So now that the Affordable Care Act and Patient Protection (I'll be calling ACA) is a reality I have been attempting to wrap my brain around it. Other wise know as come to some type of understanding.
I am going to start with this statement; I am wholly against more rules, regulations, laws and the such, but as less and less Americans endeavor to have that thing called honor, righteousness or the like I do see a need for more of what I am against. So to those who oppose more of what I am against; teach others to behave.
We live in a world that will destroy the idealistic, we can thank quite a few movements for that, but at the same time with greater ability to ignore "righteous" behavior comes greater ability to do real and lasting good. Thus as a country, it is my opinion, we have come to a cross roads where we can continue to be the greatest and longest lived of our kind by increasing our base level of maturity or we can go the way of Rome.
But I digress, so back to the topic at hand. The majority of my opinion is based off of the information provided on Wikipedia about ACA due to it being the easiest for me to read without a legal dictionary at my side. Not to mention it is also significantly shorter than the 900+ page act to read.
The questions that I have not been able to answer about ACA are the following.
Does a company have to sign up their newly hired employee for ACA if they have insurance that meets ACA requirements?
What happens with an employee is fired, does the company have to continue to pay for ACA coverage for said employee?
Can a person stop accepting ACA insurance if they find a plan that offers acceptable coverage?
Who is providing/underwriting the insurance plans? Is it a company like Blue Cross or is the government becoming an insurance provider now?
I will continue to search for the answers and hopefully be able to find them, when I do I will post them
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Monday, December 23, 2013
Respect ... rant warning
What is respect?
Respect can be shown by listening when another is talking. Respect can be given by holding a door open for some one with their hands full.
But WHAT is respect?
If the only way to define something is through actions how can you say someone has disrespected you? Not all people will have the same way of expressing respect. Take for example the different salutes used throughout the world. Each country has their own unique twist, yet they are all ment to convey the same feeling: respect.
woops there went that train....
Respect can be shown by listening when another is talking. Respect can be given by holding a door open for some one with their hands full.
But WHAT is respect?
If the only way to define something is through actions how can you say someone has disrespected you? Not all people will have the same way of expressing respect. Take for example the different salutes used throughout the world. Each country has their own unique twist, yet they are all ment to convey the same feeling: respect.
woops there went that train....
Monday, November 18, 2013
Morals, Morality, More of ... rant warning
What are morals? What is morality? Who gets to define this mess?
So ... Hmmmm ... I am going to try to write this without using sources. This will be entertaining.
Morals are those things that one believes to be right or wrong. The fun thing is the variances between what is considered right or wrong. Another amusing aspect is the way some are applied making the person a hypocrite.
That being said morality would be the application of said morals.
So now I am going to pick on one "moral" all life is sacred.
There are pro-abortionist who think the death sentence should be abolished.
There are those who support the death sentence who are against abortion.
Then you have those that believe their life or their religions followers or their ethic background or some other ideal should be the only one and then proceed to kill, yet these very same people will be against abortion or the death sentence or both.
How can one profess that all life is sacred if they support killing?
And this is where I get the resounding "BUT .... " with their justifications as to why one is ok and the other is not. While I do not like the idea of a rapist roaming free, one cannot support killing said person if one wants to pull the all life is sacred line... In my opinion anyway.
But even more fun is the who gets to define what a moral is.
Religions cannot seem to agree on a set list of morals. Even those that share the same holy writings cannot pick a similar set or so it seems to me. Even those "morals" like killing are not universal. So who sets the moral standards when they seem to be like fashion styles? Maybe that is the answer. Maybe it is the collective that decides what is right and wrong. If that is true then all it would take is a drastic, yet unified decision to abolish just about any wrong.
It would mean that as a race we are ok with people starving, people going without shelter, people dieing of easily cured diseases ... The list goes on and on of things that would take a collective change to fix.
Interesting
So ... Hmmmm ... I am going to try to write this without using sources. This will be entertaining.
Morals are those things that one believes to be right or wrong. The fun thing is the variances between what is considered right or wrong. Another amusing aspect is the way some are applied making the person a hypocrite.
That being said morality would be the application of said morals.
So now I am going to pick on one "moral" all life is sacred.
There are pro-abortionist who think the death sentence should be abolished.
There are those who support the death sentence who are against abortion.
Then you have those that believe their life or their religions followers or their ethic background or some other ideal should be the only one and then proceed to kill, yet these very same people will be against abortion or the death sentence or both.
How can one profess that all life is sacred if they support killing?
And this is where I get the resounding "BUT .... " with their justifications as to why one is ok and the other is not. While I do not like the idea of a rapist roaming free, one cannot support killing said person if one wants to pull the all life is sacred line... In my opinion anyway.
But even more fun is the who gets to define what a moral is.
Religions cannot seem to agree on a set list of morals. Even those that share the same holy writings cannot pick a similar set or so it seems to me. Even those "morals" like killing are not universal. So who sets the moral standards when they seem to be like fashion styles? Maybe that is the answer. Maybe it is the collective that decides what is right and wrong. If that is true then all it would take is a drastic, yet unified decision to abolish just about any wrong.
It would mean that as a race we are ok with people starving, people going without shelter, people dieing of easily cured diseases ... The list goes on and on of things that would take a collective change to fix.
Interesting
On the Clock / Off the Clock
A blogger I follow http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/?m=1 posted a bit about having an internet signature or history.
Some one replied something to the effect of an employer using your internet history as a deciding factor for hiring.
Personally I do not think using your latest or even historical postings as a means to determine if you get a job (unless the job is something along the lines of a blog, news, etc. Where your being hired for your opinions) should be permitted.
Every person in this country is entitled to an opinion and entitled to express it, as provided in the constitution.
Every person, including our highest office, is entitled to a personal life. I cringe and pity who ever is the latest victim of our obsession to know everything about who ever is in the spot light. Some times I wonder if it is done out of envy, a means to pull the person down. I sympathize with them for the pain it must put them through to have the worst parts of themselves flung in their face everyday and hung out for all to see.
That being said. My PERSONAL life is just that PERSONAL. I make no claims to be perfect. I am a sinner. I have done wrong and crazy and bizzar and OMG WTF. All that means is I am human, will I answer truthfully about it, yes. Am I proud of it, well that depends on what we are talking about. I am not proud of breaking my word to be with one man the rest of my life (aka marriage), but I draw the line at being shaken by the man that claims he loves me. Which brings to mind another idea for a blog post. There are something's that I quite proud of that are not quite "right".
So unless my employer is going to pay me around the clock, don't know many that do, what I do on my non paid time is entirely my business and not theirs. The ONLY exception I make is for if I break a law, then its my employers business IF it effects my ability to do my job.
But then you have folks who are on call. Here is quasi land. Or that wonderful grey shade ... Hehe ... Still with in reason, read with in legal limits, what they do away from their office is their business unless clearly defined and accepted between both parties in a contract with the ramifications of failure defined.
What say you the reader?
Some one replied something to the effect of an employer using your internet history as a deciding factor for hiring.
Personally I do not think using your latest or even historical postings as a means to determine if you get a job (unless the job is something along the lines of a blog, news, etc. Where your being hired for your opinions) should be permitted.
Every person in this country is entitled to an opinion and entitled to express it, as provided in the constitution.
Every person, including our highest office, is entitled to a personal life. I cringe and pity who ever is the latest victim of our obsession to know everything about who ever is in the spot light. Some times I wonder if it is done out of envy, a means to pull the person down. I sympathize with them for the pain it must put them through to have the worst parts of themselves flung in their face everyday and hung out for all to see.
That being said. My PERSONAL life is just that PERSONAL. I make no claims to be perfect. I am a sinner. I have done wrong and crazy and bizzar and OMG WTF. All that means is I am human, will I answer truthfully about it, yes. Am I proud of it, well that depends on what we are talking about. I am not proud of breaking my word to be with one man the rest of my life (aka marriage), but I draw the line at being shaken by the man that claims he loves me. Which brings to mind another idea for a blog post. There are something's that I quite proud of that are not quite "right".
So unless my employer is going to pay me around the clock, don't know many that do, what I do on my non paid time is entirely my business and not theirs. The ONLY exception I make is for if I break a law, then its my employers business IF it effects my ability to do my job.
But then you have folks who are on call. Here is quasi land. Or that wonderful grey shade ... Hehe ... Still with in reason, read with in legal limits, what they do away from their office is their business unless clearly defined and accepted between both parties in a contract with the ramifications of failure defined.
What say you the reader?
Thursday, October 31, 2013
FOOD IS A HUMAN RIGHT ...
Rather than repeat what is said here is the link.
It is good to hear the Catholic Church working on the problem of hunger.
It is good to hear the Catholic Church working on the problem of hunger.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Co Dependency
Pulling a midnight shift, so I figured I'd blab a bit.
Co Dependant
well what is it? Cue google search and wiki
then you have a psychological point of view with a list of the symptoms. And finally WebMD's take.
My summary is that a codependant sacrifices themselves to the point of harm for another person. Mostly the articles point to those in relationships with substance addict, but the condition can arise without substance addiction.
While some dependency is needed in a relationship I think the defining line is marked at two things. One being one person in the relationship is giving to the point of harm to themselves. Two the person giving to the point of harming themselves is doing so that the other can be enabled; be it drugs etc.
Co Dependant
well what is it? Cue google search and wiki
then you have a psychological point of view with a list of the symptoms. And finally WebMD's take.
My summary is that a codependant sacrifices themselves to the point of harm for another person. Mostly the articles point to those in relationships with substance addict, but the condition can arise without substance addiction.
While some dependency is needed in a relationship I think the defining line is marked at two things. One being one person in the relationship is giving to the point of harm to themselves. Two the person giving to the point of harming themselves is doing so that the other can be enabled; be it drugs etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)