Awww...

Monk and Tiger sharing their meal.

mr. flea went and met the librarian at his workplace today. Turns out she did an MA in the department I was a student in (we didn't overlap - she's younger) and, and I quote, "She knows J [my boss] is crazy". I told mr. flea he can't go around telling everyone I think my boss is crazy, but also, I feel very validated.

It's a fig leaf, not a compromise.

He's not actually wrong about that

True. But the problem isn't "Obamacare," (again, @@) it's the whole entire insurance industry (and medicine, and science, and what medical practitioners and patients consider reasonable and necessary treatment options). I don't know what ideologically pure alternative he thinks he's going to find; I don't think there is one, and there hasn't been one for quite a while.

eta: Even if he steps into the wayback machine, he's still going to find barber-surgeons prescribing village women special herbal compounds to "cure their menstrual stoppages."

I don't understand the compromise. Basically, Catholic Institution can tell its female employees "Although we are providing you with insurance, we do not cover contraception," but then the exact same insurance *will* provide contraception? How is it not covered, then?

Can someone re-word it for me? Because I honestly don't understand it.

And the insurers won't object. Because the insurers cover at least some pregnancy costs, so they will save more than the free coverage costs them.

Plus, this isn't new. Insurance companies/employers have been required to provide coverage for bc since 2000 (ish - going on the article linked yesterday). The current change expands who is required (companies under 15 folks...) and adds the no-copay.

None of this shoves the bc down anyone's throats. It is an available option. Just like Viagra is an available option. Geeeeeeesh.

All your facts and reasoned arguments are a distraction! Obama has started a war on Christians! Which Santorum says will end up with Christians being guillotined!

(He really said that. It's some dog-whistle thing about the book of Revelations.)

Why can't people understand that enterprise-level content management systems don't come with out of the box solutions that anyone's ever satisfied with? How can people be so simultaneously sure that they're special flowers and that someone has solved this *precise* problem before in an entirely portable and externally supportable way. You can't have both ways. You can't decide that publishing means exactly *this* to you, and expect random (not overly expensive) application to have intuited that before you even came along. Not in content management. Not even in most business process automation I've encountered on a platform where you insist on defining precisely what "staging" and "production" mean to you.

Do you really want to use someone else's definition? Do you really think you could even satisfy two different departments in your one company with one definition, much less an industry-neutral application having already come up with your precise definition?

t /way-too-specific rant

Everyone wants their application to have one line of code and one button.

The line of code is "no bugs"

The button is "do what I'm thinking"

Would Catholic hospitals and such possible say "Fuck you then, we won't offer insurance"? I mean, that'd cause a lot of employees to up and quit, but...