virgil

health care still costs the same for all employees You're still missing the point- maybe purposely. the costs are the same because the insurance companies are not charging higher premiums for smokers, even though it costs them more to provide coverage for them. they are passing the cost on to everyone else. for those of you who argue against the healthcare bill because you don't want to subsidize the cost for people who can't afford coverage, i can't understand why you're not up in arms about footing the bill for smokers.

So therefore smokers cost more than non-smokers, and no its not the main reason the insurance industry is messed up, that has more to do with medicare and or welfare abuse. They only pay back a portion of what a hospital or dr charges, so we the general public pay the difference. Not sure what you mean by this one. MC is separate from private insurance companies. And all payors, MC or private, only pay a percentage of charges. The percentage that they pay is negotiated via contracts- this is why people go ballistic when they see a hospital bill that shows a $100 charge for an aspirin. what most people don't understand is that their insurance company is only going to pay their negotiated rate, regardless of the charge. Legally an employer would have a problem not hiring someone because they are a smoker.. they could refuse to pay for their health insurance maybe, but to not hire them for smoking would be discrimination...but putting that all aside... as an employer health insurance costs the same for every employee regardless of whether they smoke or not Not true. it's being done across the country in many large corporations and healthcare networks. it's entirely legal. and, the issue is more than just the fact that smokers drive up the cost of healthcare. one of the other primary reasons why employers are going in this direction is that, as employees, smokers also miss more work time due to illness, and are generally less productive due to 'smoke breaks'.

New threats to our liberty: HEALTHCARE BILL!! Look what just happened last yr in America!! Scary thought- everyone having access to health care. That'll be the end of us. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child--will STRIP parental rights in America This one, i've got to hear. Can you please explain?

and last I knew.. health insurance for smokers cost the same as non-smokers so how does the company (careful because I'm a business owner) have a greater insurance expense for a smoker.. and If I didn't smoke at work and never told my employer I smoked how would he know not to hire me? you're right, but you're completely missing the point. yes, health INSURANCE does cost the same for smokers and non-smokers. but, health CARE does not. the costs of providing care for the people who smoke costs exponentially more than for non-smokers. and, that's what drives up the cost for everyone else. (Same reason why 'insurance fraud' raises everyone's premiums). and, that's the point. it's different in automotive insurance where the user's cost is reflective of how 'risky' they are to insure- speeding tickets, etc. As an employer, the cost for insuring smokers is coming out of your pocket. and, as far as your last question, that's simple. employers today are asking prospective employees to sign a statement attesting that they are non-smokers. during their initial 'employee health screen', a simple blood test is done along with standard blood testing. if it comes back positive, they don't get hired. if they pass the test, and then start smoking after completing probation, nothing the employer can do.

the real problem: the utter disdain for the military instilled by too many in academia and popular culture and proven by the misbehavior of Columbia students toward an American Patriot who deserves their profound respect. Another sad attempt to paint anyone with an education or an opinion that you don't agree with as UnAmerican. You guys are preaching to choir on this one. Noone on this thread has defended the actions of the students at Columbia- only their right to express themselves.

Everyone is entitled to opinions. I don't have problems with others have different opinions than mine. I however will NEVER understand why every bloody hunter out there should be expected to follow lockstep with the NRA, the republican party, or any other group for that matter, and if they don't they are automatically blacklisted. Exactly who made it law that hunters need be members of these organizations and not have differing views?? That to me is the underlying issue of ALL these recent threads, and I surely won't shy away from making my opinion heard whether some want to blacklist me or not. Couldn't agree more. The general public prefers to see the average hunter as a gun-crazy, ultra-conservative, bible-beating loon. Challenging these sterotypes benefits us all.

Exactly what kind of reasoned discussion would you expect with material such as this? "American Holocaust"......what a crock of poop. Well said

The proclivities of the blogger have no influence on the subject matter in the letter she posted. The point of the post was to show the opinion of members of the EU regarding the current state of affairs in America. The blogger obviously found the letter useful for her purposes as well, but the letter and the blogger have nothing to do with each other. It seems posting comments about her, or her religious beliefs is a vain attempt to distract the thread and change the subject. And to attack me for posting it, while calling my views shallow, or less than serious, is laughable in it's desperation. Nonsense. You can't seperate the message from the messenger in this case. Noone called you shallow. I called the messenger (the blogger or whoever wrote the original blog) shallow. My point was that by using this nonsense to bolster your point was a weak attempt. Like it or not, fanatical views will never be taken seriously- Christian, Muslim, whatever. I find it interesting this thread has become a discussion on religion, when the original post is a letter from a Russian about their views on current American events and it's possible outcome. You're overly sensitive regarding your own personal religious proclivity. This thread, started by you, was not simply about a Russian's views about America- and i'm sure that this person does not represent the Russian opinion in general. It was one particular Russian whose views regarding the US government and religion are similar to that of your own. That's why you posted it. The blog and the letter were drenched in religious rhetoric and that's why this thread has gone in that direction.

What was the original title of this thread?

If we take that route with tobacco we have to be prepared to apply the same principle to all aspects of our lives. A part of my job is personnel...so I can't help myself either. a policy must be inforced evenly and without prejudice. tobacco does kill many. how about alcohol...cars capable of driving over 65..on and on....what ever standard we set we should be prepared to apply it across the board and while you probably don't smoke a time may come that the same principle is apply to an aspet of your life. Did I make sense? Another slippery slope. The only reaistic way to address an issue like tobacco is via tax- not that raising the tax has had any major impact on the number of smokers. My reason for bringing it up is that it's another area where people(smokers) want to protect their rights, but do not want to consider the impact that exercising that right has on the public- second-hand smoke, astronomical tax-supported healthcare costs, etc. Part of your job is personnel, how about the expense to your company to insure smokers. Does an employer have the right to not hire smokers, as is becoming the trend? Again, my point is that some of our rights impact not only ourselves- these are the situations when i feel it is reasonable to consider whether these rights need to be reassessed.

<blockquote>I would agree that our political system is way too beholden to special interest groups. But, careful what you wish for- the nra is one of the biggest. </blockquote> I thoroughly understand that. And I would like for them to not have to exist to balance the other side. If we follwed a strict interpretation of our founding documents and went at any changes in the correct way, the country would be a much better place. Fair enough. but, if changes to the gun laws were attained via 'the correct way', how would you handle it? And, for the sake of comparison, how would you compare the NRA's 'need to exist' to protect the rights of gun enthusiasts with the Tobacco lobby's need to exist to protect smokers and the companies who profit from poisoning them- can't help it, i work in healthcare.

There is no practical wasy to totally separate the two. There really doesn't have to be IF we are guided by what the founding fathers set forth. Our Constitution and founding documents were set up to limit any radical views (political or religious) that might try to find their way in. a lot of guys on this thread have been quick to reference the constitution or 'the foundations of the country'. separation of church and state is explicit in the constition- may have been the primary reason for the formation of the union. i don't disagree that it's hard to completely separate the two- people's politics usually follow along with their religious beliefs. don't get me started on this one. one man's definition of 'radical views' is another man's definition of a 'passionate belief'.

I guess you guys only have the ability to attack the messenger and not the message. What's the matter, the article too deep for you to discuss? It's not that the message is too deep, it's that the messenger is too shallow. Anyone who uses theology in the context of a political discussion is not to be taken seriously.

Yes indeed, but freedom of speach should not be hard to defend. You can't limit any of our freedoms reguardless of what they are and how distasteful they might turn out to be. That is the reason that wacko group has been aloud to protest the funerals of our fallen soldiers. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have the right to express themselves. just that they should be ashamed of the way they are doing it- same as in the example you gave.

regardless of your politics, heckling a military veteran is hard to defend.

In fact, Pamela Schuffert is: A born-again Christian of 35 years now, former Bible college student of several years, former YWAM'er, with years with OPERATION RESCUE Christian pro-life organization saving the unborn from abortion in many states. More recently, 13 years an investigative journalist working with victims to EXPOSE satanism in America today, having written numerous reports exposing satanism and having worked for years to help rescue victims from satanist attacks in various location like ASHEVILLE, NC, OHIO, INDIANA and many other locations. Her reports exposing SATANISM IN AMERICA TODAY can be read on http://www.educate-yourself.org/ps/ . Schuffert was almost killed more than once by the satanists of the mountains of NC while aiding victims in those mountains. ONLY because of her strong Christian commitment and walk is she alive today, having survived many attacks during her years of ministry to aid victims of satanism. Her pastor can be contacted to confirm her solid Christian background and status directly. Pastor Ed Brouwer, Montreat Presbyterian Church Montreat, NC, at [email protected] Due to her exposing in depth the NEW WORLD ORDER and various gov/mil black ops, COINTELPRO has been dispersed by the CIA/FBI, creating a smear campaign in the hopes of derailing her consistent investigative reporting. Barbara Hartwell, exposed as working for the CIA to smear/slander/discredit many on government hate lists, has falsely accused Schuffert of "being involved in satanism." But COINTELPRO attacks come with the turf in this kind of reporting that continually offends the US government plus the satanists of this nation. Before you pick up and pass on false information from COINTELPRO, do yourself (and the rest of us)a favor. Get in contact directly with that person accused and GET THE FACTS and document those facts BEFORE you pass them on as TRUTH. This is who you want to use to validate your positions? This is why you can't be taken seriously.

I just can't seem to bring myself to trust our elected officials given their past track record (and I am talking both sides) They seem self serving and given our current election set up are too beholding to special interests. I would agree that our political system is way too beholden to special interest groups. But, careful what you wish for- the nra is one of the biggest.

Gotta tell ya.. you guys are funnier than the stooges.... not quite as smart but definitely funnier finally something clever from one of the 'cold dead hands' boys. well done.

Nice guys finish last, A-holes finish 1st. The cream of the crop doesn't necessarily rise to the top these days. copout. so, which are you, a nice guy that finished last or an A-hole that finished first? the cream has never automatically risen to the top.

If a student does not complete a required component they get an incomplete and must complete it. made sense to me. Here is where it gets crazy. If a test is a required component and the student fails it they have to keep taking the test until they pass it of the incomplete stays. WHAT? http://huntingny.com/forums/Smileys/akyhne/huh.gif[/img] ? If you have 1 incomplete you can not participate in sports....if you have one F you can. My head was ready to explode.....No child left behind. you lost me there. so, if failing leads to an 'incomplete', how do you get an 'F'? i don't disagree entirely on the issue of a degree earned. it's not automatic proof of intelligence- in my profession, i've worked with plenty of physicians, nurses, and therapists, all with advanced degrees who have left me wondering how they got them. but, in general, there's a reason why people with an education achieve more than those without. either way, a person's morals and ethics are most important.

What happens in college, and even high school today is, educators encroach on the parents area of teaching and tell the students their parents are wrong, they are stupid, they lied to you, and we are smarter than they are. We are superior in our views. Since the students look up to teachers as leaders, they will often adopt their views to emulate them and get a good grade. They may also turn against their parents and all of their family's values, causing a breakdown there and psychological confusion for the youth well into their years. This was the process practiced by the Communists during the Cold War years. It was so effective, children even turned their own parents over to the secret police to gain approval from the state. Observe the massive rise in Charter schools, private schools and home schooling in America now. All signs of parents not being happy with state educators. We see a lot of graduates in America with degrees in Sociology, Psychology, English Literature and various Liberal Arts areas. These areas of study leave lots of room for indoctrination into the Leftist manifesto. we have identified that latest and most dangerous threat.... and it is......education.

great movie. glad to see that you weren't actually watching cartoons. let me guess- we must be fat, drunk, and stupid. is that the implication, neidermeyer? pretty clever. as someone who's thin, sober, and has a master's degree, i think you're off target.

Yes and the three gay amigos would mean the end of days to him...honestly I still don't know who the other two are as they haven't picked their names yet. Who am I supposed to be siding with? Did I form an alliance some how.. man what happened when did I say I agreed with any one, oh well back to hateing my terrible life of mind oppression. well, if you're gonna be shemp, then there's actually room for three more. don't forget, shemp was a replacement stooge. i'll be curley. how's that?

You guys should tell him that you are the Three Amigos. I couldn't imagine that being Mexican will sit well with VJP either! LOL what do you mean 'you guys'? i think they were lumping you in with us, amigo.

AHH, a reply from the other member of the Three Stooges. the three stooges vs. the three blind mice.