

Wow, only $750! Peanuts compared to the bakers in Oregon who got fined $135,000.

I guess 'gay' trumps 'female' by a big, big margin. [/quote]


So 'traditional' marriage, which apparently is one of the foundation stones of all that's good and right and moral in the world, can be equated with getting a few split ends snipped off?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 8, 2015 11:32PM)
Destiny, what a fantastic and telling observation yours is!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 9, 2015 11:41AM)
[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On Sep 8, 2015, rockwall wrote:


"A Pennsylvania barbershop has been fined $750 for refusing to cut a woman’s hair."

Wow, only $750! Peanuts compared to the bakers in Oregon who got fined $135,000.

I guess 'gay' trumps 'female' by a big, big margin. [/quote]


So 'traditional' marriage, which apparently is one of the foundation stones of all that's good and right and moral in the world, can be equated with getting a few split ends snipped off? [/quote]

No one was refusing to marry them Destiny, so it might be more accurate to say having someone make you a cake can be equated with getting a few split ends snipped off.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Sep 9, 2015 05:33PM)
Or maybe, Rockwall, other facts and circumstances accounted for the different outcomes to these dissimilar cases of business services discrimination:


The Pennsylvania Barber Shop Case

1. The Pennsylvania barber shop in question specifically marketed itself as an upscale gentleman's room, bar, and barber shop, a man cave where men came to congregate, have a beer, and get a traditional barber's haircut.

2. The woman who filed the complaint with Pennsylvania's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs had made an online booking for haircuts for her and her boyfriend.

3. When they showed up, the owner of the shop was gracious, explained that they really didn't cut women's hair and weren't equipped for it (no woman had ever requested a haircut there), and even offered to pay for the woman to get a haircut at a place nearby that he recommended.

4. After the woman filed her complaint, the owner of the barbershop was contrite, said he hadn't really realized he was legally compelled to also cut women's hair, explained that he hadn't conceived that a woman would want her hair cut in his establishment and was caught by surprise, said he'd certainly cut women's hair in the future if anyone wanted it, and said the experience had even given him the idea of opening a shop to cater specifically to female clients.

5. The barbershop owner took his medicine and paid the fine "out of respect for the law."



The Oregon Wedding Cake Case

1. Oregon law specifically bars businesses from discriminating or refusing service based on sexual orientation.

2. The Oregon wedding cake bakery had a booth at a public bridal show advertising their wedding cakes and inviting the public to cake-tastings at their bakery.

3. The lesbian bride to be and her mother attended the bridal show, had previously attended one of the bakery's public cake-tastings, loved the cake designs they saw, and approached the owners at their booth to put in an order for a wedding cake.

4. During the order intake, the bakery owners, seeing that the wedding cake would be for two women, refused to take the order for this "sinful" wedding, publicly berated the bride to be, and lectured her and her mother on "God's" law.

5. The bride to be left the show in tears, humiliated and traumatized by the public and illegal display of homophobia she had endured, and she and her partner later filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

6. After the complaint was filed, the bakery owners remained defiant, said they would not “back down,” publicly proclaimed Oregon law invalid and superseded by "God's law" and "God's truth," said they would continue to refuse orders for wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, and vowed to appeal any punishment that might be imposed.


Nah. Too nuanced. Let's go with Rockwall's trite, homophobic, "it pays to be gay" non-sequitur.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 9, 2015 06:08PM)
[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:

Nah. Too nuanced. Let's go with Rockwall's trite, homophobic, "it pays to be gay" non-sequitur. [/quote]
Actually, it really pays (at least in certain communities) to be homophobic.

The Oregon bakers raised well over $400,000 on assorted crowd funding sites to pay the $135,000 in damages. Their fund-raising campaigns were kicked off one or two sites, but they were still allowed to keep the money. For instance, see:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/oregon-bakery-gay-wedding-sweet-cakes-by-melissa-fundraising-120153

The above doesn't even include what they raised on the "Persecuted Christians USA" Samaritan's Purse site. I'd bet they made some solid coin there.

So, taking the above into account, the barber got a real raw deal. He's still working. The bakers made enough to retire from their brick and mortar business.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Sep 9, 2015 07:23PM)
Indeed, balducci.

In rockwallian speak, I guess 'homophobia' trumps 'respect for the law' by a big, big margin.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 9, 2015 08:31PM)
LOL, you're not biased, are you?!?! Just call "homophobic" and hope that it sticks. Predictable.


[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
Or maybe, Rockwall, other facts and circumstances accounted for the different outcomes to these dissimilar cases of business services discrimination:


The Pennsylvania Barber Shop Case

1. The Pennsylvania barber shop in question specifically marketed itself as an upscale gentleman's room, bar, and barber shop, a man cave where men came to congregate, have a beer, and get a traditional barber's haircut.

2. The woman who filed the complaint with Pennsylvania's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs had made an online booking for haircuts for her and her boyfriend.

3. When they showed up, the owner of the shop was gracious, explained that they really didn't cut women's hair and weren't equipped for it (no woman had ever requested a haircut there), and even offered to pay for the woman to get a haircut at a place nearby that he recommended.

4. After the woman filed her complaint, the owner of the barbershop was contrite, said he hadn't really realized he was legally compelled to also cut women's hair, explained that he hadn't conceived that a woman would want her hair cut in his establishment and was caught by surprise, said he'd certainly cut women's hair in the future if anyone wanted it, and said the experience had even given him the idea of opening a shop to cater specifically to female clients.

5. The barbershop owner took his medicine and paid the fine "out of respect for the law."



The Oregon Wedding Cake Case

1. Oregon law specifically bars businesses from discriminating or refusing service based on sexual orientation.

2. The Oregon wedding cake bakery had a booth at a public bridal show advertising their wedding cakes and inviting the public to cake-tastings at their bakery.

3. The lesbian bride to be and her mother attended the bridal show, had previously attended one of the bakery's public cake-tastings, loved the cake designs they saw, and approached the owners at their booth to put in an order for a wedding cake.

4. During the order intake, the bakery owners, seeing that the wedding cake would be for two women, refused to take the order for this "sinful" wedding, publicly berated the bride to be, and lectured her and her mother on "God's" law.

5. The bride to be left the show in tears, humiliated and traumatized by the public and illegal display of homophobia she had endured, and she and her partner later filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

6. After the complaint was filed, the bakery owners remained defiant, said they would not “back down,” publicly proclaimed Oregon law invalid and superseded by "God's law" and "God's truth," said they would continue to refuse orders for wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, and vowed to appeal any punishment that might be imposed.


Nah. Too nuanced. Let's go with Rockwall's trite, homophobic, "it pays to be gay" non-sequitur. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 9, 2015 09:41PM)
[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
Or maybe, Rockwall, other facts and circumstances accounted for the different outcomes to these dissimilar cases of business services discrimination:


...

The Oregon Wedding Cake Case

1. Oregon law specifically bars businesses from discriminating or refusing service based on sexual orientation.[/quote]
Apparently Pennsylvania also has laws against discriminating against gender, otherwise they wouldn't have broken any laws. So, nothing dissimilar there.

[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
2. The Oregon wedding cake bakery had a booth at a public bridal show advertising their wedding cakes and inviting the public to cake-tastings at their bakery.[/quote]
Ummm, so? That actually has something to do with the case?

[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
3. The lesbian bride to be and her mother attended the bridal show, had previously attended one of the bakery's public cake-tastings, loved the cake designs they saw, and approached the owners at their booth to put in an order for a wedding cake.[/quote]
Again, so?

[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
4. During the order intake, the bakery owners, seeing that the wedding cake would be for two women, refused to take the order for this "sinful" wedding, publicly berated the bride to be, and lectured her and her mother on "God's" law.[/quote]
"Publicly berated and lectured" Translation: They explained why they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (I'm sure that if we wanted to hyperventilate, we could describe what happened at the barbershop as, "The barbers publicly berated the woman and lectured her on how his shop only served men".

[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
5. The bride to be left the show in tears, humiliated and traumatized by the public and illegal display of homophobia she had endured, and she and her partner later filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.[/quote]
"Humiliated and traumatized". Wow Dr. Andrews, is that your professional opinion? Also, please quote me Oregon law that makes it a crime to hurt someones feelings cause right now I'm feeling publicly humiliated and traumatized and I'm wondering if I can file a lawsuit!

[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
6. After the complaint was filed, the bakery owners remained defiant, said they would not “back down,” publicly proclaimed Oregon law invalid and superseded by "God's law" and "God's truth," said they would continue to refuse orders for wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, and vowed to appeal any punishment that might be imposed. [/quote]
I'm wondering if this is the part that makes the difference of $134,250 in the fine. If it is, seems a tad steep to me.

[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
Nah. Too nuanced. Let's go with Rockwall's trite, homophobic, "it pays to be gay" non-sequitur. [/quote]

Non-sequitur? Everything that's been posted so far basically confirms my initial conclusion. The outrageous difference in the fines is basically because one party was gay and it's so much worse to refuse services to someone who's gay than for any other reason.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 9, 2015 11:04PM)
But what if they won so much money in the cake case only because they were women?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 10, 2015 12:05AM)
[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, rockwall wrote:

[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
4. During the order intake, the bakery owners, seeing that the wedding cake would be for two women, refused to take the order for this "sinful" wedding, publicly berated the bride to be, and lectured her and her mother on "God's" law.[/quote]
"Publicly berated and lectured" Translation: They explained why they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (I'm sure that if we wanted to hyperventilate, we could describe what happened at the barbershop as, "The barbers publicly berated the woman and lectured her on how his shop only served men".

[/quote]

Absolutely nowhere is there anything to suggest that the barber was anything but polite and helpful to the woman. There is nothing to suggest he berated or lectured her - in fact everything I have read suggests otherwise.

And this has been the problem with the anti same sex marriage hysteria from the start.

Those opposed to same sex marriage have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at the argument rather than rely on facts... if there are any. (Who'd know in among all the talk of bestiality, polygamy and the end of civilisation?) I saw an Englishman on a panel show here a few weeks ago say that the problem with same sex marriage was that gays were slandering Christians and Christians were feeling persecuted. Now if that is the case (and I put aside those people, some of them Christian, some of them gay, who aren't happy unless they're claiming to be martyred over some perceived sleight) the separate problem is that gays are slandering Christians and Christians are feeling persecuted. It is NOT an argument against same sex marriage.

When all this debate initially started a few years ago I would have classified myself as mildly opposed to same sex marriage. I couldn't understand the need for it, but over time I was persuaded to its merits, not by the arguments of those in favour but by the hyperbole and BS of those opposed.

In fact I would dare to say that this is exactly why same sex marriage enjoys the support it does - because the loudest opponents never mounted solid fact based argument against it, instead preferring to continue with the same invective, hysteria and hateful prejudice that homosexuals have endured for centuries.

Speaking of hyperbole and BS, I saw some politician being cheered for offering himself up to go to jail instead of the county clerk. What does he think he is? A #$%&*@ hostage negotiator? "Let the women and children go, and take me instead!" Puhleeze!!!!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Sep 10, 2015 12:20AM)
There's an old, old story about a couple of German officers in WWII entering a German shop and asking for one dozen left-handed coffee cups. The proprietor told them that there was no such thing as left-handed coffee cups and asked them to leave. They then went to a Jewish shop and asked for one dozen left-handed coffee cups. The proprietor replied, "Well, as luck would have it, I happen to have one dozen left-handed coffee cups. I had intended to return them to the manufacturer as I hadn't ordered them, but I'll be happy to sell them to you. They're rare, so they're a little more expensive than other coffee cups."

Who's the smarter proprietor?

(I, for one, dislike the idea of same-sex marriage. But I've performed at same-sex wedding receptions. Honestly, how does it affect me in the least?)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2015 12:22AM)
Regarding the bakers:

"The bakery owners shared the couple's personal contact information [on Facebook and elsewhere] - which led to death threats that nearly caused them [the couple] to lose custody of their foster children"

The bakers also:

"brought the case to the media's attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding the couple"

Trying to equate their actions to that of the barber is laughable.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Sep 10, 2015 03:22AM)
If "Traditional" Marriage is so Sacred and Honorable, why do 50% of all Traditional Marriages end in Divorce? Why so much cheating? Hypocrisy maybe?

How does the Marriage of ANY two consenting Adults effect me or anyone here at the Café?
I don't understand why so many people have to feel threatened by anyone's choice of Partnership or their Sexual Persuasion.

I say get a Life and mind your own business.
-Iven
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 10, 2015 08:32AM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, balducci wrote:
Regarding the bakers:

"The bakery owners shared the couple's personal contact information [on Facebook and elsewhere] - which led to death threats that nearly caused them [the couple] to lose custody of their foster children"

The bakers also:

"brought the case to the media's attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding the couple"

Trying to equate their actions to that of the barber is laughable. [/quote]


Equating the actions of the two is based on what the fines were for. As I understand it, the fines were based on refusal of services. Can you show that the bakers fines were based on either sharing the couples personal information or appearing in public about and making statements about the couple?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 10, 2015 08:37AM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, Destiny wrote:
...

Absolutely nowhere is there anything to suggest that the barber was anything but polite and helpful to the woman. There is nothing to suggest he berated or lectured her - in fact everything I have read suggests otherwise.

... [/quote]

Destiny, you have again completely missed my point. I didn't really think that the barber berated or lectured the lady in question. I was pointing out that the words "berated" and "lectured" were being used in the case of the bakers as hot button words to make what they did sound as bad as possible. I wasn't there so I really don't know but my guess is that the description that they "berated and lectured" the couple is a misrepresentation of what really happened to create the biggest emotional response as possible.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 10, 2015 08:44AM)
My entire complaint with this is the outrageous fine given to someone for the practice of their personally held convictions and the attempt to put someone out of business for those beliefs. The couple would just as likely refuse to make a cake with the inscription "Happy Abortion" for someone celebrating avoiding the punishment of having to raise a child or even "God Hates F$gs" for a Westboro Baptist Church celebration. The difference between me and those who are happy with the courts actions is that I'd defend the couple's right not to make any of those cakes while I'm pretty sure others wouldn't want them punished for refusing. (OK, maybe they would for not making the Abortion cake but certainly not for the Westboro Baptist cake.)
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 10, 2015 09:05AM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
My entire complaint with this is the outrageous fine given to someone for the practice of their personally held convictions and the attempt to put someone out of business for those beliefs. The couple would just as likely refuse to make a cake with the inscription "Happy Abortion" for someone celebrating avoiding the punishment of having to raise a child or even "God Hates F$gs" for a Westboro Baptist Church celebration. The difference between me and those who are happy with the courts actions is that I'd defend the couple's right not to make any of those cakes while I'm pretty sure others wouldn't want them punished for refusing. (OK, maybe they would for not making the Abortion cake but certainly not for the Westboro Baptist cake.) [/quote]

So true. Those with religious beliefs get prosecuted when exercising their freedom rights and choices but when it comes to the other side of the coin it is ok. Hypocrisy at it's best.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 10, 2015 09:05AM)
I found a hair in my lesbian cake. Who should I sue?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2015 09:28AM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, balducci wrote:
Regarding the bakers:

"The bakery owners shared the couple's personal contact information [on Facebook and elsewhere] - which led to death threats that nearly caused them [the couple] to lose custody of their foster children"

The bakers also:

"brought the case to the media's attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding the couple"

Trying to equate their actions to that of the barber is laughable. [/quote]

Equating the actions of the two is based on what the fines were for. As I understand it, the fines were based on refusal of services. Can you show that the bakers fines were based on either sharing the couples personal information or appearing in public about and making statements about the couple? [/quote]
You appear to misunderstand nearly everything about the case.

As I suggested before, the payments were not 'fines' per se, they were court decided damages paid to the couple based on a court action.

The court specifically said "Any damages awarded do not constitute a fine or civil penalty, which the Commissioner has no authority to impose in a case such as this. Instead, any damages fairly compensate RBC and LBC for the harm they suffered and which was proven at hearing. This is an important distinction as this order does not punish respondents for their illegal conduct but, rather makes whole those subjected to the harm their conduct caused."

[url]http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf[/url]

And while YMMV, the findings of the court certainly do seem to support "berate" as a fair description of some of the bakers' actions.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 10, 2015 12:16PM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
My entire complaint with this is the outrageous fine given to someone for the practice of their personally held convictions and the attempt to put someone out of business for those beliefs. The couple would just as likely refuse to make a cake with the inscription "Happy Abortion" for someone celebrating avoiding the punishment of having to raise a child or even "God Hates F$gs" for a Westboro Baptist Church celebration. The difference between me and those who are happy with the courts actions is that I'd defend the couple's right not to make any of those cakes while I'm pretty sure others wouldn't want them punished for refusing. (OK, maybe they would for not making the Abortion cake but certainly not for the Westboro Baptist cake.) [/quote]

So true. Those with religious beliefs get prosecuted when exercising their freedom rights and choices but when it comes to the other side of the coin it is ok. Hypocrisy at it's best. [/quote]

To a degree, I agree. The main problem is the religious people who claim martyrdom when none exists for perceived and exaggerated sleights, and before you protest, I agree, the irreligious, AND gays, can be just as bad. I would include the religious who claim other people's marriages undermine their own as false martyrs along with gays who don''t understand it's not homophobia when someone just doesn't like them.

In my ideal world, if a person of belief did not want to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding they would politely decline citing their belief, and the gays would politely accept, but obviously from the court judgement that's not what happened here.

I have, on very rare occasions, been a customer at businesses which have been rude to me (usually the sort of businesses which are rude to everyone - we've all experienced those) and I simply take my custom elsewhere - simple.

The exception was when I was 18 and a fruit shop near the newspaper where I worked, employed a girl who saw me walking by during the day to work at the paper and then later going to work in a drag show and she continually loudly mocked me, pointing me out to customers and ridiculing me - one day I lost it and stormed in and threatened to throw fruit from one end of the shop to the other. The next day she had to come to the newspaper building in tears because the elderly Italian owners were going to fire her over it. I did not want to see her lose her job, immediately forgave her and bought fruit and veges at that shop for years after. The girl turned out to be lovely - just a silly kid not realising how hurtful she was being.

Being nice to people really does work.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 10, 2015 01:21PM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, balducci wrote:
....

[url]http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf[/url]

And while YMMV, the findings of the court certainly do seem to support "berate" as a fair description of some of the bakers' actions. [/quote]

I did a search on the document you linked to but I wasn't able to find "berate" anywhere in there. Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out what part you're referring to.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2015 02:22PM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, balducci wrote:
....

[url]http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf[/url]

And while YMMV, the findings of the court certainly do seem to support "berate" as a fair description of some of the bakers' actions. [/quote]

I did a search on the document you linked to but I wasn't able to find "berate" anywhere in there. Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out what part you're referring to. [/quote]
I don't know exactly what you mean by "search" the document; it is not a "searchable" pdf as it is only a scan. No word will turn up in a normal pdf search of the document I linked to. Maybe try just reading it?

And I don't know if the word "berate" appears in the document, I did not notice it, but I think that word is a fair description of some of the bakers' actions.

Anyway, I was not the one to introduce that word berate in this discussion. What E.S. Andrews said was about how someone "publicly berated the bride to be, and lectured her and her mother on God's law". According to the court's finding of facts, that (the lecturing and public comments) occurred.

Whether or not that fits your definition of "berate" I guess depends on your meaning of the term. Some synonyms of the word berate (according to Merriam-Webster) are to scold, reprimand, chide, admonish, criticize, and those seem to fit the facts presented.

Whether you consider it berating or not does not change the facts. The court assessed damages. It was not a simple fine like with the barber. The barber never verbally attacked or criticized his customer or the customer's way of life.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 10, 2015 03:33PM)
Ha, well I 'thought' I did a search! I did a control-S and typed in a search word that it didn't find. But you're right, it's not a PDF which I didn't realize. Thank you for pointing that out. I 'suppose' I could have just read it but it IS 122 pages long!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2015 03:51PM)
[quote]My entire complaint with this is the outrageous fine given to someone for the practice of their personally held convictions and the attempt to put someone out of business for those beliefs[/quote]
So you believe that it is unjust to put someone out of business based on their repeated attempts to deny service based on someone's color--as long as it's a "personally held conviction." Nice.

In the real world, people are considered heroes when they [i]protest[/i] the denial of other's civil rights, not when they are in fact the ones [i]doing[/i] the denying.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 10, 2015 08:34PM)
So, you want to put words in my mouth now? I'd say that's so unlike you landmark, but I guess I'd be lying.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Sep 11, 2015 06:33AM)
I'm going to make an appointment with a gynecologist. I will file a lawsuit if I get denied complete service.
Later today I am going to join the local Women's Reading Club AND demand they take the word "Women's" out of the club's name.
I DEMAND SATISFACTION!!!!!
-Iven
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 11, 2015 07:08AM)
Don't blame us if the gynecologist errs on the side of legal caution, and you can't walk for a week after the pelvic examination. ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 11, 2015 08:02AM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
So, you want to put words in my mouth now? I'd say that's so unlike you landmark, but I guess I'd be lying. [/quote]
I put no words in your mouth. I quoted them:

[quote]My entire complaint with this is the outrageous fine given to someone for the practice of their personally held convictions and the attempt to put someone out of business for those beliefs[/quote]
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 11, 2015 09:34AM)
In either of these cases, no one was harmed. These are people that want to star in political theater. The barber has a business to specialize in Men. What is wrong with a modern woman that can't realize that's OK and go somewhere else. No harm. You know the baker is a Christian, why force him to bake your cake. Go somewhere else. No great harm. There are plenty of gay bakers out there. The woman and the lesbians are not facing real discrimination, just people that don't have an interest in providing a service for them because it conflicts with what they do. They can get haircuts and cakes other places. Live and let live.

The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with? It's not just that they're lesbians, it's that they are requiring the baker to supply something for a service they don't think is right.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 11, 2015 10:28AM)
[quote]On Sep 11, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
So, you want to put words in my mouth now? I'd say that's so unlike you landmark, but I guess I'd be lying. [/quote]
I put no words in your mouth. I quoted them:

[quote]My entire complaint with this is the outrageous fine given to someone for the practice of their personally held convictions and the attempt to put someone out of business for those beliefs[/quote] [/quote]

Show me the quote where I said, "repeated attempts to deny service based on someone's color" or else shut the f up.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 11, 2015 12:22PM)
[quote] outrageous fine given to someone for the practice of their [i]personally held convictions[/i] and the attempt to put someone out of business for those beliefs[/quote]
is the general from which all specifics afterwards follow.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 11, 2015 12:25PM)
[quote]On Sep 11, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
In either of these cases, no one was harmed. These are people that want to star in political theater. The barber has a business to specialize in Men. What is wrong with a modern woman that can't realize that's OK and go somewhere else. No harm. You know the baker is a Christian, why force him to bake your cake. Go somewhere else. No great harm. There are plenty of gay bakers out there. The woman and the lesbians are not facing real discrimination, just people that don't have an interest in providing a service for them because it conflicts with what they do. They can get haircuts and cakes other places. Live and let live.

The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with? It's not just that they're lesbians, it's that they are requiring the baker to supply something for a service they don't think is right. [/quote]

Next time I go shopping, I'll be sure to bring a pencil to fill out the questionnaire on why I'm buying what I'm buying. Hope I answer the right way. Dare I eat a peach?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 11, 2015 12:49PM)
I wonder if someone who refused to serve Jews for "religious" reasons would be defended by the same folks who are defending the baker? (I suspect they might WANT to defend him, but just know better.)
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 15, 2015 02:50PM)
[quote]On Sep 11, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 11, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
In either of these cases, no one was harmed. These are people that want to star in political theater. The barber has a business to specialize in Men. What is wrong with a modern woman that can't realize that's OK and go somewhere else. No harm. You know the baker is a Christian, why force him to bake your cake. Go somewhere else. No great harm. There are plenty of gay bakers out there. The woman and the lesbians are not facing real discrimination, just people that don't have an interest in providing a service for them because it conflicts with what they do. They can get haircuts and cakes other places. Live and let live.

The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with? It's not just that they're lesbians, it's that they are requiring the baker to supply something for a service they don't think is right. [/quote]

Next time I go shopping, I'll be sure to bring a pencil to fill out the questionnaire on why I'm buying what I'm buying. Hope I answer the right way. Dare I eat a peach? [/quote]

More pointless rhetoric.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 15, 2015 04:59PM)
[quote]The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with[/quote]

So if I walk into your hardware store looking for a nail, I have to explain to you why I want it before I can buy it from you because I might be using it in a service of which you don't approve?

Is that really the position you're defending?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 15, 2015 05:30PM)
No one asked the baker to be part of a service. He was simply asked to bake a cake.

I was wondering, though, if I decide to order pizzas for our next Black Mass at my house, can Domino's refuse to deliver?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 15, 2015 06:25PM)
Here's a story most of you probably missed, it being in Canada and all.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transit-driver-jesse-rau-fired-over-pride-bus-controversy-1.3225224

A city bus driver nearing the end of his 1 year probationary period calls press conferences to announce that he refuses to drive the City of Calgary's one rainbow-coloured pride bus that was going to be in service for 1 week. Mind you, no one ever asked him to drive it. Of course, he also makes obligatory comments against the gay lifestyle etc. Talks about how abhorrent it all is to the street church he belongs to.

The City has cause to fire him for violating various conditions of him employment (especially as he was only a probationary driver in the first place), and eventually does so. The City notes that this guy used social media to post Nazi-related content. The fellow denies this, says he hates Neo-Nazis etc.

Yet, coincidentally, his Church features, front and center, on its home page an article about a Neo-Nazi supporting the driver and protesting the same bus.

Sigh.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 15, 2015 09:50PM)
[quote]On Sep 15, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
No one asked the baker to be part of a service. He was simply asked to bake a cake.

I was wondering, though, if I decide to order pizzas for our next Black Mass at my house, can Domino's refuse to deliver? [/quote]


I don't know and that is my point. You may have to service a customer regardless of race, religion, etc. The cake was a gay wedding cake. They didn't believe in gay marriage and didn't want to be associated with it. If a lesbian ordered a muffin, you would have to serve her. However, does that same law impel me to service your black mass or any function. Seems like two separate things.

However, you are the lawyer so I defer to your view. I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 15, 2015 09:51PM)
[quote]On Sep 15, 2015, balducci wrote:
Here's a story most of you probably missed, it being in Canada and all.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transit-driver-jesse-rau-fired-over-pride-bus-controversy-1.3225224

A city bus driver nearing the end of his 1 year probationary period calls press conferences to announce that he refuses to drive the City of Calgary's one rainbow-coloured pride bus that was going to be in service for 1 week. Mind you, no one ever asked him to drive it. Of course, he also makes obligatory comments against the gay lifestyle etc. Talks about how abhorrent it all is to the street church he belongs to.

The City has cause to fire him for violating various conditions of him employment (especially as he was only a probationary driver in the first place), and eventually does so. The City notes that this guy used social media to post Nazi-related content. The fellow denies this, says he hates Neo-Nazis etc.

Yet, coincidentally, his Church features, front and center, on its home page an article about a Neo-Nazi supporting the driver and protesting the same bus.

Sigh. [/quote]

You should add a Nazi bus and let him drive it. Now everyone is happy.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 16, 2015 01:45AM)
[quote] I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere. [/quote]
Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 16, 2015 02:24AM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote] I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere. [/quote]
Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle. [/quote]

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 16, 2015 04:14AM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote] I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere. [/quote]
Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle. [/quote]

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party? [/quote]


Only if they really want the dough.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 16, 2015 09:28AM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote] I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere. [/quote]
Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle. [/quote]

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party? [/quote]
Were the lesbians part of an organization that initiated and celebrated the murders and oppression of other people? I may have missed that.

Yes, yes, I know , it was just an example. That said, yes, the bakery doesn't have the right to turn down a lawful request. But maybe we can talk a little more about issues like this.

This is the kind of question that comes up all the time when the KKK petitions to rally in neighborhood. The ACLU correctly supports their right to march. On the other hand, given the limited resources of orgs like the ACLU, I think they could make the same point defending others--no need to waste money on the KKK.

On the other hand, I support the right of others to beat the crap out of the KKK.

I mean I can play the law game, but ultimately the laws are selected and enforced by the powers that be; to think that there is some overall fairness that will be approached is too idealistic in my opinion. First amendment pieties are so often used selectively in a world where money is free speech and corporations are people. There is a real difference between workers and owners, oppressed groups and elites, and ultimately one has to choose which side one is on.

This is a bit to chew on, I know, but ultimately one has to deal not in hypotheticals, but what is.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 16, 2015 11:04AM)
I think the KKK comparison is not applicable. Unlike the LGBT community, the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.

So no, I don't think a black baker could be forced to make a cake for the KKK, any more than the baker in NJ could be forced to write Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler on a birthday cake for a child whose racist parents had actually named him that. (And who stupidly challenged the baker in court and ended up having the kid taken away from them by the Division of Youth and Family Services.)
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 16, 2015 11:38AM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote] I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere. [/quote]
Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle. [/quote]

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party? [/quote]
Were the lesbians part of an organization that initiated and celebrated the murders and oppression of other people? I may have missed that.

Yes, yes, I know , it was just an example. That said, yes, the bakery doesn't have the right to turn down a lawful request. But maybe we can talk a little more about issues like this.

This is the kind of question that comes up all the time when the KKK petitions to rally in neighborhood. The ACLU correctly supports their right to march. On the other hand, given the limited resources of orgs like the ACLU, I think they could make the same point defending others--no need to waste money on the KKK.

On the other hand, I support the right of others to beat the crap out of the KKK.

I mean I can play the law game, but ultimately the laws are selected and enforced by the powers that be; to think that there is some overall fairness that will be approached is too idealistic in my opinion. First amendment pieties are so often used selectively in a world where money is free speech and corporations are people. There is a real difference between workers and owners, oppressed groups and elites, and ultimately one has to choose which side one is on.

This is a bit to chew on, I know, but ultimately one has to deal not in hypotheticals, but what is. [/quote]

So all the decisions are relative and based on your feelings about the parties involved. Given your feelings about the law and elites and so on, there is no need for anyone to do anything other than what they feel is right.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 16, 2015 11:40AM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think the KKK comparison is not applicable. Unlike the LGBT community, the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.

So no, I don't think a black baker could be forced to make a cake for the KKK, any more than the baker in NJ could be forced to write Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler on a birthday cake for a child whose racist parents had actually named him that. (And who stupidly challenged the baker in court and ended up having the kid taken away from them by the Division of Youth and Family Services.) [/quote]

So the distinction is whether or not you are recognized hate group? Doesn't that play havoc with the law? I don't think the parents you mentioned are a hate group. They may belong to some white supremicist org, but the cake is only a birthday cake and the name is only a name. Why respect their feelings and not the christian bakeras?

Should a child be taken from a parent for being named AF? Seems a slippery slope. What if they named him Stalin, would that warrant removal? Or if they called him Jeffrey Dahmer?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 16, 2015 01:16PM)
[quote]
So all the decisions are relative and based on your feelings about the parties involved.[/quote]
Correct, as are yours.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 16, 2015 05:15PM)
[quote] Let's go with Rockwall's trite, homophobic, "it pays to be gay" non-sequitur. [/quote]

In what sense is that homophobic?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 16, 2015 05:28PM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote] I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere. [/quote]
Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle. [/quote]

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party? [/quote]
Were the lesbians part of an organization that initiated and celebrated the murders and oppression of other people? I may have missed that.

Yes, yes, I know , it was just an example. That said, yes, the bakery doesn't have the right to turn down a lawful request. But maybe we can talk a little more about issues like this.

This is the kind of question that comes up all the time when the KKK petitions to rally in neighborhood. The ACLU correctly supports their right to march. On the other hand, given the limited resources of orgs like the ACLU, I think they could make the same point defending others--no need to waste money on the KKK.

On the other hand, I support the right of others to beat the crap out of the KKK.

I mean I can play the law game, but ultimately the laws are selected and enforced by the powers that be; to think that there is some overall fairness that will be approached is too idealistic in my opinion. First amendment pieties are so often used selectively in a world where money is free speech and corporations are people. There is a real difference between workers and owners, oppressed groups and elites, and ultimately one has to choose which side one is on.

This is a bit to chew on, I know, but ultimately one has to deal not in hypotheticals, but what is. [/quote]

Great response, Landmark. I think the ACLU example suggests that ultimately, one [i]doesn't[/i] have to choose sides; one can consistently defend a principle. "All lives matter" isn't a "violent statement."

Having said all that, I don't think I'd eat a cake made by a black-owned bakery for a KKK event. Even if it were a vegan cake.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 16, 2015 05:30PM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think the KKK comparison is not applicable. Unlike the LGBT community, the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.

So no, I don't think a black baker could be forced to make a cake for the KKK, any more than the baker in NJ could be forced to write Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler on a birthday cake for a child whose racist parents had actually named him that. (And who stupidly challenged the baker in court and ended up having the kid taken away from them by the Division of Youth and Family Services.) [/quote]

As has been endorsed by SCOTUS, it's the unpopular exercises of rights that the constitution primarily exists to protect.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 16, 2015 06:34PM)
If a black baker is forced to make a cake honoring the KKK, he is, in essence, being asked to be complicit with a hate group. The LGBT community is not a hate group. They have, however, been discriminated against throughout history. They are not yet,however, included among the protected classes under the 14th amendment. It has been argued several times in the courts, however, that they are indeed a "suspect class" (i.e., a class that has been discriminated against historically and such discrimination continues.) Thus far, the cases have been reversed on appeal, but it is only a matter of time before LGBT is recognized as a protected class.

[quote]The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 [5] and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).[6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in its Findings of Fact commented that sexual orientation could be considered a suspect class but, on the facts presented Proposition 8 failed even to satisfy the much more deferential rational basis review.[7] The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the same in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning,[8] but was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

The KKK, on the other hand, does not have, and will never have, such protection.

Thus, the cases are completely distinguishable.

Yes, the KKK may be permitted to march through Skokie, but they can't force black people to march with them.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 16, 2015 06:56PM)
In my example, black people would be no more "forced to march" with the KKK than the bakers in the Oregon case were forced to march in a gay pride parade. They would simply (potentially) be forced to operate their business of public accomodation in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 16, 2015 07:06PM)
You have completely side-stepped the argument I made that LGBT, unlike the KKK, may well be found to be a protected or suspect class under the 14th Amendment.

If a black baker is asked to write something on a case the promotes a hate group, and refuses, that is entirely distinguishable from discriminating against someone based on their race, sex, disability or sexual orientation.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 17, 2015 03:12PM)
The baker didn't discriminate against anyone based on race, sex, disability or sexual orientation. They are happy to make cakes for gay people. They didn't want to make one for a gay wedding. Even if a straight person came in to purchase the cake for the gay wedding, the baker would have refused.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Sep 17, 2015 03:21PM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

The LGBT community is not a hate group. [/quote]

They aren't?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 17, 2015 03:35PM)
[quote]On Sep 15, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with[/quote]

So if I walk into your hardware store looking for a nail, I have to explain to you why I want it before I can buy it from you because I might be using it in a service of which you don't approve?

Is that really the position you're defending? [/quote]

At a federal level, there's quite possibly a distinction between a hardware store and a bakery.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 17, 2015 07:17PM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

The LGBT community is not a hate group. [/quote]

They aren't? [/quote]
Uh...no.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 17, 2015 07:17PM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 15, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with[/quote]

So if I walk into your hardware store looking for a nail, I have to explain to you why I want it before I can buy it from you because I might be using it in a service of which you don't approve?

Is that really the position you're defending? [/quote]

At a federal level, there's quite possibly a distinction between a hardware store and a bakery. [/quote]
Okay, I'll bite--what's the distinction?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 17, 2015 07:24PM)
The Civil Rights Act doesn't prohibit discrimination as a blanket prohibition; it prohibits discrimination (against certain classes) by businesses that are "places of public accommodation," which includes most places that sell food. A bakery would probably fall under the law; a hardware store quite likely wouldn't.

Extra credit for "I'll bite" - You nailed it! (Hardware pun intended)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 17, 2015 09:13PM)
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
... the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.
... [/quote]

Says who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

"The FBI does not publish a list of hate groups, and "[I]nvestigations are conducted only when a threat or advocacy of force is made; when the group has the apparent ability to carry out the proclaimed act; and when the act would constitute a potential violation of federal law."
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 17, 2015 10:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
... the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.
... [/quote]

Says who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

"The FBI does not publish a list of hate groups, and "[I]nvestigations are conducted only when a threat or advocacy of force is made; when the group has the apparent ability to carry out the proclaimed act; and when the act would constitute a potential violation of federal law." [/quote]
But it does describe the KKK as a group known for committng hate crimes.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes

Anyway, of course, the FBI is not the whole federal government and certainly I do not know what Bob meant exactly.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 17, 2015 10:25PM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, balducci wrote:
... and certainly I do not know what Bob meant exactly. [/quote]

That's why I asked. I'm just not gonna hold my breath.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 17, 2015 10:29PM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
... the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.
... [/quote]

Says who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

"The FBI does not publish a list of hate groups, and "[I]nvestigations are conducted only when a threat or advocacy of force is made; when the group has the apparent ability to carry out the proclaimed act; and when the act would constitute a potential violation of federal law." [/quote]
So it seems the FBI may not PUBLISH a LIST of hate groups, but it most certainly has publicly LISTED the KKK among hate groups at times.

[url]https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro/White%20Hate%20Groups/white-hate-groups-part-01-of-14[/url]

"investigation of Ku Klux Klan and other Hate Groups" it says early on.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 17, 2015 10:35PM)
You're a funny guy Balducci. I also notice that early on they list the date of publication as 5/11/78. I wonder what the FBI thought of gay groups back then?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 17, 2015 10:43PM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, rockwall wrote:
You're a funny guy Balducci. I also notice that early on they list the date of publication as 5/11/78. I wonder what the FBI thought of gay groups back then? [/quote]


It's hardly a secret the FBI happily persecuted any gays who did not hold the position of Director of the FBI.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 17, 2015 11:16PM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, rockwall wrote:

You're a funny guy Balducci. I also notice that early on they list the date of publication as 5/11/78. I wonder what the FBI thought of gay groups back then? [/quote]
The facts are that the FBI has explicitly described the KKK as a hate group in the past, and clearly still associates it with hate groups today.

What I think is funny (sad, really) is the depths to which you are sinking to in this thread. I think when someone has to start defending the KKK to make a case, one should concede defeat.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 17, 2015 11:53PM)
Or when one has to resort to arbitrary distinctions. As has been acknowledged, the KKK has been held by SCOTUS to be entitled to constitutional protections.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 18, 2015 04:06AM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, rockwall wrote:
You're a funny guy Balducci. I also notice that early on they list the date of publication as 5/11/78. I wonder what the FBI thought of gay groups back then? [/quote]


It's hardly a secret the FBI happily persecuted any gays who did not hold the position of Director of the FBI. [/quote]
Zing!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 18, 2015 10:13PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Or when one has to resort to arbitrary distinctions. As has been acknowledged, the KKK has been held by SCOTUS to be entitled to constitutional protections. [/quote]
Keep up. I was only replying to distinctions others introduced. (I never claimed the KKK was not entitled to constitutional protections etc. That's for you U.S. citizens to decide.)

Unless you were referring to your own distinction between a hardware store and a bakery?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 18, 2015 10:26PM)
Keep up. The distinction that I brought up is enshrined in federal law.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 18, 2015 10:28PM)
Fine, but what does that have to do with anything I posted? I just commented on Bob and Rockwall's comments on the KKK being recognized (or not) as a hate group.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 18, 2015 10:59PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Or when one has to resort to arbitrary distinctions. As has been acknowledged, the KKK has been held by SCOTUS to be entitled to constitutional protections. [/quote]

And in Skokie it was found that the American Nazi party, too, was entitled to constitutional protections, EVEN THOUGH they are also a hate group.

But membership in either doesn't make one a member of a constitutionally protected or suspect class, as you well know. I'm sure that Rockwall has no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm sure you appreciate why hate groups and the LGBT community are not even remotely comparable.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2015 08:01AM)
To be fair to Lobo, he was only using the KKK as an example, a foil to my comments. He probably could pick other examples less contentious legally, but that would still make his point. And I would still reply the same way.

And in the same way, it may be that legally I picked a bad example with hardware store. But again the point still holds. I don't think that I should have to submit to a thought purity test before I purchase something.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 19, 2015 09:52AM)
The hardware store wasn't a bad example; it just provided me an opportunity for an aside. Most people think that "businesses" can't discriminate, as a blanket statement. The fact is, it's only certain types of businesses that can't discriminate (against certain types of people). If you own the sandwich shop, you can't (legally) refuse to serve people on the basis of race; if they own the store next door that sells Popsicle stick sculptures, they can refuse to serve you on the basis of your race.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2015 11:57AM)
Now that's a piece of information that I am pretty shocked to learn. Even for a protected class?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 19, 2015 01:40PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Sep 17, 2015, rockwall wrote:

You're a funny guy Balducci. I also notice that early on they list the date of publication as 5/11/78. I wonder what the FBI thought of gay groups back then? [/quote]
The facts are that the FBI has explicitly described the KKK as a hate group in the past, and clearly still associates it with hate groups today.

What I think is funny (sad, really) is the depths to which you are sinking to in this thread. I think when someone has to start defending the KKK to make a case, one should concede defeat. [/quote]

For a smart guy, you'd think you'd be able to tell the difference between defending a particular group and asking questions about supposed facts by someone whos known to make things up as he goes along. Bob's entire argument was based on the supposed 'fact' that the government recognizes the KKK as a hate group. Apparently, (as Bob has been unable to provide support for his 'assumption'), it's not true. But coming from Bob, that's not surprising.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 19, 2015 02:58PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2015, landmark wrote:
Now that's a piece of information that I am pretty shocked to learn. Even for a protected class? [/quote]


States may enact (any many have) laws that offer their citizens more protections than the federal law does, but for the Civil Rights Act, yes, even for protected classes. The consumer protection apply to businesses that are "places of public accommodation." That category covers most businesses, but not all.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2015 03:26PM)
Could you please go more into what the definition of "public accomodation" includes and excludes?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 19, 2015 06:05PM)
"TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, Caféteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2015 06:21PM)
Quite amazing.
Isn't some of this superseded by subsequent housing law? I'm thinking specifically of b (1), "other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; " or is that still a present exemption?

(General law question--is there some way to know in general if a section of a law has been superseded?)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 19, 2015 09:32PM)
That is interesting Lobo. I've got a couple questions.

1. You said earlier that the bakery would probably qualify as a place of public accommodation but the description in the law doesn't seem as though it would apply. It specifically says, "facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises", which a cake bakery is most likley not "principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premisis".

2. Also, the law specifically states that it covers, "without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." It doesn't mention sexual orientation.

Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Sep 19, 2015 10:08PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law? [/quote]

They were certainly breaking any moral law not based decency.

The fact that we need any laws to compel people to treat others with the same respect that they demand, is a disgrace in this land where ALL are supposed to have been created equally.

Please note that when speaking of morality I'm speaking GENERALLY.
Message: Posted by: motown (Sep 19, 2015 10:43PM)
[quote]On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
Or maybe, Rockwall, other facts and circumstances accounted for the different outcomes to these dissimilar cases of business services discrimination:


The Pennsylvania Barber Shop Case

1. The Pennsylvania barber shop in question specifically marketed itself as an upscale gentleman's room, bar, and barber shop, a man cave where men came to congregate, have a beer, and get a traditional barber's haircut.

2. The woman who filed the complaint with Pennsylvania's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs had made an online booking for haircuts for her and her boyfriend.

3. When they showed up, the owner of the shop was gracious, explained that they really didn't cut women's hair and weren't equipped for it (no woman had ever requested a haircut there), and even offered to pay for the woman to get a haircut at a place nearby that he recommended.

4. After the woman filed her complaint, the owner of the barbershop was contrite, said he hadn't really realized he was legally compelled to also cut women's hair, explained that he hadn't conceived that a woman would want her hair cut in his establishment and was caught by surprise, said he'd certainly cut women's hair in the future if anyone wanted it, and said the experience had even given him the idea of opening a shop to cater specifically to female clients.

5. The barbershop owner took his medicine and paid the fine "out of respect for the law."

[/quote] I wonder if the woman had gotten a bad haircut if she would have filed a complaint. :-)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 19, 2015 11:34PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
That is interesting Lobo. I've got a couple questions.

1. You said earlier that the bakery would probably qualify as a place of public accommodation but the description in the law doesn't seem as though it would apply. It specifically says, "facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises", which a cake bakery is most likley not "principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premisis".

2. Also, the law specifically states that it covers, "without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." It doesn't mention sexual orientation.

Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law? [/quote]


Quite probably. They were sued under state law.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 20, 2015 06:11PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law? [/quote]

They were certainly breaking any moral law not based decency.

The fact that we need any laws to compel people to treat others with the same respect that they demand, is a disgrace in this land where ALL are supposed to have been created equally.

Please note that when speaking of morality I'm speaking GENERALLY. [/quote]

I don't think we have moral laws unlike some other countries.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 20, 2015 06:34PM)
[quote]On Sep 20, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law? [/quote]

They were certainly breaking any moral law not based decency.

The fact that we need any laws to compel people to treat others with the same respect that they demand, is a disgrace in this land where ALL are supposed to have been created equally.

Please note that when speaking of morality I'm speaking GENERALLY. [/quote]

I don't think we have moral laws unlike some other countries. [/quote]

Let me be the first to say that you're quite incorrect about that.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 21, 2015 06:15PM)
It appears you are.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 21, 2015 06:45PM)
What is "You are legally required to obtain health insurance in order to facilitate the subsidization of health insurance for people who would otherwise be unable to afford it" if not a "moral law"?

Or laws prohibiting gambling, or prostitution?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 21, 2015 08:06PM)
[quote]On Sep 21, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What is "You are legally required to obtain health insurance in order to facilitate the subsidization of health insurance for people who would otherwise be unable to afford it" if not a "moral law"?

Or laws prohibiting gambling, or prostitution? [/quote]

That question made me reflect on how ineffectual laws against gambling and prostitution are.

The laws never stop it or even seem to make a dent in it.

Then I thought of drugs and - same thought.

Oh well I thought - at least the laws against murder and thieving work.

And then I thought - hold on - do they?

There's still plenty of murderers and thieves.

So now I'm wondering if any of our laws work?

If we would have any less murdering and thieving without laws against it?

If any of the laws actually lessen the amount of offences committed or just provide a framework for dealing with them?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 21, 2015 09:58PM)
The ACA isn't just a moral law. It's purely pragmatic as well. Who pays (and how much) for the health care of those who can't afford insurance without the ACA?

But I suppose, of course, that "just let them die," is a moral choice as well.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 21, 2015 10:18PM)
[quote]On Sep 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
The ACA isn't just a moral law. It's purely pragmatic as well. Who pays (and how much) for the health care of those who can't afford insurance without the ACA?

But I suppose, of course, that "just let them die," is a moral choice as well. [/quote]

True, too. I suspect that most laws in the USA are "moral laws" in part or in whole.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 21, 2015 10:22PM)
Isn't the whole concept of law a moral construct?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 21, 2015 11:26PM)
[quote]On Sep 21, 2015, landmark wrote:
Isn't the whole concept of law a moral construct? [/quote]

I would say in large part, if not primarily.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 22, 2015 08:05AM)
Both sides of this argument have strong points. As per usual I fall out somewhere in between.

Should the LGBT community become a protected group? Here are a couple of thoughts...

#1 : The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted largely to counter an en masse discrimination of black people in specific parts of the country. Yes, there are provisions for other groups but it was the racial component that created the political will to push it forward. In parts of the country, the discrimination was so severe and so widespread that some legal remedy was necessary. The LGBT community is working within a very different context. There were entire towns where a black man (or woman) could not stay in a hotel or go to a restaurant. This situation seems quite different to me in that if an isolated baker or barber refuses service you can go to one of 1,000 others. I'm sure many of you can provide additional examples of discrimination but the larger point is that this discrimination does not rise to the level that was necessary to enact the Civil Rights Act in the first place. Should the pervasiveness of the discrimination have some bearing on whether or not a Constitutional Amendment is required? If not, then there are many other groups that should be Constitutionally protected as well, not just the LGBT crowd.

#2 : If a shop owner wants to be ignorant, hateful and small shouldn't they have the right to do so? Wouldn't the free market weed them out? They would lose business of not only the LGBT community but all the people that oppose discrimination in general, and there are a lot of people that fit that description. The fewer people you allow through your doors, the less money you make, the more money your competition makes and the quicker you'll be out of business and give way to those business that are most inclusive.

#3 : You can't legislate what's in a person's heart and mind. Just because a bakery is legally required to bake a cake doesn't mean that I'd want to buy that cake if I knew the malice and bigotry behind it (and accept the possibility of one or more 'secret ingredients'). A good friend of mine in college once told me why he preferred spending time in the south. He said there is no pretext down there. If someone doesn't like you, for whatever reason, the color of your skin, the shine of your shoes, etc. they will say it to your face. In yankee country, you just never know the true intent behind the smile. Isn't it in some way an advantage to have a bigot advertise their bigotry so you know what's behind the veneer and what establishments to avoid?
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 22, 2015 11:17AM)
[quote]On Sep 21, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On Sep 21, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What is "You are legally required to obtain health insurance in order to facilitate the subsidization of health insurance for people who would otherwise be unable to afford it" if not a "moral law"?

Or laws prohibiting gambling, or prostitution? [/quote]

That question made me reflect on how ineffectual laws against gambling and prostitution are.

The laws never stop it or even seem to make a dent in it.

Then I thought of drugs and - same thought.

Oh well I thought - at least the laws against murder and thieving work.

And then I thought - hold on - do they?

There's still plenty of murderers and thieves.

So now I'm wondering if any of our laws work?

If we would have any less murdering and thieving without laws against it?

If any of the laws actually lessen the amount of offences committed or just provide a framework for dealing with them? [/quote]


The fact that a majority of people obey the law is why society works. When they don't it doesn't . Laws per se don't prevent crime. They only prescribe punishment so the risk reward is not good.
Most people obey because they agree it is the right way to run a society. When they don't you get anarchy.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 22, 2015 11:18AM)
[quote]On Sep 21, 2015, landmark wrote:
Isn't the whole concept of law a moral construct? [/quote]

Only in the sense that they come from the 10 commandments or earlier ideas of how society should work. Otherwise they are invented to help those in power.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 22, 2015 11:20AM)
[quote]On Sep 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
The ACA isn't just a moral law. It's purely pragmatic as well. Who pays (and how much) for the health care of those who can't afford insurance without the ACA?

But I suppose, of course, that "just let them die," is a moral choice as well. [/quote]

I think there is more here than get insurance or die. The ACA only affects a small portion of the population. There are other pragmatic ways to accomplish the goal of keeping people from dying.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 22, 2015 06:44PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
The ACA only affects a small portion of the population.
[/quote]

Since nearly 90% of Americans now have health coverage (a sharp improvement from two years ago), it's more accurate to say that the ACA affects almost the entire population.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/obamacare-uninsured-gallup/


[quote]
There are other pragmatic ways to accomplish the goal of keeping people from dying. [/quote]

Such as...?

Ron
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 22, 2015 09:08PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
The ACA only affects a small portion of the population.
[/quote]

Since nearly 90% of Americans now have health coverage (a sharp improvement from two years ago), it's more accurate to say that the ACA affects almost the entire population.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/obamacare-uninsured-gallup/


[quote]
There are other pragmatic ways to accomplish the goal of keeping people from dying. [/quote]

Such as...?

Ron [/quote]


Per your link, 82% of Americans had healthcare coverage then, and 88.1% do now, so that's a whopping 6.1% that were affected. Not quite "almost all."

Or are you also counting those who had healthcare coverage and still do, but no longer have the plan or the doctor that they used to have and wanted to keep?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 23, 2015 05:17AM)
My point was that the ACA affects EVERYONE with health insurance (the almost 90% of Americans), because under the ACA all those folks can no longer be denied for pre-existing conditions, have their coverage rescinded, insurance companies must comply with the 80% rule (which enabled me to get a refund check a couple years ago), etc.

So it is not correct to say that "the ACA only affects a small portion of the population." :-)

And for those who aren't as diligent as Lobo about reading links, here's the gist of it...

[quote]

Nearly 90 percent of Americans have health coverage

Nearly nine out of 10 Americans now have health insurance, a sharp improvement from two years ago before Obamacare was put in place.

A poll by Gallup found that the uninsured rate among U.S adults declined to 11.9% in the first quarter, down one percentage point from the end of last year and an improvement from the 18% without insurance in the fall of 2013, when the Americans were first were able to sign up for coverage at state and federal exchanges.

This is the lowest percentage of Americans without coverage since Gallup started tracking the figure in 2008. Those without coverage was just under 15% at that time, then remained in the range of 15% to 18% before it started declining sharply two years ago. The law requiring most Americans to have coverage or pay a penalty took effect at the start of 2014.

"An improving economy and a falling unemployment rate may also have accelerated the steep drop in the percentage of uninsured over the past year," said the Gallup report. "However, the uninsured rate is significantly lower than it was in early 2008, before the depths of the economic recession, suggesting that the recent decline is due to more than just an improving economy." [/quote]


Ron
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 23, 2015 11:34AM)
Don't forget the ACA helped with sky rocketing premiums and deductibles for everybody.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 23, 2015 03:52PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
The ACA only affects a small portion of the population.
[/quote]

Since nearly 90% of Americans now have health coverage (a sharp improvement from two years ago), it's more accurate to say that the ACA affects almost the entire population.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/obamacare-uninsured-gallup/


[quote]
There are other pragmatic ways to accomplish the goal of keeping people from dying. [/quote]

Such as...?

Ron [/quote]

Form a fund at the state level for uninsurable people (existing conditions, etc.). It's been done for uninsurable drivers, other. Let insurance companies compete across state lines and reduce their costs which they can pass along. ACA has 6m members. At 10K a year per, it would cost 60B. Less than we all will pay for ACA.

I would suspect the real number of people needing this is 3-4M
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 23, 2015 03:54PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
My point was that the ACA affects EVERYONE with health insurance (the almost 90% of Americans), because under the ACA all those folks can no longer be denied for pre-existing conditions, have their coverage rescinded, insurance companies must comply with the 80% rule (which enabled me to get a refund check a couple years ago), etc.

So it is not correct to say that "the ACA only affects a small portion of the population." :-)

And for those who aren't as diligent as Lobo about reading links, here's the gist of it...

[quote]

Nearly 90 percent of Americans have health coverage

Nearly nine out of 10 Americans now have health insurance, a sharp improvement from two years ago before Obamacare was put in place.

A poll by Gallup found that the uninsured rate among U.S adults declined to 11.9% in the first quarter, down one percentage point from the end of last year and an improvement from the 18% without insurance in the fall of 2013, when the Americans were first were able to sign up for coverage at state and federal exchanges.

This is the lowest percentage of Americans without coverage since Gallup started tracking the figure in 2008. Those without coverage was just under 15% at that time, then remained in the range of 15% to 18% before it started declining sharply two years ago. The law requiring most Americans to have coverage or pay a penalty took effect at the start of 2014.

"An improving economy and a falling unemployment rate may also have accelerated the steep drop in the percentage of uninsured over the past year," said the Gallup report. "However, the uninsured rate is significantly lower than it was in early 2008, before the depths of the economic recession, suggesting that the recent decline is due to more than just an improving economy." [/quote]


Ron [/quote]

Maybe so, but at a cost to all of us that is much higher than warrented. A lot of this is going to Medicaid. We all pay for that. This whole thing was profit for insurance and a screwing for the taxpayers.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 23, 2015 05:52PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
My point was that the ACA affects EVERYONE with health insurance ... [/quote]

Yeah, we know. That's kinda the problem.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 23, 2015 06:34PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, RNK wrote:
Don't forget the ACA helped with sky rocketing premiums and deductibles for everybody. [/quote]

Wow, talk about a broad-brush and disingenuous statement! Really? "Skyrocketing"? For EVERYBODY? Actually, some parts of the law actually help to [I]reduce[/I] premium costs.
[quote]
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums/

Before we discuss how the Affordable Care Act’s provisions both increase and decrease premiums, it’s important to understand that health insurance premium rates have been rising at alarming rates over the past decade due to the rising cost of health care in the U.S. In fact premium rates are rising faster than income which is part of the cause of Americans lacking access to Affordable Health Insurance.[/quote]

So raising premiums is nothing new for insurance companies. But if you want to talk about skyrocketing premiums and deductibles, my rates went up and up for years [I]before[/I] the ACA was ever implemented, and in 2009, three years [I]before[/I] the ACA, my rates went up 100% for no reason at all! When the ACA came along, my rates went up at about the same or less rate than in the years prior to the ACA (which with the exception of that one year with the 100% increase, was in the 15-25% range). And as I said, a couple years ago I also received an automatic refund from the insurance company for non-compliance with the ACA's 80% rule. :-)

Also, notice in the chart that the average family premium as a percentage of median family income in 2011 (before the ACA) was 19%. In 2015 it's 21%. That's certainly not consistent with the claim of "sky rocketing premiums and deductibles for everybody".

[quote]
The primary cause of the insurance premium rate hikes under ObamaCare is the requirement for insurers to cover high-risk consumers. Insurance companies can no longer deny Americans with pre-existing conditions and can’t charge higher rates based on health status or gender. These factors, along with a few other required benefits, rights and protections (like the elimination of lifetime and annual dollar limits) led to rate increases between 2010 and 2014.

By 2015 a lot of the premium growth has slowed, and health care spending is curbed for the first time in the decade in many instances. On top of that, many Americans can now Get Reduced Premium Rates and lower out-of-pocket costs by enrolling in a plan on their State’s health insurance marketplace.

The need for healthcare reform is obvious, the real question is, “does the ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) do enough to make insurance more affordable through it’s mandates, marketplace, and it’s new provisions, like the medical loss ratio and rate review provision, to protect consumers against insurance premium rate hikes moving forward.”

FACT: Some regions saw bigger premium hikes than others under the ACA. Also lower-income adults (under the 400% Federal Poverty Level) are the most likely to see a reduction in what they pay. Those with high-end plans, who had been in exclusive groups due to being healthy, saw the biggest premium increase. Post 2015 fluctuations, common as the law was transitioning to it’s new protections, are projected to curb and remain curbed over time.

ObamaCare Premiums in 2015

Reports are showing that premiums seeing average increase in premium growth of only 4% in 2015. In some major cities rates are even going down before subsidies. The cost of insurance premiums varies wildly by region, so not everyone is expected to see rates go down or stay about the same.
[/quote]

Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 23, 2015 06:47PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
The ACA only affects a small portion of the population.
[/quote]

Since nearly 90% of Americans now have health coverage (a sharp improvement from two years ago), it's more accurate to say that the ACA affects almost the entire population.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/obamacare-uninsured-gallup/


[quote]
There are other pragmatic ways to accomplish the goal of keeping people from dying. [/quote]

Such as...?

Ron [/quote]

Form a fund at the state level for uninsurable people (existing conditions, etc.). It's been done for uninsurable drivers, other. Let insurance companies compete across state lines and reduce their costs which they can pass along. ACA has 6m members. At 10K a year per, it would cost 60B. Less than we all will pay for ACA.

I would suspect the real number of people needing this is 3-4M [/quote]

Who contributes to the fund? Anyway, not sure how that's much different than creating a marketplace for Americans to buy regulated PRIVATE Insurance, which the ACA already does.

Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 23, 2015 06:55PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Maybe so, but at a cost to all of us that is much higher than warrented. A lot of this is going to Medicaid. We all pay for that. This whole thing was profit for insurance and a screwing for the taxpayers. [/quote]

You mean the same insurance companies that weren't held accountable before, but now have to use 80% of their profits for actual health care services or else pay a penalty?? The ACA is a scheme for them to profit? And how does all this screw the many taxpayers who couldn't get insurance before, but now can?

Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 23, 2015 07:02PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
My point was that the ACA affects EVERYONE with health insurance ... [/quote]

Yeah, we know. That's kinda the problem. [/quote]


How is not being denied for health coverage, not having your plan rescinded, insurance companies being held accountable via the 80% rule, establishing minimum standards for health insurance policies, extension of dependent coverage, etc. a problem?

Ron
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 23, 2015 07:05PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
My point was that the ACA affects EVERYONE with health insurance ... [/quote]

Yeah, we know. That's kinda the problem. [/quote]


How is not being denied for health coverage, not having your plan rescinded, insurance companies being held accountable via the 80% rule, establishing minimum standards for health insurance policies, extension of dependent coverage, etc. a problem?

Ron [/quote]

Nicely framed! Let me try: How is losing the plan and/or doctor that you liked, paying higher premiums, etc. a benefit?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 23, 2015 07:20PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
My point was that the ACA affects EVERYONE with health insurance ... [/quote]

Yeah, we know. That's kinda the problem. [/quote]


How is not being denied for health coverage, not having your plan rescinded, insurance companies being held accountable via the 80% rule, establishing minimum standards for health insurance policies, extension of dependent coverage, etc. a problem?

Ron [/quote]

Nicely framed! Let me try: How is losing the plan and/or doctor that you liked, paying higher premiums, etc. a benefit? [/quote]


Nobody I know lost their plan. Now, I'm aware that some did. And I bet a lot of those ended up getting [I]better[/I] plans with more coverage when all was said and done.

In the long run, and this is just my opinion, I think we'll all be better off. Of course, time will tell. But I'm glad there are much less uninsured in the country now than there were a few years ago. With consumer protections to boot! :-)

Ron
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 23, 2015 08:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Nicely framed! Let me try: How is losing the plan and/or doctor that you liked, paying higher premiums, etc. a benefit? [/quote]

Nobody I know lost their plan. Now, I'm aware that some did. And I bet a lot of those ended up getting [I]better[/I] plans with more coverage when all was said and done.
[/quote]
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/13/fewer-people-lost-2015-health-plans-due-to-obamacare.html

"In the individual insurance plan market [for 2015], just 400,000 people, or 2.2 percent of the overall market, had plans canceled after they received a letter citing lack of Obamacare compliance for the action."

FWIW, before Obamacare was even a gleam in any politicians eye, something like 20% of health insurance customers cancelled or had their policies cancelled in any given year. I think a little over a third of those were due to employers cancelling plans.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 23, 2015 09:52PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, balducci wrote:
...
"In the individual insurance plan market [for 2015], just 400,000 people, or 2.2 percent of the overall market, had plans canceled after they received a letter citing lack of Obamacare compliance for the action."
...[/quote]

Probably true. By the time we got to 2015, the millions of people who were going to have their plans cancelled because of Obamacare had already had them cancelled.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 23, 2015 10:07PM)
[quote]This whole thing was profit for insurance and a screwing for the taxpayers. [/quote]

Both parties cynically deliberately scuttled the public's preferred option: single payer, or at a minimum, a public option. So unless you were in favor of those options, it's kind of disingenuous now to complain of the problem of insurance companies wanting to control the action. The opportunity was there to cut out the insurance companies all together and do what civilized countries do at half the cost presently being spent.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Sep 23, 2015 10:13PM)
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Who should I sue?[/quote]
[b][i]Whom[/i][/b] should I sue?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 23, 2015 10:13PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, RNK wrote:
Don't forget the ACA helped with sky rocketing premiums and deductibles for everybody. [/quote]

Totally ridiculous statement.

Do you really think people have the memory of a flea?

There was a reason that Congress actually addressed medical insurance reform, even as awfully as they executed it: precisely because of the outcry over [i]already [/i]increasing premiums and deductibles. It was clear even to the elite that the system was unsustainable, and that the will of the people could no longer be ignored.

And then the party you support made it clear that what they would not do is support any method that cut out the insurance companies.

So please, spare us your outrage. The record is there for anyone to see.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 23, 2015 10:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, balducci wrote:
...
"In the individual insurance plan market [for 2015], just 400,000 people, or 2.2 percent of the overall market, had plans canceled after they received a letter citing lack of Obamacare compliance for the action."
...[/quote]

Probably true. By the time we got to 2015, the millions of people who were going to have their plans cancelled because of Obamacare had already had them cancelled. [/quote]
Not quite. As you may recall, or more likely not, exemptions were granted and adjustments to the law were made. So the actual number of cancellations pre-2015 was a tiny fraction of what the critics predicted.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Sep 23, 2015 10:23PM)
[quote]On Sep 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
I think no on should be discriminated against . . . .[/quote]
You are, of course, wrong.

You discriminate against people all the time, and you should. Discernment is a virtue.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 23, 2015 10:58PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, balducci wrote:
...
"In the individual insurance plan market [for 2015], just 400,000 people, or 2.2 percent of the overall market, had plans canceled after they received a letter citing lack of Obamacare compliance for the action."
...[/quote]

Probably true. By the time we got to 2015, the millions of people who were going to have their plans cancelled because of Obamacare had already had them cancelled. [/quote]
Not quite. As you may recall, or more likely not, exemptions were granted and adjustments to the law were made. So the actual number of cancellations pre-2015 was a tiny fraction of what the critics predicted. [/quote]


"A tiny fraction of what the critics predicted" is still a pretty big number. And a number far greater than the proponents promised.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 23, 2015 10:58PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Sep 10, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Who should I sue?[/quote]
[b][i]Whom[/i][/b] should I sue? [/quote]

Probably the same person as The Hermit. :)
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Sep 23, 2015 11:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, landmark wrote:
There was a reason that Congress actually addressed medical insurance reform, even as awfully as they executed it: precisely because of the outcry over [i]already [/i]increasing premiums and deductibles. It was clear even to the elite that the system was unsustainable, and that the will of the people could no longer be ignored.[/quote]

Agreed, but why was the answer compulsory health care?

Also, why was the will of the people was all of a sudden something to be considered when it was ignored, without consideration, so often before?

[quote]And then the party you support made it clear that what they would not do is support any method that cut out the insurance companies.[/quote]

Because they won't bite the hand that feeds them, which is an indictment of America today.

[quote]So please, spare us your outrage. The record is there for anyone to see. [/quote]

A record which doesn't really reflect the feelings of those who were forced to change.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 24, 2015 10:14AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, RNK wrote:
Don't forget the ACA helped with sky rocketing premiums and deductibles for everybody. [/quote]

Wow, talk about a broad-brush and disingenuous statement! Really? "Skyrocketing"? For EVERYBODY? Actually, some parts of the law actually help to [I]reduce[/I] premium costs.
[quote]
[/quote]

Ron [/quote]

Please, for majority its sky rocketing and deductibles are horrible not to mention you HAVE to use the SAME doctor. There were a few good things from the ACA but the majority of the law which the majority of Americans did NOT want sucks!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 24, 2015 04:23PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, landmark wrote:
...
Both parties cynically deliberately scuttled the public's preferred option: single payer... [/quote]

Yeah, not so much.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/

(I realize that the article is rating Nader's claim that the public has supported single payer for 70 years but if you read the whole thing, you'll see how proponents of single payer have rigged the questions in polls to try and show majority support when none existed any number of times.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 24, 2015 04:47PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, landmark wrote:
...
Both parties cynically deliberately scuttled the public's preferred option: single payer... [/quote]

Yeah, not so much.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/

(I realize that the article is rating Nader's claim that the public has supported single payer for 70 years but if you read the whole thing, you'll see how proponents of single payer have rigged the questions in polls to try and show majority support when none existed any number of times.) [/quote]


I wonder what he'd have to say to get a Pants on Fire.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 24, 2015 05:16PM)
I stopped reading here:

"To get a longer view of the polling, we contacted two polling experts: Liz Hamel, the Kaiser foundation’s public opinion and survey research director; and Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute."

Please. Experts? PR flacks for a very specific position would be a whole lot more accurate.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 24, 2015 05:18PM)
So, really, the perfect people to contact about a Michael Moore claim.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 24, 2015 05:33PM)
Really? Someone's whose salary comes from the insurance industry is the perfect person to tell the truth about the insurance industry?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 24, 2015 06:46PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, RNK wrote:
Don't forget the ACA helped with sky rocketing premiums and deductibles for everybody. [/quote]

Wow, talk about a broad-brush and disingenuous statement! Really? "Skyrocketing"? For EVERYBODY? Actually, some parts of the law actually help to [I]reduce[/I] premium costs.
[quote]
[/quote]

Ron [/quote]

Please, for majority its sky rocketing and deductibles are horrible not to mention you HAVE to use the SAME doctor. There were a few good things from the ACA but the majority of the law which the majority of Americans did NOT want sucks! [/quote]

Some premiums may have increased (as they always have), but they are not "skyrocketing" (see my previous chart). There are different plans to choose from and deductibles vary. As far as "you HAVE to use the SAME doctor", that's flat out wrong. See Obamacare Myths...

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-myths/
[quote]
ObamaCare Myth: You Can Keep Your Doctor

No section of the Affordable Care Act (check out our summary of every provision in the PPACA) says you can or cannot keep your doctor. Keeping your doctor is between you and your doctor, having them covered by your plan depends upon your network. Your network is determined by your insurance company, not by the new healthcare law. Your provider determines the network of doctors and hospitals that you have access to. So, if your insurance company changes your plan or offers you a new one, there is no guarantee that you can keep your doctor. This was the case before the ACA too. It’s always smart to ask your doctor what type of insurance they take when you shop for insurance.[/quote]


And then there's this...

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/04/
[quote]
Health plans had big premium hikes before Obamacare

Individual health insurance premiums in the years before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law had large average increases and a high variability in rate hikes across different states and insurers, a study released Thursday found. [/quote]

And here are the individual provisions of the ACA. Which ones do you feel are the good ones and which ones "suck"? Do you really believe that the majority of these provisions are [I]bad[/I] for consumers??

http://obamacarefacts.com/summary-of-provisions-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act/
Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits. Prohibits all plans from establishing lifetime or unreasonable annual limits on the dollar value of benefits.

Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. Prohibits all plans from rescinding coverage except in instances of fraud or misrepresentation.

Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. Requires all plans to cover preventive services and immunizations recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the CDC, and certain child preventive services recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration, without any cost-sharing.

Sec. 2714. Extension of dependent coverage. Requires all plans offering dependent coverage to allow unmarried individuals until age 26 to remain on their parents’ health insurance.

Sec. 2715. Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage documents and standardized definitions. Requires the Secretary to develop standards for use by health insurers in compiling and providing an accurate summary of benefits and explanation of coverage. The standards must be in a uniform format, using language that is easily understood by the average enrollee, and must include uniform definitions of standard insurance and medical terms. The explanation must also describe any cost-sharing, exceptions, reductions, and limitations on coverage, and examples to illustrate common benefits scenarios.

Sec. 2716. Prohibition of discrimination based on salary. Employers that provide health coverage will be prohibited from limiting eligibility for coverage based on the wages or salaries of full-time employees.

Sec. 2717. Ensuring quality of care. Requires the Secretary to develop guidelines for use by health insurers to report information on initiatives and programs that improve health outcomes through the use of care coordination and chronic disease management, prevent hospital readmissions and improve patient safety, and promote wellness and health.

Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. Health insurance companies will be required to report publicly the percentage of total premium revenue that is expended on clinical services, and quality rather than administrative costs. Health insurance companies will be required to refund each enrollee by the amount by which premium revenue expended by the health insurer for non-claims costs exceeds 20 percent in the group market and 25 percent in the individual market. The requirement to provide a refund expires on December 31, 2013, but the requirement to report percentages continues.

Sec. 2719. Appeals process. Health insurers will be required to implement an effective process for appeals of coverage determinations and claims.

Sec. 1002. Health insurance consumer information. The Secretary shall award grants to States to enable them (or the Exchange) to establish, expand, or provide support for offices of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman programs. These independent offices will assist consumers with filing complaints and appeals, educate consumers on their rights and responsibilities, and collect, track, and quantify consumer problems and inquiries. Provides $30 million in funding and is effective upon the date of enactment of the bill.

Sec. 1003. Ensuring that consumers get value for their dollars. For plan years beginning in 2010, the Secretary and States will establish a process for the annual review of increases in premiums for health insurance coverage. Requires States to make recommendations to their Exchanges about whether health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchanges based on unjustified premium increases. Provides $250 million in funding to States from 2010 until 2014 to assist States in reviewing and, if appropriate under State law, approving premium increases for health insurance coverage and in providing information and recommendations to the Secretary.

Sec. 1004. Effective dates. Except for sections 1002 and 1003 (effective upon the date of enactment of this Act), this subtitle shall become effective for plan years beginning on or after the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 1101. Immediate access to insurance for people with a preexisting condition. Enacts a temporary insurance program with financial assistance for those who have been uninsured for several months and have a pre-existing condition. Ensures premium rate limits for the newly insured population. Provides up to $5 billion for this program, which terminates when the American Health Benefit Exchanges are operational in 2014. Also establishes a transition to the Exchanges for eligible individuals.

Sec. 1102. Reinsurance for early retirees. Establishes a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to participating employment-based plans for part of the cost of providing health benefits to retirees (age 55-64) and their families. The program reimburses participating employment-based plans for 80 percent of the cost of benefits provided per enrollee in excess of $15,000 and below $90,000. The plans are required to use the funds to lower costs borne directly by participants and beneficiaries, and the program incentivizes plans to implement programs and procedures to better manage chronic conditions. The act appropriates $5 billion for this fund and funds are available until expended.

Sec. 1103. Immediate information that allows consumers to identify affordable coverage options. Establishes an Internet portal for beneficiaries to easily access affordable and comprehensive coverage options. This information will include eligibility, availability, premium rates, cost sharing, and the percentage of total premium revenues spent on health care, rather than administrative expenses, by the issuer.

Sec. 1104. Administrative simplification. Accelerates HHS adoption of uniform standards and operating rules for the electronic transactions that occur between providers and health plans that are governed under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (such as benefit eligibility verification, prior authorization and electronic funds transfer payments). Establishes a process to regularly update the standards and operating rules for electronic transactions and requires health plans to certify compliance or face financial penalties collected by the Treasury Secretary. The goal of this section is to make the health system more efficient by reducing the clerical burden on providers, patients, and health plans.

Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums. Establishes that premiums in the individual and small group markets may vary only by family structure, geography, the actuarial value of the benefit, age (limited to a ratio of 3 to 1), and tobacco use (limited to a ratio of 1.5 to 1).

Sec. 2702. Guaranteed availability of coverage. Each health insurance issuer must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for coverage, permitting annual and special open enrollment periods for those with qualifying lifetime events.

Sec. 2703. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. Requires guaranteed renewability of coverage regardless of health status, utilization of health services or any other related factor.

Sec. 2704. Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. No group health plan or insurer offering group or individual coverage may impose any pre-existing condition exclusion or discriminate against those who have been sick in the past.

Sec. 2705. Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status. No group health plan or insurer offering group or individual coverage may set eligibility rules based on health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability – including acts of domestic violence or disability. Permits employers to vary insurance premiums by as much as 30 percent for employee participation in certain health promotion and disease prevention programs. Authorizes a 10-State demonstration to apply such a program in the individual market.

Sec. 2706. Non-discrimination in health care. Prohibits discrimination against health care providers acting within the scope of their professional license and applicable State laws.

Sec. 2707. Comprehensive health insurance coverage. Requires health insurance issuers in the small group and individual markets to include coverage which incorporates defined essential benefits, provides a specified actuarial value, and requires all health plans to comply with limitations on allowable cost-sharing.

Sec. 2708. Prohibition on excessive waiting periods. Prohibits any waiting periods for group or individual coverage which exceed 90 days.

Sec. 1251. Preservation of right to maintain existing coverage. Allows any individual enrolled in any form of health insurance to maintain their coverage as it existed on the date of enactment.

Sec. 1252. Rating reforms must apply uniformly to all health insurance issuers and group health plans. Standards and requirements adopted by States must be applied uniformly to all plans in each relevant insurance market in a State.

Sec. 1253. Effective dates. All provisions in this subtitle take effect on January 1, 2014.



The More People Are Told About Obamacare, The More They Like It
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/12/18/3605069/americans-obamacare-sway/
[quote]
One year into the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, Americans remain confused about what the law actually does — and public opinion toward Obamacare is easily swayed depending on small changes to the amount of information people receive about it.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent monthly tracking poll, overall opinion about the law remains negative, even though large portions of Americans do support the specific provisions that comprise Obamacare. The disconnect reflects a general confusion about how exactly the law functions; pollsters have been tracking this dynamic for years, even as millions of people enroll in plans on Obamacare’s new state marketplaces.[/quote]

Ron
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 24, 2015 07:10PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, landmark wrote:
Really? Someone's whose salary comes from the insurance industry is the perfect person to tell the truth about the insurance industry? [/quote]

Ahhhh excellent sleight of brain! The truth or falsity in question isn't at all about the insurance industry; it's about public sentiment.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 24, 2015 07:15PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2015, RNK wrote:
Don't forget the ACA helped with sky rocketing premiums and deductibles for everybody. [/quote]

Wow, talk about a broad-brush and disingenuous statement! Really? "Skyrocketing"? For EVERYBODY? Actually, some parts of the law actually help to [I]reduce[/I] premium costs.
[quote]
[/quote]

Ron [/quote]

Please, for majority its sky rocketing and deductibles are horrible not to mention you HAVE to use the SAME doctor. There were a few good things from the ACA but the majority of the law which the majority of Americans did NOT want sucks! [/quote]

Some premiums may have increased (as they always have), but they are not "skyrocketing" (see my previous chart). There are different plans to choose from and deductibles vary. As far as "you HAVE to use the SAME doctor", that's flat out wrong. See Obamacare Myths...

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-myths/
[quote]
ObamaCare Myth: You Can Keep Your Doctor

No section of the Affordable Care Act (check out our summary of every provision in the PPACA) says you can or cannot keep your doctor. Keeping your doctor is between you and your doctor, having them covered by your plan depends upon your network. Your network is determined by your insurance company, not by the new healthcare law. Your provider determines the network of doctors and hospitals that you have access to. So, if your insurance company changes your plan or offers you a new one, there is no guarantee that you can keep your doctor. This was the case before the ACA too. It’s always smart to ask your doctor what type of insurance they take when you shop for insurance.[/quote]


And then there's this...

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/04/
[quote]
Health plans had big premium hikes before Obamacare

Individual health insurance premiums in the years before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law had large average increases and a high variability in rate hikes across different states and insurers, a study released Thursday found. [/quote]

And here are the individual provisions of the ACA. Which ones do you feel are the good ones and which ones "suck"? Do you really believe that the majority of these provisions are [I]bad[/I] for consumers??

http://obamacarefacts.com/summary-of-provisions-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act/
Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits. Prohibits all plans from establishing lifetime or unreasonable annual limits on the dollar value of benefits.

Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. Prohibits all plans from rescinding coverage except in instances of fraud or misrepresentation.

Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. Requires all plans to cover preventive services and immunizations recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the CDC, and certain child preventive services recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration, without any cost-sharing.

Sec. 2714. Extension of dependent coverage. Requires all plans offering dependent coverage to allow unmarried individuals until age 26 to remain on their parents’ health insurance.

Sec. 2715. Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage documents and standardized definitions. Requires the Secretary to develop standards for use by health insurers in compiling and providing an accurate summary of benefits and explanation of coverage. The standards must be in a uniform format, using language that is easily understood by the average enrollee, and must include uniform definitions of standard insurance and medical terms. The explanation must also describe any cost-sharing, exceptions, reductions, and limitations on coverage, and examples to illustrate common benefits scenarios.

Sec. 2716. Prohibition of discrimination based on salary. Employers that provide health coverage will be prohibited from limiting eligibility for coverage based on the wages or salaries of full-time employees.

Sec. 2717. Ensuring quality of care. Requires the Secretary to develop guidelines for use by health insurers to report information on initiatives and programs that improve health outcomes through the use of care coordination and chronic disease management, prevent hospital readmissions and improve patient safety, and promote wellness and health.

Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. Health insurance companies will be required to report publicly the percentage of total premium revenue that is expended on clinical services, and quality rather than administrative costs. Health insurance companies will be required to refund each enrollee by the amount by which premium revenue expended by the health insurer for non-claims costs exceeds 20 percent in the group market and 25 percent in the individual market. The requirement to provide a refund expires on December 31, 2013, but the requirement to report percentages continues.

Sec. 2719. Appeals process. Health insurers will be required to implement an effective process for appeals of coverage determinations and claims.

Sec. 1002. Health insurance consumer information. The Secretary shall award grants to States to enable them (or the Exchange) to establish, expand, or provide support for offices of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman programs. These independent offices will assist consumers with filing complaints and appeals, educate consumers on their rights and responsibilities, and collect, track, and quantify consumer problems and inquiries. Provides $30 million in funding and is effective upon the date of enactment of the bill.

Sec. 1003. Ensuring that consumers get value for their dollars. For plan years beginning in 2010, the Secretary and States will establish a process for the annual review of increases in premiums for health insurance coverage. Requires States to make recommendations to their Exchanges about whether health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchanges based on unjustified premium increases. Provides $250 million in funding to States from 2010 until 2014 to assist States in reviewing and, if appropriate under State law, approving premium increases for health insurance coverage and in providing information and recommendations to the Secretary.

Sec. 1004. Effective dates. Except for sections 1002 and 1003 (effective upon the date of enactment of this Act), this subtitle shall become effective for plan years beginning on or after the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 1101. Immediate access to insurance for people with a preexisting condition. Enacts a temporary insurance program with financial assistance for those who have been uninsured for several months and have a pre-existing condition. Ensures premium rate limits for the newly insured population. Provides up to $5 billion for this program, which terminates when the American Health Benefit Exchanges are operational in 2014. Also establishes a transition to the Exchanges for eligible individuals.

Sec. 1102. Reinsurance for early retirees. Establishes a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to participating employment-based plans for part of the cost of providing health benefits to retirees (age 55-64) and their families. The program reimburses participating employment-based plans for 80 percent of the cost of benefits provided per enrollee in excess of $15,000 and below $90,000. The plans are required to use the funds to lower costs borne directly by participants and beneficiaries, and the program incentivizes plans to implement programs and procedures to better manage chronic conditions. The act appropriates $5 billion for this fund and funds are available until expended.

Sec. 1103. Immediate information that allows consumers to identify affordable coverage options. Establishes an Internet portal for beneficiaries to easily access affordable and comprehensive coverage options. This information will include eligibility, availability, premium rates, cost sharing, and the percentage of total premium revenues spent on health care, rather than administrative expenses, by the issuer.

Sec. 1104. Administrative simplification. Accelerates HHS adoption of uniform standards and operating rules for the electronic transactions that occur between providers and health plans that are governed under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (such as benefit eligibility verification, prior authorization and electronic funds transfer payments). Establishes a process to regularly update the standards and operating rules for electronic transactions and requires health plans to certify compliance or face financial penalties collected by the Treasury Secretary. The goal of this section is to make the health system more efficient by reducing the clerical burden on providers, patients, and health plans.

Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums. Establishes that premiums in the individual and small group markets may vary only by family structure, geography, the actuarial value of the benefit, age (limited to a ratio of 3 to 1), and tobacco use (limited to a ratio of 1.5 to 1).

Sec. 2702. Guaranteed availability of coverage. Each health insurance issuer must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for coverage, permitting annual and special open enrollment periods for those with qualifying lifetime events.

Sec. 2703. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. Requires guaranteed renewability of coverage regardless of health status, utilization of health services or any other related factor.

Sec. 2704. Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. No group health plan or insurer offering group or individual coverage may impose any pre-existing condition exclusion or discriminate against those who have been sick in the past.

Sec. 2705. Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status. No group health plan or insurer offering group or individual coverage may set eligibility rules based on health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability – including acts of domestic violence or disability. Permits employers to vary insurance premiums by as much as 30 percent for employee participation in certain health promotion and disease prevention programs. Authorizes a 10-State demonstration to apply such a program in the individual market.

Sec. 2706. Non-discrimination in health care. Prohibits discrimination against health care providers acting within the scope of their professional license and applicable State laws.

Sec. 2707. Comprehensive health insurance coverage. Requires health insurance issuers in the small group and individual markets to include coverage which incorporates defined essential benefits, provides a specified actuarial value, and requires all health plans to comply with limitations on allowable cost-sharing.

Sec. 2708. Prohibition on excessive waiting periods. Prohibits any waiting periods for group or individual coverage which exceed 90 days.

Sec. 1251. Preservation of right to maintain existing coverage. Allows any individual enrolled in any form of health insurance to maintain their coverage as it existed on the date of enactment.

Sec. 1252. Rating reforms must apply uniformly to all health insurance issuers and group health plans. Standards and requirements adopted by States must be applied uniformly to all plans in each relevant insurance market in a State.

Sec. 1253. Effective dates. All provisions in this subtitle take effect on January 1, 2014.



The More People Are Told About Obamacare, The More They Like It
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/12/18/3605069/americans-obamacare-sway/
[quote]
One year into the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, Americans remain confused about what the law actually does — and public opinion toward Obamacare is easily swayed depending on small changes to the amount of information people receive about it.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent monthly tracking poll, overall opinion about the law remains negative, even though large portions of Americans do support the specific provisions that comprise Obamacare. The disconnect reflects a general confusion about how exactly the law functions; pollsters have been tracking this dynamic for years, even as millions of people enroll in plans on Obamacare’s new state marketplaces.[/quote]

Ron [/quote]

Bad for which consumers? Costs were [i]intended[/i] to rise for some. As for keeping your doctor, it's not quite the point about the specific provisions, is it? It's how the ACA was sold to the public. Hundreds of thousands, conservatively, who were happy with their former plan were told that they'd be able to keep it, and lost it, which would not have happened but for the ACA.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 24, 2015 08:13PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, landmark wrote:
Really? Someone's whose salary comes from the insurance industry is the perfect person to tell the truth about the insurance industry? [/quote]

Ahhhh excellent sleight of brain! The truth or falsity in question isn't at all about the insurance industry; it's about public sentiment. [/quote]
Uh...public sentiment about the insurance industry.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 24, 2015 09:21PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Bad for which consumers?[/quote]
Well, YOU'RE a consumer... which of those provisions do YOU not agree with, and why? Which ones do you like? You're certainly entitled to your opinion here.

[quote]
Costs were [i]intended[/i] to rise for some. [/quote]

For who? Where in the actual ACA does it specifically state that?

[quote]
As for keeping your doctor, it's not quite the point about the specific provisions, is it? It's how the ACA was sold to the public. Hundreds of thousands, conservatively, who were happy with their former plan were told that they'd be able to keep it, and lost it, which would not have happened but for the ACA. [/quote]

Why couldn't they keep their plan? Could it possibly be because the plans weren't compliant with the new law? Is it possible that some (most) of those people ended up with [I]better[/I] plans? And what of those millions who didn't have ANY insurance before the ACA? Do they not factor into the equation?

Look, I know this isn't the perfect solution, but we all know there is no such thing as a "perfect solution" to healthcare. Somebody somewhere will always have a complaint. And like everyone else, I don't particularly enjoy seeing the deductions come out of my paycheck. But what's the alternative? I think (along with most people) that this is a step in the right direction. Time will tell. And hey, if in 5 or 10 years we're in a worse state of affairs with healthcare than we were, then I'll be all for trying something else. :-)

Ron
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 24, 2015 09:30PM)
Here, have some chum.

[img]http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u18524/gallup_may_uninsured.png[/img]

[img]http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u186847/three.png[/img]

[img]http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u18524/kff_premiums_nongroup.png[/img]

[img]http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u18524/slide1_30.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u18524/slide1_27.jpg[/img]

:)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 24, 2015 10:47PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Costs were [i]intended[/i] to rise for some. [/quote]

For who? [/quote]

For young, healthy people.

[quote]
Where in the actual ACA does it specifically state that?
[/quote]

A primary architect of the bill said it, it appeared in, I believe, a legislative analysis, and the White House admitted to it, and said that we're that not the case, the ACA would not work. It's not a debatable claim; it was done by design.


[quote]
As for keeping your doctor, it's not quite the point about the specific provisions, is it? It's how the ACA was sold to the public. [/quote]

Right; that complaint was not about the specific provisions, it was about the foreseeable consequences and the misleading way it was sold to the public.