The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

i didnt want to increase religious intolerance by siting more offensive examples.

Wise move. So this drunk guy walks into a tough Jewish bar in Brooklyn. He yells out, "Any hot bitches here I can pork?" The patrons beat the shit out of him because he implied they weren't kosher.

[weekender 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

i didnt want to increase religious intolerance by siting more offensive examples.

Wise move. So this drunk guy walks into a tough Jewish bar in Brooklyn. He yells out, "Any hot bitches here I can pork?" The patrons beat the shit out of him because he implied they weren't kosher.

you lost me at "tough jewish bar."

ok, i am putting myself in a time out. i know that was very intolerant, ignorant, PC and a bunch of other stuff.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kelpdiver 2]

davjohns

This is a really good argument. So, you are drawing an analogy between how an employee spends his/her pay in dollars and how he/she spends his/her pay in healthcare. At that point, it only becomes one degree of separation. The bill for the health insurance goes directly to the employer, where the bill for the Wiccan Orgy Seance goes directly to the employee (am I the only one into that sort of thing?).

But there's still a degree of separation here as well. The employer pays the insurance bill (though depending on the policies, they may be actually just be relaying the employees money - companies pay 0-100% of the bill with the typical being 50-80%) for the plan, they aren't paying for Sally's abortion; she in fact will get the bill for any copays or additional payments due for that specific service.

If Hobby Lobby feels it cannot support these sort of immoral health care, then really they cannot have employees that would use this sort of care, since HL is paying the bill. It leaves me with the obvious (imo) conclusion that these are political actions.

[champu 1]

kelpdiver

*********So why should that same government tell that conscientious objector as a businessman that he MUST pay for his employees abortions?

I'll rephrase my reply to davjohns a bit, but my point is the same. What is the material difference between paying for health insurance for your employees which may or may not provide particular services and paying them directly with dollars which they may or may not spend on those same services?

Does the employer have a right to decide what they want their employees to use their compensation for in one case but not in the other?

This is a really good argument. So, you are drawing an analogy between how an employee spends his/her pay in dollars and how he/she spends his/her pay in healthcare. At that point, it only becomes one degree of separation. The bill for the health insurance goes directly to the employer, where the bill for the Wiccan Orgy Seance goes directly to the employee (am I the only one into that sort of thing?).
But there's still a degree of separation here as well. The employer pays the insurance bill (though depending on the policies, they may be actually just be relaying the employees money - companies pay 0-100% of the bill with the typical being 50-80%) for the plan, they aren't paying for Sally's abortion; she in fact will get the bill for any copays or additional payments due for that specific service.

If Hobby Lobby feels it cannot support these sort of immoral health care, then really they cannot have employees that would use this sort of care, since HL is paying the bill. It leaves me with the obvious (imo) conclusion that these are political actions.

Thanks, that was basically going to be my response.

If I go to the doctor to get a cholesterol test or a prescription for azithromycin or something then the doctor/pharmacy bills the insurance company and I would generally get a copy of the bill. (in my particular case, neither of the above would cost me anything.) Then when I get statements from my insurance company or my employer gets the bill, none of the specifics are included. If I were a women going on the pill that would look exactly the same as the above to my employer.

So the employer's objection is about the availability of particular prescriptions/procedures in the coverage whether or not the employee uses them and in spite of the fact that they'd never even know about it if they did. Their involvement is so diluted that they're argument breaks down in my mind.

If a person in that mindset goes into a store to buy something, do they make sure that none of the employees of that store are going to spend their paycheck (which they would be contributing to by shopping there) in an immoral way? Of course not, you couldn't function in society if your religious/moral convictions crippled you that severely.

davjohns

But I really like the argument. It makes it a very tough call in my mind.

I will admit, being an atheist and finding the whole objection to birth control and abortion on religious grounds absurd from the get go makes it a much easier call for me. I'm just presenting the argument about why it still shouldn't matter if you take the religious stance for sport.

[davjohns 1]

DanG

Quote

No, it's not.

Like a lot of foolish laws, it is simply not enforced.

I've seen a lot of references to this, but can't find the actual text of the law. Do you know where I might read it?

I had an ongoing debate with a buddy who was Highway Patrol about open carry in Alabama. We also had an ongoing debate about concealed carry by military reservists. We found the answer to the military reservists question in the traffic laws. We found the answer to open carry in an Attorney General opinion.

Sometimes, the law you are seeking is not in a logical place.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

weekender

***

Quote

i didnt want to increase religious intolerance by siting more offensive examples.

Wise move. So this drunk guy walks into a tough Jewish bar in Brooklyn. He yells out, "Any hot bitches here I can pork?" The patrons beat the shit out of him because he implied they weren't kosher.

you lost me at "tough jewish bar."

ok, i am putting myself in a time out. i know that was very intolerant, ignorant, PC and a bunch of other stuff.

Quick summary of every Jewish holiday: "They tried to kill us. We won. Let's eat."

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

Some religious beliefs prevent me from buying fried chicken on Sunday.
WTF?
The chicken doesn't care.
Why do those business owners prevent their employees from working on Sunday?

I'm not sure if you are serious here or not.

Are you really taking the stance that they should NOT be able to close on Sunday?

Are you taking the stance that they should have no choice but to be at the employees whim and fantasy?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

davjohns

******

Quote

i didnt want to increase religious intolerance by siting more offensive examples.

Wise move. So this drunk guy walks into a tough Jewish bar in Brooklyn. He yells out, "Any hot bitches here I can pork?" The patrons beat the shit out of him because he implied they weren't kosher.

you lost me at "tough jewish bar."

ok, i am putting myself in a time out. i know that was very intolerant, ignorant, PC and a bunch of other stuff.

Quick summary of every Jewish holiday: "They tried to kill us. We won. Let's eat."

And the lamp oil lasted for 8 days.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[davjohns 1]

But only after they tried to kill us; we won; we ate.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 851]

They should be able to run their business any way they care to.
It IS their business.

Don't like it?
Don't work there and/or don't use their business.

Just because an insurance company offers abortion coverage doesn't mean they force you to use it.
Unfortunate for some.

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

They should be able to run their business any way they care to.
It IS their business.

Don't like it?
Don't work there and/or don't use their business.

Just because an insurance company offers abortion coverage doesn't mean they force you to use it.
Unfortunate for some.

Do they offer retroactive ones, cuz THAT would help some here tremendously.

I was hoping that was what you were getting at, I may have just read it wrong, or you were being ironic.

They, as buisness owners, should not have to provide something to their employees that go against their morals.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 851]

They should provide access to a service and then the person using the service should be mature enough to make their own choices.
Welcome to society.


I must apologize for not communicating my points worth a damn lately.
The noise level of bickering for no reason other than to bicker is starting to get to me.
After a right cunt attacked me for my choices in healthcare and employment, I was pretty much over it.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Really? My birth control is $80/month!!!

Condoms are less expensive. Your FAVORITE form of BC costs you 80/month.

Why should I be forced to pay for your BC? Why can't you and your sexual partner pay that cost? What other things do you think it would be nice to get others to pay for?

I'd like you to chip in each month so I can have a few beers.... Is that OK to you? How about so I can make a few jumps?

[quade 4]

DaVinci

Why should I be forced to pay for your BC?

Why should you be allowed to dictate what anybody else does?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

***Why should I be forced to pay for your BC?

Why should you be allowed to dictate what anybody else does?

Oh right
That is your job

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

DaVinci

Quote

Really? My birth control is $80/month!!!

Condoms are less expensive. Your FAVORITE form of BC costs you 80/month.

Why should I be forced to pay for your BC? Why can't you and your sexual partner pay that cost? What other things do you think it would be nice to get others to pay for?

uh, it appears you missed [an unnecessary, imo] detail where she discussed her medical need for this particular form of BC. It wasn't just for convenience.

Also ignores that it is a more effective form of contraception at less than 1 unplanned pregnancy per 100 couples per year, whereas condoms can be over 15 with the way that people misuse them. All those pregnancies quickly eat into the presumed savings.

[DaVinci 0]

quade

***Why should I be forced to pay for your BC?

Why should you be allowed to dictate what anybody else does?

Why should YOU?

Simply put, I think I have no right to tell you what you can or can't do with yourself until it impacts someone else.

YOU however are not doing that. You are trying to force me to do what you want even if I do not want to do it.

What gives YOU the right to tell me what I can do with my money? Who made you the only person who can have an opinion?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

uh, it appears you missed [an unnecessary, imo] detail where she discussed her medical need for this particular form of BC. It wasn't just for convenience.

You are assuming that no other options existed to handle her medical condition.

Quote

Also ignores that it is a more effective form of contraception at less than 1 unplanned pregnancy per 100 couples per year, whereas condoms can be over 15 with the way that people misuse them. All those pregnancies quickly eat into the presumed savings.

And this is unimportant. We are discussing birth control and condoms are a method of birth control. Just because you want another form does not mean you should get it.

[quade 4]

DaVinci

******Why should I be forced to pay for your BC?

Why should you be allowed to dictate what anybody else does?
Why should YOU?
Simply put, I think I have no right to tell you what you can or can't do with yourself until it impacts someone else.
YOU however are not doing that. You are trying to force me to do what you want even if I do not want to do it.
What gives YOU the right to tell me what I can do with my money? Who made you the only person who can have an opinion?

So let's be clear, you think it's okay for somebody to be able to dictate what other people spend their compensation on, but it's not okay for an employer to be told they don't have the right to decide how their employees spend their compensation?

Interesting.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

DaVinci

Quote

uh, it appears you missed [an unnecessary, imo] detail where she discussed her medical need for this particular form of BC. It wasn't just for convenience.

You are assuming that no other options existed to handle her medical condition.

This is a joke, right? Her doctor prescribed this option. You're assuming that you know better and there is a cheaper solution available than a drug that is mass produced for millions of women?

Quote

***Also ignores that it is a more effective form of contraception at less than 1 unplanned pregnancy per 100 couples per year, whereas condoms can be over 15 with the way that people misuse them. All those pregnancies quickly eat into the presumed savings.

And this is unimportant. We are discussing birth control and condoms are a method of birth control. Just because you want another form does not mean you should get it.

How could it be unimportant? Did happy hour start already?

You complained "why should I have to pay for your convenient pills when you could use a rubber?" And I noted that you seem to indicate a willingness to pay for more pregnancies with this stance, strongly suggesting that your objection isn't about cost, but rather her choice, as you presume it to be.

There's also a potential disconnect in telling a women to rely on her partner to properly supply/use BC, rather than be responsible for herself.

[normiss 851]

What is prescribed and what is actually covered by insurance are worlds apart.
I'm STILL refusing the $230 per dropper bottle of eye drops not covered by my insurance.

I'm not saying BC pills are not what this woman needs, but basing it on "what's better for the patient" does not apply.

[quade 4]

normiss

I'm not saying BC pills are not what this woman needs, but basing it on "what's better for the patient" does not apply.

So, then, you are FOR the creation of "death panels"?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

quade

***I'm not saying BC pills are not what this woman needs, but basing it on "what's better for the patient" does not apply.

So, then, you are FOR the creation of "death panels"?

Don't they already exist as Palin said they did?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

turtlespeed

******I'm not saying BC pills are not what this woman needs, but basing it on "what's better for the patient" does not apply.

So, then, you are FOR the creation of "death panels"?
Don't they already exist as Palin said they did?

No.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/26/mark-halperins-sudden-claim-that-obamacare-death-panels-exist-calls-into-question-his-reporting-credibility/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 851]

I've never said anything remotely like that.

What I said was, simply because a doc prescribes anything doesn't mean it's covered by insurance. Insurance companies (from my experience over the past 30 years of having policies) make financial decisions. Period.
I'm usually smart enough to understand that without a panel of "experts".
More so accurate here.

My favorite peeve is the follow up to a claim from a third party I have zero legal obligation to.
"Where were you when you were injured?"
"Was anyone else at fault when you were injured?"
Those questionnaires as well as the half dozen follow ups get tossed immediately.