It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
windword
Women with heart disease or liver disease, cancer, etc., need to NOT GET PREGNANT to save their lives.
Birth control pills can be taken safely by most women, but is not recommended for women who are over the age of 35 and smoke. If you don't smoke, you can use hormonal contraceptives until menopause. In addition, you should not take hormonal contraceptives if you have had:
Blood clots in the arms, legs, or lungs
Serious heart or liver disease
Cancer of the breast or uterus
Grimpachi
reply to post by gentledissident
Everything I have looked for at hobby lobby have found on e-bay cheaper. If they close their doors it is no big loss as far as I am concerned. The owner should feel lucky anyone shops there in the first place it isn't like his store is a necessity in society.
NorEaster
reply to post by Bone75
Jesus obviously doesn't want this guy in business, so he's doing what he has to. If Jesus wanted him to continue as a business owner, he would've prevented all of this solely on his behalf. He didn't, so there you have it.
Being an Evangelical Christian is easy. If it happens, then Jesus made it happen. Jesus made Obamacare happen. As they say, the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Grimpachi
reply to post by gentledissident
... it isn't like his store is a necessity in society.
Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
What specifically is "quite incorrect" and why is it so? Why don't you make an actual argument to something and offer some evidence to counter my claim?
You're mixing apples and oranges and calling them pears, health insurance-wise, and I'm fairly certain you know it.
Classic catastrophic plans usually focused on a) medical costs over over a certain amount or b) costs due to duration of or type of illness. That was a different type of coverage from the standard plans available.
Health care plans generally include(d) regular doctor's office visits, pharmaceuticals and hospitalization.
You made a claim that health insurance was "a new thing." I demonstrated that it wasn't. Did you read any part of the information I provided besides what you could strain out to support whatever you're attempting to argue and then hypocritically charge me with what you're doing. Quoting disconnected material to generate screen scroll and make it look like you're making a cogent point?
Demonstrate how paying the costs of your own healthcare subsidizes the costs of others. Cite a section of the ACA.
Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
To avoid thread drift, this is the last I'll address to you if you keep repeating the same flawed arguments.
I showed that the first company offering the first group health insurance dated to 1847 in Boston, Massachusetts. That puts the lie to your assertion that health insurance is a "new thing." Read what I posted for what it says instead of what you want it to say. I demonstrated that here were individual "health" plans date to the Civil War. Etc. etc.
You make general statements about ACA with no backup. Cite sections of the act or admit you're just churning the clabber of your favorite extremist websites. Your designation of "leftist" for me is telling, because I am repeatedly on record in this discussion that I think 1) ACA is an nightmare and 2) I am very pro-business.
But that doesn't matter to postings like yours ... your postings are not interested in the truth, but in your ideological rhetoric. I am not a "leftist" or a "rightest" I'm a REALIST. I am for facts and against lies; I am for honest debate and against forensic dirty pool. I am for being able to prove matter presented as FACT and for admitting that something is not a FACT but an OPINION.
The very concept of "group health insurance" as it has existed for over a century but especially as it has evolved in the last 25 years, can be interpreted speciously as "subsidizing" others' care but that's just not an accurate way of looking at it, and you know it. You pay into a plan, I pay into a plan, the insurance pays out of the plan and keeps the rest. It would be just as accurate to say that we're "subsidizing" the insurance companies.
ACA works the way insurance has always worked with the exception that folks are being strongly encouraged to find their own healthcare. If you're so worried about "subsidizing" others, I'm sure you were working tirelessly to get laws on the books to keep folks from going in for emergency indigent care thus spiking all healthcare costs for everyone, everywhere, right?
Why don't you drop the false accusations and read what others are saying before you assign your little labels, eh?