|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
johnnie
|
|
response 8 of 106:
| 
Dec 7 18:10 UTC 2000 |
It's no secret that companies tend to buy the least amount of health
coverage they can get away with, especially when they can't pass the
cost along to their employees. Lack of abortion coverage is not
something that most employees would complain about.
|
ashke
|
|
response 9 of 106:
|
Dec 7 18:21 UTC 2000 |
I'm more worried about non-medical personel who have a financial goal making
decisions about what procedures are covered by medical insurance. Not even
the abortion issue, but approval or pre-approval for operations and hospital
stays. It's getting rediculous
|
johnnie
|
|
response 10 of 106:
|
Dec 7 18:25 UTC 2000 |
And flem posted the following in the Announcements item:
>Apparently on Thursday 11/30, the Michigan Senate unanimously passed
>Senate Bill 1116, which amends the Michigan Penal code having to do
>with prostitution and adult entertainment. It includes the following
>text, from new section 465a(3):
> "A person shall not knowingly appear in an adult entertainment
>establishment in a nude or semi-nude condition unless the person is 21
>years of age or older and at least 6 feet from any patron or customer."
>The bill goes to the House now, I gather, but I don't imagine its
>reception there will differ from the Senate much.
flem also noted that it would mean the end of lap dances. I imagine it
would also end the practice of stuffing money into the girls' g-strings.
The law also forbids "adult" businesses from being open between midnight
and 10am, and on Sundays and holidays. Further, it requires dancers to
be employees of the establishment (I suppose that now they are generally
"independent contractors"). I suppose that restriction, along with the
lap dance and g-string-stuffing ban, is intended to make nude dancing
less lucrative for both the business and the dancers.
|
remmers
|
|
response 11 of 106:
|
Dec 7 21:59 UTC 2000 |
And this legislation is intended to solve what problem?
|
other
|
|
response 12 of 106:
|
Dec 7 23:10 UTC 2000 |
The problem it is intended to solve is that of the moral discomfort
certain vociferous parties experience when confronted with the notion
that not only do images of sex sell, but that sexual stimulation sells as
well.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 13 of 106:
|
Dec 8 02:41 UTC 2000 |
The bill states that its purpose is to "regulate sexually oriented
businesses to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of this state."
|
mdw
|
|
response 14 of 106:
|
Dec 8 03:41 UTC 2000 |
Seems doubtful it does any of those. Clearly a bill designed by
puritans.
|
goose
|
|
response 15 of 106:
|
Dec 8 04:58 UTC 2000 |
But it's a bill no politician will oppose, and few citizens will speak out
against. Mark me down as being quite opposed to it.
|
mary
|
|
response 16 of 106:
|
Dec 8 05:00 UTC 2000 |
I think most employers would opt to pay a little more so that valued
employees have elective abortion coverage. Abortions are cheaper than
maternity care and the subsequent child care leave. But mostly they'd do
it because women appreciate that benefit, the same reason they offer most
perks.
I'm waiting for the law which states Viagra can't be covered without a
surcharge.
|
bru
|
|
response 17 of 106:
|
Dec 8 15:45 UTC 2000 |
well, it does promote the health and welfare. Hard to catch any communicable
diseases if you can't touch someone.
|
flem
|
|
response 18 of 106:
|
Dec 8 16:15 UTC 2000 |
Presumably we should also outlaw shaking hands, then. Not to mention kissing,
riding the bus, and using the bathroom.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 106:
|
Dec 8 23:02 UTC 2000 |
Dunno about you, Greg, but I tend not to touch people when I'm in the
bathroom... ;)
|
flem
|
|
response 20 of 106:
|
Dec 9 22:30 UTC 2000 |
Bite your tongue. Or don't; you might have germs. :)
|
ashke
|
|
response 21 of 106:
|
Dec 9 23:13 UTC 2000 |
or jewlery in their tongues...
|
johnnie
|
|
response 22 of 106:
|
Dec 15 13:50 UTC 2000 |
The state House and Senate got together this week and agreed on a final
version of the concealed weapons bill. In addition, they tacked on a
million dollars for the State Police. This makes it an appropriations
bill, and therefore immune from a referendum challenge that could stop
the bill before it takes effect. It can still be overturned at a
later date via ballot issue (which takes about twice as many signatures
as a referendum).
|
danr
|
|
response 23 of 106:
|
Dec 15 14:06 UTC 2000 |
Michigan legislators are sooooo slimy.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 106:
|
Dec 15 15:57 UTC 2000 |
Not just Michigan legislators.
|
drew
|
|
response 25 of 106:
|
Dec 16 19:45 UTC 2000 |
It is rather rare for legislators to conspire to give the people a bit *more*
freedom, which I think this "concealed weapons" bill would do. Still, why
should a bill be immune to referendum challenges because of being an
"appropriations" bill?
|
bru
|
|
response 26 of 106:
|
Dec 16 21:48 UTC 2000 |
I suppose t could be argued that because of this bill the State Police are
going to need increased funding for background checks.
I have been waiting 4 years for this bill to pass. Damn will I be happy when
he signs it!
|
aaron
|
|
response 27 of 106:
|
Dec 17 05:21 UTC 2000 |
Which suggests that the world will be less safe.
|
goose
|
|
response 28 of 106:
|
Dec 17 23:57 UTC 2000 |
I attended a gun show this weekend with my father. He's a regular at these
things and he noted to me that since GWB was declared the president elect gun
prices have come down a bit, and now with this CCW bill ready to go prices
have fallen again.
|
jep
|
|
response 29 of 106:
|
Dec 18 20:34 UTC 2000 |
I don't think most people think concealed weapons permits need to become
more common and easier to get. I don't think that's necessary, and I
tend a lot more toward the right-wing side more than most people on
Grex.
I'm getting more and more annoyed by the state legislature, which has
gotten more and more into taking over issues previously controlled by
lower levels of government. This is not what I expect from Republicans,
it is to control rampant big government that I vote for Republicans.
|
aaron
|
|
response 30 of 106:
|
Dec 18 21:05 UTC 2000 |
Start voting Libertarian. The "Republicans like small government" claim is
a bit misleading.
|
bru
|
|
response 31 of 106:
|
Dec 19 01:45 UTC 2000 |
Unfortunately, the low levels of government were telling people who applied
for concealed weapons, "Sorry, but you need to convince the three people on
this board that you have a need to carry this weapon." The new law makes it
so the board has to prove people who apply for te license are a threat to
restrict them from having the license.
People who are in law enfrcement or in the legal profession are almost
automatically approved by the board, along with some family members and
freinds.
Thats the way my mother was treated. She knew many of the police officers
in the city and those who worked in city hall. All she had to do to get a
permit to purchase was to call city hall adn ask, same if she wanted a permit
to carry.
While might have been able to take advantage of it while she was alive, that
doesn't make it right that she have advantages over other people with just
as valid a reason to carry a gun.
I could probably get a permit to carry from my uncle who is a township
supervisor adn is able to issue permits in his township, should I exploit that
advantage? Or if a certain person won election in Lenawee County, I am sure
I could call on our past freindship and get one issued by the Sheriffs office.
Should I?
I don't think so. I think I should be able to walk into my local police or
sheriffs office and get what I want if I so desire, and anyone else should
as well.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 32 of 106:
|
Dec 19 02:04 UTC 2000 |
First, the State has *always* set the standards by which County boards
issue permits to carry concealed weapons. It used to be, the State law
said that County boards "may issue"; now (assuming the Governor signs
it) the State law says that County boards "shall issue." As Bruce says,
removing the opportunity for favoritism is a Very Good Thing.
If people don't want a CCW, they don't have to ask for one.
On the radio today, I heard someone railing against the proliferation of
weapons the new law will encourage. I don't believe it. Those who WANT
to carry a weapon ARE CARRYING ONE RIGHT NOW. They simply don't care what
the law says; they will carry. (Correction: they probably care a little,
and they understand that it DOES apply to them, but they aren't going to
let that change their behaviour.) ALL of the examples of when to fear a
gun-toter that I've heard APPLY RIGHT NOW, EVEN WITH "may issue".
|