i see a lot of posts on tumblr along the lines of “let’s watch movies and make out” and yeah i can see the fun in that if the movie is boring but if the movie is REALLY GOOD and has a lot of intense action scenes or dialogue then don’t kiss me don’t tOUCH ME DON’T LOOK AT ME BECAUSE YOU BETTER BE WATCHING THE GODDAMN CINEMATIC MASTERPIECE ON THE SCREEN WE CAN HAVE SEX AFTER THE AVENGERS SAVE THE CITY
So has the new system of youtube paying per minutes veiwed instead of veiws affected you like it has other animators ?
At the risk of sounding condescending I don’t think anybody really knows what they’re talking about. Take what people say on this topic with a grain of salt, because nobody is the final authority on this stuff!
In your opinion, are animations hard to make? By the way, Your awesome. :3
I reeeaaallllly wanna make a sarcastic joke here but that would be rude and I’m trying to restrain myself more these days, so I will just say yes, they are hard to make. Thank you for thinking I’m awesome.
My little sister is a really pretty girl and she gets dick pics all the time from annoying boys, so being the girl she is, she started using them as blackmail. She now has about 30 boys doing her bidding because one stepped out of line and she got someone to print out 500 copies of the photo and mailed it to his family.
My sister is 16 and she’s running a black mail Mafia. She’s going places.
IUDs are also an option for the treatment of endometriosis, oftentimes for women who, for whatever reason, have unpleasant side effects on the pill. My understanding is that IUDs are one of the forms of BC that Hobby Lobby believes to be abortifacient (which they are not, but that's a separate point). The larger issue is: why shouldn't a person's health insurance, which they are paying for, cover medications that their doctor deems necessary?
Sure, IUDs may be able to help too, but they are not necessary if they are an option, right?
Again, you are free to purchase this product directly if you so choose which lasts 3-5 years. Sounds like a good personal investment. Or, if you really don’t like the idea of your employer not covering certain items through insurance, find another employer who will. Sounds pretty simple. Did you know that some employers like Google and Microsoft give you free drinks and even food while working there? Does that mean every employer should or can do the same? No, it doesn’t.
Remember, you generally are paying only a part of the insurance premiums at your job. All this talk about demanding this and that in your company subsidized insurance is going to put an end to the employer-paid insurance and you’re going to have to pay for everything yourself out of pocket. This, of course, is all part of the grand scheme of things for Democrats. They want you off your employer’s insurance and onto their even worse form. Sure, they’ll give you all the birth control (and probably abortions) you want, but they’re going to make cuts elsewhere.
I hope that you would please address these concerns about your last HL post. 1. health insurance is employee compensation. It is up to the employer, however, to determine how they wish to compensate said employee. Simply stating it’s “employee compensation” doesn’t wash away the fact that the employer gets to determine how they wish to compensate the employee and the employee decides whether or not that is adequate enough for their needs.
(cont.) 2. Your second point seems to be poorly sourced. Where you get 40% I have no idea… In fact when I search for it the first article that pops up is yours where you explain that people “were promised”.. but doesn’t say who they were promised to or by and for what…
Yes, I got your question the first time you sent it. I’m a bit ticked that you are more concerned with getting me to explain myself than in re-reading the original post, but I’ll try to re-explain this as simply as possible for you.
First of all, yes, health insurance is part of an employee’s compensation. But when employers restrict access to birth control, they are not determining “how much” to compensate their employee, they are determining howthat compensation isused.
An employer can decide to compensate their employees less by moving to a cheaper healthcare plan that requires their employees to pay more of their healthcare costs out-pocket. But employers would not be picking and choosing which benefits they will and will not pay for. They would simply be cutting their overall contribution to an employee’s healthcare. The Hobby Lobby decision allows for-profit companies to say that they are going to make a value judgement about a certain service and then interfere with the services the health insurer provides their employees.
Which brings me to those pesky numbers you’re so confused about. If you read my original post, I specifically said that I made up the 40% figure to illustrate a point about how those benefits operate. Since you didn’t understand my original illustration, I’ll make it even simpler for you.
Imagine you have a job where your employer compensates you with $100 a month (this isn’t a realistic figure, but I’m using 100 to make it easier to show percentages).
Your employer pays you $50 in cash. He then puts $10 in a retirement account you set up. Finally, he gives $40 to a health insurance company to provide health insurance. This is all part of YOUR compensation. The employer isn’t paying for health care out of the goodness of his heart, but because it is a benefit you earned. Employers pay this directly to the insurer on behalf of all of the employees to negotiate a lower rate for the entire group; that’s why they don’t simply give you the money as an additional part of your paycheck.
This works out fine for awhile. You use the paycheck to buy rent, food, and clothes. You need to buy allergy medicine and birth control every month, and sometimes you need to go to the doctor. Thankfully, your employer was able to negotiate a good group rate with the health insurance company, so you only pay about $10 out of pocket for co-pays and the like.
But after the Hobby Lobby decision, your employer comes back to you and says, “Sorry, but we’ve told the health insurance company that they can no longer provide you with birth control. You’re going to have to pay for it yourself.”
You reply, “But I was paying for it myself! When I signed up, 40% of my overall compensation was going directly to the health insurer to pay for my birth control!”
Your employer replies, “Well, the Supreme Court says we get to control how that money is spent. We don’t like birth control, so we told the health insurer not to provide it. But we can’t control how you spend your paycheck, so you’ll just have to pay for it with that.”
You might ask, “Well, then can you give me some of that money back on my paycheck? Since you’re forcing the health insurer to refuse to provide me birth control, the value of my health insurance has gone down.” But of course, your employer will refuse.
And it’s not like you can pay for your birth control with your paycheck. You’re already spending it on rent, food, clothing, and for your co-pays for the health care your insurer can still provide. When you took the job, 40% of your overall compensation was going to be provided directly for health insurance. Now that compensation buys you less. Therefore, employees are being denied their fair compensation.
But here’s the kicker. It’s not actually about money, or about who pays for the birth control. It’s about control, and using any means necessary to prevent everybody from being able to use birth control.
Because at that point in our story, President Obama comes along. He tells businesses, “Don’t worry, I got this. We’ll just have the insurer pay for it themselves. None of the money you provide for an employee’s health care will go towards providing birth control.”
But the businesses don’t want this either. They go back to the Supreme Court arguing that the President’s accommodation still violates their religious beliefs. They refuse to even fill out the paperwork necessary for this accommodation, because it means that eventually their employees will be allowed to have access to birth control. They’re not even shy about their intentions anymore; Wheaton College wants to refuse to provide ALL forms of birth control.
So it’s not about compensation. It’s not about who pays for birth control. It’s about a few people using their religious beliefs and dubious legal reasoning to restrict access to birth control for millions.