chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
moondigger wrote:I know the Hobby Lobby case was framed (at least in the media) as being about the question of whether corporations/businesses can have protected religious beliefs. But it's obvious based on the decision that it wasn't really about religious beliefs per se.

The decision is quite clear about how narrowly it should be taken. They specifically say that it does not apply to other medically-related religious convictions such as opposition to blood transfusions and/or vaccinations.

In other words, if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers certain contraceptives, that's okay. But if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers blood transfusions or vaccinations, too bad. You get no exemption.

So it's not really about religious belief; it's specifically about sexual/reproductive taboos.



I'm going to talk about my feelings here. I realize that my feelings are not the basis of any law.

I don't believe any of us have a "right" to health insurance that covers these contraceptives or any other drugs. I do think it's a good idea, and cost-saving. Much cheaper than babies. I'm not particularly invested in the mandate itself. However, mot of the arguments against it really piss me off, and this case is no different. My insurance, which is part of my compensation and which I additionally pay for, can't cover what I need because of some other guy's religious beliefs. The religious "beliefs" of a corporation? Puh-lease. And apparently only the certain religious beliefs of certain people. The rest of us can (When 2 people love each other…) right off, I guess.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kylemittskus wrote:You can call it whatever you want, but in effect, it's the same thing. Those sexual taboos are taboo because of religious reasons.


Yes, but now you have the court deciding which religious convictions deserve 'protection' and which don't. Looking at the specifics, it's obvious that it's far less about protecting 'religious convictions' (as a whole) than it is specifically about sex and reproduction.

chemvictim wrote:My insurance, which is part of my compensation and which I additionally pay for, can't cover what I need because of some other guy's religious beliefs. The religious "beliefs" of a corporation? Puh-lease. And apparently only the certain religious beliefs of certain people. The rest of us can (When 2 people love each other…) right off, I guess.


Agreed with all of this, including the absurd idea that a private corporation can have and impose religious convictions on others. I'm just focusing on the additional disturbing fact that the court is ruling some beliefs are worthy of protection under the banner of 'religious conviction' and that others aren't.

"Smith Widgets -- your religion says contraceptives are evil. You're free to deny such coverage in the medical insurance plan you offer to employees.

"Johnson Widgets -- your religion says blood transfusions are evil. Too bad -- you must include coverage for such in the medical insurance plan you offer employees."

How is that not state-endorsement of one religion (or religious belief) over another?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
moondigger wrote:How is that not state-endorsement of one religion (or religious belief) over another?



It is. But the justices in the majority are of one religion and not the other, and they do whatever they want.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
moondigger wrote:Agreed with all of this, including the absurd idea that a private corporation can have and impose religious convictions on others. I'm just focusing on the additional disturbing fact that the court is ruling some beliefs are worthy of protection under the banner of 'religious conviction' and that others aren't.

"Smith Widgets -- your religion says contraceptives are evil. You're free to deny such coverage in the medical insurance plan you offer to employees.

"Johnson Widgets -- your religion says blood transfusions are evil. Too bad -- you must include coverage for such in the medical insurance plan you offer employees."

How is that not state-endorsement of one religion (or religious belief) over another?



Um, because it isn't?

Oh, and BTW, your argument about the blood transfusions is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are only against blood transfusions in to themselves. They support it in any medical plans for others. Just not themselves.

Again, they (SCOTUS) isn't saying you can't have the medical coverage, they're just saying you can't force someone to pay for your desires.


And realistically, the government needs more citizens (i.e., babies) to pay for all the boomers retiring!!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Again, they (SCOTUS) isn't saying you can't have the medical coverage, they're just saying you can't force someone to pay for your desires.



Oddly, I don't consider using my health insurance as forcing someone to pay for my desires. I desire not to sneeze, so I guess my allergy meds count? I should practice my evil laugh for next time I oppress the masses via the pharmacy counter.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:Oddly, I don't consider using my health insurance as forcing someone to pay for my desires. I desire not to sneeze, so I guess my allergy meds count? I should practice my evil laugh for next time I oppress the masses via the pharmacy counter.



Exactly!

It's your employer's policy. If they choose to include or exclude coverage, it's up to them. Once you have the gov't stepping in to say what can and can't be covered, how far is it to having them exclude items?

As in alcoholic products such as wine, beer, whiskey, etc.?


And again, you can always find another job.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

klezman


quality posts: 127 Private Messages klezman
moondigger wrote:I know the Hobby Lobby case was framed (at least in the media) as being about the question of whether corporations/businesses can have protected religious beliefs. But it's obvious based on the decision that it wasn't really about religious beliefs per se.

The decision is quite clear about how narrowly it should be taken. They specifically say that it does not apply to other medically-related religious convictions such as opposition to blood transfusions and/or vaccinations.

In other words, if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers certain contraceptives, that's okay. But if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers blood transfusions or vaccinations, too bad. You get no exemption.

So it's not really about religious belief; it's specifically about sexual/reproductive taboos.



I think that may be even worse, actually. It's not protective of all religious beliefs as one might think, but only against contraception. So then it's back to framing it as a puritanical war on sex and/or women's rights to control their bodies.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 127 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:Um, because it isn't?



Assuming the brief summary here is accurate, how is it not prioritizing some religious beliefs over others?

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Exactly!

It's your employer's policy. If they choose to include or exclude coverage, it's up to them. Once you have the gov't stepping in to say what can and can't be covered, how far is it to having them exclude items?

As in alcoholic products such as wine, beer, whiskey, etc.?


And again, you can always find another job.



Yes, to all that. The fact that the employer controls what's included and excluded has always been a fact of life for me, and I don't recall having any problems. However, I never tried to get my booze covered (it's for health, mental health).

What I'm objecting to here is the special attention given to women's contraceptives. I'm not arguing necessarily that it must be covered, etc., I'm reacting to the arguments against it. I can deal with arguments that the gov't shouldn't dictate what's covered, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Leave it there, no need to pick on women.

You bring up birth control though, and it's "close your legs," "pay for it yourself," etc. I'd be willing to bet most of us engage in some behavior or another that risks our health. You have allergies? Get rid of your cat, or pay for it yourself! High cholesterol? You're the one who ate the pizza, pay for it yourself! There are cheaper ways to treat that, pay for it yourself! Does that sound reasonable? Don't expect the insurance you buy to pay for the things it covers, buy those things yourself because...because...why? You want to argue that you should be free to purchase insurance that doesn't cover that minor crap? I agree, you should! But mine covers all that crap, so if I need it I'm going to use it.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Yes, to all that. The fact that the employer controls what's included and excluded has always been a fact of life for me, and I don't recall having any problems. However, I never tried to get my booze covered (it's for health, mental health).

What I'm objecting to here is the special attention given to women's contraceptives. I'm not arguing necessarily that it must be covered, etc., I'm reacting to the arguments against it. I can deal with arguments that the gov't shouldn't dictate what's covered, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Leave it there, no need to pick on women.

You bring up birth control though, and it's "close your legs," "pay for it yourself," etc. I'd be willing to bet most of us engage in some behavior or another that risks our health. You have allergies? Get rid of your cat, or pay for it yourself! High cholesterol? You're the one who ate the pizza, pay for it yourself! There are cheaper ways to treat that, pay for it yourself! Does that sound reasonable? Don't expect the insurance you buy to pay for the things it covers, buy those things yourself because...because...why? You want to argue that you should be free to purchase insurance that doesn't cover that minor crap? I agree, you should! But mine covers all that crap, so if I need it I'm going to use it.



Go girl.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Assuming the brief summary here is accurate, how is it not prioritizing some religious beliefs over others?



How is it prioritizing at all? It's between the employer and employee, not the gov't.


PetiteSirah put it best:

" "An Establishment of Religion" refers to an official state religion (like the Anglican Church of England, or like the Catholic Church was in Maryland). To the extent "separation of church and state" applies, it has nothing to do with private ordering of the sort between a private entity and its employees. But the Establishment clause wasn't at issue. You're ignoring the Free Exercise clause, which is also in the First Amendment (though that also wasn't at issue, it's the portion implicated in this case), as well as RFRA, the statute that was at issue.

.... -- the court never claimed that corporations "are people". Rather, as has been the case since the 1800s, those who avail themselves of freedom of association don't lose other rights by doing so. (Your argument leads to absurd results -- for example, there would be no takings clause against corporations, so the government could take any property owned or entitled to by a trust, partnership, LLC, or corporation, because "corporations don't have rights"? And corporations aren't entitled to due process, so they don't get to have a trial by jury, defense counsel, or impartial fact-finders? That's just beyond ludicrous) "

Also:

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:Yes, to all that. The fact that the employer controls what's included and excluded has always been a fact of life for me, and I don't recall having any problems. However, I never tried to get my booze covered (it's for health, mental health).

What I'm objecting to here is the special attention given to women's contraceptives. I'm not arguing necessarily that it must be covered, etc., I'm reacting to the arguments against it. I can deal with arguments that the gov't shouldn't dictate what's covered, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Leave it there, no need to pick on women.

You bring up birth control though, and it's "close your legs," "pay for it yourself," etc. I'd be willing to bet most of us engage in some behavior or another that risks our health. You have allergies? Get rid of your cat, or pay for it yourself! High cholesterol? You're the one who ate the pizza, pay for it yourself! There are cheaper ways to treat that, pay for it yourself! Does that sound reasonable? Don't expect the insurance you buy to pay for the things it covers, buy those things yourself because...because...why? You want to argue that you should be free to purchase insurance that doesn't cover that minor crap? I agree, you should! But mine covers all that crap, so if I need it I'm going to use it.



Again, Hobby Lobby wasn't excluding ALL Birth Control, it was only excluding the "after contraception" type BC, aka aborti-facients.


And that was my point, that if we let them, the gov't will start to outlaw behavior (See Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC and SuperSize Drinks, etc.). You may want to live in a Nanny State (aka Communism, Fascism, Socialism, etc.), but I don't.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:Again, Hobby Lobby wasn't excluding ALL Birth Control, it was only excluding the "after contraception" type BC, aka aborti-facients.


And that was my point, that if we let them, the gov't will start to outlaw behavior (See Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC and SuperSize Drinks, etc.). You may want to live in a Nanny State (aka Communism, Fascism, Socialism, etc.), but I don't.



No I don't, but if you don't think this is part and parcel of the exact same plutocratic drive, you're very naive!

Every time a corporation is given even more power and rights it is playing directly into the ultra-wealthies hands.

This is the EXACT same group that wants to ban big gulps and guns, they've just fooled your ass into thinking you're fighting against them. ;)

(And I'm NOT wearing my tinfoil hat!)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Again, Hobby Lobby wasn't excluding ALL Birth Control, it was only excluding the "after contraception" type BC, aka aborti-facients.


And that was my point, that if we let them, the gov't will start to outlaw behavior (See Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC and SuperSize Drinks, etc.). You may want to live in a Nanny State (aka Communism, Fascism, Socialism, etc.), but I don't.



It's a free(ish) country, you can always move out.













Now that's antagonistic

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
MarkDaSpark wrote:Um, because it isn't?


Your 'nuh-uh' rebuttal is not persuasive, and is contrary to the facts. The court said that one particular religious objection was worthy of exemption under current law, and that other religious objections are not. That's a textbook case of endorsing one religious belief over another.

Oh, and BTW, your argument about the blood transfusions is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are only against blood transfusions in to themselves. They support it in any medical plans for others. Just not themselves.



I didn't say anything about Jehovah's Witnesses, but even if I had, you're missing the point. The justices themselves called out blood transfusions as an example of a potential conflict between religious belief and the ACA, and specifically said it would not support a similar exemption.

In addition, "religious objections" need not be codified in a religious group's official teachings to be considered valid objections. Just one example (though there are others): Anti-vaccination web guides routinely point out that your particular religious organization need not take any stance on vaccinations for you to voice a religious objection to them.

Any individual or religious group might make an argument that they don't want their medical coverage to include some particular procedure that they have a religious objection to, and that therefore their coverage should cost less. Why should they pay for coverage they will never use under any circumstance? SCOTUS is saying that it doesn't matter why you object to a particular kind of coverage: religious objectors to contraceptive coverage are okay (or 'protected'). But religious objectors to any other kind of coverage are not similarly protected. That's seriously messed up.

The core issue is overreach by corporations into the private lives of employees. What's doubly puzzling is that in that respect, this decision has no teeth. Hobby Lobby has been afforded a religious exemption, but HL employees who want such coverage will now simply get it directly from the insurer, at no additional cost. This avenue already exists for employees of actual religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities. Insurers are happy to provide the 'rider' contraceptive coverage for free because it costs them much less to pay for contraceptives than it does to pay for maternity care.

(Warning: Going off on a tangent for the next two paragraphs.)

Which brings us to the Little Sisters of the Poor. By all accounts they are a wonderful organization which has done a ton of excellent charitable work. They too have religious objections to contraceptive coverage for their employees, and being an actual religious organization (as opposed to Hobby Lobby), already had accommodation under the law. All their employees have to do is get confirmation of their employer's religious objection and they'd be eligible for contraceptive coverage directly from the insurer.

But they (the Little Sisters) won't sign the form confirming their religious objection to contraceptive coverage because in doing so, it would ultimately allow their employees to get contraceptives. They're claiming that signing a form confirming their religious belief would violate their religious beliefs. In doing so, they're going beyond the idea of not paying for something they don't believe in (i.e., their employees' "desires"). They're stepping directly into their employees private lives and telling them it doesn't matter who's paying for the contraceptives, and it doesn't matter whether you have the same religious beliefs that we have. You can't have contraceptives.

Maybe Hobby Lobby will follow their lead and attempt the same tactic...

Again, they (SCOTUS) isn't saying you can't have the medical coverage, they're just saying you can't force someone to pay for your desires.


Others have already pointed out why this argument is meaningless. It's only sexual/reproductive desires that they're singling out. All other 'desires' (and the medical consequences thereof) are covered.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
moondigger wrote:Others have already pointed out why this argument is meaningless. It's only sexual/reproductive desires that they're singling out. All other 'desires' (and the medical consequences thereof) are covered.



Just a reminder they HL does in fact cover contraceptives that stop you from getting pregnant in the first place. They don't want to cover those that may terminate a pregnancy that may, or may not, have occured due to sex (which, ya know, Jesus).

Should they be able to? SC say's yes, so it doesn't matter what I think.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
bhodilee wrote:Just a reminder they HL does in fact cover contraceptives that stop you from getting pregnant in the first place. They don't want to cover those that may terminate a pregnancy that may, or may not, have occured due to sex (which, ya know, Jesus).

Should they be able to? SC say's yes, so it doesn't matter what I think.



Yes, I understand they (HL) are making a distinction. I have no interest in splitting hairs on that particular issue, as it's unrelated to the two bigger issues that interest me:

1. I think it's bogus that a corporation can have a religious objection to something (legally speaking).

2. Accepting (or ignoring) #1, I think it's bogus that some religious objections can enjoy protection under/from the law, and other religious objections cannot.

(Side note: If I'm not mistaken, the Little Sisters are opposed to all contraception, not just so-called abortifacients. But again, irrelevant to the two issues that interest me most.)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:No I don't, but if you don't think this is part and parcel of the exact same plutocratic drive, you're very naive!

Every time a corporation is given even more power and rights it is playing directly into the ultra-wealthies hands.

This is the EXACT same group that wants to ban big gulps and guns, they've just fooled your ass into thinking you're fighting against them. ;)

(And I'm NOT wearing my tinfoil hat!)



No, it isn't. This really only pertained to closely held corporations, not humongous ones. When you have a widely held corporation, you will not have the cohesiveness that you would in a closely held one. In a closely held corporation, you are going to be more involved in the day to day operations, not just a shareholder.

It will also help out smaller businesses and LLCs.

And yes, I think you are off your meds on this, wearing your tinfoil hat and suit!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:It's a free(ish) country, you can always move out.













Now that's antagonistic



Or, just close your business down and put all your workers on unemployment. Especially the ones that voted twice for Obummer.

That's even more antagonistic!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
moondigger wrote:Others have already pointed out why this argument is meaningless. It's only sexual/reproductive desires that they're singling out. All other 'desires' (and the medical consequences thereof) are covered.



If you bothered paying attention, I had said they were quotes from PetiteSirah, on the same subject, so obviously they were to someone else.

So yes, I realize you didn't mention Blood Transfusions.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses have said they will allow their insurance to cover blood transfusions for their employees, so it's moot.

Blood transfusions have been proven to be beneficial to everyone's health, which is why they would be excluded. However, abortifacients aren't (healthful to everyone, nor beneficial).


And it isn't ALL contraceptives that were at issue, but the abortifacients. A much smaller reason. As in the murder of unborn children.

Also it isn't just one religion, as the OTHER party to the suit were the Mennonites.

So it isn't "promoting" one religion over another.


Edit: This puts it so much better than I ever could.

"But no number of rainbow flags or “keep your rosaries off my ovaries” chants could change the fact that Hobby Lobby was actually a rather straightforward question of statutory interpretation regarding whether the government was justified in this particular case in overriding religious liberties."

-- from Hobby Lobby: Government can't violate religious liberties willy-nilly.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:Or, just close your business down and put all your workers on unemployment. Especially the ones that voted twice for Obummer.

That's even more antagonistic!



Which brings us to the truth: Every single man (all male, btw) that I have seen defend this ruling HATES Obama.

MarkDaSpark wrote:
And yes, I think you are off your meds on this, wearing your tinfoil hat and suit!



MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:Which brings us to the truth: Every single man (all male, btw) that I have seen defend this ruling HATES Obama.



False. I don't hate him. I despise him and consider him the worst US President ever (worse than Nixon and Carter combined!).

I respect the office, but not the man at this point.

And I'm sure that there are females who have defended this as well, they're just not friends with you or others.



Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:





Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:And it isn't ALL contraceptives that were at issue, but the abortifacients. A much smaller reason. As in the murder of unborn children.



Sigh. I hate to go here, but I must. A fertilized egg fails to implant, which could happen for any number of reasons, and it simply doesn't develop further. You might consider this murdering an unborn child, I most certainly do not. Religious beliefs are fun that way.

Some people (see above discussion of the Little Sisters of the Poor) believe that any form of contraception is wrong and awful. This is not going to stop with Hobby Lobby and their specifics. For the time being, women have an avenue to pursue complete coverage if they work for a religious employer, but the Little Sisters are trying to jam up that process, also. You don't want to know my personal feelings about that one, believe me.

I'm not defending the mandate, I'm worrying about how to navigate the system we have now.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Blood transfusions have been proven to be beneficial to everyone's health, which is why they would be excluded. However, abortifacients aren't (healthful to everyone, nor beneficial).



Plan B can be beneficial to health. Not to everyone's health, just women who don't want to get pregnant. A gentle reminder that women are people too, and our health care needs are just as important as anyone else's.

There are women who just don't want to get pregnant. There are women for whom pregnancy is very risky. A condom breaks, or maybe you realize you forgot to take your pill yesterday, or whatever else. There are legit health issues here.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:Sigh. I hate to go here, but I must. A fertilized egg fails to implant, which could happen for any number of reasons, and it simply doesn't develop further. You might consider this murdering an unborn child, I most certainly do not. Religious beliefs are fun that way.

Some people (see above discussion of the Little Sisters of the Poor) believe that any form of contraception is wrong and awful. This is not going to stop with Hobby Lobby and their specifics. For the time being, women have an avenue to pursue complete coverage if they work for a religious employer, but the Little Sisters are trying to jam up that process, also. You don't want to know my personal feelings about that one, believe me.

I'm not defending the mandate, I'm worrying about how to navigate the system we have now.



So your feelings are more important than the Little Sisters of the Poor's feelings?

This goes into what we (the group) argued once before, and it centers on Beliefs. The Little Sisters illustrate my point from back then that some people consider it a sin to help in any way, shape, or form (sorry for the pun there).

What's silly is why aren't the insurance companies just accepting payment, instead of insisting that a "form" be signed before they will allow you to be covered for it?


IMO, the ultimate in hypocrisy is those who insist on "keep your religious beliefs off me", yet insist that someone else pay for their violation of someone else's beliefs.

It used to be that health insurance would cover only the basics, yet now people expect it to cover every little thing under the sun. Too bad there isn't a middle road, where the company pays for most, and we "add-on" any additional coverage (and pay for it ourselves).


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:Plan B can be beneficial to health. Not to everyone's health, just women who don't want to get pregnant. A gentle reminder that women are people too, and our health care needs are just as important as anyone else's.

There are women who just don't want to get pregnant. There are women for whom pregnancy is very risky. A condom breaks, or maybe you realize you forgot to take your pill yesterday, or whatever else. There are legit health issues here.



We got into this before. If pregnancy is such a risk, they they need to avoid that part. There are other ways, just ask Bill & Monica.

And you can still buy it yourself. Just don't expect someone else to pay for it.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

edlada


quality posts: 5 Private Messages edlada
chemvictim wrote:Sigh. I hate to go here, but I must. A fertilized egg fails to implant, which could happen for any number of reasons, and it simply doesn't develop further. You might consider this murdering an unborn child, I most certainly do not. Religious beliefs are fun that way.

Some people (see above discussion of the Little Sisters of the Poor) believe that any form of contraception is wrong and awful. This is not going to stop with Hobby Lobby and their specifics. For the time being, women have an avenue to pursue complete coverage if they work for a religious employer, but the Little Sisters are trying to jam up that process, also. You don't want to know my personal feelings about that one, believe me.

I'm not defending the mandate, I'm worrying about how to navigate the system we have now.



As a man, I strongly believe that nobody has the right to tell any woman what to do with her body when it comes to birth control, pregnancy, abortion or anything of that nature. Religious beliefs don't count for poopy as most churches are dominated and controlled by men. It is an issue that men have no conception (pun intended) about and need to S*T*F*U about it and leave the women alone. They bear the children (or not) and it is their body. That should be the end of the discussion. This is not a religion issue, it is a human rights issue and human right trump religious rights every time. In addition, 2/3 of the world is not Christian, there are many other faiths that are more open minded (and to be fair, some less).

My dogs like me, that is important.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
edlada wrote:As a man, I strongly believe that nobody has the right to tell any woman what to do with her body when it comes to birth control, pregnancy, abortion or anything of that nature. Religious beliefs don't count for poopy as most churches are dominated and controlled by men. It is an issue that men have no conception (pun intended) about and need to S*T*F*U about it and leave the women alone. They bear the children (or not) and it is their body. That should be the end of the discussion. This is not a religion issue, it is a human rights issue and human right trump religious rights every time. In addition, 2/3 of the world is not Christian, there are many other faiths that are more open minded (and to be fair, some less).



That's fine, the point is don't expect someone else to pay for it.

It's their body, but then don't expect anyone else to pay.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:So your feelings are more important than the Little Sisters of the Poor's feelings?

This goes into what we (the group) argued once before, and it centers on Beliefs. The Little Sisters illustrate my point from back then that some people consider it a sin to help in any way, shape, or form (sorry for the pun there).

What's silly is why aren't the insurance companies just accepting payment, instead of insisting that a "form" be signed before they will allow you to be covered for it?


IMO, the ultimate in hypocrisy is those who insist on "keep your religious beliefs off me", yet insist that someone else pay for their violation of someone else's beliefs.

It used to be that health insurance would cover only the basics, yet now people expect it to cover every little thing under the sun. Too bad there isn't a middle road, where the company pays for most, and we "add-on" any additional coverage (and pay for it ourselves).



My feelings are not more important than the Little Sisters' feelings. Well, I mean, they're more important to me, but not to anybody else. I don't want them to pay for contraception. They don't have to. They won't even sign a form because it might be considered as "helping?" Where does that end? I'd prefer if we could take them out of it entirely. While I respect their right to have the belief, I don't have to respect the belief itself. And I don't.

Why do you keep saying "expect someone else to pay for it?" Do you buy insurance? I'm going to assume you do because you're a responsible person. Whenever you have a health issue, are you expecting someone else to pay for it when you hand over your card? That's so insulting. I pay for my insurance, but if I use it I'm expecting someone else to pay for my stuff?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:That's fine, the point is don't expect someone else to pay for it.

It's their body, but then don't expect anyone else to pay.



What do you mean, "expect someone else to pay for it"? As in, insurance money goes into one big pot that all members of the insurer pay into and the money comes from there? If yes, that's absurd.

If you mean the employer is paying for it, that's not the case either. Most employees pay for at least a portion of their insurance and what's not subsidized by the employee is akin to pay for the work. From a work standpoint, insurance is part of a payment for labor or service. In that case, the employer shouldn't tell me how to spend my "money."

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:My feelings are not more important than the Little Sisters' feelings. Well, I mean, they're more important to me, but not to anybody else. I don't want them to pay for contraception. They don't have to. They won't even sign a form because it might be considered as "helping?" Where does that end? I'd prefer if we could take them out of it entirely. While I respect their right to have the belief, I don't have to respect the belief itself. And I don't.

Why do you keep saying "expect someone else to pay for it?" Do you buy insurance? I'm going to assume you do because you're a responsible person. Whenever you have a health issue, are you expecting someone else to pay for it when you hand over your card? That's so insulting. I pay for my insurance, but if I use it I'm expecting someone else to pay for my stuff?



But you (and I) are paying for your (our) own insurance. We're not talking about that. We're talking about a company paying for all or a portion of employees insurance (depending on companies, I've worked for some that paid all, some that paid for me and family, and some that only paid a portion for me).

You don't have to respect the belief, but you have to respect that it's their money and their choice. It seems that for all everyone claims that it's their choice, it only applies to them, and not to anyone else's choices.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:We got into this before. If pregnancy is such a risk, they they need to avoid that part. There are other ways, just ask Bill & Monica.

And you can still buy it yourself. Just don't expect someone else to pay for it.



Just avoid intercourse, that's reasonable. If, for whatever reason, buying and using health insurance = expecting someone else to pay, why is it okay to expect them to pay for this health issue but not the other?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:But you (and I) are paying for your (our) own insurance. We're not talking about that. We're talking about a company paying for all or a portion of employees insurance (depending on companies, I've worked for some that paid all, some that paid for me and family, and some that only paid a portion for me).

You don't have to respect the belief, but you have to respect that it's their money and their choice. It seems that for all everyone claims that it's their choice, it only applies to them, and not to anyone else's choices.



My employer pays a portion and I pay a portion. The distinctions I make are 1. employer is NOT paying for my prescriptions, he is paying a portion of an insurance premium, and 2. the portion he does pay is my compensation, it's in exchange for work I do. Employer is not paying for my meds any more than he's paying my mortgage.

Singling out contraception feels like employer is trying to tell me how to USE my compensation. Again, not a legal argument. Just my opinion.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:What do you mean, "expect someone else to pay for it"? As in, insurance money goes into one big pot that all members of the insurer pay into and the money comes from there? If yes, that's absurd.

If you mean the employer is paying for it, that's not the case either. Most employees pay for at least a portion of their insurance and what's not subsidized by the employee is akin to pay for the work. From a work standpoint, insurance is part of a payment for labor or service. In that case, the employer shouldn't tell me how to spend my "money."



Um, no it isn't payment for labor or service. If it was, it would be taxable. As in you would have to pay the US (and state and local) gov't taxes on it.

They are benefits, not any type of payment for labor or services.

And again, you seem to fail to grasp that it's not "your" money, but theirs. You may only pay a portion of the total health insurance costs. What do you think all the grocery union strikes were about? They had a phenomenal health package and they paid nothing for it, and medical costs were rising. The grocery stores needed them to pay a little more for their health insurance.


In late 2010, a study found that, "the average total health care premium per employee for large companies will be $9,821 in 2011, up from $9,028 in 2010."

No where near what they deduct (if they don't pay it all) from your paycheck each month.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Or, just close your business down and put all your workers on unemployment. Especially the ones that voted twice for Obummer.

That's even more antagonistic!



Dude, I'm all for it! Hell with those sniveling whiny employees, taking all your monies and pooping all day! Especially since your state is going to be the first with a $50 minimum wage in the next three years.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:



no response, it's just too awesome to not see again.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 185 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:My employer pays a portion and I pay a portion. The distinctions I make are 1. employer is NOT paying for my prescriptions, he is paying a portion of an insurance premium, and 2. the portion he does pay is my compensation, it's in exchange for work I do. Employer is not paying for my meds any more than he's paying my mortgage.

Singling out contraception feels like employer is trying to tell me how to USE my compensation. Again, not a legal argument. Just my opinion.



Again, it is not compensation for work! It is a benefit. Not COMPENSATION FOR WORK. You would pay taxes on it if it were.

And yes, prescription plans are usually part of MEDICAL INSURANCE PLANS. So yes, your employer is paying for most of your prescriptions.


I'm tired of beating my head bloody against the anti-religion elements here. I'm going to go watch (That's for adults, not children.).


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Um, no it isn't payment for labor or service. If it was, it would be taxable. As in you would have to pay the US (and state and local) gov't taxes on it.

They are benefits, not any type of payment for labor or services.



Benefits that I get for doing work or providing service = payment. Call it whatever you want. I like that it's called a benefit so we aren't taxed, of course.

The grocery store workers don't pay any of their own costs. Ok. They're still being given that "benefit" for doing the work = payment.

And for the sake of argument, it's "their" money. Their money that isn't paying for BC or any other specific service. Their money goes to an insurance company and that money then goes to millions of different services performed billions of times per year. It's not like their money goes specifically to a plan B pill, for example. If they want to think of it that way, then none of their money will go to those things. Their money will go to only giving birth to babies and another employer's money will go only to BC and not to babies at all. Does it sound better that way?

And what do you mean I still don't understand? That was my first post about this topic.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

I'm still hung up on the companies have souls thing. How (When 2 people love each other…)ing stupid.