NovaTTT 1 #26 July 31, 2008 Quote They don't have to, some most policies exclude extreme sports. Fixed that."Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #27 July 31, 2008 QuoteI have one of THESE plugged into my OBD-II connector. What a geek!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #28 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuote They don't have to, some most policies exclude extreme sports. Fixed that. Incorect. Group policies typically do not exclude them.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 0 #29 July 31, 2008 QuoteWhat I find irritating most about things like this is that the employer is telling the employee what they can or cannot do when not at work. I could care less if they have a policy that a person cannot use tobacco, eat, drink, or even talk at work. But it troubles me that they feel they can intrude into a persons home life. Please note that what they are keeping someone from doing is a legal activity. Where exactly (as some have also pointed out) does that end? Are we really going to justify allowing an employer this power over its work force in the name of “feeling its better for the people” as our reasoning? To me, this isn’t about a person being able to use tobacco products or not. Its about making my own choices. Yes I realize that a person does not have to work there, but that isn’t the point. The point is the precedent that is set by something like this being allowed, and, in come cases, promoted. What is wrong with an employer being able to choose who he hires based on smoking or other factors, there are very few protected groups, do you really want to see smokers given the same protection as say veterans or disabled people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 1 #30 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote They don't have to, some most policies exclude extreme sports. Fixed that. Incorect. Group policies typically do not exclude them. And I thought it was a reference to individual policies - the extreme sports clause of mine which doubled the premiums. (edited to add bit about premiums)"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 July 31, 2008 QuoteWhy should employees pay more for health insurance because one of their coworkers has other health problems that runs the cost of insurance up? Good question. In many (not all) cases, I think that question belongs in a discussion about insurance reform and underwriting reform. Insurance companies often pass "costs" back to the insured for expenses that they've already covered via reinsurance, the cost of which was already figured into the original price of the policy. Of course, insurance companies have a bit of political sway via lobbying, so their scams generally aren't illegal. One of the lecturers in an actuarial practicum class, who worked in the health insurance field, spent as much time apologizing for obviously unjust (to those examining things from an actuarial perspective) practices in the health insurance industry as he spent explaining the practices themselves.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #32 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhat I find irritating most about things like this is that the employer is telling the employee what they can or cannot do when not at work. I could care less if they have a policy that a person cannot use tobacco, eat, drink, or even talk at work. But it troubles me that they feel they can intrude into a persons home life. Please note that what they are keeping someone from doing is a legal activity. Where exactly (as some have also pointed out) does that end? Are we really going to justify allowing an employer this power over its work force in the name of “feeling its better for the people” as our reasoning? To me, this isn’t about a person being able to use tobacco products or not. Its about making my own choices. Yes I realize that a person does not have to work there, but that isn’t the point. The point is the precedent that is set by something like this being allowed, and, in come cases, promoted. What is wrong with an employer being able to choose who he hires based on smoking or other factors, there are very few protected groups, do you really want to see smokers given the same protection as say veterans or disabled people. I think that all people deserve the same protection regardless of how I feel about those people. It is immaterial how I feel about people who use tobacco, what does matter is that they deserve the same protection as everyone else. If you get outside of that, you then have to decide who gets to decide who deserves the protection and who doesn’t. Sound familiar? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 July 31, 2008 QuoteYou are deflecting from the point of my post. Its nice to debate that someone should not have to pay for someone else’s poor choices in life, but that was not (as I am sure you are well aware) the point. If you think that's not the point, then you're missing the reasoning behind the new hiring criteria. QuoteIt is about preventing someone from telling you that a condition of employment is that you cannot participate in a legal act. Happens all the time. Have you ever seen someone not get a job because they had long hair? The Marine Corps will now turn away otherwise qualified potential recruits because they have too many tattoos. A job interview is not usually the best time to bring up the fact that one skydives, unless it can be spun in a positive manner, highlighting how it makes the applicant better qualified for the position. QuoteWhich will become interesting if the bill were to pass allowing pot as legal, don’t you think? It may, especially since their is much less data showing long term health risks of cannabis use compared to alcohol or tobacco use. QuoteYou can justify it with the “I don’t want to pay for your mistakes” argument, but that does not change the fact that this is an employer dictating what an employee can or cannot do when not at work. No, the new rule does not dictate such things. It does not require present employees to quit smoking. Nor does it appear to prevent new employees from taking up tobacco. All it does is mandates that tobacco use disqualifies applicants for employment. QuoteI believe your example about non-smokers paying for smokers health issues, is as ridiculous as someone with no children saying that their tax money should not go to pay for public schools. The entire community benefits from kids receiving an education. The entire community suffers from people smoking, save the tobacco companies. QuoteI remember a time when an employer of mine banned smoking on the company grounds completely. His reasoning was that his insurance was cheaper in doing so. Interesting thing is, now (with smoking still banned) he is paying the same as the quotes he received recently with smoking allowed on site. The moral of the story is that thinking that the employee’s or the employer will save money from this long term is unlikely. The people who will save money long term is the insurance companies. Agreed that the insurance companies will benefit the most. They are a proverbial cancer of our healthcare system.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #34 July 31, 2008 The new hiring criteria is based on discrimination of one group of people. Just because that group of people happen to not be popular (or very bright), does not justify them being discriminated against. The fact that they are still allowing those who are already there is an example of that discrimination. That is no different than saying they will not hire homosexuals based on the additional risk that they “might” bring to the health insurance plan. In both cases it is not a 100% chance that the person who is being employed will bring any difference in cost, only the chance that they will. And in both examples it is an intrusion of a persons private life away from work. If what they are doing is a legal act then I feel that it should have no impact on their employment. If it is an illegal act, then it should have an impact. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 July 31, 2008 QuoteIn both cases it is not a 100% chance that the person who is being employed will bring any difference in cost, only the chance that they will. The probability that hiring a smoker will increase the cost of the group policy is very likely higher than the probability of a homosexual increasing the costs. QuoteIf what they are doing is a legal act then I feel that it should have no impact on their employment. If it is an illegal act, then it should have an impact. I would agree if the extra costs associated with the smoker (healthcare, productivity, sick days, etc.) can be passed onto the smoker. Otherwise, the new rule seems to be the best legal option.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #36 July 31, 2008 QuoteWhat is wrong with an employer being able to choose who he hires based on smoking or other factors, nothing - if an employer becomes too unreasonable for the normal person, then people won't work for him and he goes out of business. It's self regulating - right up to the point where the government gets involved. Then it just sucks. Let the free market work ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Why should local taxes go to subsidize the health care of smokers. Insurance cost more if you smoke. I'd be OK with a different health care package for smokers, maybe a bigger deductible or something. Any why should local taxes go to subsidize the health care of you if you femur in? Or the 3 months of disability afterwards? It's not just the health care premiums that have companies/counties targeting smokers. It's the extra sick days and lower vitality as well. Of course, this would be true for alcoholics as well. May not be true for those with high BMI - but usually these discussions are light on facts and thinking and more about punishing those that aren't us. They don't have to, some policies exclude extreme sports. That practice with group policies was supposed to be banned by legislation signed by Clinton (and promoted heavily by the American Motorcyclists Association), though in actual execution failed to do so. Ignoring that, the health premiums are just one piece of the pie. Someone still has to pay a 6 figure bill, then there is the disability payments, and last, the cost to the company or government agency of replacing you either temporarily or permamently. This cost far exceeds the premium difference. What is comes down to is you don't smoke, and you do skydive. If you believe that the role of the worker is to do nothing but be productive for the employer, then yes, you go ahead and allow the employer to dictate that you may not do anything unhealthful or risky. Sounds like a great life....I think we called it slavery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #38 July 31, 2008 Quote I would agree if the extra costs associated with the smoker (healthcare, productivity, sick days, etc.) can be passed onto the smoker. Otherwise, the new rule seems to be the best legal option. Thats part of the issue. It should not be legal for them to do so. Even though you felt that my example was one sided, it is possible that an employer can look at it from that perspective. In both cases they would be wrong. It is just a matter of time before someone challenges this and wins, then, the tax payers get to pony up the costs of that legal battle again.... I noticed that you didn’t address some of the other posts about where this ends. Do you feel that they should be able to make it part of the hiring criteria for someone who is working in a desk job to have a weight limit put on it? And if not, then do you feel the added health costs should be passed on to the overweight person? If that is the case, then should employers not also be able to pass on the added health costs associated with HIV to people who engage in same sex acts? See what I mean? It gets messy (at least imo it does). And then there is the whole debate about who gets to decide what is “to risky” a behavior. Can you see some conservative telling you that video games in your off time are bad and therefore not hiring you? In history, after the government starts down a path they generally do not just take that one thing, they keep going until someone screams loud enough. I think this is just another example of that. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #39 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Sounds like a great life....I think we called it slavery. That was my meaning behind asking if certain parts of this discussion sounded familiar! (you just said it a lot better than I did damn it lol) Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #40 July 31, 2008 QuoteIt is just a matter of time before someone challenges this and wins, then, the tax payers get to pony up the costs of that legal battle again.... Not likely. Smoking is a choice. Being disabled? Not a choice. Homosexuality? Not a choice. Gender? Not a choice. Race? Not a choice. Religion? A Constitutionally protected choice. QuoteI noticed that you didn’t address some of the other posts about where this ends. Do you feel that they should be able to make it part of the hiring criteria for someone who is working in a desk job to have a weight limit put on it? Are they currently forbidden from using a lack of visually identifiable obesity (as opposed to using measured weight) as a hiring criteria? Personally, I think positive incentives would be more appropriate. Still, maintaining weight within an allowable range is a criteria for obtaining and keeping some jobs, including some government jobs. QuoteAnd if not, then do you feel the added health costs should be passed on to the overweight person? Again, I think positive incentives would be more effective, such as decreasing initial salaries by a small percentage, and giving employees the opportunity to earn that money back by demonstrating a healthy lifestyle. That would probably also work well with smokers, instead of disqualifying them from new employment outright. QuoteIf that is the case, then should employers not also be able to pass on the added health costs associated with HIV to people who engage in same sex acts? No. HIV is transmitted through straight sex just as it is transmitted through gay sex. Besides, homosexuality is not a choice. QuoteSee what I mean? It gets messy (at least imo it does). Not as messy as you are trying to make it out to be. QuoteAnd then there is the whole debate about who gets to decide what is “to risky” a behavior. Unfortunately, we seem to have given this responsibility to the insurance companies. QuoteCan you see some conservative telling you that video games in your off time are bad and therefore not hiring you? No, but I can see someone not being hired because they spent their time playing video games instead of doing homework, ruining their GPA. Or not being hired because they spent their time playing video games instead of getting any exercise, becoming obese, which the HR manager found to be an undesirable characteristic of employees. QuoteIn history, after the government starts down a path they generally do not just take that one thing, they keep going until someone screams loud enough. I think this is just another example of that. I think this is an example of the free market reacting to the insurance companies' power.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pendejo 0 #41 July 31, 2008 Quote Not likely. Smoking is a choice. Being disabled? Not a choice. Homosexuality? Not a choice. Gender? Not a choice. Race? Not a choice. Religion? A Constitutionally protected choice. I agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but that isn’t what I said is it. I said same sex acts. The decision to have sex is a choice, and, there is a much greater risk of contracting HIV through same sex activities. There is the crux. Since it is more risky, then it can be grounds for not hiring a person based on the logic you have displayed thus far in the conversation. And that is the part I disagree with. For me its about freedom. I don’t like it when they take those freedoms away. While I agree that smoking is certainly not right thing to do, I also feel the same way about a lot of things that others do. But so long as it is a legal act then an employer should not be allowed to discriminate against any group of people for it. Since you seem to not like the examples I have given thus far lets look at another one. Should an employer be allowed to not hire women between the ages of 20 and 45 years old as they are considered in the prime age range to become pregnant and could cause their insurance rates to go up? Should I, being male be asked to pay a higher rate just because these women decide to have a child? Or, should the condition of employment be based on the fact that if they become pregnant that the company can just automatically discharge them and then disqualify them from insurance coverage? Just so we can keep a level playing field, we will assume that the company does not have maternity insurance. But, as with any group policy, if there are complications from the birth the insurance kicks in and will pay for the complications (either with the newborn child or the mother). Now certainly other than in extreme cases the decision to become pregnant is a choice. So why should I be forced to pay a higher rate just so these women can have a job? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #42 July 31, 2008 QuoteAgain, I think positive incentives would be more effective, such as decreasing initial salaries by a small percentage, and giving employees the opportunity to earn that money back by demonstrating a healthy lifestyle That's not a positive incentive. What's positive about taking money away? One such would be giving a bonus to those in compliance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #43 July 31, 2008 QuoteI agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but that isn’t what I said is it. I said same sex acts. The decision to have sex is a choice, and, there is a much greater risk of contracting HIV through same sex activities. There is the crux. Since it is more risky, then it can be grounds for not hiring a person based on the logic you have displayed thus far in the conversation. And that is the part I disagree with. No. There are other factors that are considerably more important than the gender of one's partner with regard to the amount of risk involved in sex. I think you will also have trouble verifying that same gender sex acts are inherently more risky than opposite gender sex acts. QuoteSince you seem to not like the examples I have given thus far lets look at another one. Should an employer be allowed to not hire women between the ages of 20 and 45 years old as they are considered in the prime age range to become pregnant and could cause their insurance rates to go up? Should I, being male be asked to pay a higher rate just because these women decide to have a child? Or, should the condition of employment be based on the fact that if they become pregnant that the company can just automatically discharge them and then disqualify them from insurance coverage? What about males in that age range? It is very common for spouses to be covered on a single policy. It's not realistic to single out women, as males may have spouses that are covered on the male's employer's group policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #44 July 31, 2008 QuoteThat's not a positive incentive. What's positive about taking money away? Who said anything about taking money away? I didn't. QuoteOne such would be giving a bonus to those in compliance. That's what I said, I just didn't call it a bonus.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pendejo 0 #45 July 31, 2008 Nice try with the misdirection about the males. What I said was about hiring female workers in that age range. And in the United States (which is where we are talking about), you are much more likely to contract HIV from same sex. Now, please misdirect again by attempting to prove me wrong. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #46 July 31, 2008 QuoteAnd in the United States (which is where we are talking about), you are much more likely to contract HIV from same sex. true only for men. woman-on-woman sex is not more likely to spread HIV. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #47 July 31, 2008 QuoteNice try with the misdirection about the males. What I said was about hiring female workers in that age range. It's not misdirection at all. Males in that age range are just as likely to start (or expand) families as females. QuoteAnd in the United States (which is where we are talking about), you are much more likely to contract HIV from same sex. Now, please misdirect again by attempting to prove me wrong. I think you'll find the lesbians have lower rates of STD's, IIRC, which should roughly balance out.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #48 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteThat's not a positive incentive. What's positive about taking money away? Who said anything about taking money away? I didn't. You certainly did - 'decreasing their initial salary by a small amount and letting them get it back if they're good' is taking money away. That you dispute this makes me think about yesterday's claims about surpluses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #49 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuote Since you seem to not like the examples I have given thus far lets look at another one. Should an employer be allowed to not hire women between the ages of 20 and 45 years old as they are considered in the prime age range to become pregnant and could cause their insurance rates to go up? Should I, being male be asked to pay a higher rate just because these women decide to have a child? Or, should the condition of employment be based on the fact that if they become pregnant that the company can just automatically discharge them and then disqualify them from insurance coverage? What about males in that age range? It is very common for spouses to be covered on a single policy. It's not realistic to single out women, as males may have spouses that are covered on the male's employer's group policy. It's become less common for policies to fully cover the spouse and family. They get access to the group policy, but they're paying for it. What this thread really shows is the merits of divorcing health insurance from employment. I don't see how we successfully transition to McCain's proposal, but it would be better and eliminate these incentives for the companies to meddle in people's private lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #50 August 1, 2008 QuoteYou certainly did - 'decreasing their initial salary by a small amount and letting them get it back if they're good' is taking money away. Now, go back and read what I wrote. Did you intentionally misquote me, or was it simply poor reading comprehension? QuoteThat you dispute this makes me think about yesterday's claims about surpluses. That you would misquote me rather than simply utilizing copy and paste makes me wonder whether you're actually trying to engage in meaningful discussion or are just trying to build straw men so you can tear them down.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jcd11235 0 #40 July 31, 2008 QuoteIt is just a matter of time before someone challenges this and wins, then, the tax payers get to pony up the costs of that legal battle again.... Not likely. Smoking is a choice. Being disabled? Not a choice. Homosexuality? Not a choice. Gender? Not a choice. Race? Not a choice. Religion? A Constitutionally protected choice. QuoteI noticed that you didn’t address some of the other posts about where this ends. Do you feel that they should be able to make it part of the hiring criteria for someone who is working in a desk job to have a weight limit put on it? Are they currently forbidden from using a lack of visually identifiable obesity (as opposed to using measured weight) as a hiring criteria? Personally, I think positive incentives would be more appropriate. Still, maintaining weight within an allowable range is a criteria for obtaining and keeping some jobs, including some government jobs. QuoteAnd if not, then do you feel the added health costs should be passed on to the overweight person? Again, I think positive incentives would be more effective, such as decreasing initial salaries by a small percentage, and giving employees the opportunity to earn that money back by demonstrating a healthy lifestyle. That would probably also work well with smokers, instead of disqualifying them from new employment outright. QuoteIf that is the case, then should employers not also be able to pass on the added health costs associated with HIV to people who engage in same sex acts? No. HIV is transmitted through straight sex just as it is transmitted through gay sex. Besides, homosexuality is not a choice. QuoteSee what I mean? It gets messy (at least imo it does). Not as messy as you are trying to make it out to be. QuoteAnd then there is the whole debate about who gets to decide what is “to risky” a behavior. Unfortunately, we seem to have given this responsibility to the insurance companies. QuoteCan you see some conservative telling you that video games in your off time are bad and therefore not hiring you? No, but I can see someone not being hired because they spent their time playing video games instead of doing homework, ruining their GPA. Or not being hired because they spent their time playing video games instead of getting any exercise, becoming obese, which the HR manager found to be an undesirable characteristic of employees. QuoteIn history, after the government starts down a path they generally do not just take that one thing, they keep going until someone screams loud enough. I think this is just another example of that. I think this is an example of the free market reacting to the insurance companies' power.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #41 July 31, 2008 Quote Not likely. Smoking is a choice. Being disabled? Not a choice. Homosexuality? Not a choice. Gender? Not a choice. Race? Not a choice. Religion? A Constitutionally protected choice. I agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but that isn’t what I said is it. I said same sex acts. The decision to have sex is a choice, and, there is a much greater risk of contracting HIV through same sex activities. There is the crux. Since it is more risky, then it can be grounds for not hiring a person based on the logic you have displayed thus far in the conversation. And that is the part I disagree with. For me its about freedom. I don’t like it when they take those freedoms away. While I agree that smoking is certainly not right thing to do, I also feel the same way about a lot of things that others do. But so long as it is a legal act then an employer should not be allowed to discriminate against any group of people for it. Since you seem to not like the examples I have given thus far lets look at another one. Should an employer be allowed to not hire women between the ages of 20 and 45 years old as they are considered in the prime age range to become pregnant and could cause their insurance rates to go up? Should I, being male be asked to pay a higher rate just because these women decide to have a child? Or, should the condition of employment be based on the fact that if they become pregnant that the company can just automatically discharge them and then disqualify them from insurance coverage? Just so we can keep a level playing field, we will assume that the company does not have maternity insurance. But, as with any group policy, if there are complications from the birth the insurance kicks in and will pay for the complications (either with the newborn child or the mother). Now certainly other than in extreme cases the decision to become pregnant is a choice. So why should I be forced to pay a higher rate just so these women can have a job? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 July 31, 2008 QuoteAgain, I think positive incentives would be more effective, such as decreasing initial salaries by a small percentage, and giving employees the opportunity to earn that money back by demonstrating a healthy lifestyle That's not a positive incentive. What's positive about taking money away? One such would be giving a bonus to those in compliance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #43 July 31, 2008 QuoteI agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but that isn’t what I said is it. I said same sex acts. The decision to have sex is a choice, and, there is a much greater risk of contracting HIV through same sex activities. There is the crux. Since it is more risky, then it can be grounds for not hiring a person based on the logic you have displayed thus far in the conversation. And that is the part I disagree with. No. There are other factors that are considerably more important than the gender of one's partner with regard to the amount of risk involved in sex. I think you will also have trouble verifying that same gender sex acts are inherently more risky than opposite gender sex acts. QuoteSince you seem to not like the examples I have given thus far lets look at another one. Should an employer be allowed to not hire women between the ages of 20 and 45 years old as they are considered in the prime age range to become pregnant and could cause their insurance rates to go up? Should I, being male be asked to pay a higher rate just because these women decide to have a child? Or, should the condition of employment be based on the fact that if they become pregnant that the company can just automatically discharge them and then disqualify them from insurance coverage? What about males in that age range? It is very common for spouses to be covered on a single policy. It's not realistic to single out women, as males may have spouses that are covered on the male's employer's group policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #44 July 31, 2008 QuoteThat's not a positive incentive. What's positive about taking money away? Who said anything about taking money away? I didn't. QuoteOne such would be giving a bonus to those in compliance. That's what I said, I just didn't call it a bonus.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendejo 0 #45 July 31, 2008 Nice try with the misdirection about the males. What I said was about hiring female workers in that age range. And in the United States (which is where we are talking about), you are much more likely to contract HIV from same sex. Now, please misdirect again by attempting to prove me wrong. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #46 July 31, 2008 QuoteAnd in the United States (which is where we are talking about), you are much more likely to contract HIV from same sex. true only for men. woman-on-woman sex is not more likely to spread HIV. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #47 July 31, 2008 QuoteNice try with the misdirection about the males. What I said was about hiring female workers in that age range. It's not misdirection at all. Males in that age range are just as likely to start (or expand) families as females. QuoteAnd in the United States (which is where we are talking about), you are much more likely to contract HIV from same sex. Now, please misdirect again by attempting to prove me wrong. I think you'll find the lesbians have lower rates of STD's, IIRC, which should roughly balance out.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteThat's not a positive incentive. What's positive about taking money away? Who said anything about taking money away? I didn't. You certainly did - 'decreasing their initial salary by a small amount and letting them get it back if they're good' is taking money away. That you dispute this makes me think about yesterday's claims about surpluses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuote Since you seem to not like the examples I have given thus far lets look at another one. Should an employer be allowed to not hire women between the ages of 20 and 45 years old as they are considered in the prime age range to become pregnant and could cause their insurance rates to go up? Should I, being male be asked to pay a higher rate just because these women decide to have a child? Or, should the condition of employment be based on the fact that if they become pregnant that the company can just automatically discharge them and then disqualify them from insurance coverage? What about males in that age range? It is very common for spouses to be covered on a single policy. It's not realistic to single out women, as males may have spouses that are covered on the male's employer's group policy. It's become less common for policies to fully cover the spouse and family. They get access to the group policy, but they're paying for it. What this thread really shows is the merits of divorcing health insurance from employment. I don't see how we successfully transition to McCain's proposal, but it would be better and eliminate these incentives for the companies to meddle in people's private lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 August 1, 2008 QuoteYou certainly did - 'decreasing their initial salary by a small amount and letting them get it back if they're good' is taking money away. Now, go back and read what I wrote. Did you intentionally misquote me, or was it simply poor reading comprehension? QuoteThat you dispute this makes me think about yesterday's claims about surpluses. That you would misquote me rather than simply utilizing copy and paste makes me wonder whether you're actually trying to engage in meaningful discussion or are just trying to build straw men so you can tear them down.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
