PDA

View Full Version : Hobby Lobby Oral Argument Discussion



Pages : [1] 2

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 05:26 AM
Hobby Lobby Oral Argument Discussion (http://time.com/37055/supreme-court-women-dominate-arguments-on-contraception-coverage/)

The questions the Justices ask during oral arguments are strong indicators of how they will try to push the ruling. This article discusses the women of SCOTUS and the questions they asked during the Hobby Lobby oral arguments held yesterday, 25 March.

Check back here: SCOTUS (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx) The oral argument transcripts should be posted this morning.

Codename Section
03-26-2014, 05:58 AM
Sotomayer's comment about "no one forcing" and "pay the tax penalty instead" runs more libertarianish than the others, and some of her statements have come off that way, as well.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 06:42 AM
Heh. Heh. Oral argument.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 06:43 AM
Sotomayer's comment about "no one forcing" and "pay the tax penalty instead" runs more libertarianish than the others, and some of her statements have come off that way, as well.

I really don't have a problem with Sotomayor, honestly.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 06:56 AM
Wow ... I really can't imagine a world where an Employers dictates Employees lives outside their 40 Hours commitment to their Job.

Glad I have my own

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 07:10 AM
Wow ... I really can't imagine a world where an Employers dictates Employees lives outside their 40 Hours commitment to their Job.

Glad I have my own

If this ruling went in favor of Hobby Lobby, how would it allow employers to dictate how employees lived?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 07:14 AM
Heh. Heh. Oral argument.

Goddammit, you beat me to it.

:biglaugh:

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 07:17 AM
I think there's too much precedent at stake here - or favoritism.

It's bad enough so many interest groups are getting favoritism treatment from the ACA like unions, Congress and the Catholic Church, this opens the door for anyone to use "moral objection" as a basis to not follow this or that law.

Everyone should either play by the same rules or get the fuck out of the sandbox.

hanger4
03-26-2014, 07:18 AM
Wow ... I really can't imagine a world where an Employers dictates Employees lives outside their 40 Hours commitment to their Job.Glad I have my ownNobodies dictating to anybody (execpt ACA), Hobby Lobby's employees can purchase any one of a number of abortion pills whenever they want.

Chris
03-26-2014, 07:23 AM
Sotomayer's comment about "no one forcing" and "pay the tax penalty instead" runs more libertarianish than the others, and some of her statements have come off that way, as well.


But if you consider tax penalties coercive, it's not libertarian.

Chris
03-26-2014, 07:26 AM
If this ruling went in favor of Hobby Lobby, how would it allow employers to dictate how employees lived?

Cigar isn't all that far off from Kagan: "Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage."

Codename Section
03-26-2014, 07:36 AM
I think there's too much precedent at stake here - or favoritism.

It's bad enough so many interest groups are getting favoritism treatment from the ACA like unions, Congress and the Catholic Church, this opens the door for anyone to use "moral objection" as a basis to not follow this or that law.

Everyone should either play by the same rules or get the fuck out of the sandbox.

Or maybe there shouldn't be so many fucking rules? This would not even be an issue if Obamacare weren't a mandate.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 07:42 AM
Cigar isn't all that far off from Kagan: "Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage."


Well, she doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 07:43 AM
But if you consider tax penalties coercive, it's not libertarian.

No, but choosing the penalty over the mandate is essentially civil disobedience.

hanger4
03-26-2014, 07:46 AM
Cigar isn't all that far off from Kagan: "Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage."Then Kagan's wrong, HL's insurance covers 16 forms of contraception.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:07 AM
If this ruling went in favor of Hobby Lobby, how would it allow employers to dictate how employees lived?

I can't and won't even try to speak to Women's health issues and rights, but I wouldn't want my Employer to have any say in anything having to do with my health or what my doctor prescribes for me. It's none of their fucking business if I'm taking Zyrtec or Claritin for my allergies, and their Fucking Religion isn't any of my concern.

If they hire me to do a Job and I do it their satisfaction, that means I've earned my pay and benefits, have a nice weekend, see you on Monday.

Like they said in Good Fellas, Fuck-You-Pay-Me!

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:08 AM
Cigar isn't all that far off from Kagan: "Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage."

What if a Doctor prescribes Viagra for a Man ... is it against Hobby Lobby religious beliefs for a Man to get a Hard Dick?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 08:12 AM
I can't and won't even try to speak to Women's health issues and rights, but I wouldn't want my Employer to have any say in anything having to do with my health or what my doctor prescribes for me. It's none of their fucking business if I'm taking Zyrtec or Claritin for my allergies, and their Fucking Religion isn't any of my concern.

If they hire me to do a Job and I do it their satisfaction, that means I've earned my pay and benefits, have a nice weekend, see you on Monday.

Like they said in Good Fellas, Fuck-You-Pay-Me!

But they don't have a say in it, is the thing. Even if this ruling is in their favor, they won't have a say in it.

Chris
03-26-2014, 08:13 AM
No, but choosing the penalty over the mandate is essentially civil disobedience.

Agree it would be civil disobedience. It's one thing though for a Thoreau alone, another for a company like Hobby Lobby, to risk.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 08:13 AM
What if a Doctor prescribes Viagra for a Man ... is it against Hobby Lobby religious beliefs for a Man to get a Hard Dick?

No, because Viagra would help facilitate pregnancy. Birth control does not.

Chris
03-26-2014, 08:14 AM
Then Kagan's wrong, HL's insurance covers 16 forms of contraception.

Anything close to cigar would be wrong. :-D

Chris
03-26-2014, 08:16 AM
I can't and won't even try to speak to Women's health issues and rights, but I wouldn't want my Employer to have any say in anything having to do with my health or what my doctor prescribes for me. It's none of their fucking business if I'm taking Zyrtec or Claritin for my allergies, and their Fucking Religion isn't any of my concern.

If they hire me to do a Job and I do it their satisfaction, that means I've earned my pay and benefits, have a nice weekend, see you on Monday.

Like they said in Good Fellas, Fuck-You-Pay-Me!



If they hire me to do a Job and I do it their satisfaction, that means I've earned my pay and benefits, have a nice weekend, see you on Monday.

Agree. And further, you should be perfectly free to use that pay and those benefits to go out and purchase contraceptives ON YOUR OWN DIME. You should have no right to demand it of your employer.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 08:20 AM
Or maybe there shouldn't be so many fucking rules? This would not even be an issue if Obamacare weren't a mandate.

I don't disagree to the extent that forcing regular people to give up benefits while the rest of us fully participate for a bullshit "moral objective" argument that you know as well as I know is purely political and has zero to do with morality is fucking bullshit.

If your benefits were on the chopping block over some bullshit argument I wonder if you'd be singing a different tune.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:22 AM
No, because Viagra would help facilitate pregnancy. Birth control does not.

Really ... how is Hobby Lobby controlling how a Man uses his Dick, once it's Hard :laugh:

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:24 AM
Agree. And further, you should be perfectly free to use that pay and those benefits to go out and purchase contraceptives ON YOUR OWN DIME. You should have no right to demand it of your employer.

So if a Women is prescribed Birth Control Pills to regulate he period ... she on her own?

It that what you're saying Dr. Chris ?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 08:25 AM
Really ... how is Hobby Lobby controlling how a Man uses his Dick, once it's Hard :laugh:

What else would a man be using his dick for? I don't know about you, but once my Bushwhacker is flyin' high, it's going to find some pussy.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:26 AM
Why can't Hobby Lobby do what they do best and leave Religious practices to Sunday morning and not all day at work :wink:

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:28 AM
What else would a man be using his dick for? I don't know about you, but once my Bushwhacker is flyin' high, it's going to find some pussy.

I'm with you ... but some guys like a Kiss before deflowering :grin:

Codename Section
03-26-2014, 08:29 AM
Why can't Hobby Lobby do what they do best and leave Religious practices to Sunday morning and not all day at work :wink:

Are you forced to work at Hobby Lobby? You can't work at Michaels or even Target?

Chris
03-26-2014, 08:31 AM
I don't disagree to the extent that forcing regular people to give up benefits while the rest of us fully participate for a bullshit "moral objective" argument that you know as well as I know is purely political and has zero to do with morality is fucking bullshit.

If your benefits were on the chopping block over some bullshit argument I wonder if you'd be singing a different tune.



Why should anyone be given such benefits?

Oh, wait, it's the law, right.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 08:32 AM
Are you forced to work at Hobby Lobby? You can't work at Michaels or even Target?

Sure, jobs are dime a dozen nowadays.

It's funny how you keep spinning these crazy workarounds over what is basically social oppression.

Keep scraping that barrel bottom chief, maybe you'll come up with something at some point.

Chris
03-26-2014, 08:33 AM
Why can't Hobby Lobby do what they do best and leave Religious practices to Sunday morning and not all day at work :wink:


Why can't government do what it does best...oh, yeah, it is, meddling in people's private lives.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 08:34 AM
Why should anyone be given such benefits?

Oh, wait, it's the law, right.

Exactly.

It's the law. Target has to abide by it, so does K-Mart, McDonalds, everyone.

It's the law because people (employees) are supposed to benefit from it.

The fact that you don't like the law (which I personally don't also) doesn't give you the logical right to support an illegitimate work-around.

You can if you want, nobody can stop you. You just have little foundation to make an argument from.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:35 AM
Are you forced to work at Hobby Lobby? You can't work at Michaels or even Target?

I drive by the place all the time ... never see many cars in front.

My Wife loves Michaels

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:37 AM
Exactly.

It's the law. Target has to abide by it, so does K-Mart, McDonalds, everyone.

It's the law because people (employees) are supposed to benefit from it.

The fact that you don't like the law (which I personally don't also) doesn't give you the logical right to support an illegitimate work-around.

You can if you want, nobody can stop you. You just have little foundation to make an argument from.

Well Fuck their Law's ... I don't want a 55 MPH Speed Limit :grin:

Honest Officer ... I was actually breaking at 120, so the you can catchup :laugh:

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 08:41 AM
Sure, jobs are dime a dozen nowadays.

It's funny how you keep spinning these crazy workarounds over what is basically social oppression.

Keep scraping that barrel bottom chief, maybe you'll come up with something at some point.

How is it social oppression? I gave Cigar a chance to explain that and he refused.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 08:44 AM
How is it social oppression? I gave Cigar a chance to explain that and he refused.

Employee A works at Staples or where ever and uses birth control, gets full benefits. Employee B works at Hobby Lobby, isn't Christian and uses birth control (or is, many or most Christians use birth control) and does not get benefits because Hobby Lobby is exempt.

So employee B gets the wonderful benefit of having someone elses beliefs shoved down their throat.

And you support that.

Nice.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 08:46 AM
Bottom-Line; is Hobby Lobby in business to sell products or preach religion.

How many of you can go to work and bug the shit out of your fellow employees about religion and keep your Jobs?

None ... and you know why, because you're not at work to preach religion.

Enough said!

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 08:47 AM
Bottom-Line; is Hobby Lobby in business to sell products or preach religion.

How many of you can go to work and bug the shit out of your fellow employees about religion and keep your Jobs?

None ... and you know why, because you're not at work to preach religion.

Enough said!

Exactly, but you're preaching to the institutionalized.

Rush already said the fundies are right, so the lemmings must fall in lock-step.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 08:49 AM
Employee A works at Staples or where ever and uses birth control, gets full benefits. Employee B works at Hobby Lobby, isn't Christian and uses birth control (or is, many or most Christians use birth control) and does not get benefits because Hobby Lobby is exempt.

So employee B gets the wonderful benefit of having someone elses beliefs shoved down their throat.

And you support that.

Nice.

No, I don't support that. Nobody supports that, because that isn't reality.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 08:49 AM
No, I don't support that. Nobody supports that, because that isn't reality.

What is reality then?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 08:54 AM
What is reality then?

Reality is that Employee B, who works at Hobby Lobby, still gets good benefits, they just have to foot the bill for their own contraceptives. Or they can take advantage of the free marketplace and buy their own insurance plan independent of Hobby Lobby.

Chris
03-26-2014, 08:57 AM
Exactly.

It's the law. Target has to abide by it, so does K-Mart, McDonalds, everyone.

It's the law because people (employees) are supposed to benefit from it.

The fact that you don't like the law (which I personally don't also) doesn't give you the logical right to support an illegitimate work-around.

You can if you want, nobody can stop you. You just have little foundation to make an argument from.



And we're right back to legal positivism, law justifies itself, illogical to say the least.

Chris
03-26-2014, 08:58 AM
Well Fuck their Law's ... I don't want a 55 MPH Speed Limit :grin:

Honest Officer ... I was actually breaking at 120, so the you can catchup :laugh:


What was that, the 70s when we had 55 mph law. It was found to be unjustified and changed.

Chris
03-26-2014, 09:01 AM
Employee A works at Staples or where ever and uses birth control, gets full benefits. Employee B works at Hobby Lobby, isn't Christian and uses birth control (or is, many or most Christians use birth control) and does not get benefits because Hobby Lobby is exempt.

So employee B gets the wonderful benefit of having someone elses beliefs shoved down their throat.

And you support that.

Nice.

Or we could say A gets the opposite set of beliefs shoved down his throat.

Both A and B voluntarily agreed and contracted with their respective companies. No one was coerced.

You still haven't justified a law that mandates insurance for contraceptives to begin with.

Paperback Writer
03-26-2014, 09:03 AM
Look, you voted for people who gave you the ACA. The ACA is law, a complicated, poorly written law, but it is your law. The SCOTUS judges were correct in saying to rip apart a policy is too much of a burden on the system.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 09:17 AM
Or we could say A gets the opposite set of beliefs shoved down his throat.

Both A and B voluntarily agreed and contracted with their respective companies. No one was coerced.

You still haven't justified a law that mandates insurance for contraceptives to begin with.

You're the "by the rules to a fault" stiff, you're telling me that we now need to be legislating with everyone's morals, wants, needs, desires in mind?

Again, more tangent/spin. How does that justify exemptions from the law? Hey - guess what, it doesn't. I think you call that a strawman, no?

It's not up to me to justify the law nor did I ever say I did or would. Nice try though.

Chris
03-26-2014, 09:45 AM
Look, you voted for people who gave you the ACA. The ACA is law, a complicated, poorly written law, but it is your law. The SCOTUS judges were correct in saying to rip apart a policy is too much of a burden on the system.

I didn't vote for them.

Slavery was once law as well, by that reasoning....

Chris
03-26-2014, 09:46 AM
You're the "by the rules to a fault" stiff, you're telling me that we now need to be legislating with everyone's morals, wants, needs, desires in mind?

Again, more tangent/spin. How does that justify exemptions from the law? Hey - guess what, it doesn't. I think you call that a strawman, no?

It's not up to me to justify the law nor did I ever say I did or would. Nice try though.



LOL, Captain, you're the one arguing by the rules saying it is law therefore justified, not me. Try again.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 09:52 AM
LOL, Captain, you're the one arguing by the rules saying it is law therefore justified, not me. Try again.

LOL Chris, there you go making shit up again.

I never said it's law, therefore it's justified - you said that on behalf of me.

I said it's law, using some other social injustice as a sort of protest against the law and totally disregarding the oppressed, innocent bystander worker is chickenshit.

So cluck it up, buttercup.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 09:57 AM
What if Hobby Lobby were to say, ok we are spending X dollars on health insurance. Starting May 1 we are not going to be in the insurance business any more but we will give you a raise equal to the amount we pay for your insurance so you can buy your own?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 09:58 AM
What if Hobby Lobby were to say, ok we are spending X dollars on health insurance. Starting May 1 we are not going to be in the insurance business any more but we will give you a raise equal to the amount we pay for your insurance so you can buy your own?

Wow - I'm stunned.

That's actually a pretty good idea.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 09:59 AM
What if Hobby Lobby were to say, ok we are spending X dollars on health insurance. Starting May 1 we are not going to be in the insurance business any more but we will give you a raise equal to the amount we pay for your insurance so you can buy your own?

On paper, it sounds great, but in practice, the business would go bankrupt.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 10:00 AM
Look, you voted for people who gave you the ACA. The ACA is law, a complicated, poorly written law, but it is your law. The SCOTUS judges were correct in saying to rip apart a policy is too much of a burden on the system.

But we told them we didn't want the law but they would not listen. Hell, most of us, including those who voted for it, had no idea what the law would actually entail.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 10:01 AM
On paper, it sounds great, but in practice, the business would go bankrupt.

Why? They are merely paying to the employee rather than to an insurance company the same amount of money.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 10:07 AM
On paper, it sounds great, but in practice, the business would go bankrupt.
How so?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 10:11 AM
Why? They are merely paying to the employee rather than to an insurance company the same amount of money.


How so?

Because the company is getting discounted rates and are not paying for each individual policy. They are paying for a group package. Unless they have a small pool of employees (and Hobby Lobby does not, as a national business), the expenses for each individual plan will be through the roof.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:12 AM
Because the company is getting discounted rates and are not paying for each individual policy. They are paying for a group package. Unless they have a small pool of employees (and Hobby Lobby does not, as a national business), the expenses for each individual plan will be through the roof.

Good answer but there are ways around that. Risk pooling individual purchasers is one.

Chris
03-26-2014, 10:16 AM
LOL Chris, there you go making shit up again.

I never said it's law, therefore it's justified - you said that on behalf of me.

I said it's law, using some other social injustice as a sort of protest against the law and totally disregarding the oppressed, innocent bystander worker is chickenshit.

So cluck it up, buttercup.


You say that in your refusal--or inability--to justify the law. It's simply left as it's the law. That's legal positivism. Jillian would give you a hug for it.

Chris
03-26-2014, 10:17 AM
What if Hobby Lobby were to say, ok we are spending X dollars on health insurance. Starting May 1 we are not going to be in the insurance business any more but we will give you a raise equal to the amount we pay for your insurance so you can buy your own?



I believe they'd be subject to a penalty. Though it could well be that the penalty is less costly than insurance.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 10:18 AM
Good answer but there are ways around that. Risk pooling individual purchasers is one.

That may potentially eliminate some of the cost issues, but I still don't like the idea of eliminating employee benefits.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:23 AM
You say that in your refusal--or inability--to justify the law. It's simply left as it's the law. That's legal positivism. Jillian would give you a hug for it.

Nope, that's just you again making shit up.

You're problem is that you try really hard to look book smart, so you read all these definitions and try to use them in discussion here, and when you can't find a good situation to use them, you just make one up yourself by putting your words in someone elses mouth.

So, I tend to get really impatient with people like you because you're a time waster and I'll just disregard you at some point because these discussions are neither productive or stimulating (for me at least).

I neither refused nor am I inable to justify the law - justifying the law is irrelevant.

What is relevant is protesting the law at someone elses expense with a social injustice.

Plain English so I have little doubt you'll fuck it up royally.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 10:26 AM
That may potentially eliminate some of the cost issues, but I still don't like the idea of eliminating employee benefits.

The offer was to give the employees what the employer would have paid for insurance, not the total of what insurance would cost the employee if they went out on their own.

Here you are saying that you don't like eliminating employee benefits but you seemingly agree with Hobby Lobby's desire to do just that (dictating what the employee's policy can pay for).

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:30 AM
That may potentially eliminate some of the cost issues, but I still don't like the idea of eliminating employee benefits.

Many plans now are risk pooled. Get enough people (usually nowadays only a couple hundred or more - with stop-loss insurance) and basically a third-party admin runs the plan and you (or the employer) pay 100% of the claims.

That's it - mini insurance plan/payers. Every hospital I've ever worked at from 200 employees to over a thousand use these, I assume many if not most medium to large businesses do.

If you buy an individual plan you're buying a fully insured plan - like direct from blue cross. Those are expensive. At some point there will be vehicles for individuals to purchase into these risk pooled plans I believe, or if they already exist they will become more common at some point.

Chris
03-26-2014, 10:34 AM
Nope, that's just you again making shit up.

You're problem is that you try really hard to look book smart, so you read all these definitions and try to use them in discussion here, and when you can't find a good situation to use them, you just make one up yourself by putting your words in someone elses mouth.

So, I tend to get really impatient with people like you because you're a time waster and I'll just disregard you at some point because these discussions are neither productive or stimulating (for me at least).

I neither refused nor am I inable to justify the law - justifying the law is irrelevant.

What is relevant is protesting the law at someone elses expense with a social injustice.

Plain English so I have little doubt you'll fuck it up royally.



And there you go, unable to defend your position, you go into make things up to attack mode. Unimpressive to say the least.

So, what do you say that's relevant?


justifying the law is irrelevant

Why that's nothing other than legal positivism, as I said.




What is relevant is protesting the law at someone elses expense with a social injustice.
Green Arrow, there's an example of the progressive social justice argument. :-)

Chris
03-26-2014, 10:35 AM
The offer was to give the employees what the employer would have paid for insurance, not the total of what insurance would cost the employee if they went out on their own.

Here you are saying that you don't like eliminating employee benefits but you seemingly agree with Hobby Lobby's desire to do just that (dictating what the employee's policy can pay for).



But a policy paid for by the employer. You're missing that important point.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 10:36 AM
The offer was to give the employees what the employer would have paid for insurance, not the total of what insurance would cost the employee if they went out on their own.

Here you are saying that you don't like eliminating employee benefits but you seemingly agree with Hobby Lobby's desire to do just that (dictating what the employee's policy can pay for).

Not really, because Hobby Lobby is not trying to eliminate employee benefits. They just don't want to be forced to pay for one small item.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:37 AM
But a policy paid for by the employer. You're missing that important point.

Employer provided healthcare coverage (just like dental, just like company cars, just like vacation days) are nothing more than a part of the total, overall compensation package paid to the employee.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:38 AM
Not really, because Hobby Lobby is not trying to eliminate employee benefits. They just don't want to be forced to pay for one small item.

So just force the employee to abide by Hobby Lobby's "morality" then.

Nice.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:42 AM
And there you go, unable to defend your position, you go into make things up to attack mode. Unimpressive to say the least.

Because I never took a position - like I've stated twice.

Simple English - and you fucked it up just like clockwork, as I predicted.

What a shocker.


So, what do you say that's relevant?

Already said it, many times.

You're being obstinate. If you didn't get it by now then you're mentally retarded or just fucking with me. Or both.

Either way... buh bye!




Why that's nothing other than legal positivism, as I said.




@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), there's an example of the progressive social justice argument. :-)

No, it's an example of you trying to argue the earth is flat because you read it in a book somewhere.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 10:43 AM
So just force the employee to abide by Hobby Lobby's "morality" then.

Nice.

This is precisely why I am quickly losing interest in siding with you on this. Rather than put forth logical arguments like the guys on the other side, you toss out assumptions, judgements, and emotionalism.

Nobody is being forced to abide by Hobby Lobby's morality. Hobby Lobby is not holding a gun to their employees' heads when they walk past the contraceptive aisle at CVS. They aren't telling their employees that they can't have contraceptives, they are just saying, "We aren't going to pay for it."

By forcing them to pay for it, you are the one forcing them to abide by your morality.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:46 AM
This is precisely why I am quickly losing interest in siding with you on this. Rather than put forth logical arguments like the guys on the other side, you toss out assumptions, judgements, and emotionalism.

Nobody is being forced to abide by Hobby Lobby's morality. Hobby Lobby is not holding a gun to their employees' heads when they walk past the contraceptive aisle at CVS. They aren't telling their employees that they can't have contraceptives, they are just saying, "We aren't going to pay for it."

By forcing them to pay for it, you are the one forcing them to abide by your morality.

Just like nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives.

There are no morals broken in providing federally mandated healthcare coverage.

None.

Sorry, you fail. And you're a lot less smarter than I give you credit for if you don't see through the facade that this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "moral relativism" or whatever but has everything to do with a purely 100% political agenda.

hanger4
03-26-2014, 10:50 AM
Come on people, the HL's case has got nothing to do with contraceptives, their insur. pays for 16 types. HL doesn't want to insur. the abortion pills.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 10:51 AM
Just like nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives.

There are no morals broken in providing federally mandated healthcare coverage.

None.

Sorry, you fail. And you're a lot less smarter than I give you credit for if you don't see through the facade that this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "moral relativism" or whatever but has everything to do with a purely 100% political agenda.

I don't care what the hell the point is behind it. I am opposed to force. Period. And no amount of insults and sensationalism on your part will change the fact that forcing someone to pay for something they do not believe is morally proper is straight up evil. That doesn't just go for Hobby Lobby and contraceptives, it's across the board. I think war is evil unless fought for defense. Why should I be forced to pay for wars of aggression when I believe they are immoral?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:53 AM
Since employer provided healthcare coverage is a part of the overall employee compensation package, simply paying the employee more so that they go out and purchase contraceptives is no different, absolutely no different than providing them with an insurance plan that covers it.

Except for all the media whoring of the political agenda though.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:54 AM
I don't care what the hell the point is behind it. I am opposed to force. Period. And no amount of insults and sensationalism on your part will change the fact that forcing someone to pay for something they do not believe is morally proper is straight up evil. That doesn't just go for Hobby Lobby and contraceptives, it's across the board. I think war is evil unless fought for defense. Why should I be forced to pay for wars of aggression when I believe they are immoral?

So you force a citizen to be excluded from what they're otherwise entitled to under federal law?

Because you're against "force"?

Nice.

Chris
03-26-2014, 10:55 AM
Employer provided healthcare coverage (just like dental, just like company cars, just like vacation days) are nothing more than a part of the total, overall compensation package paid to the employee.

Upon mutual and contracted agreement between employer and employee. Different companies offer different agreements. How in your social justice scheme is it just to force the employer to offer this? The means are unjust.

Chris
03-26-2014, 10:55 AM
Because I never took a position - like I've stated twice.

Simple English - and you fucked it up just like clockwork, as I predicted.

What a shocker.



Already said it, many times.

You're being obstinate. If you didn't get it by now then you're mentally retarded or just fucking with me. Or both.

Either way... buh bye!





No, it's an example of you trying to argue the earth is flat because you read it in a book somewhere.



Sound and fury.

Chris
03-26-2014, 10:57 AM
So you force a citizen to be excluded from what they're otherwise entitled to under federal law?

Because you're against "force"?

Nice.


Legal positivism highlighted. You can deny the position you've taken till the cows come how, it's still legal positivism. Justice merely defined by witten law.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 10:57 AM
So you force a citizen to be excluded from what they're otherwise entitled to under federal law?

Because you're against "force""

Nice.

I don't believe anybody is entitled to my money. When I worked security, the owner of the company was a total douchebag. He makes around $200 million a year after taxes, but his healthcare "coverage" in our benefits package hardly covered anything. Rather than demand he spend more money to cover me more, my dad and I just dropped our employee insurance and went and got our own plans.

Was it fun? Nope. Did I like it? Nope. But my morals aren't for sale.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:58 AM
Upon mutual and contracted agreement between employer and employee. Different companies offer different agreements. How in your social justice scheme is it just to force the employer to offer this? The means are unjust.

First, tell me what my social justice scheme is. I never claimed having one and since you're assigning one to me, it would be nice to know what it is.

Second... ahh, fuck it - you're just wasting my time.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 10:59 AM
I don't believe anybody is entitled to my money. When I worked security, the owner of the company was a total douchebag. He makes around $200 million a year after taxes, but his healthcare "coverage" in our benefits package hardly covered anything. Rather than demand he spend more money to cover me more, my dad and I just dropped our employee insurance and went and got our own plans.

Was it fun? Nope. Did I like it? Nope. But my morals aren't for sale.

Cool.

What's that got to do with the cost of anal lube?

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:01 AM
Not really, because Hobby Lobby is not trying to eliminate employee benefits. They just don't want to be forced to pay for one small item.They aren't paying for it, the employee is paying for it.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:03 AM
They aren't paying for it, the employee is paying for it.

How so? As far as I'm aware, Hobby Lobby is employer-based insurance.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:03 AM
Cool.

What's that got to do with the cost of anal lube?

That not having someone else pay for everything you think you need isn't force, but forcing them to pay beyond what they are willing is?

Mister D
03-26-2014, 11:04 AM
How so? As far as I'm aware, Hobby Lobby is employer-based insurance.

You remember what happened the last time we tried to explain the concept of employer based insurance to Ravi. :wink:

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:04 AM
Since employer provided healthcare coverage is a part of the overall employee compensation package, simply paying the employee more so that they go out and purchase contraceptives is no different, absolutely no different than providing them with an insurance plan that covers it.

Except for all the media whoring of the political agenda though.

That's a very good point. In fact, to be consistent, Hobby Lobby should refuse to hire women (or men for that matter) that use birth control.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:04 AM
That not having someone else pay for everything you think you need isn't force, but forcing them to pay beyond what they are willing is?

The flaw in your logic is Hobby Lobby simply could eliminate healthcare coverage from it's compensation package.

Problem solved.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:06 AM
That's a very good point. In fact, to be consistent, Hobby Lobby should refuse to hire women (or men for that matter) that use birth control.

Exactly!!!

I love you, Ravi!

How all of these so-called political smartypants don't get that is completely beyond me.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:06 AM
The flaw in your logic is Hobby Lobby simply could eliminate healthcare coverage from it's compensation package.

Problem solved.

Not really. The labor movement fought (sometimes literally) for over a hundred years to get this kind of protection for workers. I don't support wiping out all that effort just because some people are babies.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:06 AM
That's a very good point. In fact, to be consistent, Hobby Lobby should refuse to hire women (or men for that matter) that use birth control.

How would that be consistent?

Mister D
03-26-2014, 11:07 AM
That's a very good point. In fact, to be consistent, Hobby Lobby should refuse to hire women (or men for that matter) that use birth control.

That doesn't make any sense.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:07 AM
Not really. The labor movement fought (sometimes literally) for over a hundred years to get this kind of protection for workers. I don't support wiping out all that effort just because some people are babies.

But it's ok to exclude them from federally mandated coverages?

Nice

You are chock full of hypocritical contradictions today. Sorry if I sound like a dick but I'm just calling a spade...

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:09 AM
How so? As far as I'm aware, Hobby Lobby is employer-based insurance.
Health insurance is part of the employee's pay package.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:10 AM
But it's ok to exclude them from federally mandated coverages?

Nice

You are chock full of hypocritical contradictions today. Sorry if I sound like a dick but I'm just calling a spade...

No, because they are not being excluded from COVERAGE. They are still being COVERED, they just don't have A SPECIFIC (and miniscule) ITEM COVERED.

God, you people are acting like they just denied a cancer patient treatment over fucking birth control.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:11 AM
How would that be consistent?
They are currently paying immoral people to work for them. These immoral people use their paycheck to buy, gasp, condoms and birth control pills.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:11 AM
Health insurance is part of the employee's pay package.

But the employer pays for that insurance. The employee only "pays" in the labor they give the employer.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:12 AM
They are currently paying immoral people to work for them. These immoral people use their paycheck to buy, gasp, condoms and birth control pills.

And they don't care if they buy them and use them on their own dime.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:12 AM
They are currently paying immoral people to work for them. These immoral people use their paycheck to buy, gasp, condoms and birth control pills.

And not only that, I bet they... actually fuck too!

EHRMAGHERD!!!

keymanjim
03-26-2014, 11:13 AM
Wow ... I really can't imagine a world where an Employers dictates Employees lives outside their 40 Hours commitment to their Job.

Glad I have my own
Does the insurance the employer is forced to provide cover the employee 24/7/365? Or, just 40 hours a week?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:14 AM
No, because they are not being excluded from COVERAGE. They are still being COVERED, they just don't have A SPECIFIC (and miniscule) ITEM COVERED.

God, you people are acting like they just denied a cancer patient treatment over fucking birth control.

A federally mandated item is being excluded.

Coverage is coverage. Remove part of it and you're excluding someone from coverage.

Really not that complicated.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:15 AM
A federally mandated item is being excluded.

Coverage is coverage. Remove part of it and you're excluding someone from coverage.

Really not that complicated.

Why should it be federally mandated?

nic34
03-26-2014, 11:19 AM
And they don't care if they buy them and use them on their own dime.

The health insurance they get as part of their compensation ( I still have to pay part of mine, the employer seldom pays 100%) ....

.... IS THEIR OWN DIME.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:19 AM
Why should it be federally mandated?
That's a different and relatively off topic question.

It's federally mandated because reproductive medicine is considered preventative medicine.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:20 AM
Why should it be federally mandated?

There you go, back to your comfort zone of illogic.

You are taking Chris pills now I think. The issue isn't why it should or shouldn't be federally mandated - IT... ALREADY... IS... FEDERALLY... MANDATED.

Once more for good measure (doesn't work for Chris, maybe it works for you hopefully) - this coverage being federally mandated isn't the issue, the issue is punishing, excluding citizens from federally mandated benefits just to promote a political agenda.

I'm arguing it's wrong, you're arguing it's justified - further, you wholly support it.

Of course you completely ignore all of the illocicalities and contradictions of the issue nor are they your benefits being taken away, so what the hell, right? Screw the little guy, big win for the religious right - the same (or similar) institution which you claim to oppose. Now you're their cheerleader.

Nice

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:20 AM
The health insurance they get as part of their compensation ( I still have to pay part of mine, the employer seldom pays 100%) ....

.... IS THEIR OWN DIME.
Bingo.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:21 AM
That's a different and relatively off topic question.

It's federally mandated because reproductive medicine is considered preventative medicine.

Gawd, it's refreshing to see someone who gets it.

I really didn't think this was an overly complicated concept. It's really scary how powerful institutionalism is.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 11:23 AM
The health insurance they get as part of their compensation ( I still have to pay part of mine, the employer seldom pays 100%) ....

.... IS THEIR OWN DIME.

Apparently, some of our members don't understand employer based insurance.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:25 AM
The health insurance they get as part of their compensation ( I still have to pay part of mine, the employer seldom pays 100%) ....

.... IS THEIR OWN DIME.

Well, if they are paying for their own insurance, then obviously they should get whatever they want covered.

So far, however, none of you have been able to show that Hobby Lobby employees are not on employer-based (read: employer pays, employee doesn't) insurance plans. So please, one of you, put on the big boy pants and present an argument.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:27 AM
There you go, back to your comfort zone of illogic.

You are taking Chris pills now I think. The issue isn't why it should or shouldn't be federally mandated - IT... ALREADY... IS... FEDERALLY... MANDATED.

Once more for good measure (doesn't work for Chris, maybe it works for you hopefully) - this coverage being federally mandated isn't the issue, the issue is punishing, excluding citizens from federally mandated benefits just to promote a political agenda.

I'm arguing it's wrong, you're arguing it's justified - further, you wholly support it.

Of course you completely ignore all of the illocicalities and contradictions of the issue nor are they your benefits being taken away, so what the hell, right? Screw the little guy, big win for the religious right - the same (or similar) institution which you claim to oppose. Now you're their cheerleader.

Nice

Build whatever strawmen you want, Captain, we're done here. You had your shot, and you blew it bigger than one of your wife's blowjobs.

Eventually, you'll figure out that I'm fairly easy to win over, but insults aren't gonna do it.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:28 AM
Apparently, some of our members don't understand employer based insurance.

But we're the "institutionalized" idiots :tongue:

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:29 AM
That's a different and relatively off topic question.

It's federally mandated because reproductive medicine is considered preventative medicine.

It's not really off-topic. The mandate is the issue. My question gets to the root of the problem. Captain may not want to think too deeply on the subject, but I like to go beyond the surface.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:29 AM
Because the company is getting discounted rates and are not paying for each individual policy. They are paying for a group package. Unless they have a small pool of employees (and Hobby Lobby does not, as a national business), the expenses for each individual plan will be through the roof.

How would that affect Hobby Lobby? The individual would be the one buying whatever policy they could. Its even possible that Hobby Lobby could work with an insurance company to provide insurance to its employees at reduced rates but the employee would have the option of taking it or not and paying for it or not.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:30 AM
Build whatever strawmen you want, Captain, we're done here. You had your shot, and you blew it bigger than one of your wife's blowjobs.

Eventually, you'll figure out that I'm fairly easy to win over, but insults aren't gonna do it.

OK then, that's too bad.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:31 AM
I believe they'd be subject to a penalty. Though it could well be that the penalty is less costly than insurance.

How can be it considered a "benefit" if its mandated by law" Social Security is not a "benefit" since we are all required to pay into it.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:31 AM
It's not really off-topic. The mandate is the issue. My question gets to the root of the problem. Captain may not want to think too deeply on the subject, but I like to go beyond the surface.
I can only assume that you would be okay with an employer refusing to allow cancer treatment as part of a health care package because, by golly, cancer treatment is mandated.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:32 AM
How would that affect Hobby Lobby? The individual would be the one buying whatever policy they could. Its even possible that Hobby Lobby could work with an insurance company to provide insurance to its employees at reduced rates but the employee would have the option of taking it or not and paying for it or not.

It's a possibility I'd be willing to try.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:33 AM
I can only assume that you would be okay with an employer refusing to allow cancer treatment as part of a health care package because, by golly, cancer treatment is mandated.

Not really. As I told Ransom, don't assume things. It just makes an ass out of you and me.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:35 AM
Employer provided healthcare coverage (just like dental, just like company cars, just like vacation days) are nothing more than a part of the total, overall compensation package paid to the employee.

So that package becomes an increase in wages equal to the cost to the employer for the insurance. I guarantee if this became a wide spread practice there would be companies that brokered insurance plans. They wouldn't provide the insurance themselves but would sign up clients and then take that block of clients to an insurance company for coverage. They would make money by charging the client X but paying the insurance company X - Y

nic34
03-26-2014, 11:35 AM
I can only assume that you would be okay with an employer refusing to allow cancer treatment as part of a health care package because, by golly, cancer treatment is mandated.

....and that is the slippery slope.

What if the insurance co. offered budget insurance that didn't cover cancer, or whatever, treatment....?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:37 AM
....and that is the slippery slope.

What if the insurance co. offered budget insurance that didn't cover cancer, or whatever, treatment....?

Then we get torches and pitchforks.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:37 AM
So that package becomes an increase in wages equal to the cost to the employer for the insurance. I guarantee if this became a wide spread practice there would be companies that brokered insurance plans. They wouldn't provide the insurance themselves but would sign up clients and then take that block of clients to an insurance company for coverage. They would make money by charging the client X but paying the insurance company X - Y

Exactly - that's the administrative fee TPA's charge - typically 10-15% of charges paid.

Get enough covered lives in the plan and the risk drops. Law of small numbers/large population thing (smaller standard deviation).

Sure, this will become fairly popular - I expect just this will happen if it's not already happening now.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:38 AM
....and that is the slippery slope.

What if the insurance co. offered budget insurance that didn't cover cancer, or whatever, treatment....?
I believe it would have to be okay with those that want to allow employers to dictate their employees contraceptive choices.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:38 AM
....and that is the slippery slope.

What if the insurance co. offered budget insurance that didn't cover cancer, or whatever, treatment....?

Or, more specifically used the cop-out "moral objection" defense?

Hell, fundies got away with it - why not us?

Mister D
03-26-2014, 11:38 AM
....and that is the slippery slope.

What if the insurance co. offered budget insurance that didn't cover cancer, or whatever, treatment....?

What if they didn't cover abortion? Hey...wait a minute...:grin:

Ravi
03-26-2014, 11:39 AM
Exactly - that's the administrative fee TPA's charge - typically 10-15% of charges paid.

Get enough covered lives in the plan and the risk drops. Law of small numbers/large population thing (smaller standard deviation).

Sure, this will become fairly popular - I expect just this will happen if it's not already happening now.

I think that is the basic plan of O-care.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:40 AM
I think that is the basic plan of O-care.

You sure?

Individuals are just buying fully covered plans from payers from what I understand. Coverages are now mandated which was the main point of the ACA but some stuff kicks in later that nobody really understands.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:41 AM
That's a very good point. In fact, to be consistent, Hobby Lobby should refuse to hire women (or men for that matter) that use birth control.


Why? The only thing they are opposed to is the abortion pill, which has been pointed out to you several times actually exist. Hobby Lobby is not saying they won't pay for insurance that covers contraceptives, they are saying they won't pay for the abortion pill. I don't understand why you can't understand that simple concept.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:42 AM
Why? The only thing they are opposed to is the abortion pill, which has been pointed out to you several times actually exist. Hobby Lobby is not saying they won't pay for insurance that covers contraceptives, they are saying they won't pay for the abortion pill. I don't understand why you can't understand that simple concept.

Then Hobby Lobby should make their hobby lobbying the federal government.

But nah, let's just hold our employees hostage.

Nobody gives a shit about them, especially RWNJ fundies.

Chris
03-26-2014, 11:43 AM
There you go, back to your comfort zone of illogic.

You are taking Chris pills now I think. The issue isn't why it should or shouldn't be federally mandated - IT... ALREADY... IS... FEDERALLY... MANDATED.

Once more for good measure (doesn't work for Chris, maybe it works for you hopefully) - this coverage being federally mandated isn't the issue, the issue is punishing, excluding citizens from federally mandated benefits just to promote a political agenda.

I'm arguing it's wrong, you're arguing it's justified - further, you wholly support it.

Of course you completely ignore all of the illocicalities and contradictions of the issue nor are they your benefits being taken away, so what the hell, right? Screw the little guy, big win for the religious right - the same (or similar) institution which you claim to oppose. Now you're their cheerleader.

Nice


"illocicalities"

Yea, I see you're making sense.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:44 AM
They are currently paying immoral people to work for them. These immoral people use their paycheck to buy, gasp, condoms and birth control pills.
I know you are too full of yourself to understand this but Hobby Lobby is not opposed to birth control, they are opposed to abortion. However, I realize in your worldview abortion is a sacrament that should never come under any type of restrictions what so ever.

Chris
03-26-2014, 11:44 AM
The health insurance they get as part of their compensation ( I still have to pay part of mine, the employer seldom pays 100%) ....

.... IS THEIR OWN DIME.



It is the employer's compensation to give--their dime, not the employee's.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:45 AM
"illocicalities"

Yea, I see you're making sense.
Chris, no offense, but don't be an ass. It was clearly a typo. You and Cap need to stay in separate corners.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:46 AM
Then Hobby Lobby should make their hobby lobbying the federal government.

But nah, let's just hold our employees hostage.

Nobody gives a shit about them, especially RWNJ fundies.

I could be mistaken, but given they are before the SCOTUS, it would seem like they are lobbying the federal government.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:47 AM
I believe it would have to be okay with those that want to allow employers to dictate their employees contraceptive choices.

Who wants employers to dictate contraceptive choices?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:47 AM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), no offense, but don't be an ass. It was clearly a typo. You and Cap need to stay in separate corners.

No, it was a made-up word actually.

To 99.9% of the rest of us it's meaning is crystal clear.

To "Mr. textbook definition only" I understand why he would be confused and annoyed.

Chris
03-26-2014, 11:48 AM
Chris, no offense, but don't be an ass. It was clearly a typo. You and Cap need to stay in separate corners.


At least I picked out something real. Cap just makes it up as he goes. There was nothing else to comment on. But, yea, I'm the ass.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:49 AM
Who wants employers to dictate contraceptive choices?

Listen to this guy.

Same guy who's arguing Hobby Lobby is in the right when it excludes its employees from federally mandated contraceptive coverage.

Un...

fucking...

believable

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:49 AM
Yes, yes, I can see, if Hobby Lobby wins this case, a time in the future where insurance will only cover hickeys on the necks of 15 year old blonde cheerleaders.

Chris
03-26-2014, 11:49 AM
No, it was a made-up word actually.

To 99.9% of the rest of us it's meaning is crystal clear.

To "Mr. textbook definition only" I understand why he would be confused and annoyed.



Made up like the rest of your BS, cap. You are good at coming up with a single point, but you can't defend it, so you make up shit to attack people with, like this textbook crap.

We see this is thread after thread. Any time someone dares disagree with you.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:50 AM
Cap just makes it up as he goes.

If I do, you taught me well.

(I actually don't by the way and yea, I agree with you finally on one thing)


But, yea, I'm the ass.

Chris
03-26-2014, 11:51 AM
Listen to this guy.

Same guy who's arguing Hobby Lobby is in the right when it excludes its employees from federally mandated contraceptive coverage.

Un...

fucking...

believable



There it is again. Green disagrees with you. You can't muster a counter argument, so you go after the messenger. Pathetic. Why don't you raise that white flag a little higher.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:51 AM
Listen to this guy.

Same guy who's arguing Hobby Lobby is in the right when it excludes its employees from federally mandated contraceptive coverage.

Un...

fucking...

believable

I'm well aware that you are incapable of explaining your position and seem to be on your period. Take some Midol and stop bleeding all over the thread. It's embarrassing.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:51 AM
Made up like the rest of your BS, cap. You are good at coming up with a single point, but you can't defend it, so you make up shit to attack people with, like this textbook crap.

We see this is thread after thread. Any time someone dares disagree with you.

Bartender!

I'll have what the hallucinating gentleman behind the keyboard is having!

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:51 AM
At least I picked out something real. Cap just makes it up as he goes. There was nothing else to comment on. But, yea, I'm the ass.

No, he's being an ass too, I just expect it out of him. I expect better out of you.

Chris
03-26-2014, 11:51 AM
If I do, you taught me well.

(I actually don't by the way and yea, I agree with you finally on one thing)

You're flailing now, cap. It's unbecoming.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:52 AM
Listen to this guy.

Same guy who's arguing Hobby Lobby is in the right when it excludes its employees from federally mandated contraceptive coverage.

Un...

fucking...

believable


HUH? How is Hobby Lobby not paying for the abortion pill dictating what contraceptive methods their employees use? Must all contraceptives be purchased through the Hobby Lobby Pharmacy?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:52 AM
I'm well aware that you are incapable of explaining your position and seem to be on your period. Take some Midol and stop bleeding all over the thread. It's embarrassing.

LOL! Now who's insulting?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:52 AM
HUH? How is Hobby Lobby not paying for the abortion pill dictating what contraceptive methods their employees use? Must all contraceptives be purchased through the Hobby Lobby Pharmacy?

What?

Chris
03-26-2014, 11:52 AM
No, he's being an ass too, I just expect it out of him. I expect better out of you.

Well, I'll try. But there really was nothing of substance to comment on in that post.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:53 AM
There it is again. Green disagrees with you. You can't muster a counter argument, so you go after the messenger. Pathetic. Why don't you raise that white flag a little higher.

Sure, pops.

The remote is on the coffee table.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 11:53 AM
6442

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:53 AM
LOL! Now who's insulting?

I am. Since that's all your side has to offer, I assumed that was what you all wanted to engage in.

I'd prefer both sides present good, solid arguments and try to sway mostly undecideds like myself, but you guys don't seem interested in that.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 11:54 AM
Well, I'll try. But there really was nothing of substance to comment on in that post.

So don't comment.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 11:55 AM
I am. Since that's all your side has to offer, I assumed that was what you all wanted to engage in.

I'd prefer both sides present good, solid arguments and try to sway mostly undecideds like myself, but you guys don't seem interested in that.

You're thin skinned, always was. Quick tempered and thin skinned.

No, I wasn't insulting. You however insulted me several times and even brought my wife into it.

Yeah, sorry. You fail again.

nic34
03-26-2014, 11:57 AM
It is the employer's compensation to give--their dime, not the employee's.

Wrong.

It's not my employer's place to tell me what I spend MY DIME on.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 11:59 AM
What?


Exacty. You don't know do you?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 12:00 PM
You're thin skinned, always was. Quick tempered and thin skinned.

The difference between you and me is I don't pretend I'm not hot tempered and thin skinned. I readily admit it. You, on the other hand...well, observe:


No, I wasn't insulting. You however insulted me several times and even brought my wife into it.

It was a joke. It was actually a compliment to your wife, at that. I implied that your argument blew pretty hard.

But yes, you were insulting. You made plenty of accusations that I was institutionalized and called into question my intelligence.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 12:01 PM
Wrong.

It's not my employer's place to tell me what I spend MY DIME on.

You're not spending your dime, nic. The employer negotiates and pays employer based insurance hence the term. Employees aren't involved. You either accept the employer coverage or reject it and look elsewhere.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 12:01 PM
Well, I'm tired of waiting for coherent and sound arguments from the Away team, and I'm not going to waste my time. Unsubscribed.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 12:03 PM
since most insurance plans do not cover dental and having good teeth is very important to health and for being able to get laid and therefore need that birth control perhaps that should be added to the current insurance mandate. Also, what about glasses or hearing aids (I have to buy my own at $7000.00 a pop). Why not require Hobby Lobby to provide Concierge Medical Service for all its employees as well.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 12:08 PM
Why? The only thing they are opposed to is the abortion pill, which has been pointed out to you several times actually exist. Hobby Lobby is not saying they won't pay for insurance that covers contraceptives, they are saying they won't pay for the abortion pill. I don't understand why you can't understand that simple concept.One, it isn't an abortion pill. Two, the only simple concept is that many of the posters on this thread believe that a company owner's religion should dictate their employee's coverage.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 12:13 PM
since most insurance plans do not cover dental and having good teeth is very important to health and for being able to get laid and therefore need that birth control perhaps that should be added to the current insurance mandate. Also, what about glasses or hearing aids (I have to buy my own at $7000.00 a pop). Why not require Hobby Lobby to provide Concierge Medical Service for all its employees as well.

They probably do offer it. Back when I worked for someone else we could choose between plans. The ones that covered dental, prescriptions, etc., were more expensive. But no one said we couldn't have them because of their moral stance.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 12:18 PM
One, it isn't an abortion pill. Two, the only simple concept is that many of the posters on this thread believe that a company owner's religion should dictate their employee's coverage.

When did that become important for an Employer :rollseyes:

Mister D
03-26-2014, 12:20 PM
When did that become important for an Employer :rollseyes:

Around the time their religious liberty was infringed.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 12:22 PM
One, it isn't an abortion pill. Two, the only simple concept is that many of the posters on this thread believe that a company owner's religion should dictate their employee's coverage.


The pills Hobby Lobby is opposed to is considered by all to be an abortion pill since it works after the egg has been fertilized and conception has taken place. That is what they are opposed to. You can try to spin this any way you want but this time you are wrong.

Yes, its a religious issue. The issue in this case is that the government is interfering in the religious rights of the employer. The 1st Amendment is quite clear in my opinion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The amendment does not say free exercise in a church or temple or mosque. Hobby Lobby (and the others involved in this case) should have the right to decline to act against their moral principles.

Ravi
03-26-2014, 12:23 PM
The pills Hobby Lobby is opposed to is considered by all to be an abortion pill since it works after the egg has been fertilized and conception has taken place. That is what they are opposed to. You can try to spin this any way you want but this time you are wrong.

Yes, its a religious issue. The issue in this case is that the government is interfering in the religious rights of the employer. The 1st Amendment is quite clear in my opinion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The amendment does not say free exercise in a church or temple or mosque. Hobby Lobby (and the others involved in this case) should have the right to decline to act against their moral principles.

Granting a company an exemption because of its owners religious beliefs is CONGRESS MAKING A LAW.

Fail.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 12:23 PM
They probably do offer it. Back when I worked for someone else we could choose between plans. The ones that covered dental, prescriptions, etc., were more expensive. But no one said we couldn't have them because of their moral stance.


What moral stance do you know of that states people shouldn't wear hearing aids or glasses or get their teeth fixed?

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 12:24 PM
Granting a company an exemption because of its owners religious beliefs is CONGRESS MAKING A LAW.

Fail.

Passing a law that requires people to go against their religious belief is unconstitutional

And you are right, you fail

Ravi
03-26-2014, 12:25 PM
What moral stance do you know of that states people shouldn't wear hearing aids or glasses or get their teeth fixed?

A Christian Scientist could make that claim.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 12:28 PM
Around the time their religious liberty was infringed.

I've worked for plenty of Employers before and never gave a shit about their religion or their religious liberty.

If I do work for you, and I provide you Value, then you Pay me ... that how it works. nothing more, nothing lee, nothing else.

Religion has nothing to do with it.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 12:35 PM
A Christian Scientist could make that claim.


Or possibly a Jehovah Witness and I would say they should not be forced into providing insurance for practices they disagree with either.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 12:36 PM
I've worked for plenty of Employers before and never gave a shit about their religion or their religious liberty.

If I do work for you, and I provide you Value, then you Pay me ... that how it works. nothing more, nothing lee, nothing else.

Religion has nothing to do with it.

That's nice.

Right.

Then what's the problem?

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 12:37 PM
I've worked for plenty of Employers before and never gave a shit about their religion or their religious liberty.

If I do work for you, and I provide you Value, then you Pay me ... that how it works. nothing more, nothing lee, nothing else.

Religion has nothing to do with it.

And neither should the government. Hobby Lobby never offered insurance to cover the abortion pill. People working there were satisfied with their coverage until the "Sisterhood" got involved.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 12:37 PM
Or possibly a Jehovah Witness and I would say they should not be forced into providing insurance for practices they disagree with either.

If State Farm ever knew about all the modifications I've made to my Vette, they wouldn't Insure it :laugh:

Cigar
03-26-2014, 12:39 PM
And neither should the government. Hobby Lobby never offered insurance to cover the abortion pill. People working there were satisfied with their coverage until the "Sisterhood" got involved.

Then they can always self insure or go with a Co-Op

Chris
03-26-2014, 12:44 PM
Wrong.

It's not my employer's place to tell me what I spend MY DIME on.



Not when it's yours. But when a policy is purchased by the employer, it's his to decide what he purchases. You may do what you want with what your given--what, btw, you agreed to in taking the job.

Chris
03-26-2014, 12:45 PM
Around the time their religious liberty was infringed.

Their privacy, since that's what liberal progressives like to argue except when they Kerryish don't.

Chris
03-26-2014, 12:47 PM
I've worked for plenty of Employers before and never gave a shit about their religion or their religious liberty.

If I do work for you, and I provide you Value, then you Pay me ... that how it works. nothing more, nothing lee, nothing else.

Religion has nothing to do with it.



Agree, it's a matter of privacy being violated, a private company's decisions on insurance should not be interfered with by government.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 12:51 PM
Agree, it's a matter of privacy being violated, a private company's decisions on insurance should not be interfered with by government.

So you would have no problem with them forcing their employes to work 80 hours :laugh: with no Government Intervention

Mister D
03-26-2014, 12:55 PM
So you would have no problem with them forcing their employes to work 80 hours :laugh: with no Government Intervention

You already can. You just have to pay overtime. They don't offer OT at the golf course, huh? :wink:

Chris
03-26-2014, 12:58 PM
So you would have no problem with them forcing their employes to work 80 hours :laugh: with no Government Intervention

How would they do that when employees are free to walk?

Today's major employee problem is being short-timed, not over-timed.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 12:58 PM
You already can. You just have to pay overtime. They don't offer OT at the golf course, huh? :wink:

Yea ... it's called the 19th Hole

Chris
03-26-2014, 12:59 PM
You already can. You just have to pay overtime. They don't offer OT at the golf course, huh? :wink:



Depends on contract mutually agreed on. I'm salaried and expected to work some overtime as the need arises without any extra pay--well, except bonuses. :-)

Cigar
03-26-2014, 01:02 PM
Depends on contract mutually agreed on. I'm salaried and expected to work some overtime as the need arises without any extra pay--well, except bonuses. :-)

I thought we were talking about HOBBY LOBBY ... not a White Collar position with a Mahogany office :laugh:

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:07 PM
I thought we were talking about HOBBY LOBBY ... not a White Collar position with a Mahogany office :laugh:

Like I said, whatever the employer and employee mutually agree on and contract by. No one forces the employer to offer a job and no one the employee to take it.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:15 PM
Around the time their religious liberty was infringed.

Ironically, as is the theme of this thread, as implicitly admitted by the threads belligerents, it has nothing to do with who's liberties are being infringed (the religious rights or the employees) but everything to do with protesting the ACA.

And they deny it out of the other corner of their mouths.

Hence the blatant hypocrisy charge.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 01:16 PM
Depends on contract mutually agreed on. I'm salaried and expected to work some overtime as the need arises without any extra pay--well, except bonuses. :-)

That's usually not contracted. It depends on your class. Some positions are exempt from wage and hour laws. Some aren't.

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:19 PM
That's usually not contracted. It depends on your class. Some positions are exempt from wage and hour laws. Some aren't.

Every place I've worked, from a kid on, there's been agreement, but I'm willing to admit it doesn't always happen.

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:20 PM
Ironically, as is the theme of this thread, as implicitly admitted by the threads belligerents, it has nothing to do with who's liberties are being infringed (the religious rights or the employees) but everything to do with protesting the ACA.

And they deny it out of the other corner of their mouths.

Hence the blatant hypocrisy charge.


Right, put words in people's mouths and then accuse them of hypocrisy. Where do you come up with these poor excuses for arguments?

Mister D
03-26-2014, 01:22 PM
Every place I've worked, from a kid on, there's been agreement, but I'm willing to admit it doesn't always happen.

Maybe Texas is different? Not sure. Non-exempt employees must be paid overtime though. I've seen a lot of employers get into trouble with wage and hour laws though. Non-compliance is more common than you'd think.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 01:25 PM
Ironically, as is the theme of this thread, as implicitly admitted by the threads belligerents, it has nothing to do with who's liberties are being infringed (the religious rights or the employees) but everything to do with protesting the ACA.

And they deny it out of the other corner of their mouths.

Hence the blatant hypocrisy charge.

I have no doubt the complaint is sometimes disingenuous. Can you say that about everyone?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:25 PM
Right, put words in people's mouths and then accuse them of hypocrisy. Where do you come up with these poor excuses for arguments?

I wasn't really referring to you, however you do flat out lie about what positions people take but that's another matter.

If I was the only one saying this then you'd have an argument against it. Unfortunately many folks experience the same thing from you.

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:26 PM
Maybe Texas is different? Not sure. Non-exempt employees must be paid overtime though. I've seen a lot of employers get into trouble with wage and hour laws though. Non-compliance is more common than you'd think.

Right, overtime is fairly standard for non-exempts. I didn't realize it was law--haven't worked non-exempt since teens.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:26 PM
I have no doubt the complaint is sometimes disingenuous. Can you say that about everyone?

So tell me, do you really believe this is all, 100% about "religious liberty" and has nothing to do with ACA politics?

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:27 PM
I wasn't really referring to you, however you do flat out lie about what positions people take but that's another matter.

If I was the only one saying this then you'd have an argument against it. Unfortunately many folks experience the same thing from you.



And again you demonstrate an inability to argument the message, instead try to bully your way through the messenger. Pathetic.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 01:28 PM
So tell me, do you really believe this is all, 100% about "religious liberty" and has nothing to do with ACA politics?

Do you really believe Catholic organizations (usually pro-Democrat) suddenly made a complete turnaround? Like I said, I'll concede that some support the claim to religious liberty just to attack Obamacare. Others are genuinely concerned.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:30 PM
Do you really believe Catholic organizations (usually pro-Democrat) suddenly made a complete turnaround? Like I said, I'll concede that some support the claim to religious liberty just to attack Obamacare. Others are genuinely concerned.

Are you genuinely concerned?

Do you believe Hobby Lobby (whoever that is) is genuinely concerned?

Also, do you really believe that it would be immoral for Hobby Lobby to adhere to the mandate? IOW, how is Hobby Lobby engaging in immorality when someone else uses contraceptives or whatever?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:33 PM
And again you demonstrate an inability to argument the message, instead try to bully your way through the messenger. Pathetic.

Like your inability to form a coherent sentence?

Sorry Chris, you're one of the biggest bullies and trolls on the forum. It's always the same drag-out bickering contest with you and other members. I just tell it like it is, no matter how much of it you try to invent.

You're a compulsive liar. I recognize it, other members recognize it. It's too bad you don't (or won't) but hey, I figure that's why you're here.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Are you genuinely concerned?

Do you believe Hobby Lobby (whoever that is) is genuinely concerned?

Also, do you really believe that it would be immoral for Hobby Lobby to adhere to the mandate? IOW, how is Hobby Lobby engaging in immorality when someone else uses contraceptives or whatever?

Meh not really. I do understand why someone would be though.

Don't know. Do you?

Let me put it this way: what if you were a private employer and the state suddenly said your insurance plans had to cover employee abortions. What you be OK with that? Yes, Cap, some people really don't believe in contraception as outlandish as that may sound to you. It's not immorality on the employers part but they are in fact helping facilitate something that offends their conscience. It's not like the Catholic Church suddenly decided they were against contraception.

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Like your inability to form a coherent sentence?

Sorry Chris, you're one of the biggest bullies and trolls on the forum. It's always the same drag-out bickering contest with you and other members. I just tell it like it is, no matter how much of it you try to invent.

You're a compulsive liar. I recognize it, other members recognize it. It's too bad you don't (or won't) but hey, I figure that's why you're here.


Again, complete inability to argue any point is demonstrated.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:39 PM
Meh not really. I do understand why someone would be though.

Don't know. Do you?

Let me put it this way: what if you were a private employer and the state suddenly said your insurance plans had to cover employee abortions. What you be OK with that? Yes, Cap, some people really don't believe in contraception as outlandish as that may sound to you. It's not immorality on the employers part but they are in fact helping facilitate something that offends their conscience. It's not like the Catholic Church suddenly decided they were against contraception.

I know you understand the spectrum of "morality" here - "who am I to force my beliefs onto someone else".

So the question might be - yes, I believe abortion is fundamentally wrong. So am I justified in forcing my belief onto someone else? And to what extreme can I do that? Am I justified in killing someone or forcefully stopping them?

Does that apply to contraception? Pre-marital sex? Skipping church on Sundays?

Where does it begin and end?

See where that goes?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:41 PM
Again, complete inability to argue any point is demonstrated.

What points? The random points you're trying to force on to me?

If you made valid points and asked rational questions, we would be discussing them now instead of me telling you how much of a liar you are.

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:47 PM
Meh not really. I do understand why someone would be though.

Don't know. Do you?

Let me put it this way: what if you were a private employer and the state suddenly said your insurance plans had to cover employee abortions. What you be OK with that? Yes, Cap, some people really don't believe in contraception as outlandish as that may sound to you. It's not immorality on the employers part but they are in fact helping facilitate something that offends their conscience. It's not like the Catholic Church suddenly decided they were against contraception.



Agree, they should be free to exercise their private rights, be they religious or otherwise based.

Mister D
03-26-2014, 01:48 PM
I know you understand the spectrum of "morality" here - "who am I to force my beliefs onto someone else".

So the question might be - yes, I believe abortion is fundamentally wrong. So am I justified in forcing my belief onto someone else? And to what extreme can I do that? Am I justified in killing someone or forcefully stopping them?

Does that apply to contraception? Pre-marital sex? Skipping church on Sundays?

Where does it begin and end?

See where that goes?

But you're not really doing that, are you? The employee can still get contraception and can still get an abortion. They are not forbidden. It's just that you as the employer do not want to be involved in their actions.

Where does it begin and end? I see it like conscientious objector status. You can't just say "hey, that shit bothers me" and boom you get said status. You have to be opposed to war in any form and it must be sincere (i.e. you can't suddenly become a fucking Quaker to avoid the draft lol). Why not something like that for communities with long held religious beliefs against contraception? If any party has made a play for control it appears to be the state, IMO.

Chris
03-26-2014, 01:49 PM
What points? The random points you're trying to force on to me?

If you made valid points and asked rational questions, we would be discussing them now instead of me telling you how much of a liar you are.


The only one here trying to force opinions on others is you, cap. The rest of us are asking for rational discussion without all the BS strawmen and ad hom cluttering it up.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:51 PM
But you're not really doing that, are you? The employee can still get contraception and can still get an abortion. They are not forbidden. It's just that you as the employer do not want to be involved in their actions.

How are they involved in their actions?

How is paying someone compensation and having them go out and obtain birth control vs. paying someone benefits as compensation that provide them birth control any different?


Where does it begin and end? I see it like conscientious objector status. You can't just say "hey, that shit bothers me" and boom you get said status. You have to be opposed to war in any form and it must be sincere (i.e. you can't suddenly become a fucking Quaker to avoid the draft lol). Why not something like that for communities with long held religious beliefs against contraception? If any party has made a play for control it appears to be the state, IMO.

Then, as I've said before - these institutions need to get out of the public sandbox. Don't hire anyone.

If your convictions are that important to you, then show us how important they are by getting out of the legislation game.

Think it's so important they would do that?

Right....

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:52 PM
The only one here trying to force opinions on others is you, cap. The rest of us are asking for rational discussion without all the BS strawmen and ad hom cluttering it up.

Sure pops.

The remote is on the coffee table.

nic34
03-26-2014, 01:53 PM
You're not spending your dime, nic. The employer negotiates and pays employer based insurance hence the term. Employees aren't involved. You either accept the employer coverage or reject it and look elsewhere.

I pay a percentage out of my pay for the insurance my employer chooses for me. The part the employer pays is part of my compensation. The employer negotiates plans for employees as a group. That's how GROUP insurance works.

Let me know if you need a dictionary.

junie
03-26-2014, 01:54 PM
That's a different and relatively off topic question.

It's federally mandated because reproductive medicine is considered preventative medicine.


which is not considered 'minuscule' by the ever important conventional MEDICAL standards...





No, because they are not being excluded from COVERAGE. They are still being COVERED, they just don't have A SPECIFIC (and miniscule) ITEM COVERED.

God, you people are acting like they just denied a cancer patient treatment over fucking birth control.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 01:55 PM
My main concern here is the weakening of the United States Constitution. I believe the 1st Amendment protects the right to practice your religion as you believe. I believe requiring HL to provide this insurance against their religious principles is unconstitutional.

If an employer were Orthodox Jews do you believe the government should have the right to require them to provide ham sandwiches for lunches.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:55 PM
which is not considered 'minuscule' by the ever important conventional MEDICAL standards...

And it's cheaper to provide contraception than to deliver and administer care to an infant.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 01:57 PM
My main concern here is the weakening of the United States Constitution. I believe the 1st Amendment protects the right to practice your religion as you believe. I believe requiring HL to provide this insurance against their religious principles is unconstitutional.

If an employer were Orthodox Jews do you believe the government should have the right to require them to provide ham sandwiches for lunches.

Problem is, nobody is stopping anyone from practicing their religion.

Bullshit argument basically.

You could admit that it's purely politically driven for you and this is all vindictiveness and be honest, but why would anyone want to do that?

Mister D
03-26-2014, 02:01 PM
How are they involved in their actions?

How is paying someone compensation and having them go out and obtain birth control vs. paying someone benefits as compensation that provide them birth control any different?



Then, as I've said before - these institutions need to get out of the public sandbox. Don't hire anyone.

If your convictions are that important to you, then show us how important they are by getting out of the legislation game.

Think it's so important they would do that?

Right....

It's different because, in this case, the employer is actively involved in endorsing activities he/she may have strong religious objections to. It's the employer's plan. He/she negotiated it. It's on them. An employee can do what he wants with his paycheck. He wants heroin? Great. Go out and get high. Does the employer have to make sure he can get a group rate for dope?

The employer negotiates a plan with a carrier, right? Employee accepts or rejects. Where is the foul?

What does it mean to be in the public sandbox? Hiring people? Simply occupying space?

Ransom
03-26-2014, 02:04 PM
And it's cheaper to provide contraception than to deliver and administer care to an infant.

It's cheapest to insist Americans provide their own contraception and preventions, it's not a government responsibility

Chris
03-26-2014, 02:04 PM
How are they involved in their actions?

How is paying someone compensation and having them go out and obtain birth control vs. paying someone benefits as compensation that provide them birth control any different?



Then, as I've said before - these institutions need to get out of the public sandbox. Don't hire anyone.

If your convictions are that important to you, then show us how important they are by getting out of the legislation game.

Think it's so important they would do that?

Right....




How is paying someone compensation and having them go out and obtain birth control vs. paying someone benefits as compensation that provide them birth control any different?

Been answered a dozen times in your previous and in this thread. Hobby Lobby is purchasing the insurance policy, it's their choice, not the employee's--or should be but for the unjustifiable law.

If HL simply handed the employee that amount instead, then it should be the employee's choice to do with as they pleased--including not purchase insurance--or should be but for the unjustified law.

Chris
03-26-2014, 02:06 PM
I pay a percentage out of my pay for the insurance my employer chooses for me. The part the employer pays is part of my compensation. The employer negotiates plans for employees as a group. That's how GROUP insurance works.

Let me know if you need a dictionary.



You should be able to purchase what you want with your part just as the employer should be able to purchase what they want. Why should you as employee have rights denied the employer?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 02:08 PM
Okay, I'm bored for a few hours, so I'm back.
Captain Obvious, Ravi, y'all can't really argue that somehow I don't care because my benefits aren't at risk, because my wife has a prescription for contraceptives to treat her endometriosis, and I live in Tennessee so the odds of me finding an employer who isn't Christian are slim to none.

So yes, not having contraceptives covered would affect me on a deeply personal level and my position does not change.

Chris
03-26-2014, 02:08 PM
Problem is, nobody is stopping anyone from practicing their religion.

Bullshit argument basically.

You could admit that it's purely politically driven for you and this is all vindictiveness and be honest, but why would anyone want to do that?


And no one, as Mr D argued, is stopping employees from going out and purchasing contraceptives, or additional insurance to cover contraceptives.




You could admit that it's purely politically driven for you and this is all vindictiveness and be honest, but why would anyone want to do that?

Again, the irrational bullshit.

Chris
03-26-2014, 02:11 PM
Okay, I'm bored for a few hours, so I'm back.
Captain Obvious, Ravi, y'all can't really argue that somehow I don't care because my benefits aren't at risk, because my wife has a prescription for contraceptives to treat her endometriosis, and I live in Tennessee so the odds of me finding an employer who isn't Christian are slim to none.

So yes, not having contraceptives covered would affect me on a deeply personal level and my position does not change.



That's another aspect of the social justice argument of progressives. It's not just their reinforcing self-righteousness but making you out to be not just wrong but immoral for not agreeing. Very illogically appealing.

nic34
03-26-2014, 02:15 PM
And no one, as Mr D argued, is stopping employees from going out and purchasing contraceptives, or additional insurance to cover contraceptives.



But how is that possible if I'm spending the employer's "dime"? :wink:

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:16 PM
It's funny, all the institutionalized Breitbots here argue that the employee "chose" to work at XXX company, they can simply "choose" to work somewhere else.

Like XXX company can just "choose" not to provide federally mandated benefits by not providing coverage since it's such a moral catastrophe for them, so fuck it - force the employee to suffer.

Funny how that works.

Ransom
03-26-2014, 02:18 PM
Okay, I'm bored for a few hours, so I'm back.
@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3), @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698), y'all can't really argue that somehow I don't care because my benefits aren't at risk, because my wife has a prescription for contraceptives to treat her endometriosis, and I live in Tennessee so the odds of me finding an employer who isn't Christian are slim to none.

So yes, not having contraceptives covered would affect me on a deeply personal level and my position does not change.

You confuse a medical condititon with birth control. Your wife should be covered and I don't believe anyone would deny her. She's "in worst cases" that Sandra Fluke mentioned, the issue you tried to deflect with the first time. The first time you f'cked up and claimed Fluke was talking about medical conditions like endo.....when I had to go out and read her testimony where she referred to endo and other medical conditions as "worse case scenarios."

Tighten up, Arrow, you're being disingenuous.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:19 PM
It's different because, in this case, the employer is actively involved in endorsing activities he/she may have strong religious objections to. It's the employer's plan. He/she negotiated it. It's on them. An employee can do what he wants with his paycheck. He wants heroin? Great. Go out and get high. Does the employer have to make sure he can get a group rate for dope?

The employer negotiates a plan with a carrier, right? Employee accepts or rejects. Where is the foul?

What does it mean to be in the public sandbox? Hiring people? Simply occupying space?

Who's endorsing what?

So if stomach band surgery is covered, automatically I as a employer providing coverage to my employees automatically endorse this?

If it covers one therapy over another then I endorse the covered therapy and reject the other therapy?

Seriously?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:21 PM
It's cheapest to insist Americans provide their own contraception and preventions, it's not a government responsibility

Sure, but that's not what the issue is.

It's what folks are trying to force the issue to be - which is basically protesting the ACA.

And thanks again for proving my point. I wish people would just be honest and say "this has nothing to do with "religious freedom" but has everything to do with protesting the ACA and we don't care at who's expense it's being done at".

Hypocrisy is kinda sucky tbh.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 02:22 PM
You confuse a medical condititon with birth control. Your wife should be covered and I don't believe anyone would deny her. She's "in worst cases" that Sandra Fluke mentioned, the issue you tried to deflect with the first time. The first time you f'cked up and claimed Fluke was talking about medical conditions like endo.....when I had to go out and read her testimony where she referred to endo and other medical conditions as "worse case scenarios."

Tighten up, Arrow, you're being disingenuous.

Clearly, you're not good at reading, because we're on the same side of this argument.

Chris
03-26-2014, 02:22 PM
But how is that possible if I'm spending the employer's "dime"? :wink:

How do you ever arrive at that conclusion?

Situation 1: Employer pays for insurance policy. Employer's dime. Employer's choice.

Situation 2: Employee pays for insurance policy. Employee's dime. Employee's choice.

Is there any disagreement on that?

Situation 3: Employer pays part, for simplicity, half, employee pays rest. Employer's nickle, employee's nickle. Employer's choice, first since employer is first purchasing, employee second, since he or she is free to take it or go out and purchase privately.

No where in any of those situations is the employer depriving the employee of any right to get the coverage he or she wants.

Chris
03-26-2014, 02:23 PM
It's funny, all the institutionalized Breitbots here argue that the employee "chose" to work at XXX company, they can simply "choose" to work somewhere else.

Like XXX company can just "choose" not to provide federally mandated benefits by not providing coverage since it's such a moral catastrophe for them, so fuck it - force the employee to suffer.

Funny how that works.



Legal positivism again. Funny how that fails.


As for employment, what type of gun do your employer hold to your head?

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 02:24 PM
It's funny, all the institutionalized Breitbots here argue that the employee "chose" to work at XXX company, they can simply "choose" to work somewhere else.

Like XXX company can just "choose" not to provide federally mandated benefits by not providing coverage since it's such a moral catastrophe for them, so fuck it - force the employee to suffer.

Funny how that works.

That has never been my argument and I hate Breitbart.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:27 PM
And no one, as Mr D argued, is stopping employees from going out and purchasing contraceptives, or additional insurance to cover contraceptives.





Again, the irrational bullshit.

Funny how that works for helpless employees but not for the "morally offended" employer.

That the employer simply can't chose to not provide any coverage isn't something that's within the thought process here speaks volumes on really what the issue is.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:27 PM
That has never been my argument and I hate Breitbart.

That's kinda the point you missed.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:28 PM
How do you ever arrive at that conclusion?

Situation 1: Employer pays for insurance policy. Employer's dime. Employer's choice.

Situation 2: Employee pays for insurance policy. Employee's dime. Employee's choice.

Is there any disagreement on that?

Situation 3: Employer pays part, for simplicity, half, employee pays rest. Employer's nickle, employee's nickle. Employer's choice, first since employer is first purchasing, employee second, since he or she is free to take it or go out and purchase privately.

No where in any of those situations is the employer depriving the employee of any right to get the coverage he or she wants.

Technically healthcare coverage is part of the total compensation package. The argument can be made it's really the employee's dime in ALL cases.

Compensation is not a gift.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:29 PM
Legal positivism again. Funny how that fails.


As for employment, what type of gun do your employer hold to your head?

As for providing coverage, what type of gun is held to any employers head?

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 02:31 PM
Problem is, nobody is stopping anyone from practicing their religion.

Bullshit argument basically.

You could admit that it's purely politically driven for you and this is all vindictiveness and be honest, but why would anyone want to do that?


Well it is stopping people from practicing their religion. If my religion tells me to not enable someone to sin by providing them with the means for an abortion and you tell me I have to do that anyway because "its the law" how exactly is that not stopping me from practicing my religion. They are not saying you can't have an abortion, they are saying we are not going to pay for it.

Green Arrow
03-26-2014, 02:33 PM
That's kinda the point you missed.

What is your point?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:33 PM
Well it is stopping people from practicing their religion. If my religion tells me to not enable someone to sin by providing them with the means for an abortion and you tell me I have to do that anyway because "its the law" how exactly is that not stopping me from practicing my religion. They are not saying you can't have an abortion, they are saying we are not going to pay for it.

And here it is - the crux of my point.

The religious right's "THIS IS MORAL, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS NOT MORAL, I WILL FORCE YOU TO BE MORAL" shove-it-down-your-throat standpoint.

At least your honest, Nathan - I give you credit for that. Most others on this thread cannot make that claim.

nic34
03-26-2014, 02:34 PM
Technically healthcare coverage is part of the total compensation package. The argument can be made it's really the employee's dime in ALL cases.

Compensation is not a gift.

Exactly. How is this so difficult for some to understand?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:35 PM
Exactly. How is this so difficult for some to understand?

Because when you've been institutionalized you're mind is programmed to avoid logic and honesty and focus on only what you're programmed to focus on, everything else gets tuned out.

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 02:36 PM
What is your point?

You mean besides his head?

GrassrootsConservative
03-26-2014, 02:36 PM
Exactly. How is this so difficult for some to understand?

I don't know. Maybe the left should shut up with their lies about "affordable healthcare for everyone."

nathanbforrest45
03-26-2014, 02:37 PM
And here it is - the crux of my point.

The religious right's "THIS IS MORAL, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS NOT MORAL, I WILL FORCE YOU TO BE MORAL" shove-it-down-your-throat standpoint.

At least your honest, Nathan - I give you credit for that. Most others on this thread cannot make that claim.


You didn't read the entire post did you?

junie
03-26-2014, 02:41 PM
Even if RFRA does apply, the government contends, the contraception mandate does not rise to the level of being a “substantial religious burden” (which is required if the law is to apply) because the companies are significantly removed from an employee’s decision to use contraception. After all, they point out, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga do not directly provide contraception services to their workers. Instead, they offer their employees health insurance that covers a huge array of medical services, including birth control. In addition, any decision to use birth control rests with the employees, not the insurance providers or the companies.


Finally, the government argues, the mandate advances a compelling government interest because it is part of a comprehensive reform of the nation’s health care system, and granting the companies an exemption would deprive some Americans of important benefits provided by that reform. In this case, many women would not receive free contraceptive services, thwarting an important public health goal for the government – that all women have adequate access to effective birth control.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/03/20/health-care-laws-contraception-mandate-reaches-the-supreme-court/

Alyosha
03-26-2014, 02:42 PM
It's funny, all the institutionalized Breitbots here argue that the employee "chose" to work at XXX company, they can simply "choose" to work somewhere else.

Like XXX company can just "choose" not to provide federally mandated benefits by not providing coverage since it's such a moral catastrophe for them, so fuck it - force the employee to suffer.

Funny how that works.


I'm not forced to work anywhere. I may prefer to work at company A over company B but I'm not forced to work anywhere. Before anyone starts the "you don't know what it's like to be hand to mouth poor" let me show you something:

http://culturenightlosangeles.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/detroit-house-and-red-parked-car-roof-final-artcat.jpg?w=560


^^Street I grew upon when we landed in the godforsaken shithole known as Detroit. Every third house was burnt out. My parents coming from Communism didn't want to be a drain on society so for years we ate grilled cheese sandwiches 5 nights a week for dinner. To this day I won't eat American cheese on anything. It makes me sick.

I grew up on a block where poor people with kids spent money on a 40oz Malt liquor every night, so don't tell me poor people can't spend $4 a week on contraceptives.

We have choices, we don't always like them but we have them. You can boycott Hobby Lobby as sure as you can go there and shop. You can choose not to work there. They can choose to pay a fine.

This idea Americans have of what poverty looks like is ridiculous. Someone in Bulgaria would find our poor people lower middle class or even lower class.

I've been hungry. I've been freezing in my life. When the memories of those fade they are like rocket fuel. The memories of being forced to go against your own principles are not.

Now, while you see nothing wrong with contraceptives (and I don't either), some see it the same as abortion which I know is against your principle.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:42 PM
Even if RFRA does apply, the government contends, the contraception mandate does not rise to the level of being a “substantial religious burden” (which is required if the law is to apply) because the companies are significantly removed from an employee’s decision to use contraception. After all, they point out, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga do not directly provide contraception services to their workers. Instead, they offer their employees health insurance that covers a huge array of medical services, including birth control. In addition, any decision to use birth control rests with the employees, not the insurance providers or the companies.


Finally, the government argues, the mandate advances a compelling government interest because it is part of a comprehensive reform of the nation’s health care system, and granting the companies an exemption would deprive some Americans of important benefits provided by that reform. In this case, many women would not receive free contraceptive services, thwarting an important public health goal for the government – that all women have adequate access to effective birth control.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/03/20/health-care-laws-contraception-mandate-reaches-the-supreme-court/

That's what I've been saying.

I'm light years ahead of these dullards, nobody appreciates that.

Alyosha
03-26-2014, 02:45 PM
I have access to birth control. I can buy it online or go to CVS. Is this different in your states junie or Captain Obvious?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:46 PM
I'm not forced to work anywhere. I may prefer to work at company A over company B but I'm not forced to work anywhere. Before anyone starts the "you don't know what it's like to be hand to mouth poor" let me show you something:

http://culturenightlosangeles.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/detroit-house-and-red-parked-car-roof-final-artcat.jpg?w=560


^^Street I grew upon when we landed in the godforsaken shithole known as Detroit. Every third house was burnt out. My parents coming from Communism didn't want to be a drain on society so for years we ate grilled cheese sandwiches 5 nights a week for dinner. To this day I won't eat American cheese on anything. It makes me sick.

I grew up on a block where poor people with kids spent money on a 40oz Malt liquor every night, so don't tell me poor people can't spend $4 a week on contraceptives.

We have choices, we don't always like them but we have them. You can boycott Hobby Lobby as sure as you can go there and shop. You can choose not to work there. They can choose to pay a fine.

This idea Americans have of what poverty looks like is ridiculous. Someone in Bulgaria would find our poor people lower middle class or even lower class.

I've been hungry. I've been freezing in my life. When the memories of those fade they are like rocket fuel. The memories of being forced to go against your own principles are not.

Now, while you see nothing wrong with contraceptives (and I don't either), some see it the same as abortion which I know is against your principle.

And I'll be the first to tell you that I do not have the moral right to force my morality and/or beliefs onto someone else.

Nobody's "religious liberties" are being compromised, nobody is forcing the employer to do anything. This has nothing to do with religious liberties and has everything to do with promoting a right wing social conservative political agenda.

It's too bad you and others keep trying to make it into something it's not. I really thought some of you were smarter than that, but it just goes to show that for the vast majority of people political bias > smarts.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:46 PM
I have access to birth control. I can buy it online or go to CVS. Is this different in your states @junie (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=699) or @Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)?

How the fuck should I know?

I never wore a rubber and I had the old lady spayed a decade ago.

Alyosha
03-26-2014, 02:50 PM
How the fuck should I know?

I never wore a rubber and I had the old lady spayed a decade ago.

You were agreeing with junie and her position is that it is a national priority that women have access to birth control. So I'm asking you what states you live in that your females have no access to a pharmacy or online pharmacy.

$4 a week for birth control if you buy it online (oral contraceptives) and condoms which women like me who can't use oral contraceptive have to use are $6 a box.

In fact, oral contraceptives are cheaper if you have a healthy sex life.

None of these insurance companies are offering to pay for your monthly condoms...why is that? What about me? I have liver issues and cannot use oral contraceptives. Shouldn't it be "fair"? I'd like my boss to pay out $300 a month for condoms since I can go through 2-3 a day if the old boy can hold up.

Alyosha
03-26-2014, 02:52 PM
And I'll be the first to tell you that I do not have the moral right to force my morality and/or beliefs onto someone else.

And how is it doing that by asking people to pay for birth control?

Serious. How am I forcing my morality on you if I say pay for your own contraceptives?

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 02:53 PM
You were agreeing with junie and her position is that it is a national priority that women have access to birth control. So I'm asking you what states you live in that your females have no access to a pharmacy or online pharmacy.

$4 a week for birth control if you buy it online (oral contraceptives) and condoms which women like me who can't use oral contraceptive have to use are $6 a box.

In fact, oral contraceptives are cheaper if you have a healthy sex life.

None of these insurance companies are offering to pay for your monthly condoms...why is that? What about me? I have liver issues and cannot use oral contraceptives. Shouldn't it be "fair"? I'd like my boss to pay out $300 a month for condoms since I can go through 2-3 a day if the old boy can hold up.

Who cares?

It's the mandate. Don't like it? Lobby against it. Why scapegoat the employee?

I don't understand how in good conscious you people are totally happy with forcing the innocent employee, the little guy to adhere to politically driven religious right minority employer especially when the "religious liberty" argument is bullshit.

I've asked this question to others and only the cowards did not answer - but do you really believe this is all about "religious liberty" and has nothing to do with promoting a social conservative political agenda?

Be honest.