If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Conservative business owners win appeal in DC Circuit Court challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 393
    More: Scary, D.C. Circuit, obamacare, individual mandate, contraceptive mandate, Law and Justice, Catholic Faith, birth control, contraceptives  
•       •       •

5018 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2013 at 4:37 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



393 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-01 02:13:05 PM
Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.
 
2013-11-01 02:20:23 PM
Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.

/Somebody didn't think this through.
 
2013-11-01 02:20:41 PM
Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.
 
2013-11-01 02:21:03 PM
But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."
 
2013-11-01 02:21:10 PM
I hate people.
 
2013-11-01 02:23:03 PM
This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.
 
2013-11-01 02:24:39 PM
So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.
 
2013-11-01 02:24:56 PM

Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.


Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.
 
2013-11-01 02:26:53 PM

enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.


I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?
 
2013-11-01 02:27:32 PM
Carl's Jr. is my shepherd; I shall not want.
 
2013-11-01 02:29:20 PM
I should incorporate myself, take out massive loans, declare bankruptcy and walk away from myself to a resort in the Bahamas.
 
2013-11-01 02:30:02 PM
How can a company interject itself between a patient and their doctor and dictate medical policy (via forcing their insurer to not cover something already in the policy in teh first place)?

Isn't that a blatant HIPAA violation?
 
2013-11-01 02:30:31 PM
I can foresee a lot of unintended consequences for this kind of thing.

"Sorry, Jeanine, you'll have to go over to the woman's satellite office while you're on your menses.  Company policy."
 
2013-11-01 02:31:24 PM

Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.


I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.
 
2013-11-01 02:31:52 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


They just hate women.
 
2013-11-01 02:37:11 PM
As a snake handler I refuse to pay for any health coverage beyond a good old fashioned rattle snake dance.
 
2013-11-01 02:37:13 PM

Weaver95: Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.

Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.


It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.
 
2013-11-01 02:38:19 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.


Oh I dunno...watching the DEA try and deal with a rastafarian business would almost be worth the price of admission.
 
2013-11-01 02:40:26 PM
More and more I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
 
2013-11-01 02:43:54 PM

Weaver95: Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.

Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net

"Son, you have NO idea."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-11-01 02:48:38 PM
It's amusing depressing that people buy the idea that business have a right to freedom to religion but not people.
 
2013-11-01 03:03:24 PM
For f*ck sakes, they don't pay for contraception coverage, they pay for not covering it. Belief in a magic dude in the sky really f*cks with these peoples ability to do simple math.
 
2013-11-01 03:06:23 PM
And we wonder why the Senate GOP is 100% dead set on making sure Obama can't appoint anyone to this bench.
 
2013-11-01 03:19:24 PM
This reminds me of The Onion:

Christian Science Pharmacist refuses to fill ANY prescription.
 
2013-11-01 03:28:51 PM

Weaver95: Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.


That would be as odd as the Church selling indulgences... ....
 
2013-11-01 03:29:13 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.


Does that mean my business can deny Viagra coverage for randy old men? That might improve our client relations.
 
2013-11-01 03:37:24 PM
T-Servo:.

Does that mean my business can deny Viagra coverage for randy old men? That might improve our client relations.


They wouldn't do that, old white men run these companies. They only want to punish sluts that have sex for any reason other than procreation.
 
2013-11-01 03:45:25 PM

Sgt Otter: Weaver95: Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.

Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 250x227]

"Son, you have NO idea."


I was thinking more or less along these lines

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-11-01 03:56:43 PM
Stop this world...
 
2013-11-01 03:57:09 PM

Weaver95: enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.

I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?


If evangelicals cared about the message of Christianity there would be no evangelicals.
 
2013-11-01 04:10:09 PM

ginandbacon: Stop this world...


Too bad: They don't want you to get off.
 
2013-11-01 04:24:43 PM
Such hatred is disturbing

I wish we had an FWC thread to cool everyone down.
 
2013-11-01 04:39:23 PM
Religious freedom for thee but not for me?

What in the farking fark is going on?????
 
2013-11-01 04:41:12 PM
Perhaps they should STFU and let those with ovaries decide.
 
2013-11-01 04:41:59 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


Because fark you for having sex,  woman.
 
2013-11-01 04:44:03 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


They think they're the same thing.
 
2013-11-01 04:44:58 PM
So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?
 
2013-11-01 04:46:33 PM

Weaver95: Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.

Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.


Our Steve Jobs, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name...
 
2013-11-01 04:47:04 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


My problem with these idiots is not in the anti-abortion stance, but their position that the government is stomping on their freedoms while they use their freedoms to stomp on someone else's.
 
2013-11-01 04:47:19 PM
And yet there's still no outrage about boner pills, which are directly responsible for the deaths of untold billions of old guy sperm. Maybe not being able to get it up is a message from God?
 
2013-11-01 04:47:23 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


I suspect they consider it your responsibility to wed before copulation and to be a mother and father to the children you sire. To love them, and raise them up proper. Not grind them up in a blender and flush them down a clinic drain. And they object to being made party to such a practice.
 
2013-11-01 04:48:11 PM
Since the Constitution prevents Congress from establishing a religion, I'm sure Scalia will use this chance for the Supreme Court to establish a religion.

/Welcome to Catholicism everybody. Remember: fish on Fridays, Saturday mass covers Sunday so you won't miss football, and you can't lie to nuns.
 
2013-11-01 04:49:18 PM

Clemkadidlefark: I suspect they consider it your responsibility to wed before copulation and to be a mother and father to the children you sire. To love them, and raise them up proper. Not grind them up in a blender and flush them down a clinic drain. And they object to being made party to such a practice.


Contraception is not abortion, please do try to keep up.
 
2013-11-01 04:49:30 PM
I just have one question...

Why are males making these decisions?

I say lets pass a law that says only women can make decisions on VIagra prescriptions and vasectomies.

/it's only fair...
 
2013-11-01 04:49:45 PM
CONTRACEPTIVES!

3.bp.blogspot.com

What are CONTRACEPTIVES doing in this health plan, when I told you NO CONTRACEPTIVES EVERRRRRRRRRRRRR
 
2013-11-01 04:50:04 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


They're pro-consequences for the un-virtuous. It's not a baby, it's a gift. And a punishment. But don't you ever feel resentful for having motherhood forced on you by strangers in political office, you dirty little slut.

They feel the same about healthcare. The hard-working and virtuous people don't get sick.
 
2013-11-01 04:50:42 PM
Interesting case, i'll be watching this one as it goes through the SC. I'm not a fan of the whole Corporations are People idea, but if the Bros are so against contraception they could always decide to sell the company, or just shut it down. I wonder how much the law affects the bottom line of purchasing the policies?
 
2013-11-01 04:51:19 PM
Assassinate the CEO and demand the government now recognize you as the owner according to your Sith religion
 
2013-11-01 04:52:24 PM
I can't wait until someone decides that your tumor is an actual living creature and they won't cover surgery or oncology because that would be killing one of God's greatest gifts.
 
2013-11-01 04:52:57 PM
A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.
 
2013-11-01 04:53:14 PM
a. The Pill.
b. Diaphragm.
C. D&C.
d. IUD.
e. Condom.
f. Sponge.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which one is not like the others ...?
 
2013-11-01 04:53:21 PM
What if, like Ned Flanders, you didn't believe in insurance at all?

What if you considered insurance to be a form of gambling, which you are religiously opposed to?
 
2013-11-01 04:54:38 PM

ShadowKamui: Assassinate the CEO and demand the government now recognize you as the owner according to your Sith religion


The CEO has dissolved the board. The branch managers will have local control.
 
2013-11-01 04:54:40 PM
I can think of some other unfortunate consequences of such a precedent:

1: Equal opportunity employment is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to discriminate against anyone of the wrong beliefs, or who my religion states is inferior.

2: The Fair Housing act is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to keep the "wrong" people out of my neighborhood/HOA/apartments/town.

3: Disabled people offend my god, I demand that I be allowed to remove all wheelchair ramps, accessible doors, etc from my business.

Etc Etc...

In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.
 
2013-11-01 04:54:45 PM
Well, since their opposition is based on solid scientific and medical grounds, I can fully underst... wait... "Religious freedom"?!  Hey, FARK YOU!  Close your business and go start a church, assholes!
 
2013-11-01 04:55:01 PM
Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.
 
2013-11-01 04:55:08 PM
I'd like to see the piece of Catholic dogma that says that providing a health care plan to your employees that includes coverage for contraception is a sin. Because, you know, it doesn't exist. This is purely about butthurt conservatives doing every petty thing they can think of to try to retaliate against that mean old Obama.
 
2013-11-01 04:55:50 PM

cman: Such hatred is disturbing

I wish we had an FWC thread to cool everyone down.


Are you saying these assholes do not deserve the anger being directed towards them?
 
2013-11-01 04:56:35 PM

enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.


Listen... this is the Republicans agenda all along.  Now that people are corporations, they can... and will breed. Then the new corporations will provide jobs for everyone!
 
2013-11-01 04:57:10 PM

R.O.U.S: In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.


My right to swing my fist ends at your face.  Unless my fist is Jesus, in which case it ends someone in your vagina.  Or something.
 
2013-11-01 04:57:13 PM

drop: I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.


STFU and GTFO until you can comprehend the difference between medicine and farking motorcycle riding.
 
2013-11-01 04:57:50 PM
*ends someWHERE in your vagina

damnit
 
2013-11-01 04:58:01 PM

drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.


Really?  You're going to compare human nature and a serious public health issue to riding a motorcycle?!
 
2013-11-01 04:58:08 PM

Ed Grubermann: cman: Such hatred is disturbing

I wish we had an FWC thread to cool everyone down.

Are you saying these assholes do not deserve the anger being directed towards them?


I am saying that people are too hot and we need to have cooler heads prevail
 
2013-11-01 04:58:24 PM
There appears to be a few options to run with for these Gilardi brothers.

If you deny contraceptives to your female employees you it seems only reasonable to honor all forms of necessary maternal leave for said employees. And, since we are playing fair in this country now, that is extended further to all male employees. Done and done.

If you are to claim that your business has a different set of rules because your business is Christian, then the Supreme Court gets will get to decide if religious affiliations are taxable. Which they totally wont, because every company in America would start paying lip service to whatever deity they could think of first and write it off as "FSM's true noodley wish". So, there's that.

How is their denying coverage to employees not forcing their own religion on others? I choke on an french fry and a Christian scientist says, 'Gods will' and lets me die (hyperbole, yes.)

(next subject)

Please supreme court, please go back and rethink this garbage about corporations being people. They aren't.

Though, this does set up a case eventually for one of those salvage and strip companies to pop up in court claiming that their new parent company raped them.
 
2013-11-01 05:00:04 PM
So does this mean I can file suit against them for violating my religious rights for denying me abortion and contraceptives? I like where this is going!
 
2013-11-01 05:00:14 PM

theknuckler_33: I'd like to see the piece of Catholic dogma that says that providing a health care plan to your employees that includes coverage for contraception is a sin. Because, you know, it doesn't exist. This is purely about butthurt conservatives doing every petty thing they can think of to try to retaliate against that mean old Obama.


I'd like to hear the Pope tell them to STFU, since apparently he didn't say it quite clearly enough, or use small enough words, last time.
 
2013-11-01 05:00:25 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

52% legal only under certain circumstances
26% legal under any circumstances
20% not legal under any circumstances

With only 26% thinking it should be open access in all situations, err...
 
2013-11-01 05:00:52 PM

R.O.U.S: In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.


Which right or freedom was being impinged?  The right to have someone else buy you stuff?
 
2013-11-01 05:00:54 PM

SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.


Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.
 
2013-11-01 05:01:07 PM

drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.


Unlike farking, motorcycling is not basic human nature.
 
2013-11-01 05:01:12 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.


Oh come on. Those aren't real religions. This is a Christian nation under the true faith.
 
2013-11-01 05:02:33 PM
I'm trying to think of something snarky to say but I just don't have it me anymore.

There's no fixing this. Burn it all down and start over.
 
2013-11-01 05:02:47 PM

kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."


Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.
 
2013-11-01 05:03:58 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


It's like abstinence-only gun control.  It's about finding a way to effectively ban something that's legal.
 
2013-11-01 05:04:29 PM

chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?


This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.
 
2013-11-01 05:05:03 PM

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


Does the employer's insurance pay for Viagra, Cialis, etc?  I bet it does.
 
2013-11-01 05:05:24 PM

Weaver95: I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?


Who woulda thunk that putting religion in your politics results in putting politics in your religion.
 
2013-11-01 05:06:00 PM

drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.


Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron.  The pill can protect against cancer, help keep the skin clear, and ease the symptoms of PMS.
 
2013-11-01 05:06:11 PM
So how many businesses and companies are owned by Muslims in America and can they all now impose Sharia law on their employees?
 
2013-11-01 05:06:16 PM

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


Are you as outraged that those same people have been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for high blood pressure or asthma medicine or for discounts on gym memberships?
 
2013-11-01 05:06:17 PM

leevis: Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


Birth control is part of healthcare, and, as such, is covered under healthcare insurance. Family planning is a huge portion of any woman's life, health and well-being. If you don't understand this, then STFU and GTFO.
 
2013-11-01 05:06:27 PM
Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.  If Gilardi's doesn't want to fund insurance benefits for contraception or abortion and the courts agree with them, then folks can suck it (and make them pay the wage premium that would provide for personal funding of this very personal benefit). Plenty of employers legally offer no health benefits at all.

One might complain that neither position should be allowed, but even in the twilight of Obamacare, that argument is going nowhere quickly, at least as a practical matter of politics being "the art of the possible".

Let's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.
 
2013-11-01 05:07:03 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ginandbacon: Stop this world...

Too bad: They don't want you to get off.


No kidding.
 
2013-11-01 05:07:58 PM

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


The "special education" classes you took in high school have obviously failed you. Special rights refers to demanding unique personal exceptions from the law and ACA is the law.
 
2013-11-01 05:08:23 PM

Cupajo: Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron


And even if it is, it's still heath care. A woman is under risks of all sorts of adverse outcomes through pregnancy. A woman's ability to choose when and how frequently she is pregnant is a huge portion of her health care.
 
2013-11-01 05:08:30 PM
I'm sure many companies (people after all) have religious objections to treating disease and insist you must pray it away. They will now succeed in escaping paying for any healthcare.

Yeah Freedom!
 
2013-11-01 05:08:32 PM
Corporations don't have a religion. Corporations are a legal fiction.

If you form a corporation you are literally asking the big bad government to alter the rules of reality and create a new person, and then make that person take on all the bad things that could happen to your business, shielding you for the most part. I'm of the opinion that if you want the government to do that for you, you can play by the government's rules. Don't like it? Make it a sole proprietorship and face the perils of business your own damn self.
 
2013-11-01 05:08:53 PM

chapman: R.O.U.S: In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.

Which right or freedom was being impinged?  The right to have someone else buy you stuff?


Most employers require their employees to pay into the plans, but for some reason the employees don't get any say in what is covered by those plans?
 
2013-11-01 05:09:13 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


Their families probably made their fortune by making sure the other people in town lived in poverty and could not save up enough money to invest or save. They probably did it by promoting their church and shaming whoever refused to attend. Also, over decades they probably endorsed all kinds of ideas about women's roles as child bearers, so half of every poor household felt obligated to have children and deepen their own family's legacy of poverty.

As the years went by contraception and abortion threatened the Freshway Owning Families monopolistic control of real estate and media and higher education in their little feudal county. Some of them probably realize how they are exploiting the poor through their religious messages and high rent and company town culture. Some of them probably believe the messages are true and can't figure out why everyone doesn't have big families and lots of money - despite not realizing how monopolies work based on the class consciousness of the people who are governed by them.

And that is how they justify their uterototalitarianism's narrow ideological hellscape, I bet.
 
2013-11-01 05:09:29 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?


Because enslavement would infringe on their rights.

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers drug coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers transfusion coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.
 
2013-11-01 05:10:38 PM
Nothing is 100% effective.....condoms, the Pill, IUD's. There is a risk someone using contraception could get pregnant and decide to abort the fetus. Why would the owner of a corporation who doesn't believe in abortion want to find someone's contraception? Having sex is a personal choice. You want to have sex, accept the consequences. Get your own contraception.
The owner of the company has a right to set the rules. You don't like it, start your own business and run it the way you want. Or better yet, buy your own insurance.
/my gf had a hysterectomy
//I'm good
 
2013-11-01 05:11:00 PM
 But women folk are just baby an sammich factories. It's in tha bible. If -n- you ain't gettin jiggy for jesus, you're gettin jiggy with tha devil!!!

Or some such nonsense.
 
2013-11-01 05:11:07 PM

iodine: Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.  If Gilardi's doesn't want to fund insurance benefits for contraception or abortion and the courts agree with them, then folks can suck it (and make them pay the wage premium that would provide for personal funding of this very personal benefit). Plenty of employers legally offer no health benefits at all.

One might complain that neither position should be allowed, but even in the twilight of Obamacare, that argument is going nowhere quickly, at least as a practical matter of politics being "the art of the possible".

Let's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.


A box is obviously missing its tool.
 
2013-11-01 05:11:56 PM

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


No. Just stop with the false equivalence. You don't retain any control over the cash you just spent on groceries. You can't tell the grocery store how to spend it.

The employer pays some of the costs of insurance. It is a form of compensation for the employees' labor that does not come close to making up for the way wages have been artificially depressed by 1) tax policy, 2) unconscionable policies - trade and taxation - that favor exporting jobs, 3) stupid corporate tax policy, 4) naked, unchecked greed, and 5) union-busting.
The minimum standards for health insurance policies are what they are, just as corporations have to live with the minimum wage.

Whether and how an employee uses her compensation is not any of the corporation's farking business.

/As noted above, they aren't blocking coverage for penis pills.
 
2013-11-01 05:12:07 PM

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control. However, it also covers vasectomies - but people only get pissed off about the women's birth control. So, yeah, there's a bit of a sexist thing going on from the conservatives.

That being said, it is a little disingenuous to specifically call out birth control coverage for women. It's a realpolitik solution, though. Easier access to birth control for women pays off a lot more than vasectomies in the long run, statistically, both for the patient and for their families.
 
2013-11-01 05:13:07 PM

iodine: If Gilardi's doesn't want to fund insurance benefits for contraception or abortion and the courts agree with them, then folks can suck it


I wonder if they pay 100% of the premiums. I highly doubt it. Why don't the employees that likely contribute much towards those premiums get a say in what is covered? Providing a health care plan that covers contraception isn't a violation of your religious freedom since you are still free to now use contraception. There is nothing in Catholic dogma that says you can't spend any money on contraception for someone else to use if they want to.
 
2013-11-01 05:14:05 PM

jjorsett: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

Because enslavement would infringe on their rights.

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers drug coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers transfusion coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.


I'm a Klan business owner, why do I have to serve black customers and hire black employees?

Oh, right, because I asked the government to create an entirely fictional person (i.e. my business's corporate entity) to protect myself from most liability. So I want the government to do that for me, but I don't want to play by the government's rules. Bullshiat.
 
2013-11-01 05:14:56 PM

Weaver95: enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.

I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?


Hasn't stopped them yet.
 
2013-11-01 05:15:47 PM

LectertheChef: Weaver95: enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.

I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?

Hasn't stopped them yet.


Logic isn't their strong point.
 
2013-11-01 05:16:05 PM
Conservative Stingy and hateful business owners win appeal in DC Circuit Court challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate

Now it's more accurate.
 <a rel="nofollow" class="outbound_link" target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" goto="" 8000649="" www.theatlanticwire.com="" politics="" 2013="" 11="" anti-birth-control-employer-just-beat-obamacare-court="" 71176="" "="">
 
2013-11-01 05:16:51 PM
And I have no idea what that shiat is under my comment.
 
2013-11-01 05:19:31 PM
Im not a lawyer, but isn't there a lot of precedent that goes against this?

Im thinking of 2 cases, the Rastafarians who wanted to smoke pot (no) and the Amish who wanted to not have reflectors on their buggies (amish lost)
 
2013-11-01 05:19:42 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: And I have no idea what that shiat is under my comment.


Secret NSA code.  Now they are going to come for you!
 
2013-11-01 05:20:17 PM
My favorite thing about this is if it passes then companies can just declare a Pentecostalism based healthcare system.  Faith Healing for everyone!
 
2013-11-01 05:20:30 PM

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.


It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?
 
2013-11-01 05:20:35 PM
I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!
 
2013-11-01 05:21:24 PM
Sew the fish holes up!!!!

/save the whales!
 
2013-11-01 05:23:32 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.
 
2013-11-01 05:23:44 PM

R.O.U.S: I can think of some other unfortunate consequences of such a precedent:

1: Equal opportunity employment is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to discriminate against anyone of the wrong beliefs, or who my religion states is inferior.

2: The Fair Housing act is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to keep the "wrong" people out of my neighborhood/HOA/apartments/town.

3: Disabled people offend my god, I demand that I be allowed to remove all wheelchair ramps, accessible doors, etc from my business.

Etc Etc...

In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.


There is a concept called "begging the question."  In all seriousness, you might want to familiarize yourself with it.

Separately, your "hypotheticals" have all been litigated, and the business owners lost.

Even more separately, this is maybe the millionth reason our employer-provided health care system is stupid.
 
2013-11-01 05:24:23 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.


I'm Irish Catholic, and my religion specifically denies allowing birth control coverage. I also can't hire prosperity gospel heretics unless they agree to convert. I also get to charge other heretics extra and deny services to others. (depending on religion)

Just wait, it gets worse. As an extremely devout Catholic, I also don't believe in anything but faith healing. Therein, I can't be forced to give out any coverage because it would be denying my religious rights.
 
SH
2013-11-01 05:25:31 PM
How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.
 
2013-11-01 05:25:51 PM

theorellior: chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.


This is about people getting their preferred method of birth control paid for by their employer through insurance.This is not about people getting chemo under their insurance, so please feel free to STFU yourself.
 
2013-11-01 05:27:06 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


Fark 'em!  If they don't like it then they need to get behind a national single payer system so that they no longer carry the burden.  But, of course, they wouldn't do that because soshulizum overwhelms their two braincells.
 
2013-11-01 05:28:01 PM

iodine: Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.  If Gilardi's doesn't want to fund insurance benefits for contraception or abortion and the courts agree with them, then folks can suck it (and make them pay the wage premium that would provide for personal funding of this very personal benefit). Plenty of employers legally offer no health benefits at all.

One might complain that neither position should be allowed, but even in the twilight of Obamacare, that argument is going nowhere quickly, at least as a practical matter of politics being "the art of the possible".

Let's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.


people can shoot the fertilized egg right out of them!
 
2013-11-01 05:28:40 PM
My god tells me that all fat people are servants of Satan.  Is there an insurance plan that excludes coverage of Satan worshipers who show their love of Satan by having Type II Diabetes?
 
2013-11-01 05:29:14 PM

SH: How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.


Huh? My employer pays for part of my blue cross insurance.

My boss cant look up my medical records.
 
2013-11-01 05:29:26 PM
@theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet. 

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.
 
2013-11-01 05:29:40 PM

Cupajo: drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.

Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron.  The pill can protect against cancer, help keep the skin clear, and ease the symptoms of PMS.


My ex used birth control because of poly-cystic ovarian syndrome or something like that.
 
2013-11-01 05:29:48 PM

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.


I am not sure what constitutes "Catholic dogma" and I'll bet you are even less sure.  But in 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say about the mandate.

The Catholic bishops of the United States called "literally unconscionable" a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.


http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm
 
2013-11-01 05:30:17 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


No it doesn't. It only puts a substantial burden on their ability to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
 
2013-11-01 05:30:21 PM
So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?
 
2013-11-01 05:30:27 PM

drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.


Time to change your mind then

My motorcycle policy allows for discounts for protective gear - and medical is part of that plan.

btw? try not to conflate why women shouldn't be "getting off" and motorcycles - it makes you sound squeeky.
 
2013-11-01 05:30:36 PM

chapman: theorellior: chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.

This is about people getting their preferred method of birth control paid for by their employer through insurance.This is not about people getting chemo under their insurance, so please feel free to STFU yourself.


I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.
 
2013-11-01 05:31:02 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.



I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?
 
2013-11-01 05:31:43 PM

MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?


Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?
 
2013-11-01 05:32:12 PM

SH: How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.


HIPPA:
www.atomicnerds.com
 
2013-11-01 05:32:25 PM

Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.


Wouldn't that be a logical extension of a corporation-friendly SCOTUS that's already decided that corporations have the right to freedom of expression?
 
2013-11-01 05:34:06 PM

iodine: @theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet. 

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.


Yeah, and that might result in something if there's a union contract in play.  If not,  hahahaha....  Yeah, just find another job.  "Great idea!", said the person without a clue!
 
2013-11-01 05:34:18 PM
D&Cs aren't just used for abortion. I have needed them for (looks around, sighs) 'lady issues' post miscarriage. I would have died without them.

Women with endometriosis and related issues need the Pill to manage the incredible pain and bleeding - so they can work, not be on welfare.

WTF is wrong with your country, Americans? You used to be the cool kid everyone admired in high school. Now you are creepy born again freaky weird at the reunion.

/ I know you aren't all that way, but it seems a majority must be when these decisions get made
// your decisions frankly scare the hell out of me
 
2013-11-01 05:34:56 PM

vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.


I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.
 
2013-11-01 05:35:00 PM

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


I'm sure somebody has already replied to this, but, do you realize that that insurance companies would rather pay for birth control than to have a baby? Want to know why? It's insanely expensive to have a baby! Your premiums will rise if this goes through
 
2013-11-01 05:35:41 PM

DubyaHater: Nothing is 100% effective.....condoms, the Pill, IUD's. There is a risk someone using contraception could get pregnant and decide to abort the fetus. Why would the owner of a corporation who doesn't believe in abortion want to find someone's contraception? Having sex is a personal choice. You want to have sex, accept the consequences. Get your own contraception.
The owner of the company has a right to set the rules. You don't like it, start your own business and run it the way you want. Or better yet, buy your own insurance.
/my gf had a hysterectomy
//I'm good


That would sound much better if you included "corporate business owners who enjoy tax breaks, lowering their contribution to social service programs who provide assistance for unintended babies of workers who are underpaid and didn't want children for that very reason"
 
2013-11-01 05:36:01 PM
Why can't adults make their own decisions?
 
2013-11-01 05:36:21 PM
Cases like this are why the U.S. needs a Constitutional amendment stating that wholly legal persons are inherently inferior to natural persons and therefore, may not enjoy either Constitutional protections nor be granted a reasonable approximation of them by any statute, regulation or collection of same.
 
2013-11-01 05:36:26 PM
theorellior: And yet there's still no outrage about boner pills, which are directly responsible for the deaths of untold billions of old guy sperm. Maybe not being able to get it up is a message from God?

The argument there is that boner pills treat a bodily malfunction and restore a normal bodily function. Birth control, especially hormonal birth control, interferes with a normal bodily function.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just sharing their justification.
 
2013-11-01 05:37:28 PM
If a corporation claims personhood, then it should have no trouble substantiating this claim by demonstrating it can perform some act that the average person is capable of doing. I call this the twerk test. Go on, shake that tax-exempt money maker like the naughty corporealation you supposedly are.
 
2013-11-01 05:37:32 PM

iodine: @theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet.

o.O

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.

Obviously, in your mind, we have a system where there are more jobs than people or an equal number of jobs and people, which means that the power in employer-employee relationship is at parity.
In reality, the power has been tipped more and more in favor of employers over the past nearly four decades.

This is not a seller's market for labor.
Asserting that it is, or that the relative power of employers and employees is at parity, is pants-on-fire on head potato.
 
2013-11-01 05:37:39 PM

chapman: vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.

I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.


Well, great!  See, that wasn't such a big deal.  Oh, wait, now they are actually playing doctor and telling you how you can be treated with a medication.  That is exactly where we don't want any business, TYVM!
 
2013-11-01 05:39:43 PM

keypusher: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

I am not sure what constitutes "Catholic dogma" and I'll bet you are even less sure.  But in 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say about the mandate.

The Catholic bishops of the United States called "literally unconscionable" a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm


Rhen get out of the money making business. Problem solved
 
2013-11-01 05:40:22 PM

acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?


Let's see how far you can fly setting wages below minimum.
 
2013-11-01 05:40:33 PM

acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?


Like minimum wage?
 
2013-11-01 05:42:05 PM

ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?


I lurv you almost as much as another farkette lurvs treif, you brilliant person.
 
2013-11-01 05:42:20 PM

vrax: chapman: vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.

I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.

Well, great!  See, that wasn't such a big deal.  Oh, wait, now they are actually playing doctor and telling you how you can be treated with a medication.  That is exactly where we don't want any business, TYVM!


That's exactly wrong.  If it is for a medical purpose for issues other than just birth control, the business would have no say.
 
2013-11-01 05:43:23 PM

Phins: The argument there is that boner pills treat a bodily malfunction and restore a normal bodily function.


It's obviously God's will that your dick failed.  We should cover things that go against God's will!
 
2013-11-01 05:43:45 PM

keypusher: R.O.U.S: I can think of some other unfortunate consequences of such a precedent:

1: Equal opportunity employment is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to discriminate against anyone of the wrong beliefs, or who my religion states is inferior.

2: The Fair Housing act is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to keep the "wrong" people out of my neighborhood/HOA/apartments/town.

3: Disabled people offend my god, I demand that I be allowed to remove all wheelchair ramps, accessible doors, etc from my business.

Etc Etc...

In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.

There is a concept called "begging the question."  In all seriousness, you might want to familiarize yourself with it.

Separately, your "hypotheticals" have all been litigated, and the business owners lost.

Even more separately, this is maybe the millionth reason our employer-provided health care system is stupid.


This is why it would be best if they just did away with all the stupid rules on health care companies.   Let them compete across state lines like every other company and level the playing field by making an individuals health care coverage expenses tax deductible.  That way I can insure myself and family at terms that make sense for me without stepping on other people's religious freedom, or have my company, or government force me to buy something I don't want... you know some sort of free enterprise type thing.   I'm just getting tired of all this farking socialism.  It doesn't work theoretically, hasn't ever worked when it's been tried in reality, and never will work for a free people.  The most basic bottom line is that once you do anything as a collective you give up your personal freedom.  We have decided that we will collectively provide healthcare.  Guess what, that means we have lost our personal freedom when it comes to healthcare, only the collective matters.  Now your only option is to pray that your political enemies don't take control of it.
 
2013-11-01 05:44:38 PM

Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.


Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?
 
2013-11-01 05:44:52 PM

acohn: Cases like this are why the U.S. needs a Constitutional amendment stating that wholly legal persons are inherently inferior to natural persons and therefore, may not enjoy either Constitutional protections nor be granted a reasonable approximation of them by any statute, regulation or collection of same.


I agree, but as long as money is speech and the political winners are the ones who collect the most of it, it will never change.
 
2013-11-01 05:45:00 PM

keypusher: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

I am not sure what constitutes "Catholic dogma" and I'll bet you are even less sure.  But in 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say about the mandate.

The Catholic bishops of the United States called "literally unconscionable" a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm


The problem with this is the Catholic Bishops can afford to take this stance - they are celibate men (no pedo jokes, 'k?)
There are PLENTY of Catholic families that practice family planning - they are as removed from reality as certain "but I have a nice house" congressmen.
 
2013-11-01 05:45:01 PM

chapman: vrax: chapman: vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.

I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.

Well, great!  See, that wasn't such a big deal.  Oh, wait, now they are actually playing doctor and telling you how you can be treated with a medication.  That is exactly where we don't want any business, TYVM!

That's exactly wrong.  If it is for a medical purpose for issues other than just birth control, the business would have no say.


Birth control is a prescribed medical treatment.  Business can fark itself!
 
2013-11-01 05:47:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?

I lurv you almost as much as another farkette lurvs treif, you brilliant person.


LOL right back atcha lovey!!!!
 
2013-11-01 05:48:26 PM

acohn: Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.

Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?


It's a good question, and I have  no idea what the answer is.
 
2013-11-01 05:49:00 PM
Buy your own damn rubbers, you dirty hippies
 
2013-11-01 05:49:16 PM

keypusher: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

I am not sure what constitutes "Catholic dogma" and I'll bet you are even less sure.  But in 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say about the mandate.

The Catholic bishops of the United States called "literally unconscionable" a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm


I grew up Catholic and went to 12 years of Catholic school. I even have a nun in my family.  I know it pretty well. Interesting that the Conference of Catholic Bishops didn't cite anything in the bible or catechism or papal writings or anything to explain why such coverage 'violates their conscious', don't you think?
 
2013-11-01 05:49:46 PM
The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?

I know someone who opposed to both. Here's her "logic."

Sex with birth control puts a barrier between you and your partner and you can't give yourself fully if there's something between you. This type of sex, with a barrier, is bad for you. Also, any sexual activity that is not the type that could lead to pregnancy (P in V) is bad for you. She knows this is true for everyone on the planet. Use Natural Family Planning only and accept the possibility of pregnancy or don't have sex.

She also believes that hormonal BC and IUDs cause abortion because it might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The fact that the medical definition of pregnancy is that it occurs on implantation is irrelevant because it's wrong. The considerable medical evidence that hormonal BC does NOT prevent implantation is not good enough. There would have to absolute proof that no fertilized egg could ever not implant and, needless to say, there is no evidence/proof that would satisfy her.

She will also say that "people need to control themselves" which leads to the real objection: people are having sex just for fun without the threat of pregnancy. According to her, people who are not willing to have a child if pregnancy occurs shouldn't have sex. Everyone should just be abstinent until marriage and then use NFP.

She doesn't care that this is wildly unrealistic and has never worked in the entire history of humankind. That's the standard and we shouldn't lower the standard, people should live up to the standard. This is what's best for you.
 
2013-11-01 05:49:46 PM
Time to get a new job.
 
2013-11-01 05:50:10 PM

Phins: theorellior: And yet there's still no outrage about boner pills, which are directly responsible for the deaths of untold billions of old guy sperm. Maybe not being able to get it up is a message from God?

The argument there is that boner pills treat a bodily malfunction and restore a normal bodily function. Birth control, especially hormonal birth control, interferes with a normal bodily function.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just sharing their justification.


yes, ok
an erection is a bodily function to what purpose? i mean, we've all seen the ads - it isn't to make your pants fit better or to pee with greater flow.
Hormonal birth control has more medical necessity than an erection - unless having one helps regulate the prostate or something.
The Pill does not interfere with a normal body function - women still ovulate and menstruate - the only thinking behind that is that pregnancy is a normal body function and for many women, it isn't and never will be.
 
2013-11-01 05:52:22 PM

Phins: The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?

I know someone who opposed to both. Here's her "logic."

Sex with birth control puts a barrier between you and your partner and you can't give yourself fully if there's something between you. This type of sex, with a barrier, is bad for you. Also, any sexual activity that is not the type that could lead to pregnancy (P in V) is bad for you. She knows this is true for everyone on the planet. Use Natural Family Planning only and accept the possibility of pregnancy or don't have sex.

She also believes that hormonal BC and IUDs cause abortion because it might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The fact that the medical definition of pregnancy is that it occurs on implantation is irrelevant because it's wrong. The considerable medical evidence that hormonal BC does NOT prevent implantation is not good enough. There would have to absolute proof that no fertilized egg could ever not implant and, needless to say, there is no evidence/proof that would satisfy her.

She will also say that "people need to control themselves" which leads to the real objection: people are having sex just for fun without the threat of pregnancy. According to her, people who are not willing to have a child if pregnancy occurs shouldn't have sex. Everyone should just be abstinent until marriage and then use NFP.

She doesn't care that this is wildly unrealistic and has never worked in the entire history of humankind. That's the standard and we shouldn't lower the standard, people should live up to the standard. This is what's best for you.


Make sure to label her somehow so that the public will know to avoid at all costs.
 
2013-11-01 05:52:50 PM

ginandbacon: demaL-demaL-yeH: ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?

I lurv you almost as much as another farkette lurvs treif, you brilliant person.

LOL right back atcha lovey!!!!


Only eleven seconds from a simultaneous Nixon,YouDolt!-gasm.
/This really doesn't happen to me: My comments are usually minutes late(r).
 
2013-11-01 05:53:02 PM

capn' fun: So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?


No, you and your wife and your daughter and her SO get to decide that by whatever legal means available.  That's a separate issue of whether an employer, particularly a non-publicly-held stock corporation, must pay for those means.
 
2013-11-01 05:53:11 PM
Also, the Atlantic article is misleading.

The majority specifically declined to hold that a corporation possessed the right to free exercise of its religious belief.  See p. 15.  So this has nothing to do with the "corporations aren't people" argument.

The article did at least contain a link to the opinion, which should be mandatory in news articles discussing judicial opinions.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/947B9C4D8A1E54E78 52 57C16004E80C9/%24file/13-5069-1464136.pdf
 
2013-11-01 05:54:01 PM

chapman: theorellior: chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.

This is about people getting their preferred method of birth control paid for by their employer through insurance.This is not about people getting chemo under their insurance, so please feel free to STFU yourself.


Birth control: Does it require a doctor's approval? Does it impact a woman's health and well-being? Is pregnancy a medical condition that carries risks and should be assumed with care? Why, yes, to all of the above, so kindly fark yourself with a cactus if you think that contraception is basically a hedonistic luxury that only sluts would want to obtain for free. If someone pays for health insurance through their labor, as part of their compensation from their employer, then all health procedures should be covered. Including birth control and boner pills.
 
2013-11-01 05:54:15 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ginandbacon: demaL-demaL-yeH: ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?

I lurv you almost as much as another farkette lurvs treif, you brilliant person.

LOL right back atcha lovey!!!!

Only eleven seconds from a simultaneous Nixon,YouDolt!-gasm.
/This really doesn't happen to me: My comments are usually minutes late(r).


I saw that. Next time we are SO simulposting!
 
2013-11-01 05:55:08 PM

timelady: D&Cs aren't just used for abortion. I have needed them for (looks around, sighs) 'lady issues' post miscarriage. I would have died without them.

Women with endometriosis and related issues need the Pill to manage the incredible pain and bleeding - so they can work, not be on welfare.

WTF is wrong with your country, Americans? You used to be the cool kid everyone admired in high school. Now you are creepy born again freaky weird at the reunion.

/ I know you aren't all that way, but it seems a majority must be when these decisions get made
// your decisions frankly scare the hell out of me


Too many people  who put themselves ad religion ahead of doing the right thing.
 
2013-11-01 05:55:09 PM

shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!


I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.
 
2013-11-01 05:55:51 PM

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.


Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.
 
2013-11-01 05:56:01 PM
This means that Jehovah's Witness owned business can exclude coverage of blood transfusions and organ transplants.

Real smart jurisprudence there, Lou.
 
2013-11-01 05:56:34 PM

pacified: Time to get a new job.


and they insist the reason why women are underpaid is because they are more prone to leave employment....lol
 
2013-11-01 05:59:15 PM

BigGrnEggGriller: Buy your own damn rubbers, you dirty hippies


What?!  It's an over the counter solution.  Unless your doctor applies them, insurance doesn't pay for your Band-Aids either.
 
2013-11-01 06:00:12 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


except they don't -
go ahead and look at how many of them have more than a handful of children.
my granparents' parents were practicing catholics - they had (two couples) 23 children collectively.

they may frown on their employees sin of birth control but i'd bet the farm they either practice it themselves or are jealous they aren't getting laid enough to populate a classroom going w//o protection.
 
2013-11-01 06:00:18 PM
I suggested employers do experience the consequences of their compensation and benefits decisions.  I think this goes beyond reproductive healthcare but that's just me and beyond the scope of this thread.

In response to certain counterarguments:

a) Yes, I agree that collective bargaining (unions by another name) makes this reckoning often but not always happen more quickly.  In the case of contraceptive or abortion benefits, this is probably more strongly the case since one, perhaps unintentional, result of Gilardi's approach is an all male workforce; women much more quickly and directly bear the impact of the denial of reproductive services benefits.

b) Yes, I agree that cyclical factors also play a role in terms of when an employer's behavior becomes consequential.  I made no claim about whether there are more workers than jobs or etc.

Regardless of the truth of (a) and (b), I don't think that takes away from the truths that an employer is entitled to a great degree of latitude (within existing law) about what benefits are provided and how they are allotted; and, that the process of determining all forms of compensation are improved when labor (in all its organized or unorganized forms) is given a voice in the process.
 
2013-11-01 06:00:49 PM
 
2013-11-01 06:00:55 PM

zedster: Weaver95: Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.

That would be as odd as the Church selling indulgences... ....


Older even.  Selling sacrificial offerings at the temple, etc.  Jesus was pissed yo.
 
2013-11-01 06:01:22 PM

kbronsito: So how many businesses and companies are owned by Muslims in America and can they all now impose Sharia law on their employees?


I bet that's in the back of every SCOTUS justice's mind, too.
 
2013-11-01 06:03:17 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Then they should be told to get out of business and pursue and strictly religious calling.
 
2013-11-01 06:05:45 PM

vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?


One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?
 
2013-11-01 06:05:49 PM
fc02.deviantart.net

As many as ONE IN TEN WOMEN have polycystic ovary syndrome, and one common treatment for it is hormone therapy by birth control! PCOS is connected to cancer and type two diabetes.

Sometimes, it's not about having sex. SOMETIMES, it's about just trying to be healthy and survive, for god's sake!
 
2013-11-01 06:06:21 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon. It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Thankfully, it's not the employers who are providing the access to contraception, but a health plan from a third party bought and paid for by a legally fictional entity distinct from the person of the owner(s).

A fictional entity that cannot, I might add, hold any sort of beliefs whatsoever.
 
2013-11-01 06:06:31 PM
It's not scary, it's common sense,

obama and the rest need to stay the fark out of everyones business...
or, they soon be regulating and taxing how much toilet paper use per dump.

we won't have a square to spare
 
2013-11-01 06:07:43 PM

umad: shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!

I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.


Why?
 
2013-11-01 06:07:49 PM

iodine: result of Gilardi's approach is an all male workforce;


Then they will experience a new "hand of God" when the government is in up to their colons with a fine tooth comb over those hiring practices.
 
2013-11-01 06:08:02 PM

keypusher: "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.


Aren't there already federal statutes that grant exemptions to groups run by religious organizations for laws and regulations that run counter to their religious teachings?  I know there are on the state level, but obviously, that doesn't apply in this matter.
 
2013-11-01 06:08:04 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Because easier access to contraception correlates with lower overall expenditures by society. Bang-for-buck-wise the contraceptive mandate is actually one of the biggest ways the ACA is going to save the country money. It's not the prettiest provision from a theoretical perspective, but it's spot on from a practical one.
 
2013-11-01 06:09:50 PM

MonoChango: umad: shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!

I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.

Why?


Because it would save us a shiatload of money and drastically lower crime.
 
2013-11-01 06:10:19 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Go sit in the corner until you understand something, anything, about the practice of medicine and its personal and societal impacts.
 
2013-11-01 06:13:14 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


One can also live without medical care of any kind - and many thousands do, daily.
The prescription doesn't say that, actually. The insert does - it outlines all the potential complications (which include death).
You know what else screws up a woman's body? Pregnancy - potential complications also include death.
You pay for my estrogen and I will pay for your eventual diabetes/blood pressure/prostate/cancer/steroid therapy meds
Hormonal therapy does, in fact, improve personal health - and it absolutely improves society - by every measure available.
 
2013-11-01 06:13:58 PM
Don't want to pay for women's contraceptives? Don't offer health insurance, give everyone a raise commensurate with what they wouldhave spent on health ins. And tell everyone to buy their own damn plans.

Problem solved.
 
2013-11-01 06:14:30 PM
chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

Does the fact that birth control is cheaper than pregnancy change your mind? Or the fact that you pay for childbirth and child care for poor people in the form of higher premiums (to make up for the people who can't pay), food stamps, WIC, welfare, etc.? When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens.

A model developed by Global Health Outcomes that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs found that covering contraception saves employers $97 per year per employee.

From the HHS report on The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance:  "Unintended pregnancy and childbearing depress levels of educational attainment and labor force participation among mothers and lead to higher crime rates and poorer academic, economic, and health outcomes among children,"

Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?

Because it's basic health care, provided by a doctor, by prescription. Are you aware that the pill treats a wide-range of medical conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy? Are you aware that pregnancy can be medically dangerous, even life-threatening, for some women?
 
2013-11-01 06:14:53 PM

ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?


My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?
 
2013-11-01 06:15:53 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Also, the health plans cover boner pills. You can live without those. It also covers vasectomies, another thing you can live without. In fact, it covers a whole bunch of things that you can live without, but which improve the quality of life for everyone in the country and reduce the costs of and burdens on the health care system in the long run.
 
2013-11-01 06:16:35 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Yea, sorry. It doesn't work that way. You can't just make up your beliefs as you go along and then expect the laws of the land to bend to your whims.
 
2013-11-01 06:16:37 PM

timelady: D&Cs aren't just used for abortion. I have needed them for (looks around, sighs) 'lady issues' post miscarriage. I would have died without them.

Women with endometriosis and related issues need the Pill to manage the incredible pain and bleeding - so they can work, not be on welfare.

WTF is wrong with your country, Americans? You used to be the cool kid everyone admired in high school. Now you are creepy born again freaky weird at the reunion.

/ I know you aren't all that way, but it seems a majority must be when these decisions get made
// your decisions frankly scare the hell out of me


Money took over our politics, turned the middle class against the poor, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
 
2013-11-01 06:16:56 PM

acohn: ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?

My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?


No.
 
2013-11-01 06:20:19 PM
Thinking it through a little further, and I'm glad for the dialogue that educates me, I think employer provided health benefits, as designed now, do discriminate against women because women will more immediately and consequentially experience the consequences of the denial of reproductive health care services than their male colleagues and/or their employer.

I am still uneasy about the idea that the federal government is the proper agency to level the field.  I still do think the court reached the right decision in this particular case.

I apologize for suggesting that anyone should just suck it up.
 
2013-11-01 06:20:38 PM

acohn: Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.

Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?


Corporations still shield their owners from personal liability, public or private. If you're shielded from liability, your employees should be shielded from your capriciousness.
 
2013-11-01 06:21:31 PM

Kit Fister: Don't want to pay for women's contraceptives? Don't offer health insurance, give everyone a raise commensurate with what they wouldhave spent on health ins. And tell everyone to buy their own damn plans.

Problem solved.


They'll probably still claim that "their money" is going towards birth control and abortions.
 
2013-11-01 06:21:59 PM

Nadie_AZ: I should incorporate myself, take out massive loans, declare bankruptcy and walk away from myself to a resort in the Bahamas.


So long as you drive there in a biatchin' Camaro, it's all good.
 
2013-11-01 06:22:35 PM

MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?


Have you ever purchased prescription toohpaste? I have. My insurance had a co-pay amount for that toothpaste...Next dumb example of how you have no concept of the realities being discussed.
 
2013-11-01 06:24:23 PM

James!: I can foresee a lot of unintended consequences for this kind of thing.

"Sorry, Jeanine, you'll have to go over to the woman's satellite office while you're on your menses.  Company policy."


What do you mean UNintended consequences?
 
2013-11-01 06:25:11 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Well, and here's a problem, there's no substantial burden involved in providing free contraception. Not to mention the fact that corporations cannot be religious.
 
2013-11-01 06:26:37 PM

Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?


Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.
 
2013-11-01 06:28:45 PM
Health care plans are already regulated through ERISA. Corporations have no "right to expression" when it comes to federal regulations when it comes to minimum wages or equal opportunity employment. This ruling would let corps practice racial discrimination because they have a right to express their racial preferences. And I'm sure that's what these conservatives are actually lobbying for as revenge for LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act.
 
2013-11-01 06:29:07 PM

iodine: Thinking it through a little further, and I'm glad for the dialogue that educates me, I think employer provided health benefits, as designed now, do discriminate against women because women will more immediately and consequentially experience the consequences of the denial of reproductive health care services than their male colleagues and/or their employer.

I am still uneasy about the idea that the federal government is the proper agency to level the field.  I still do think the court reached the right decision in this particular case.

I apologize for suggesting that anyone should just suck it up.


Well, if left to the states, it's going to be a 50 flavor disaster like we have now.  To call healthcare in the US a system is laughable at best.  We still can't even get billing right.  "World's Greatest" my ass!
 
2013-11-01 06:29:20 PM
MonoChango: If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?

It DOES help our collective society.

From the HHS report  The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance


Each year, public funding for family planning prevents about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies.  Preventing these pregnancies results in 860,000 fewer unintended births, 810,000 fewer abortions and 270,000 fewer miscarriages.  More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly-funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care services upon pregnancy.  Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.


and there's this:


"Unintended pregnancy and childbearing depress levels of educational attainment and labor force participation among mothers and lead to higher crime rates and poorer academic, economic, and health outcomes among children,"


So, it saves money, increases education attainment, lowers the crime rate, improves the economy and improves child health. I'd say that benefits our collective society.
 
2013-11-01 06:29:44 PM

keypusher: theknuckler_33: http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm

Read on then.


http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/march-14-st at ement-on-religious-freedom-and-hhs-mandate.cfm


Indeed I did. Still missing the part where providing a health care plan that includes contraception coverage violates church teachings. They say it did, but not how.  Which is kind of funny as you'd think that would be pretty important... you know, a little reminder to everyone.  Additionally interesting is how that letter so clearly points out that their problem is with the mandate. You'd think if providing health care plans that include contraception were against church teachings, there'd be some kind of warning to Catholic employers not to willingly provide such coverage.
 
2013-11-01 06:29:50 PM

Lord Dimwit: Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.


I see your point - perhaps the reason is more women will use b/c as a temporary method while men who opt for permanent sterility are still much less common?
maybe we should find out if tubal ligation is covered to accurately compare apples to apples? (be warned? most doctors refuse this option to women under a certain age)
 
2013-11-01 06:31:01 PM

acohn: keypusher: "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Aren't there already federal statutes that grant exemptions to groups run by religious organizations for laws and regulations that run counter to their religious teachings?  I know there are on the state level, but obviously, that doesn't apply in this matter.


Only to the churches themselves.  Catholic schools like say, Notre Dame or Stubenville, are not considered Religious Institutions by HHS for purposes of the mandate.  Even though both institutions are owned by religious orders.  BYU would be in a similar boat I believe, since it's not directly owned by the LDS church.
 
2013-11-01 06:33:15 PM

Kit Fister: Don't want to pay for women's contraceptives? Don't offer health insurance, give everyone a raise commensurate with what they wouldhave spent on health ins. And tell everyone to buy their own damn plans.

Problem solved.


I agree with this. But in our current society it would probably end up as companies dumping insurance, not giving any sorts of raises, and conservatives yelling at the sick to get better jobs or get busy dying.
 
2013-11-01 06:33:57 PM

parasol: Lord Dimwit: Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.

I see your point - perhaps the reason is more women will use b/c as a temporary method while men who opt for permanent sterility are still much less common?
maybe we should find out if tubal ligation is covered to accurately compare apples to apples? (be warned? most doctors refuse this option to women under a certain age)


Tubal ligation is specifically covered under the same mandate as hormonal birth control. Basically, one can be performed without a co-pay and must be offered if possible. I feel like the same requirements should've been in place for vasectomies.

(citation: "Contraception FAQ" by the National Women's Law Center)
 
2013-11-01 06:35:30 PM
Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)
 
2013-11-01 06:36:14 PM

Lord Dimwit: I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't.


There is a seriously large chasm between hormonal birth control and a vasectomy.  If you were talking about tubal ligation, then I'd be with you.
 
2013-11-01 06:36:58 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Did you miss what I posted, or do you choose to be wilfully obtuse? Or are you just barely functional?

It IS a health issue. Even without pregnancy as a risk (pregnancy can be very risky health wise for woman and fetus), what about single women not having sex who STILL require it for their health (endometriosis, PCOS, other issues requiring D&C, hormonal birth control side effect of helping with endo, etc).

Again, I have to ask you, do you bother educating yourself before spouting your opinionated crap, or just persuading yourself that you are an articulate intelligent human while showing all evidence to the contrary? Or do I need to show sympathy to you because you are functionally sub human in intelligence?
 
2013-11-01 06:37:52 PM

Literally Addicted: My problem with these idiots is not in the anti-abortion stance, but their position that the government is stomping on their freedoms while they use their freedoms to stomp on someone else's.


But this is a typical liberal mindset:  that health insurance your employer is paying for somehow discriminates against you if your employer doesn't want to pay for something.  You are free to go get your own insurance, but this doesn't occur to the liberal mind.  They are so used to the idea of someone else being in control of their life that the very suggestion that they do something on their own terrifies them.

Employer-based health insurance is not a right.  It's not a "freedom."  It's a dependency an employee places on the employer.
 
2013-11-01 06:38:13 PM

theorellior: Clemkadidlefark: I suspect they consider it your responsibility to wed before copulation and to be a mother and father to the children you sire. To love them, and raise them up proper. Not grind them up in a blender and flush them down a clinic drain. And they object to being made party to such a practice.

Contraception is not abortion, please do try to keep up.



He can't fathom what a vaccine is, I don't think he's ready to learn about contraceptives yet.
 
2013-11-01 06:39:03 PM

Lord Dimwit: parasol: Lord Dimwit: Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.

I see your point - perhaps the reason is more women will use b/c as a temporary method while men who opt for permanent sterility are still much less common?
maybe we should find out if tubal ligation is covered to accurately compare apples to apples? (be warned? most doctors refuse this option to women under a certain age)

Tubal ligation is specifically covered under the same mandate as hormonal birth control. Basically, one can be performed without a co-pay and must be offered if possible. I feel like the same requirements should've been in place for vasectomies.

(citation: "Contraception FAQ" by the National Women's Law Center)


Is this the same mandate they are trying to get out of?

There was a certain farkette who begged her doctor for tubal ligation and was told "you might change your mind so, no". Women I know who got one w/o fuss/lecture already had more than 2 children and were already scheduled for a birth - it is far more invasive than wire snipping.

They should be covered equally - however, the social perceptions are vas deferense.
 
2013-11-01 06:41:01 PM

keypusher: The majority specifically declined to hold that a corporation possessed the right to free exercise of its religious belief.  See p. 15.  So this has nothing to do with the "corporations aren't people" argument.


Then on what basis did the court decide that the Gilardis could challenge the law as business owners?  Judge Randolph's concurrence that "emphasizes that the status of the Gilardis' companies as subchapter S corporations gives special force to the conclusion that they are individually burdened."  seems to support the notion that natural and legal persons are interchangeable under the law.
 
2013-11-01 06:41:32 PM

ShadowKamui: Assassinate the CEO and demand the government now recognize you as the owner according to your Sith religion


Wrong religion.
4.bp.blogspot.com
You keep what you kill.
 
2013-11-01 06:42:32 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: a. The Pill.
b. Diaphragm.
C. D&C.
d. IUD.
e. Condom.
f. Sponge.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which one is not like the others ...?


What is that, Duck & Cover? As in, what you say to your lady just as you pull out?
 
2013-11-01 06:42:37 PM

SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)


Why should women have lower coverage than men?
 
2013-11-01 06:46:12 PM
I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?
 
2013-11-01 06:46:24 PM
Corporations are people?  Let me know when the first one goes to prison.  And then they should also be taxed at the same rate as people.  And only in some states will same-sex corporations be allowed to merge.
 
2013-11-01 06:46:56 PM

Lsherm: Literally Addicted: My problem with these idiots is not in the anti-abortion stance, but their position that the government is stomping on their freedoms while they use their freedoms to stomp on someone else's.

But this is a typical liberal mindset:  that health insurance your employer is paying for somehow discriminates against you if your employer doesn't want to pay for something.  You are free to go get your own insurance, but this doesn't occur to the liberal mind.  They are so used to the idea of someone else being in control of their life that the very suggestion that they do something on their own terrifies them.

Employer-based health insurance is not a right.  It's not a "freedom."  It's a dependency an employee places on the employer.


FFS, you are so full of shiat!  it is compensation for services rendered and is usually subsidized by varying degrees by the employee!  An employee should feel put out if the plan(s) offered do not meet their medical requirement.   As things stand right now, the employer is free to offer equivalent cash compensation so that employees can shop for their own coverage.
 
2013-11-01 06:47:25 PM

ginandbacon: SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)

Why should women have lower coverage than men?


why should women have to wait to time their fertility to re-enrollment schedules - which are generally once a year?  looking at you school-teachers who time their birth dates to summer....

also? if birth control is covered as a "cash bonus" plan - are any medical complications (clots, strokes) not covered?
 
2013-11-01 06:48:34 PM

Lord Dimwit: Thankfully, it's not the employers who are providing the access to contraception, but a health plan from a third party bought and paid for by a legally fictional entity distinct from the person of the owner(s).

A fictional entity that cannot, I might add, hold any sort of beliefs whatsoever.


The district court agrees with you: "While we decline the Freshway companies' invitation to accept Townley's ipse dixit that closely held corporations can vindicate the rights of their owners, we understand  the impulse. The free exercise protection-a core bulwark of freedom-should not be expunged by a label. But for now, we have no basis for concluding a secular organization can exercise religion." (p. 15 of the court decision).

But clearly, that's not the basis of the court's decision.  Somehow, the personal injury to the business owners that the court recognized gave the owners the right to impose their views on the business.
 
2013-11-01 06:50:17 PM

the money is in the banana stand: I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?


the problem here? you, as a pedestrian are PROTECTED by cross walks, sidewalks,medians, lights and signs YOU didn't pay for exclusively because they are considered protection for the greater good.

bad analogy.
 
2013-11-01 06:51:01 PM

the money is in the banana stand: I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?


Let's see, prescription medication, motorcycle gear, rock climbing gear, scuba gear.

Sesame Street had a song about this.  Not sure that you are old enough for Sesame Street yet.
 
2013-11-01 06:51:19 PM

ginandbacon: acohn: My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?

No.


Then why do different types of insurance plans for business exist?  Why do sr. executives and the officers of a corporation frequently get better coverage than low-level employees?
 
2013-11-01 06:51:22 PM

acohn: Somehow, the personal injury to the business owners that the court recognized gave the owners the right to impose their views on the business.


An opinion which probably will be overturned on appeal.
 
2013-11-01 06:54:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: acohn: Somehow, the personal injury to the business owners that the court recognized gave the owners the right to impose their views on the business.

An opinion which probably will be overturned on appeal.


We can only hope!
 
2013-11-01 06:55:37 PM
In a perfect world, sanctimonious social conservatives would be deported to a special island where they can pass all those famly valyers laws that they like. Not like it would do anything for them, because most of the (few) women that support their views are well beyond menopause.

Their so-called morals are strictly for control of women, nothing else. It's absolutely not because they LURVE JAYZUSS  or feel pity for those po' li'l bay-beez, or even getting brownie points to fast-track them to heaven.

These suit-wearing  pampered assholes are just as bad or worse than those commie dictators that they rail against.
 
2013-11-01 06:55:46 PM

Pitabred: acohn: Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.

Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?

Corporations still shield their owners from personal liability, public or private. If you're shielded from liability, your employees should be shielded from your capriciousness.


Then why did Judge Randolph, in his concurring opinion, emphasize that the status of the Gilardis' companies as subchapter S corporations gives special force to the conclusion that they are individually burdened? (http://tinyurl.com/n53huly)
 
2013-11-01 06:55:52 PM

SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)


Yes, let's set up a completely separate, parallel system instead of including it in the already existing one. Because that always works out well.
 
2013-11-01 06:56:03 PM
Acohn makes a great point I'd neglected about how Gilardi's, as a subchapter S corporation, "is especially burdened".  I hadn't waddled into the whole "corporations are legal persons (or not) debate" but I can say from personal experience that whether one is Subchapter S or not, the government, in particular the Treasury department, will find responsible an individual, biological human or human(s) PERSONALLY responsible whenever they THINK they are owed money, whether or not they are actually entitled to it, corporate veil or no.

In the case of some companies, or corporations, Subchapter S or no, there is no meaningful difference between sole proprietorship and incorporated status.  There is no meaningful "corporate veil".  Even if there is, there is no practically meaningful defense (other than settlement) from the costs of the litigation of those who think there is no difference, YOU are the one to be held accountable for their "harm".

--All the more reason why the court made the right decision.
 
2013-11-01 06:57:00 PM

acohn: ginandbacon: acohn: My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?

No.

Then why do different types of insurance plans for business exist?  Why do sr. executives and the officers of a corporation frequently get better coverage than low-level employees?


Why do child labor laws exist? Or OSHA regulations? Or the Family Medical Leave Act? Or overtime laws? Or antidiscrimination laws? Or oh heck, fire alarms?
 
2013-11-01 07:03:20 PM

Clemkadidlefark: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.

I suspect they consider it your responsibility to wed before copulation and to be a mother and father to the children you sire. To love them, and raise them up proper. Not grind them up in a blender and flush them down a clinic drain. And they object to being made party to such a practice.


And here I thought contraception was about preventing pregnancy rather than terminating it... Silly ol' me... Because that would mean they were more interested in telling me the employee when I could have sex (or else!) and have nothing to do with actually ending a life, unless you believe that a life begins before conception-- which is some real predestination crazy at work there...
 
2013-11-01 07:03:49 PM

iodine: Acohn makes a great point I'd neglected about how Gilardi's, as a subchapter S corporation, "is especially burdened".  I hadn't waddled into the whole "corporations are legal persons (or not) debate" but I can say from personal experience that whether one is Subchapter S or not, the government, in particular the Treasury department, will find responsible an individual, biological human or human(s) PERSONALLY responsible whenever they THINK they are owed money, whether or not they are actually entitled to it, corporate veil or no.

In the case of some companies, or corporations, Subchapter S or no, there is no meaningful difference between sole proprietorship and incorporated status.  There is no meaningful "corporate veil".  Even if there is, there is no practically meaningful defense (other than settlement) from the costs of the litigation of those who think there is no difference, YOU are the one to be held accountable for their "harm".

--All the more reason why the court made the right decision.


LMFAO!  So, their corporate status defines the level of imposition the law places upon their religious freedom.  You can't make up seriously stupid shiat like that.
 
2013-11-01 07:03:58 PM

vrax: the money is in the banana stand: I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?

Let's see, prescription medication, motorcycle gear, rock climbing gear, scuba gear.

Sesame Street had a song about this.  Not sure that you are old enough for Sesame Street yet.


Please. Outside of being raped, having sex and getting pregnant is a choice. If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it. If I want to go to Vegas and gamble, I do it on my money. When I run out of money or when luck doesn't go my way, that is my responsibility. I don't get that pawn that responsibility off on others like a immature child.
 
2013-11-01 07:05:27 PM

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


You may not realize it (in fact, I'd bet that you do not), but you're using one (or both) of two arguments here: either you're arguing that birth control isn't part of basic healthcare, or you're arguing that that there's no government mandate to provide healthcare to its citizens somehow.  Or else you're being very coy and what you really mean is you think we should just go to a single-payer system, but that seems unlikely.  This is because if you accepted that (1) there's a legitimate mandate for the US government to provide healthcare for its citizens somehow, (2) birth control is legitimately part of basic healthcare, and (3) a single-payer system, however much simpler and more logical that it might be, isn't feasible given the current political climate, then the conclusion that (4) all businesses should be required to include birth control along with the other healthcare they are required to provide their employees is inevitable.

So you must be taking issue with one of the three assertions I listed.  Please tell us, specifically, which one you object to, or else stop wasting our time with "actually derp derp derp" blather.  I'm quite fond of the word "actually," as it happens, and I hate to see it so abused.

Incidentally, the "you hate women" criticism comes into play with assertion #2.  So keep in mind that if you take issue with assertion #2 and do not provide very cogent reasons why you think birth control should not be considered basic healthcare, then yes, the natural conclusion to reach will be that you either hate women or are a complete idiot.
 
2013-11-01 07:05:44 PM

the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.


Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?
 
2013-11-01 07:08:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?


You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?
 
2013-11-01 07:09:14 PM

acohn: Pitabred: acohn: Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.

Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?

Corporations still shield their owners from personal liability, public or private. If you're shielded from liability, your employees should be shielded from your capriciousness.

Then why did Judge Randolph, in his concurring opinion, emphasize that the status of the Gilardis' companies as subchapter S corporations gives special force to the conclusion that they are individually burdened? (http://tinyurl.com/n53huly)


I said should. Not that they are. And Judge Randolph ruled that because he's an ideologue idiot. If they are individually morally burdened, they can stop their corporation and take personal liability for everything in the business.

If I feel it's my moral right to sell my daughter into slavery, that doesn't mean the law supports it. Really strong feelings have no place in law.
 
2013-11-01 07:09:34 PM

parasol: ginandbacon: SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)

Why should women have lower coverage than men?

why should women have to wait to time their fertility to re-enrollment schedules - which are generally once a year?  looking at you school-teachers who time their birth dates to summer....

also? if birth control is covered as a "cash bonus" plan - are any medical complications (clots, strokes) not covered?


1.) I guess we could mandate that women can spend the money on whatever they want and men have to be required at gunpoint to buy condoms so that they have the same costs?

2.) Under my grand plan they can have birth control all year long or just blow that money on coke and have lots of kids!  or be school teachers and only buy coke 9 months before summer!  (Also in general maternity leave is a completely separate issue from birth control, I don't see anyone making anything except a 'I don't want to pay for it' case against maternity leave.)

3.) Whatever is covered by health insurance otherwise is covered, this would be an isolated one off because among the health care debate there seem to be the broad "EVERYONE GETS IT" and "DIE IN A FIRE" stances and the only single item that people seem to not want to pay for if they're in the "EVERYONE GETS IT" camp is birth control.  Also, while I think having Viagra etc covered is frivolous, it's at least internally consistent logic if you're anti abortion as birth control prevents children and Viagra makes the act possible for some.


Pitabread
Yes, let's set up a completely separate, parallel system instead of including it in the already existing one. Because that always works out well.

It would solve the problem that is being posed which is 'religious conservatives don't want to pay directly for birth control' everyone gets their money, conservatives don't have to directly pay for it.  I fully understand that a much easier simple solution is "Their moral beliefs are wrong and shouldn't count because I want my birth control paid for" but I'm simply pointing out something that addresses the actual legitimate issue here (people want their birth control paid for).  Besides, the health care law is already a trillion pages long, I could write this up in 10-12 tops.
 
2013-11-01 07:10:28 PM
I realize this thread is about a legal challenge for insurance coverage for birth control by corporations who feel it violates their personal code of morality.

Some posters have indicated their confusion as to why they ought to help pay for this - ignoring the fact that their insurance premiums (car, house, boat) already paid for other's behavior they find irresponsible.

You may feel there is some vast pool of unmarred women who are healthy and getting busy with regularity - and you'd be right. That isn't the issue....

The issue is that we, as a collective body called "americans" understand that women who work, who require insurance, who are fertile will be lessened in fundamental ways if corporations are allowed to refuse coverage for something that becomes an essential part of our lives early on and lasts, monthly, for many decades.

You want a productive country, you want to pay less for support programs, you want fewer abortions - and yet some of you refuse to look at other countries and see that when women control when they have children makes these very things possible - your pat response is "i dont want to pay for some slut to get off" and I wonder how you look at the women in your life and deny them health care, a healthy sex life and children they plan for and look forward to - and then call it "morality" or equate it to skiing and motorcycle helmets.

It is pennies on the dollar for a better society that includes healthy happy female partners for you in business and in person.
 
2013-11-01 07:10:33 PM

the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?


Because it's cheaper for us as a whole to have those measures covered, especially for lower-income women. When contraceptives are available, the birth rate in lower-income areas decreases and that lowers a whole lot of other problems. Not to mention that it's a basic service that most (if not all) industrialized nations provide as a matter of course.
 
2013-11-01 07:11:58 PM

Cupajo: drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.

Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron.  The pill can protect against cancer, help keep the skin clear, and ease the symptoms of PMS.


TMI, but relevant:

This, so much. The reason I'm not on antidepressants right now is birth control pills. One week a month, I would have what my husband and I referred to as "hell week," where I'd experience some extreme mood swings. (We're talking borderline suicidal and depressed.) I also had horrible migraines. My OB/GYN put me on a new low-dose birth control pill and had me take it so that I have no period at all. The result? I have fewer migraines and no mood swings. Hubby will likely be getting a vasectomy in the future, but I've already begged my doctor to keep me on these pills for as long as possible. The benefits go far beyond simple birth control.

Bonus: "Suicidal tendencies" are a side effect for a lot of psychiatric meds, but not for birth control. A lot of women on antidepressants may simply need some form of hormone therapy instead.
 
2013-11-01 07:12:02 PM

Lsherm: Employer-based health insurance is not a right.  It's not a "freedom."  It's a dependency an employee places on the employer.


LMAO! Yea, the employer is bending to the will of the employee. That's rich.
 
2013-11-01 07:12:28 PM

the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?


Because it's none of your business just like the rest of an individual's healthcare!
 
2013-11-01 07:14:36 PM

iodine: Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.


You do realize, I hope, that just because you SAY an argument is erroneous doesn't make it so, nor is it very likely to convince many people who, until you spoke, found it pretty persuasive.


iodineLet's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.

The gist of your actual argument seems to be "birth control is no more healthcare than a gun is," which isn't so much erroneous as ridiculous.

Or do you feel that I have not represented your main argument fairly?  If so, then by all means take the time to clear up the misconception.
 
2013-11-01 07:15:50 PM

SamFlagg: parasol: ginandbacon: SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)

Why should women have lower coverage than men?

why should women have to wait to time their fertility to re-enrollment schedules - which are generally once a year?  looking at you school-teachers who time their birth dates to summer....

also? if birth control is covered as a "cash bonus" plan - are any medical complications (clots, strokes) not covered?

1.) I guess we could mandate that women can spend the money on whatever they want and men have to be required at gunpoint to buy condoms so that they have the same costs?

2.) Under my grand plan they can have birth control all year long or just blow that money on coke and have lots of kids!  or be school teachers and only buy coke 9 months before summer!  (Also in general maternity leave is a completely separate issue from birth control, I don't see anyone making anything except a 'I don't want to pay for it' case against maternity leave.)

3.) Whatever is covered by health insurance otherwise is covered, this would be an isolated one off because among the health care debate there seem to be the broad "EVERYONE GETS IT" and "DIE IN A FIRE" stances and the only single item that people seem to not want to pay for if they're in the "EVERYONE GETS IT" camp is birth control.  Also, while I think having Viagra etc covered is frivolous, it's at least internally consistent logic if you're anti abortion as birth control prevents children and Viagra makes the act possible for some.


Pitabread
Yes, let's set up a completely separate, parallel system instead of including it in the al ...


You are either insane or an asshole pr both and I am done with you.
 
2013-11-01 07:18:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?

Because it's cheaper for us as a whole to have those measures covered, especially for lower-income women. When contraceptives are available, the birth rate in lower-income areas decreases and that lowers a whole lot of other problems. Not to mention that it's a basic service that most (if not all) industrialized nations provide as a matter of course.


I just don't agree with the logic that people can do stupid shiat and because they either cannot or don't want to pay for it, can choose not to and everyone else has to pay for it. I don't want to see this logic expanded and I think it encourages bad behavior.
 
2013-11-01 07:20:12 PM

DubyaHater: The owner of the company has a right to set the rules


img.4plebs.org
Ok, so you're a complete idiot.  Moving on.
 
2013-11-01 07:20:15 PM

supayoda: Cupajo: drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.

Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron.  The pill can protect against cancer, help keep the skin clear, and ease the symptoms of PMS.

TMI, but relevant:

This, so much. The reason I'm not on antidepressants right now is birth control pills. One week a month, I would have what my husband and I referred to as "hell week," where I'd experience some extreme mood swings. (We're talking borderline suicidal and depressed.) I also had horrible migraines. My OB/GYN put me on a new low-dose birth control pill and had me take it so that I have no period at all. The result? I have fewer migraines and no mood swings. Hubby will likely be getting a vasectomy in the future, but I've already begged my doctor to keep me on these pills for as long as possible. The benefits go far beyond simple birth control.

Bonus: "Suicidal tendencies" are a side effect for a lot of psychiatric meds, but not for birth control. A lot of women on antidepressants may simply need some form of hormone therapy instead.


I have so many friends who have gone through your same experience. It's brutal and should be treated as an emergency.
 
2013-11-01 07:20:42 PM

the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?

Because it's cheaper for us as a whole to have those measures covered, especially for lower-income women. When contraceptives are available, the birth rate in lower-income areas decreases and that lowers a whole lot of other problems. Not to mention that it's a basic service that most (if not all) industrialized nations provide as a matter of course.

I just don't agree with the logic that people can do stupid shiat and because they either cannot or don't want to pay for it, can choose not to and everyone else has to pay for it. I don't want to see this logic expanded and I think it encourages bad behavior.


ask me how i know you aren't an insured driver in florida
 
2013-11-01 07:20:44 PM
@vrax

Sure I can.  It's the law, whether that suits your aesthetic prejudices or not.  The latest court decision is just another affirmation of that law.

Here's how it goes, however stupid or not:

In a (usually small) business, agencies of the executive branch reserve the right to decide, all by themselves, that an individual person is a "control person" (that's their wording) and that there is a "unity of interest" (their wording again) between a "control person" and a company, partnership or corporation.

In that event, as an inarguable fact of law, there in NO difference between a "control person" and their corporation.  They can and will find the "control person" jointly and severally liable for whatver liability they'd like to hang onto the corporate person from whom the "control person" earns their living.

LMFAO all you like, just remember that at least three, unskilled amateur social engineers, otherwise known as judges, just laughed out loud at your position.
 
2013-11-01 07:23:02 PM

vrax: iodine: Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.  If Gilardi's doesn't want to fund insurance benefits for contraception or abortion and the courts agree with them, then folks can suck it (and make them pay the wage premium that would provide for personal funding of this very personal benefit). Plenty of employers legally offer no health benefits at all.

One might complain that neither position should be allowed, but even in the twilight of Obamacare, that argument is going nowhere quickly, at least as a practical matter of politics being "the art of the possible".

Let's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.

A box is obviously missing its tool.


Let's narrow it down a bit.  It's not a particularly sharp one.
 
2013-11-01 07:23:35 PM

DubyaHater: Nothing is 100% effective.....condoms, the Pill, IUD's. There is a risk someone using contraception could get pregnant and decide to abort the fetus. Why would the owner of a corporation who doesn't believe in abortion want to find someone's contraception? Having sex is a personal choice. You want to have sex, accept the consequences. Get your own contraception.
The owner of the company has a right to set the rules. You don't like it, start your own business and run it the way you want. Or better yet, buy your own insurance.
/my gf had a hysterectomy
//I'm good


Well, there's always the alternative of having the baby in the company bathroom and then leaving it in the dumpster outside the building...

/Not something I would do.
//But there are people who actually do this because they don't feel like they have any other alternative.
///Also, as previously mentioned... Birth control pills are not exclusively used for having the care-free sex. They're also used to treat a variety of other medical issues.
 
2013-11-01 07:24:15 PM

vrax: the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?

Because it's none of your business just like the rest of an individual's healthcare!


These plans would be more expensive and therefore it is my business. You can do whatever the fark you want to do, I don't care, but that doesn't make it my responsibility as an employer to cover everything you do. There is such a thing as personal responsibility and accountability. Currently, my girlfriend pays for her own birth control. I don't expect someone to cover that for me. If we don't use any sort of contraceptive, that's our fault and no one else's. If you cannot afford to do something, don't do it.
 
2013-11-01 07:26:37 PM
Well my ignore list is much richer tonight.
 
2013-11-01 07:27:07 PM

shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!


Contraception is not the same thing as abortion, unless you believe that life somehow begins before sperm meets egg.
 
2013-11-01 07:28:38 PM

shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!


If this were about abortion and not birth control, I could respect that.  Disagree, but still, respect your opinion.

Since this is NOT about abortion, however, I have a problem with your reasoning.

Of course, you didn't really give an argument for one to tale issue with, which is probably just as well.
 
2013-11-01 07:28:53 PM
@ciberido
Regarding the connection between a universal, government mandated, employer provided health benefit (of any kind) and the same for an "every home shall own a shotgun" law, yes, I am practicing reductio ad absurdum.  Guilty as charged.

Once upon a time though, some places did have laws about how any homeowner would own a mastiff, keep X# suits of armor on hand, and so on.  In hindsight, they seem to be silly people too, but maybe that worked for some of them.
 
2013-11-01 07:29:35 PM

the money is in the banana stand: I just don't agree with the logic that people can do stupid shiat and because they either cannot or don't want to pay for it, can choose not to and everyone else has to pay for it. I don't want to see this logic expanded and I think it encourages bad behavior.


Who says they cannot or will not pay for it? And who says it's "bad behavior" except your religion?
 
2013-11-01 07:29:44 PM

iodine: Acohn makes a great point I'd neglected about how Gilardi's, as a subchapter S corporation, "is especially burdened".  I hadn't waddled into the whole "corporations are legal persons (or not) debate" but I can say from personal experience that whether one is Subchapter S or not, the government, in particular the Treasury department, will find responsible an individual, biological human or human(s) PERSONALLY responsible whenever they THINK they are owed money, whether or not they are actually entitled to it, corporate veil or no.

In the case of some companies, or corporations, Subchapter S or no, there is no meaningful difference between sole proprietorship and incorporated status.  There is no meaningful "corporate veil".  Even if there is, there is no practically meaningful defense (other than settlement) from the costs of the litigation of those who think there is no difference, YOU are the one to be held accountable for their "harm".

--All the more reason why the court made the right decision.


I used to work on a dairy farm, and I know manure when I encounter it.
Compliance with the law does not harm them. They are free to worship as they please. Their ability to profit is also not impaired. Any harm they claim is purely imaginary.

They aren't allowed to set compensation (of any kind) below the minimum required by law, no matter what their religion dictates. They are running a company, not holding worship services. If they were to set compensation below the minimum required by law, it would constitute real harm to their employees and employees' families.

The DC court farked up. Big time.

Freedom of religion does not include a right to impose yours on anybody else: I'm Jewish, and this comment will be my final one for today. Should you respond after sunset, I'm not allowed to put you to death, per Exodus 31:15. The law of the land, which guarantees us both freedom of religion, quite rightly forbids it.

/Shabbat shalom, farkdom.
 
2013-11-01 07:31:42 PM
ginandbacon: You are either insane or an asshole pr both and I am done with you.

I guess I'm not sure why.....in my plan, if your employer plan covers birth control, great, if it doesn't your employer is required to basically give you a subsidy which you can choose to use on buying birth control or not.

Is it terribly convenient? No.  Are people who aren't using that money to pay for birth control going to spend it on other things? Yes.

But the entire point is you get the money, you spend it on whatever the hell you want to spend it on.  Your problem is solved, unless your actual problem isn't that "you want your birth control paid for" but is instead "you want people who are opposed to birth control to pay for it and know they are paying for it and they can go to hell."

(For real, I'm not sure why I'm insane or an asshole on this, the federal government put out a billion pages on healthcare and my suggestion was "Fine, make the employer pay a subsidy to the employee if they don't want to pay directly for contraception or have the employer cover it in their health care option, their choice" logically its going to cost employers who have it included in the plan less than the subsidy is going to cost them out of pocket in the long run.)
 
2013-11-01 07:34:02 PM

the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?

Because it's cheaper for us as a whole to have those measures covered, especially for lower-income women. When contraceptives are available, the birth rate in lower-income areas decreases and that lowers a whole lot of other problems. Not to mention that it's a basic service that most (if not all) industrialized nations provide as a matter of course.

I just don't agree with the logic that people can do stupid shiat and because they either cannot or don't want to pay for it, can choose not to and everyone else has to pay for it. I don't want to see this logic expanded and I think it encourages bad behavior.


To compare sex with motorcycle riding, ,etc. is to trivialize the whole of human history and human nature simply in the service of making a stupid point about personal responsibility.  I know it sounds simple to you, but it's not.  You and your ilk's hardline, punitive approach is a losing bet against humanity and we are worse for it.  Simply from the practical standpoint of healthcare cost reduction, providing this coverage is an undeniable win, but it goes far, far beyond that.  This is one of those places where religion crosses over and becomes an evil, counter to human interest and progression, all in the name of that which is certainly not tangible and may very well not even exist.  We're definitely here and we need to serve us!
 
2013-11-01 07:37:11 PM

ciberido: DubyaHater: The owner of the company has a right to set the rules

[img.4plebs.org image 250x272]
Ok, so you're a complete idiot.  Moving on.


And you're a bigger idiot for having nothing constructive to say. I guess you learned your debate skills in a middle school bathroom stall
/Moving on
 
2013-11-01 07:39:41 PM

Weaver95: enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.

I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?


First to god, second to corporation, third to self. God begat corporations and corporations enslave selves.
 
2013-11-01 07:40:35 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


Well someone has to breed all those unplanned for white babies so rich infertile couples can adopt (take) them from their poor abstinence-only-educated biological parents. Did you think The Handmaiden's Tale was just fiction? For some people that book expresses their deepest wishes for this country's future.

"Infant Adoption: A permanent solution to an often temporary problem."
 
2013-11-01 07:40:40 PM

keypusher: Also, the Atlantic article is misleading.

The majority specifically declined to hold that a corporation possessed the right to free exercise of its religious belief.  See p. 15.  So this has nothing to do with the "corporations aren't people" argument.

The article did at least contain a link to the opinion, which should be mandatory in news articles discussing judicial opinions.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/947B9C4D8A1E54E78 52 57C16004E80C9/%24file/13-5069-1464136.pdf



It doesn't explicitly state that a corporation is a person with the right to religious practice, but it's still a bad decision.  It asserts that having the minimum standards in place for health insurance (that includes contraception) is a substantial burden to religious practice with little justification, and it hand waves away the public interest those requirements serve.
 
2013-11-01 07:40:46 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I used to work on a dairy farm, and I know manure when I encounter it.
Compliance with the law does not harm them. They are free to worship as they please. Their ability to profit is also not impaired. Any harm they claim is purely imaginary.

They aren't allowed to set compensation (of any kind) below the minimum required by law, no matter what their religion dictates. They are running a company, not holding worship services. If they were to set compensation below the minimum required by law, it would constitute real harm to their employees and employees' families.

The DC court farked up. Big time.

Freedom of religion does not include a right to impose yours on anybody else: I'm Jewish, and this comment will be my final one for today. Should you respond after sunset, I'm not allowed to put you to death, per Exodus 31:15. The law of the land, which guarantees us both freedom of religion, quite rightly forbids it.

/Shabbat shalom, farkdom.


Shalom to you, too.

Do you burn or bash straw men on the Sabbath?  You've made a right Jewish pinata of one.

It seems to me the point of this thread is that an employer believed that compliance with a recently enacted law would create for that employer a conflict of conscience as informed by their religious beliefs.  They exercised their lawful right for a redress of grievance through the most conventional legal channels, specifically a court. The responsible authority, after hearing all available evidence and arguments, said, in so many words, "Yup! Ya'll can forget about the latest legislative reform."

Maybe they did make a mistake.  I'll not be so presumptuous as you.  I wasn't there.  I'm not a judge.
 
2013-11-01 07:41:41 PM

jjorsett: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

Because enslavement would infringe on their rights.

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers drug coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers transfusion coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.


And if those kids don't like working in a sweatshop, they should work somewhere else, right?

Go fark yourself. Employees get protections. Don't like it? Don't start a business. This isn't Dickens.
 
2013-11-01 07:43:32 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Once again... There are a vast number of health benefits to contraception that have nothing to do with birth control. I began taking them ages before I was ever having sex for a number of medical reasons, including heavy bleeding to the point where I'd get sick. Over the years, said medication has been adjusted to lower dosage to prevent migraines and extreme mood swings-- something I'd have otherwise been required to take antidepressants for, which likely wouldn't have improved my condition and comes with scarier side effects.

/I've never taken chemo. Why should I pay for yours? I've never had a vasectomy. Why should I pay for yours? I've never had knee surgery. Why should I pay for yours? I've never taken antidepressants. Why should I pay for yours? Do you have any idea how high your health insurance costs work? I'm guessing no.
 
2013-11-01 07:44:04 PM

Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.


I hope not...but if they do then that kind of precedent will come back to bite business owners eventually. Think of all the creative ways smart customers & employees could use this against them too...
 
2013-11-01 07:44:46 PM

iodine: @vrax

Sure I can.  It's the law, whether that suits your aesthetic prejudices or not.  The latest court decision is just another affirmation of that law.

Here's how it goes, however stupid or not:

In a (usually small) business, agencies of the executive branch reserve the right to decide, all by themselves, that an individual person is a "control person" (that's their wording) and that there is a "unity of interest" (their wording again) between a "control person" and a company, partnership or corporation.

In that event, as an inarguable fact of law, there in NO difference between a "control person" and their corporation.  They can and will find the "control person" jointly and severally liable for whatver liability they'd like to hang onto the corporate person from whom the "control person" earns their living.

LMFAO all you like, just remember that at least three, unskilled amateur social engineers, otherwise known as judges, just laughed out loud at your position.


All it does is lay out the religious angle as pure bullshiat.  "Oh, whew, I'm legally separated by one degree from defying the Lord!  Close one!"  Pure nonsense and one of many reasons why religion should be kept completely out of the public sphere altogether, else we might ultimately end up with a bunch of religious nonsense in the legislature.

Oh, fark!  Too late!
 
2013-11-01 07:49:08 PM

iodine: Thinking it through a little further, and I'm glad for the dialogue that educates me, I think employer provided health benefits, as designed now, do discriminate against women because women will more immediately and consequentially experience the consequences of the denial of reproductive health care services than their male colleagues and/or their employer.

I am still uneasy about the idea that the federal government is the proper agency to level the field. I still do think the court reached the right decision in this particular case.

I apologize for suggesting that anyone should just suck it up.


Unfortunately, in cases where you have such inequality the federal government is often the only agency that is capable of leveling the field. See also, civil rights and women gaining the right to vote.
 
2013-11-01 07:50:17 PM

ciberido: then yes, the natural conclusion to reach will be that you either hate women or are a complete idiot.

cdn.head-fi.org
 
2013-11-01 07:51:29 PM

acohn: capn' fun: So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?

No, you and your wife and your daughter and her SO get to decide that by whatever legal means available.  That's a separate issue of whether an employer, particularly a non-publicly-held stock corporation, must pay for those means.



"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
 
2013-11-01 07:59:11 PM

wyltoknow: Kit Fister: Don't want to pay for women's contraceptives? Don't offer health insurance, give everyone a raise commensurate with what they wouldhave spent on health ins. And tell everyone to buy their own damn plans.

Problem solved.

I agree with this. But in our current society it would probably end up as companies dumping insurance, not giving any sorts of raises, and conservatives yelling at the sick to get better jobs or get busy dying.


So, drop coverage, get sued, be forced to pay employees more or give vouchers, everyone wins?
 
2013-11-01 07:59:45 PM

MonoChango: umad: shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!

I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.

Why?



From a purely economic point of view, because birth control saves money in the long run.  "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and all that.  One can also make arguments about it being the compassionate or decent thing to do, and those arguments have been made, but I'd prefer to concentrate on tangibles.  It simply saves money.

Therefore, if you oppose it, you are tacitly asserting that it's worth spending extra money to deny people birth control.

But of course, in classic Rovian projection, people opposed to it, not wanting to admit that they effectively want to waste my money to enforce their religious beliefs, claim that it's really the liberals wanting to "take" money away from hard-working taxpayers.
 
2013-11-01 08:04:39 PM

vrax: MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?

Go sit in the corner until you understand something, anything, about the practice of medicine and its personal and societal impacts.



I don't normally label someone as "belligerently dense" but I think MonoChango is an exceptional case.
 
2013-11-01 08:04:39 PM
So here's a serious question: if a privately owned company chose a plan that does not cover certain things, and there is no legal requirement to do so, why don't those people just drop their work plan and get something else? No law requires an employer to offer health benefits, and in fact I'm pretty sure we'd be better off if we all just shopped directly and chose what we needed instead of relying on a company policy chosen by someone else.

Wouldn't it make sense to just sue for better wages to cover an alternative if one opts not to participate in the company plan?

Or are we operating under the assumption that health insurance is a "right" and that employers are obligated to offer it?
 
2013-11-01 08:04:52 PM

R.O.U.S: I can think of some other unfortunate consequences of such a precedent:

1: Equal opportunity employment is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to discriminate against anyone of the wrong beliefs, or who my religion states is inferior.

2: The Fair Housing act is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to keep the "wrong" people out of my neighborhood/HOA/apartments/town.

3: Disabled people offend my god, I demand that I be allowed to remove all wheelchair ramps, accessible doors, etc from my business.

Etc Etc...

In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.


Well, as I stated in another forum that brought this ruling up:

This would end up being dangerous for workers in other ways as well.  If a corporation can start to make these decisions for all of their workers, how long until they argue for the right to have control over every aspect of their employee's life?
It could end up becoming a new version of the 'company store' writ large, where if you work for a company, you lose all the rights and privileges of being a citizen.  Scary to even contemplate.
 
2013-11-01 08:07:44 PM

supayoda: Unfortunately, in cases where you have such inequality the federal government is often the only agency that is capable of leveling the field. See also, civil rights and women gaining the right to vote.


Since when!?  Specifically in the case of women gaining the right to vote, a lot of that struggle played out very visibly in Seneca Falls at a grass roots level and/or in Kansas at a state level, long long long before it became a federal issue.  DECADES later, at a federal level, there was the debate about the 15th Amendment and belatedly therein, women were thrown off that bus of enfranchisement.  FIFTY years later than that, the federal government rethought that decision and enfranchised women.  I'll agree with you, sometime within 70 years of an issue becoming of interest to progressives but receives no accommodation of any kind, the federal government has business to consider.

In that example, despite many many decades of discussion of women's suffrage, there wasn't any in the US.  In the present example, there is PLENTY of coverage from many sources to varying degrees of all manner of reproductive health services, up to and including boner pills.

Since there does appear to be a lot of relief and remedy for reproductive health services; however spotty (unlike Vote for Women in the 1850s) is IS very debatable as to whether or not the federal government should be "laying down the law" on this issue. (or on boner pills for everybody).
 
2013-11-01 08:08:51 PM

ciberido: MonoChango: umad: shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!

I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.

Why?


From a purely economic point of view, because birth control saves money in the long run.  "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and all that.  One can also make arguments about it being the compassionate or decent thing to do, and those arguments have been made, but I'd prefer to concentrate on tangibles.  It simply saves money.

Therefore, if you oppose it, you are tacitly asserting that it's worth spending extra money to deny people birth control.

But of course, in classic Rovian projection, people opposed to it, not wanting to admit that they effectively want to waste my money to enforce their religious beliefs, claim that it's really the liberals wanting to "take" money away from hard-working taxpayers.


This. I don't want to pay for your crotchfruit. I don't want to pay for their food, clothes, or education. So, here, have a lifetime supply of condoms and/or other birth control on me. Its cheaper.
 
2013-11-01 08:10:18 PM

vrax: the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?

Because it's cheaper for us as a whole to have those measures covered, especially for lower-income women. When contraceptives are available, the birth rate in lower-income areas decreases and that lowers a whole lot of other problems. Not to mention that it's a basic service that most (if not all) industrialized nations provide as a matter of course.

I just don't agree with the logic that people can do stupid shiat and because they either cannot or don't want to pay for it, can choose not to and everyone else has to pay for it. I don't want to see this logic expanded and I think it encourages bad behavior.

To compare sex with motorcycle riding, ,etc. is to trivialize the whole of human history and human nature simply in the service of making a stupid point about personal responsibility.  I know it sounds simple to you, but it's not.  You and your ilk's hardline, punitive approach is a losing bet against humanity and we are worse for it.  Simply from the practical standpoint of healthcare cost reduction, providing this coverage is an undeniable win, but it goes far, far beyond that.  This is one of those places where religion crosses over and becomes an evil, counter to human interest and progression, all in the name of that which is certainly not tangible and may very well not even exist.  We're definitely here and we need to serve us!


So farking without consequences is a freedom?

His analogy is correct. If people want to talk about "savings" and "financial implications", as a driver as to why birth control should be covered, then his analogy that safety equipment for dangerous sports should be covered.
 
2013-11-01 08:13:37 PM

Kit Fister: So here's a serious question: if a privately owned company chose a plan that does not cover certain things, and there is no legal requirement to do so, why don't those people just drop their work plan and get something else? No law requires an employer to offer health benefits, and in fact I'm pretty sure we'd be better off if we all just shopped directly and chose what we needed instead of relying on a company policy chosen by someone else.

Wouldn't it make sense to just sue for better wages to cover an alternative if one opts not to participate in the company plan?

Or are we operating under the assumption that health insurance is a "right" and that employers are obligated to offer it?



Cost and convenience.

Suing for better wages would probably end up solving your problem by letting you buy your own health plan while you're collecting your newfound unemployment.

I think at this point we are operating under the assumption that health insurance is a "right" and employers without exemptions are obligated to offer it.  I would presume in the long run the preference would eventually be to get employers out of the health care market entirely.
 
2013-11-01 08:16:33 PM

SamFlagg: Kit Fister: So here's a serious question: if a privately owned company chose a plan that does not cover certain things, and there is no legal requirement to do so, why don't those people just drop their work plan and get something else? No law requires an employer to offer health benefits, and in fact I'm pretty sure we'd be better off if we all just shopped directly and chose what we needed instead of relying on a company policy chosen by someone else.

Wouldn't it make sense to just sue for better wages to cover an alternative if one opts not to participate in the company plan?

Or are we operating under the assumption that health insurance is a "right" and that employers are obligated to offer it?


Cost and convenience.

Suing for better wages would probably end up solving your problem by letting you buy your own health plan while you're collecting your newfound unemployment.

I think at this point we are operating under the assumption that health insurance is a "right" and employers without exemptions are obligated to offer it.  I would presume in the long run the preference would eventually be to get employers out of the health care market entirely.


I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.
 
2013-11-01 08:19:57 PM

the money is in the banana stand: vrax: the money is in the banana stand: I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?

Let's see, prescription medication, motorcycle gear, rock climbing gear, scuba gear.

Sesame Street had a song about this.  Not sure that you are old enough for Sesame Street yet.

Please. Outside of being raped, having sex and getting pregnant is a choice. If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it. If I want to go to Vegas and gamble, I do it on my money. When I run out of money or when luck doesn't go my way, that is my responsibility. I don't get that pawn that responsibility off on others like a immature child.


Have you read ANY of the posts talking about the additional benefits these contraceptives & procedures bring outside of pregnancy? Is your head so stuck your cloud of righteous sanctimony that you find it hard to read, or are you deliberately obtuse?

And preventing pregnancy benefits society as a whole. I suppose you think schools (obviously wasted in your case), food standards etc are just a waste of your tax dollars, too. You are one of those people who wants a safe, prosperous society and all the benefits it brings you, but unless you can see an immediate benefit to YOU, don't see why you should participate in anything else of benefit to others in that society.

I genuinely don't know whether I feel more contempt or pity. As Heinlein said: you have a "Size 10 ego in a size 4 soul".
 
2013-11-01 08:22:18 PM
How the fark do these people think insurance works? Do they think that the premiums paid actually go into a special envelope and get set aside to pay for the individual who paid it?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. If you provide insurance coverage for your employees, the money you pay goes into a giant pool that pays for the needs of ALL the insurance company's clients! Not exclusively your employees! Buying an insurance policy means you are, in part, contributing to someone who needs brain surgery, a heart transplant, and chemo for their ass cancer. You also help pay for diabetes medication for the fattie that can't quit the burgers. That's just the way the goddamn cookie crumbles. But by including yourself in the policy, other people healthier than you are subsidizing your own unhealthy habits. By specifically excluding your employees, you're loudly announcing to the world what a gigantic farking bag of douche you are.
 
2013-11-01 08:22:56 PM
Kit Fister:

I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

Given the cost of health care - how does a person realize the right to health care without insurance?
(6 years ago a partial severing of a finger cost my spouse $15,000, two years ago 5 hours in the ER was $7,000)

giving someone a right they can't use is wicked
 
2013-11-01 08:23:59 PM

vrax: All it does is lay out the religious angle as pure bullshiat. "Oh, whew, I'm legally separated by one degree from defying the Lord! Close one!" Pure nonsense and one of many reasons why religion should be kept completely out of the public sphere altogether, else we might ultimately end up with a bunch of religious nonsense in the legislature.

Oh, fark! Too late!


Regrettably for your position, whether religion of any kind is bullshiat or not, the Constitution did carve out just a little respite from the rationalism of the Enlightenment and called it "freedom of religion". Perhaps this was the really enlightened part of the Enlightenment?  They also created a separation of church and state.  Regardless of either, there is no proscription of "imbecility in government" whatever may be its source-- just checks and balances.

Once upon a time, in some faiths the 'church' proscribed abortion and frowned on synthetic birth control.  The state was content to bite its tongue.  Who upset that apple cart lately?  That'd be the state.  I'm glad the judges smacked the state down on this one.

Personally I have no problem with birth control or abortions or what have you.  I do dislike overreaching legislators and the executives who inspire them.  I think the judges called it rightly.  That's my right.

The only really interesting part of this issue for me is the potentially differential impacts of restricting benefits most useful to women of child bearing age.  That issue is worth a deep thought, not the glib stuff LMFAO stuff you chuck out.  I don't think it's coming from the White House but I hope they'll do better than what I've seen so far.
 
2013-11-01 08:24:32 PM

DubyaHater: ciberido: DubyaHater: The owner of the company has a right to set the rules

[img.4plebs.org image 250x272]
Ok, so you're a complete idiot.  Moving on.

And you're a bigger idiot for having nothing constructive to say. I guess you learned your debate skills in a middle school bathroom stall
/Moving on


Oh, I had a pretty specific point I was making, which apparently was lost under the scorn.  So I'll give you the less vituperative version, and you can tell me whether or not you find it constructive:

You're entire argument seems based on the premise "The owner of the company has a right to set the rules."  This is not true.  It has been declared untrue by no less than the  88th US Congress back in 1964.

Because it's untrue, it's well-known to be untrue, and it has been that way for at least 49 years (probably longer than you've lived), the fact that you assert a position that was specifically negated by an act of Congress without even acknowledging that little problem, suggests that you are both quite ignorant and arrogant.  At the very least, it means that, logically, we can dismiss anything you say based on that falsehood --- thus the "stop reading there" image.

It also suggests that you are both ignorant enough, and complacent enough in your own ignorance, that you will never have anything of value to contribute to the discussion.  Thus, while admittedly harsh, labeling you as "a complete idiot" is a pretty safe bet.

But what the hell, Christmas is only two months away.  I'll give you another chance.  Make a case that acknowledges civil-rights laws and their implications for what rights businesses do and do not posses, and I promise, in turn, to read it with an open mind.
 
2013-11-01 08:27:03 PM

ciberido: You're entire argument seems based on the premise "The owner of the company has a right to set the rules."  This is not true.  It has been declared untrue by no less than the  88th US Congress back in 1964.


Your* entire argument.  Karmic justice, perhaps, for calling someone else an idiot.
 
2013-11-01 08:28:33 PM

Kit Fister: So, drop coverage, get sued, be forced to pay employees more or give vouchers, everyone wins?


Or alternately, don't be an asshole and try to force your employees to live by your religious views.
 
2013-11-01 08:31:01 PM
After reading everything thus far,

I am wondering if all of us couldn't have served the world better by ending our days in a tied-off FLUSHED condom......
 
2013-11-01 08:33:07 PM

Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.


How do you get one without the other?
 
2013-11-01 08:35:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?


Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?
 
2013-11-01 08:37:51 PM
the money is in the banana stand:
These plans would be more expensive and therefore it is my business. You can do whatever the fark you want to do, I don't care, but that doesn't make it my responsibility as an employer to cover everything you do. There is such a thing as personal responsibility and accountability. Currently, my girlfriend pays for her own birth control. I don't expect someone to cover that for me. If we don't use any sort of contraceptive, that's our fault and no one else's. If you cannot afford to do something, don't do it.


Health plans for federal employees have already added contraceptive coverage, with no increase in cost.  It has already been proven in the real world, so that argument is completely blown.  The reduction in costs due to fewer pregnancies and abortions have more than offset the cost of providing birth control.  What you're really saying is that you'd rather pay for the pregnancies and abortions that the birth control would otherwise prevent, than the birth control itself.  Why you don't consider that encouragement of bad behavior is beyond me.

The only reason insurance companies won't automatically cover birth control on their own is that it's in their best interests to run up costs and be able to charge higher premiums (collecting 20% of a larger total amount in profit).
 
2013-11-01 08:37:59 PM

iodine: @ciberido
Regarding the connection between a universal, government mandated, employer provided health benefit (of any kind) and the same for an "every home shall own a shotgun" law, yes, I am practicing reductio ad absurdum.  Guilty as charged.


The problem is, you think the ridiculous part is the other guy's argument.  It's not.
 
2013-11-01 08:39:43 PM
And when we take all arguments I've seen above into account, the following question remains for a federal government to answer:

If there is a federal "right to choose" via Roe v Wade then why doesn't the federal government guarantee that right and do it on its (our) own dime?  Rather it coerces enterprise, enacting legislation that reads more like "there is a right to freedom from pregnancy. Your employer, if large enough, shall buy enough insurance to pay for it, else, we'll punish your employer.  If you work for somebody with 10 employees, call Planned Parenthood.  They might cut you a break for $200.

I don't see Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony or Margaret Sanger standing up and saluting that piece of technocratic crap.
 
2013-11-01 08:42:43 PM

parasol: Kit Fister:

I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

Given the cost of health care - how does a person realize the right to health care without insurance?
(6 years ago a partial severing of a finger cost my spouse $15,000, two years ago 5 hours in the ER was $7,000)

giving someone a right they can't use is wicked


I think insurance exchanges and coops are a good thing. I think any means of allowing people to pool resources to pay for medical care is a good thing. But it is not a right or obligation for anyone else to pony up to cover someone else's costs.

When I had my heart problems, I had to pony up a couple hundred grand for care when insurance refused to cover it, and it took help from my family to cover it all. But I can't just demand that other people pay for my healthcare because I don't want to put aside money to cover the costs.
 
2013-11-01 08:43:17 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?


you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually
 
2013-11-01 08:45:42 PM

parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually


You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.
 
2013-11-01 08:46:08 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?


Ah, right.  Pay cash.

Hey everyone, problem solved!  Just pay cash!
 
2013-11-01 08:49:24 PM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.


Don't be proud of that.  Not even a little.  This is one of the only countries stupid enough to allow that to happen.  It's not good.  It's pure idiocy!
 
2013-11-01 08:50:17 PM
Hey obama,
insure this punk....
img.fark.net
 
2013-11-01 08:51:29 PM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister:

I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

Given the cost of health care - how does a person realize the right to health care without insurance?
(6 years ago a partial severing of a finger cost my spouse $15,000, two years ago 5 hours in the ER was $7,000)

giving someone a right they can't use is wicked

I think insurance exchanges and coops are a good thing. I think any means of allowing people to pool resources to pay for medical care is a good thing. But it is not a right or obligation for anyone else to pony up to cover someone else's costs.

When I had my heart problems, I had to pony up a couple hundred grand for care when insurance refused to cover it, and it took help from my family to cover it all. But I can't just demand that other people pay for my healthcare because I don't want to put aside money to cover the costs.


actually? yes you can - its called buying insurance - since you were out of pocket that much WITH it you really ought to understand "preventative costs" better
its good your family could help you
some people don't have that resource - some people are literally a singular unit, working minimum wage and at the mercy of their employer - who are balking over a hypocritical stance on morality they themselves don't practice.

do you tell your auto insurance company you just don't care to cover that nert who rear-ended someone last week and so, while you think coverage is a good idea, you'll just give the nice officer at your accident scene the names of your parents?
 
2013-11-01 08:52:19 PM

vrax: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

Ah, right.  Pay cash.

Hey everyone, problem solved!  Just pay cash!


Well, yes actually, that does solve the problem as far as it goes.

Insurance is meant as an investment whereby you pay in to a pool and draw out if you need to. Completely voluntary. Its a good thing, but when it ceases to be voluntary, and one is forced to buy it if only to subsidize others...I'm not sure I agree with that.

But I dunno. I just don't like being dependent on others, and I'd rather others not be dependent on me.
 
2013-11-01 08:53:31 PM

ciberido: iodine: @ciberido
Regarding the connection between a universal, government mandated, employer provided health benefit (of any kind) and the same for an "every home shall own a shotgun" law, yes, I am practicing reductio ad absurdum.  Guilty as charged.

The problem is, you think the ridiculous part is the other guy's argument.  It's not.


Straw man!

I didn't say your argument (that my argument was ridiculous) was ridiculous.  I owned up and said my argument was ridiculous on purpose.

Incidentally, your argument isn't ridiculous but it's very badly constructed and not up to code and somewhere an adverb's gonna get hurt when it topples.

The question is: A court decision just carved out some exemption from a federally mandated, employer provided, reproductive health services benefit.  Can you cope with that or will you pop a vein as many farkers did before you?

If a Farker, such as me, defends the court's reasoning, can you cope with that or will you keep popping veins?

If a Farker defends the 'world' by arguing reductio ad absurdum, then you have next to no defense, it's game over.  At the best, you're in a "Why bother?" position, unless you have at least 500 gallons of Surdum, which is doubtful, since the Romans used almost all of it, sometimes as lube.
 
2013-11-01 08:54:40 PM

vrax: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

Don't be proud of that.  Not even a little.  This is one of the only countries stupid enough to allow that to happen.  It's not good.  It's pure idiocy!


But j am proud of it. I stood on my own and took care of myself without being a burden to others. If I am a burden to others, I would rather be dead than burden them.
 
2013-11-01 08:57:34 PM

Kit Fister: vrax: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

Ah, right.  Pay cash.

Hey everyone, problem solved!  Just pay cash!

Well, yes actually, that does solve the problem as far as it goes.

Insurance is meant as an investment whereby you pay in to a pool and draw out if you need to. Completely voluntary. Its a good thing, but when it ceases to be voluntary, and one is forced to buy it if only to subsidize others...I'm not sure I agree with that.

But I dunno. I just don't like being dependent on others, and I'd rather others not be dependent on me.


For the record, your stance makes my 'libertarian fire department' sense tingle. While I'm betting it's not that extreme, but there is something to be said for the idea that a perspective of being in an advantageous financial position and having good planning for disasters tends to skew an opinion on the matter.
 
2013-11-01 08:57:47 PM

parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister:

I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

Given the cost of health care - how does a person realize the right to health care without insurance?
(6 years ago a partial severing of a finger cost my spouse $15,000, two years ago 5 hours in the ER was $7,000)

giving someone a right they can't use is wicked

I think insurance exchanges and coops are a good thing. I think any means of allowing people to pool resources to pay for medical care is a good thing. But it is not a right or obligation for anyone else to pony up to cover someone else's costs.

When I had my heart problems, I had to pony up a couple hundred grand for care when insurance refused to cover it, and it took help from my family to cover it all. But I can't just demand that other people pay for my healthcare because I don't want to put aside money to cover the costs.

actually? yes you can - its called buying insurance - since you were out of pocket that much WITH it you really ought to understand "preventative costs" better
its good your family could help you
some people don't have that resource - some people are literally a singular unit, working minimum wage and at the mercy of their employer - who are balking over a hypocritical stance on morality they themselves don't practice.

do you tell your auto insurance company you just don't care to cover that nert who rear-ended someone last week and so, while you think coverage is a good idea, you'll just give the nice officer at your accident scene the names of your parents?


I am required by law to have auto insurance, but I live in a no fault state so it doesn't matter.

Plus if I caused an accident, I would gladly pay to fix the person's vehicle, because I did the damage.

I break someone's stuff, I'll pay to replace it. If I hurt someone, its my job to get them help and cover their costs because I am at fault.

Why would I expect someone else to pay for my mistakes or problems?
 
2013-11-01 09:00:04 PM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.


You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.
 
2013-11-01 09:00:35 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


I am still questioning just what went wrong to make you such a moran. No car seat and you hit the windscreen as a child ?
 
2013-11-01 09:01:12 PM

SamFlagg: Kit Fister: vrax: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

Ah, right.  Pay cash.

Hey everyone, problem solved!  Just pay cash!

Well, yes actually, that does solve the problem as far as it goes.

Insurance is meant as an investment whereby you pay in to a pool and draw out if you need to. Completely voluntary. Its a good thing, but when it ceases to be voluntary, and one is forced to buy it if only to subsidize others...I'm not sure I agree with that.

But I dunno. I just don't like being dependent on others, and I'd rather others not be dependent on me.

For the record, your stance makes my 'libertarian fire department' sense tingle. While I'm betting it's not that extreme, but there is something to be said for the idea that a perspective of being in an advantageous financial position and having good planning for disasters tends to skew an opinion on the matter.


I made barely 40k a year at the time. I had shiatty insurance. I now make 60k a year, and still have shiatty insurance. I pay for as much of my own way as I can because I can't expect someone else to bail me out or give me a handout. I'm thirty years old. I've learned that I can't depend on anyone and hate taking anything from anyone.

I am also paying nearly a grand a month to pay back my family. It'll take me twenty years to pay them back, but I will if it kills me.
 
2013-11-01 09:02:34 PM

parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.


No, my insurance denied my claims and paid nothing. My family paid off the bill against my express wishes anddemands. I had no say otherwise I would not have had them pay anything.
 
2013-11-01 09:05:28 PM

parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.


Also, yes, I am happy to pay for a woman's birth control if it means I don't have to pay for her offspring and their costs.
 
2013-11-01 09:06:26 PM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister:

I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

Given the cost of health care - how does a person realize the right to health care without insurance?
(6 years ago a partial severing of a finger cost my spouse $15,000, two years ago 5 hours in the ER was $7,000)

giving someone a right they can't use is wicked

I think insurance exchanges and coops are a good thing. I think any means of allowing people to pool resources to pay for medical care is a good thing. But it is not a right or obligation for anyone else to pony up to cover someone else's costs.

When I had my heart problems, I had to pony up a couple hundred grand for care when insurance refused to cover it, and it took help from my family to cover it all. But I can't just demand that other people pay for my healthcare because I don't want to put aside money to cover the costs.

actually? yes you can - its called buying insurance - since you were out of pocket that much WITH it you really ought to understand "preventative costs" better
its good your family could help you
some people don't have that resource - some people are literally a singular unit, working minimum wage and at the mercy of their employer - who are balking over a hypocritical stance on morality they themselves don't practice.

do you tell your auto insurance company you just don't care to cover that nert who rear-ended someone last week and so, while you think coverage is a good idea, you'll just give the nice officer at your accident scene the names of your parents?

I am required by law to have auto insurance, but I live in a no fault state so it doesn't matter.

Plus if I caused an accident, I would gladly pay to fix the person's vehicle, because I did the damage.

I break someone's stuff, I'll pay to replace it. If I hurt someone, its my job to ge ...


This is going nowhere.
You don't want to understand that, outside yourself, there are people who pay for something (insurance) and do not consider it a burden but rather an acknowledgement that, more likely than not, they will need to use that pool someday as well.
You don't seem to understand that what you cost your insurer for your heart issue would cover a woman's b/c years for many lifetimes

You are arguing spruce-tree raw-elk self-reliance and I am talking about math and preventative measures.
 
2013-11-01 09:09:14 PM

Kit Fister: vrax: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

Don't be proud of that.  Not even a little.  This is one of the only countries stupid enough to allow that to happen.  It's not good.  It's pure idiocy!

But j am proud of it. I stood on my own and took care of myself without being a burden to others. If I am a burden to others, I would rather be dead than burden them.


Then you don't really believe in the concept of a society.  Technically, you burden others with your existence, taking finite, shared resources that we all use, such as clean air, water, food, land, fossil fuels, etc, that could be used by others.  However, for some reason, you are hung up simply on the monetary.  Fact is, we give and take all the time.  It's how we function as a compassionate, human society.  Some need more than others.  That you can't both empathize with those people and be willing to accept that you are deserving of the same is very sad.  If there's anything great about this country is what we've done together and for one another.  Our greatness is slipping away very quickly.
 
2013-11-01 09:09:29 PM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.

Also, yes, I am happy to pay for a woman's birth control if it means I don't have to pay for her offspring and their costs.

well? in that case? maybe a new thread is in order - since that is what this one started out about

/sorry about the medical debt, btw
//been there
///three
 
2013-11-01 09:09:54 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?


Have you ever had $800,000 for a heart surgery just sitting around that you could use? Do you realize that 99% of the general population doesn't? Do you realize that it needs to be paid for either way?

No, of course you don't, because you don't understand that people will always need healthcare and it will always be paid for somehow, and that cash is the least-efficient way to do it.
 
2013-11-01 09:11:11 PM

Kit Fister: Insurance is meant as an investment whereby you pay in to a pool and draw out if you need to. Completely voluntary. Its a good thing, but when it ceases to be voluntary, and one is forced to buy it if only to subsidize others...I'm not sure I agree with that.


Why would you not agree to that when medical treatment is by nature involuntary. No one chooses to get sick, do they?
 
2013-11-01 09:16:42 PM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.

No, my insurance denied my claims and paid nothing. My family paid off the bill against my express wishes anddemands. I had no say otherwise I would not have had them pay anything.


Then you DID get help from somebody. You DIDN'NT do it on your own. You did it with your family. And if your family had nothing to give, you would have been bankrupt. That is bad for society. The less bankruptcies, this means the economy is healthier. Surely that basic fact makes sense to you?

A healthy, productive society is a better society on every level.

You are like that 3rd rate actor who claimed he had been on welfare, and did anyone give him a helping hand? Nope - he was all bootstrappy, just like you.
 
2013-11-01 09:20:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Insurance is meant as an investment whereby you pay in to a pool and draw out if you need to. Completely voluntary. Its a good thing, but when it ceases to be voluntary, and one is forced to buy it if only to subsidize others...I'm not sure I agree with that.

Why would you not agree to that when medical treatment is by nature involuntary. No one chooses to get sick, do they?


Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.

I like helping people who need it. I just am a bit offended that it ceases to be my choice and instead is a requirement.

As to society, I gladly pay in taxes or directly for what I take and use, because to me that's how it should work: I pay for what I need and sell what I have or what skills I have to earn themoney to pay for what I need.
 
2013-11-01 09:24:10 PM

timelady: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.

No, my insurance denied my claims and paid nothing. My family paid off the bill against my express wishes anddemands. I had no say otherwise I would not have had them pay anything.

Then you DID get help from somebody. You DIDN'NT do it on your own. You did it with your family. And if your family had nothing to give, you would have been bankrupt. That is bad for society. The less bankruptcies, this means the economy is healthier. Surely that basic fact makes sense to you?

A healthy, productive society is a better society on every level.

You are like that 3rd rate actor who claimed he had been on welfare, and did anyone give him a helping hand? Nope - he was all bootstrappy, just like you.


Yes I did have help. And I am paying off the loan every paycheck, because I didn't have a choice in them paying.

Your analogy assumes that I asked and took the handout and then said I did it on my own. What I did was more akin to having someone thrust money into my hand against my will which I now feel obligated and honorbound to pay back.

Believe me when I say I would have rather died than have to burden my family.
 
2013-11-01 09:24:27 PM

ciberido: DubyaHater: ciberido: DubyaHater: The owner of the company has a right to set the rules

[img.4plebs.org image 250x272]
Ok, so you're a complete idiot.  Moving on.

And you're a bigger idiot for having nothing constructive to say. I guess you learned your debate skills in a middle school bathroom stall
/Moving on

Oh, I had a pretty specific point I was making, which apparently was lost under the scorn.  So I'll give you the less vituperative version, and you can tell me whether or not you find it constructive:

You're entire argument seems based on the premise "The owner of the company has a right to set the rules."  This is not true.  It has been declared untrue by no less than the  88th US Congress back in 1964.

Because it's untrue, it's well-known to be untrue, and it has been that way for at least 49 years (probably longer than you've lived), the fact that you assert a position that was specifically negated by an act of Congress without even acknowledging that little problem, suggests that you are both quite ignorant and arrogant.  At the very least, it means that, logically, we can dismiss anything you say based on that falsehood --- thus the "stop reading there" image.

It also suggests that you are both ignorant enough, and complacent enough in your own ignorance, that you will never have anything of value to contribute to the discussion.  Thus, while admittedly harsh, labeling you as "a complete idiot" is a pretty safe bet.

But what the hell, Christmas is only two months away.  I'll give you another chance.  Make a case that acknowledges civil-rights laws and their implications for what rights businesses do and do not posses, and I promise, in turn, to read it with an open mind.


This, in no way, trounces on the Civil Rights Act. No one is discriminating against an entire race. The company is saying that "we will not support supplying birth control because we don't believe in it". It's not like these employees do not have the means to obtain birth control elsewhere. People are free to purchase birth control as an out-of-pocket expense or they can purchase health insurance by other means.
If people who wish to obtain birth control were truly oppressed, they would have no other means of buying birth control. The Civil Rights Act dealt with people who could be denied employment because of their skin color. No where in this article does it say this company is denying employment to women who want birth control. As long as they're up front and say "here is our health plan. Here's what it cover and doesn't cover", and you have the choice to decide if you want to work there. You are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Is it a good decision for them to make? Only time will tell. Personally, I wouldn't want to work in a place with that belief system.
 
2013-11-01 09:27:37 PM

WhyKnot: His analogy is correct. If people want to talk about "savings" and "financial implications", as a driver as to why birth control should be covered, then his analogy that safety equipment for dangerous sports should be covered.


Birth control is health care.  Safety equipment is not healthcare.  The analogy is thus a bad one.

If you want to make a case that safety equipment should be subsidized or tax deductible or whatnot, sure, I'd be happy to discuss that idea with you.  But to claim it's healthcare is just ridiculous.
 
2013-11-01 09:32:24 PM

iodine: And when we take all arguments I've seen above into account, the following question remains for a federal government to answer:

If there is a federal "right to choose" via Roe v Wade then why doesn't the federal government guarantee that right and do it on its (our) own dime?  Rather it coerces enterprise, enacting legislation that reads more like "there is a right to freedom from pregnancy. Your employer, if large enough, shall buy enough insurance to pay for it, else, we'll punish your employer.  If you work for somebody with 10 employees, call Planned Parenthood.  They might cut you a break for $200.

I don't see Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony or Margaret Sanger standing up and saluting that piece of technocratic crap.


This just in: The federal government does a lot of things it didn't do a century or two ago.  Policies that give women more autonomy over their own bodies are one of those things.

Ideally, it would have been single payer.  Instead we're making it a requirement of employers, like minimum wage and safe working conditions.
 
2013-11-01 09:36:01 PM

Kit Fister: Believe me when I say I would have rather died than have to burden my family.


If you honestly believe that, you must have a sad, sad life.
 
2013-11-01 09:39:03 PM
Kit Fister:
Yes I did have help. And I am paying off the loan every paycheck, because I didn't have a choice in them paying.
Your analogy assumes that I asked and took the handout and then said I did it on my own. What I did was more akin to having someone thrust money into my hand against my will which I now feel obligated and honorbound to pay back.
Believe me when I say I would have rather died than have to burden my family.



I am going to assume that your family contacted the hospital directly, which then violated HIPA law, and paid your bill.
Otherwise? They stole your billable mail and paid behind your back
Or? they asked and you told them - and they lent you the money over your protest but realistic assessment of what you owed.
if that last then you could have taken that money, not paid the bill with it instead sending it back to them in payment while also making payments on the bill itself - which would have been the really self-reliant-my-mess scenario.

Look? you had help - you may hate it and you are honorable enough to pay it back while protesting you'd rather be dead (something that would bring your mother to heartbroken tears, no doubt, you cad)
I'm rather surprised you aren't spending more time railing at your "totally voluntary" insurance plan that covered nothing.
 
2013-11-01 09:42:27 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.


This terrifying precedent is otherwise knowing as "the way things have always worked and will continue to work anyway."  The whole point of the healthcare exchange the ACA has implemented is that because healthcare plans are different, that is, <em>cover different things</em>, so you and I need an easy way to compare them and choose which of those things we would like and which we we'd rather not pay for.  If you actually want a plan that covers <em>every procedure</em>, the ACA is bad news for you because part of the way it's paying for itself is by taxing that sort of 'cadillac' healthcare plan.

It is incredibly cheap to buy additional insurance which covers just blood transfusions or what have you. Or you could pocket the extra cash and plan on paying for them yourself (not that expensive) in the off chance you need one.  You could also choose employment at a different company with a different healthcare plan, which, let's be honest here, is going to be almost all companies.   I understand that if someone thinks abortion is murder they are going be in a fury about having to pay for it, I don't understand why forcing the issue on them is so important to you when overcoming the obstacle in a way that satisfies all (not-politically invested) parties is easily done.
 
2013-11-01 09:44:55 PM

iodine: And when we take all arguments I've seen above into account, the following question remains for a federal government to answer:

If there is a federal "right to choose" via Roe v Wade then why doesn't the federal government guarantee that right and do it on its (our) own dime?  Rather it coerces enterprise, enacting legislation that reads more like "there is a right to freedom from pregnancy. Your employer, if large enough, shall buy enough insurance to pay for it, else, we'll punish your employer.  If you work for somebody with 10 employees, call Planned Parenthood.  They might cut you a break for $200.


You haven't been reading the thread closely enough if you think that question hasn't already been addressed.

Ideally, yes, the USA would have a true socialized medical system in which all kinds of preventative healthcare, including birth control, was fully funded directly by the government without bringing employers into it at all.  However, the best we can do, given how opposed to any form of socialized medicine so many voters are, is this jury-rigged Rube-Goldberg contraption we all have to live with, the one Republicans shut down the government over.

If you don't like that we now "coerce enterprise," then vote the damn Republicans out of office and make your desire for a single-payer system clear.

Essentially liberals are playing tug-of-war with conservatives over healthcare and you're asking, "If it's so important to win, why haven't you won yet?"  It is, frankly, a dumb question, and again, it's been answered many times before.
 
2013-11-01 09:45:07 PM

Kit Fister: Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.


Unfortunately, that's not how a society works. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't tax anything, I'm sure you can find one somewhere.
 
2013-11-01 09:45:14 PM

parasol: Kit Fister:
Yes I did have help. And I am paying off the loan every paycheck, because I didn't have a choice in them paying.
Your analogy assumes that I asked and took the handout and then said I did it on my own. What I did was more akin to having someone thrust money into my hand against my will which I now feel obligated and honorbound to pay back.
Believe me when I say I would have rather died than have to burden my family.


I am going to assume that your family contacted the hospital directly, which then violated HIPA law, and paid your bill.
Otherwise? They stole your billable mail and paid behind your back
Or? they asked and you told them - and they lent you the money over your protest but realistic assessment of what you owed.
if that last then you could have taken that money, not paid the bill with it instead sending it back to them in payment while also making payments on the bill itself - which would have been the really self-reliant-my-mess scenario.

Look? you had help - you may hate it and you are honorable enough to pay it back while protesting you'd rather be dead (something that would bring your mother to heartbroken tears, no doubt, you cad)
I'm rather surprised you aren't spending more time railing at your "totally voluntary" insurance plan that covered nothing.


Oh, trust me, I spent a good deal of time trying to get reimbursements and payouts. It was worse than useless based on all the money I put in in premiums. Now I'd rather just squirrel away money and not have to deal with those sack sucking leeches.

Look I have no problems with insurance. I keep saying that. I get the logic behind it, and why its useful. Charity I can draw from if I need to like the food bank.

But don't make it sound like some kind of right you have when its a gentleman's agreement to pool resources and nothing more. Me personally, I rather have the option to just pay my own way because fark health insurance companies and their goddamn useless crap.
 
2013-11-01 09:46:52 PM

parasol: I'm rather surprised you aren't spending more time railing at your "totally voluntary" insurance plan that covered nothing.


But don't you see? Insurance is socialisms and if it covered something it would make him feel oh so dirty.
 
2013-11-01 09:47:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.

Unfortunately, that's not how a society works. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't tax anything, I'm sure you can find one somewhere.


I guess I have a fundamentally different view of society then, because where I am from people help each other out of a desire to, not by swordpoint.
 
2013-11-01 09:48:21 PM

Kit Fister: But don't make it sound like some kind of right you have when its a gentleman's agreement to pool resources and nothing more. Me personally, I rather have the option to just pay my own way because fark health insurance companies and their goddamn useless crap.


Except...you didn't pay your own way. You admitted it yourself. Just admit that your ideals don't work in the real world and move on.
 
2013-11-01 09:48:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: parasol: I'm rather surprised you aren't spending more time railing at your "totally voluntary" insurance plan that covered nothing.

But don't you see? Insurance is socialisms and if it covered something it would make him feel oh so dirty.


Oh fark you.
 
2013-11-01 09:49:20 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.

Unfortunately, that's not how a society works. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't tax anything, I'm sure you can find one somewhere.

I guess I have a fundamentally different view of society then, because where I am from people help each other out of a desire to, not by swordpoint.


Where do you come from? That's no country that I'm aware of. Can you name the country that doesn't collect taxes and then spend them on things that help out the greater population?
 
2013-11-01 09:50:04 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: parasol: I'm rather surprised you aren't spending more time railing at your "totally voluntary" insurance plan that covered nothing.

But don't you see? Insurance is socialisms and if it covered something it would make him feel oh so dirty.

Oh fark you.


Why are you mad? Was I incorrect in my assessment?
 
2013-11-01 09:51:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: But don't make it sound like some kind of right you have when its a gentleman's agreement to pool resources and nothing more. Me personally, I rather have the option to just pay my own way because fark health insurance companies and their goddamn useless crap.

Except...you didn't pay your own way. You admitted it yourself. Just admit that your ideals don't work in the real world and move on.


Maybe not, but that doesn't change my general sense of distaste at being forced to do something because some other asshole thought it was the right thing to do. Its like the office birthday party for the boss where everyone has to participate because of directivesby other bosses or get fired. Just let me do things on my own voluntarily, like join insurance if I choose to.
 
2013-11-01 09:52:42 PM

Kit Fister: Maybe not, but that doesn't change my general sense of distaste at being forced to do something because some other asshole thought it was the right thing to do. Its like the office birthday party for the boss where everyone has to participate because of directivesby other bosses or get fired. Just let me do things on my own voluntarily, like join insurance if I choose to.


Once again, your personal "distaste," for whatever selfish reason doesn't change the fact that no country on Earth works that way, nor should it work that way.
 
2013-11-01 09:53:58 PM
I mean, it's like an 8-year-old's worldview. I DON'T WANNA AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME *stomp feet*

Grow up and accept that you have a responsibility.
 
2013-11-01 09:55:48 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.

Unfortunately, that's not how a society works. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't tax anything, I'm sure you can find one somewhere.

I guess I have a fundamentally different view of society then, because where I am from people help each other out of a desire to, not by swordpoint.

Where do you come from? That's no country that I'm aware of. Can you name the country that doesn't collect taxes and then spend them on things that help out the greater population?


I pay taxes because I am required to and because I do use public services for which I should pay for the uuse of, like renting a tool at home depot. That is a mutually equitible trade.

Watching my neighbor pop out a new parasite every few years while continuing to collect welfare and disability because she refuses to work and knowing I am having to fund her lifestyle while she splurges on designer clothes, new electronics, and so on is more than a little irksome.
 
2013-11-01 09:55:58 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.

Unfortunately, that's not how a society works. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't tax anything, I'm sure you can find one somewhere.

I guess I have a fundamentally different view of society then, because where I am from people help each other out of a desire to, not by swordpoint.


You must be from that area where everyone holds hands and dances to the mailbox on April 15th
 
2013-11-01 09:56:27 PM

ciberido: acohn: capn' fun: So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?

No, you and your wife and your daughter and her SO get to decide that by whatever legal means available.  That's a separate issue of whether an employer, particularly a non-publicly-held stock corporation, must pay for those means.


"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."


Ohhhh! Right. I just need to pay extra, out of pocket, for the same birth control, at full retail, than the same thing covered or discounted by the insurance policies of my friends and neighbors who don't work for capricious religious assclowns. Because Jesus. Are those the legal means you refer to?
 
2013-11-01 09:58:03 PM

Kit Fister: I pay taxes because I am required to and because I do use public services for which I should pay for the uuse of, like renting a tool at home depot. That is a mutually equitible trade.


And health insurance...isn't? Please explain how it isn't. You yourself have had to use healthcare. 100% of the population will use it. Why should you not be required to have insurance for it? It's the same exact thing.

Kit Fister: Watching my neighbor pop out a new parasite every few years while continuing to collect welfare and disability because she refuses to work and knowing I am having to fund her lifestyle while she splurges on designer clothes, new electronics, and so on is more than a little irksome.


I know for a fact that this is bullsh*t since welfare reform. Get a new talking point. Just because Rush Limbaugh reinforces this stereotype doesn't make it true. Good luck buying designer clothes and new electronics on $400/month.
 
2013-11-01 09:59:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I mean, it's like an 8-year-old's worldview. I DON'T WANNA AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME *stomp feet*

Grow up and accept that you have a responsibility.


To myself? Yes. To pay my bills and to not hurt other people? Yes. I have no other responsibility than that. Any other responsibility beyond that is one purely concocted by you.

I pay fairly for what I use. If the feds blow their money on bullshiat its none of my business. Don't act like I have some moral imperative to support everyone else because your life is your own. If you need my help, ask. I will gladlyhelp voluntarily. Just don't demand and expect that I will help because society!
 
2013-11-01 09:59:25 PM

iodine: ciberido: iodine: @ciberido
Regarding the connection between a universal, government mandated, employer provided health benefit (of any kind) and the same for an "every home shall own a shotgun" law, yes, I am practicing reductio ad absurdum.  Guilty as charged.

The problem is, you think the ridiculous part is the other guy's argument.  It's not.

Straw man!



I've lost track, honestly, of what exactly the argument was.  If you want to have a protracted discussion, please quote better next time, with links back to the post you're responding to, at every step.
 
2013-11-01 09:59:34 PM
Seriously. I can't believe someone brought out a debunked "welfare queens" stereotype. That sh*t's been around for 30 years and been debunked for about the same time.
 
2013-11-01 10:00:00 PM

parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.

Unfortunately, that's not how a society works. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't tax anything, I'm sure you can find one somewhere.

I guess I have a fundamentally different view of society then, because where I am from people help each other out of a desire to, not by swordpoint.

You must be from that area where everyone holds hands and dances to the mailbox on April 15th


Lolno
 
2013-11-01 10:00:17 PM

Kit Fister: To myself? Yes. To pay my bills and to not hurt other people? Yes. I have no other responsibility than that. Any other responsibility beyond that is one purely concocted by you.


You sure? Because the Constitution says otherwise. Again, if you think otherwise, you can move to a country that doesn't have a society. But then don't complain that there isn't an infrastructure in place to help you out.
 
2013-11-01 10:00:45 PM

Kit Fister: timelady:
Then you DID get help from somebody. You DIDN'NT do it on your own. You did it with your family. And if your family had nothing to give, you would have been bankrupt. That is bad for society. The less bankruptcies, this means the economy is healthier. Surely that basic fact makes sense to you?

A healthy, productive society is a better society on every level.

You are like that 3rd rate actor who claimed he had been on welfare, and did anyone give him a helping hand? Nope - he was all bootstrappy, just like you.

Yes I did have help. And I am paying off the loan every paycheck, because I didn't have a choice in them paying. Your analogy assumes that I asked and took the handout and then said I did it on my own. What I did was more akin to having someone thrust money into my hand against my will which I now feel obligated and honorbound to pay back. Believe me when I say I would have rather died than have to burden my family.


I genuinely understand your distaste for your situation. I feel the same in such things. But here again is the point you are missing. You are currently a productive member of society thanks to the helping hand of your family. Without them, you faced potential financial ruin, and even perhaps losing the ability to work due to poorer health options. How is society better off in that sense? Personally obviously you aren't. The people you buy products and services from would have been worse off.

How can you not see that decent insurance means that not only does society benefit, but you personally don't have to face repaying your family? You are healthy and working. That is just what society needs.

People who don't have your family face the dire consequences. Stress isn't an aid to healing either, is it? And they can get access to better preventative health care, driving costs even further down.

And in the end, as part of this, all that happens is that the insurance companies may make slightly less monster profits, but I can live with that. Because that is the ONLY downside in this. Everyone wins, surely? (Except insurance companies, who are still making obscenely high profits, just not ridiculously obscenely high profits).

Your current system is one in which only people who make millions off misery win. Surely that is not the society you think is ideal?
 
2013-11-01 10:01:05 PM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Because I want my help to be given voluntarily, not taken as a compulsory act. What little is mine is mine to give freely to those who are in need, not demanded of me.

Unfortunately, that's not how a society works. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't tax anything, I'm sure you can find one somewhere.

I guess I have a fundamentally different view of society then, because where I am from people help each other out of a desire to, not by swordpoint.

You must be from that area where everyone holds hands and dances to the mailbox on April 15th

Lolno


So then where are you from? Because your taxes help people out and those are definitely not voluntary. that is, if you live in the USA.
 
2013-11-01 10:02:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I pay taxes because I am required to and because I do use public services for which I should pay for the uuse of, like renting a tool at home depot. That is a mutually equitible trade.

And health insurance...isn't? Please explain how it isn't. You yourself have had to use healthcare. 100% of the population will use it. Why should you not be required to have insurance for it? It's the same exact thing.

Kit Fister: Watching my neighbor pop out a new parasite every few years while continuing to collect welfare and disability because she refuses to work and knowing I am having to fund her lifestyle while she splurges on designer clothes, new electronics, and so on is more than a little irksome.

I know for a fact that this is bullsh*t since welfare reform. Get a new talking point. Just because Rush Limbaugh reinforces this stereotype doesn't make it true. Good luck buying designer clothes and new electronics on $400/month.


Come on over, I'll introduce you. Seriously, this chick has five kids, doesn't work because "I have stress" and has more electronic shiat in her house than bestbuy. Welfare? Drugs? Sugardaddy? I have no idea, but I know she's mentioned federal assistance more than once.

Or is knowing someone in real life now a "talking point"?
 
2013-11-01 10:04:14 PM

Kit Fister: Come on over, I'll introduce you. Seriously, this chick has five kids, doesn't work because "I have stress" and has more electronic shiat in her house than bestbuy. Welfare? Drugs? Sugardaddy? I have no idea, but I know she's mentioned federal assistance more than once.

Or is knowing someone in real life now a "talking point"?


It is a talking point because it conveniently supports your position while also conveniently unable to be supported by evidence. Not to mention the fact that your stereotyping plays into it, because you have no idea where her money comes from. You're just claiming that she's "on welfare" because of who she is, not due to any facts in evidence.
 
2013-11-01 10:06:14 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I pay taxes because I am required to and because I do use public services for which I should pay for the uuse of, like renting a tool at home depot. That is a mutually equitible trade.

And health insurance...isn't? Please explain how it isn't. You yourself have had to use healthcare. 100% of the population will use it. Why should you not be required to have insurance for it? It's the same exact thing.

Kit Fister: Watching my neighbor pop out a new parasite every few years while continuing to collect welfare and disability because she refuses to work and knowing I am having to fund her lifestyle while she splurges on designer clothes, new electronics, and so on is more than a little irksome.

I know for a fact that this is bullsh*t since welfare reform. Get a new talking point. Just because Rush Limbaugh reinforces this stereotype doesn't make it true. Good luck buying designer clothes and new electronics on $400/month.

Come on over, I'll introduce you. Seriously, this chick has five kids, doesn't work because "I have stress" and has more electronic shiat in her house than bestbuy. Welfare? Drugs? Sugardaddy? I have no idea, but I know she's mentioned federal assistance more than once.

Or is knowing someone in real life now a "talking point"?


Nope - but some of us seeing what you see and hearing her ascribe it to federal assistance would keep a fair weather eye open for the eventual DEA raid.....
 
2013-11-01 10:08:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Come on over, I'll introduce you. Seriously, this chick has five kids, doesn't work because "I have stress" and has more electronic shiat in her house than bestbuy. Welfare? Drugs? Sugardaddy? I have no idea, but I know she's mentioned federal assistance more than once.

Or is knowing someone in real life now a "talking point"?

It is a talking point because it conveniently supports your position while also conveniently unable to be supported by evidence. Not to mention the fact that your stereotyping plays into it, because you have no idea where her money comes from. You're just claiming that she's "on welfare" because of who she is, not due to any facts in evidence.


Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted? To prove yours the superior mind and morality? Well I give up. You win. In fact, how about I just sign my earnings over to you so you can spread it around more evenly.
 
2013-11-01 10:09:12 PM

Kit Fister: Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted?


No, that's called argumentum ad absurdum. To take your opponent's argument to the absurd to attempt to discredit it.
 
2013-11-01 10:10:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted?

No, that's called argumentum ad absurdum. To take your opponent's argument to the absurd to attempt to discredit it.


Well, you win. I give up. I a useless piece if shiat and deserve all the bad shiat that happens to me. I get it.
 
2013-11-01 10:11:32 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Come on over, I'll introduce you. Seriously, this chick has five kids, doesn't work because "I have stress" and has more electronic shiat in her house than bestbuy. Welfare? Drugs? Sugardaddy? I have no idea, but I know she's mentioned federal assistance more than once.

Or is knowing someone in real life now a "talking point"?

It is a talking point because it conveniently supports your position while also conveniently unable to be supported by evidence. Not to mention the fact that your stereotyping plays into it, because you have no idea where her money comes from. You're just claiming that she's "on welfare" because of who she is, not due to any facts in evidence.

Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted? To prove yours the superior mind and morality? Well I give up. You win. In fact, how about I just sign my earnings over to you so you can spread it around more evenly.


I already got what I wanted - a pretty interesting conversation with a stranger whose opinion differs from mine - so, thanks for that

Have a good night
 
2013-11-01 10:15:02 PM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted?

No, that's called argumentum ad absurdum. To take your opponent's argument to the absurd to attempt to discredit it.

Well, you win. I give up. I a useless piece if shiat and deserve all the bad shiat that happens to me. I get it.


Really? You get called out on using it so you figure it's cool to do it again? Pathetic.
 
2013-11-01 10:20:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted?

No, that's called argumentum ad absurdum. To take your opponent's argument to the absurd to attempt to discredit it.

Well, you win. I give up. I a useless piece if shiat and deserve all the bad shiat that happens to me. I get it.

Really? You get called out on using it so you figure it's cool to do it again? Pathetic.


Do what again? Capitulate? Give up because I can't win for having the wrong view? Acknowledging and grudgingly accepting your viewpoint?

Because that's what I'm doing. I see that what I believe is obviously wrong and somehow I am a bad lerson so I am honestly am sincerely tellingyou you win. I mean 100% what I said about you winning.

If that's pathetic, fine, most of my life is. I accept that. Just also accept that I am being 100% sincere that what I have written is what I meant, honestly, with no other motive or intent than what was written.
 
2013-11-01 10:21:59 PM

DubyaHater: This, in no way, trounces on the Civil Rights Act. No one is discriminating against an entire race.


You've missed my point entirely.  I don't mean that to insult you; perhaps I did not express myself well.  Let me start over.

Your original argument was based on the premise "The owner of the company has a right to set the rules."  I said that this was not true, and give as proof of that the  the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets very clear limits on what companies can and cannot do.  The problem seems to be that you think I was talking about discrimination, and I wasn't.  I am simply making the point that the owner of the company DOES NOT HAVE the right to set the rules any way he or she likes.  AS AN EXAMPLE, the owner of a company does not have the right to say "I won't hire black people" or "I will only pay black people half of what I pay white people for the same work."  Again, those are just specific examples of what a business owner does not have the right to do, to illustrate the general point that the owner of the company doesn't have the right to "set the rules" arbitrarily.

The problem is that everything you said in your original post was based on this one premise, that "The owner of the company has a right to set the rules," unless I misread your post somehow.  That makes the entirety of that post logically invalid.  Even if the conclusions you reached are correct, they're based on a faulty premise.

I am thus inviting you to start over from scratch.  Let me put it to you as a question: given that it is entirely right and proper for the government to tell a business owner that they must do this or cannot do that (within reason), what is your argument against this particular mandate?  Why do you think the government has the right to say Bob's Burger Emporium has to pay for their cashiers' chemotherapy but not the right to say they have to pay for their line cook's birth control pills?
 
2013-11-01 10:48:38 PM

ciberido: Let me put it to you as a question: given that it is entirely right and proper for the government to tell a business owner that they must do this or cannot do that (within reason), what is your argument against this particular mandate? Why do you think the government has the right to say Bob's Burger Emporium has to pay for their cashiers' chemotherapy but not the right to say they have to pay for their line cook's birth control pills?


I'd like to take over!
Perhaps this mandate goes beyond reason? It is by some lights unreasonable and contrary to some faiths?  If this a major priority for government, then government could provide these benefits itself and defend the provision of these benefits at the ballot box.
 
2013-11-01 10:49:38 PM

Kit Fister: Oh, trust me, I spent a good deal of time trying to get reimbursements and payouts. It was worse than useless based on all the money I put in in premiums. Now I'd rather just squirrel away money and not have to deal with those sack sucking leeches.


Wouldn't that be nice if you could pay the hospital what the insurance companies pay, and not some ridiculous 400%+ markup for individuals paying in cash?
 
2013-11-01 11:03:06 PM

iodine: ciberido: Let me put it to you as a question: given that it is entirely right and proper for the government to tell a business owner that they must do this or cannot do that (within reason), what is your argument against this particular mandate? Why do you think the government has the right to say Bob's Burger Emporium has to pay for their cashiers' chemotherapy but not the right to say they have to pay for their line cook's birth control pills?

I'd like to take over!
Perhaps this mandate goes beyond reason? It is by some lights unreasonable and contrary to some faiths?  If this a major priority for government, then government could provide these benefits itself and defend the provision of these benefits at the ballot box.


How is it unreasonable given the fact that corporations cannot by definition have faiths?

Also, the government did provide the benefits and defend the provision of the benefits at the ballot box AND in the courts. Did 2012 not happen for you?
 
2013-11-01 11:17:42 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.


Was gonna post something like this, but I can see you have it covered.
 
2013-11-01 11:21:03 PM
I can't for the life of me understand any logic for this at all.  What consequence to themselves(the employer) are they worried about?  So the ACA forces hobby lobby to include standard contraceptive care in it's insurance policy for employees.  At some point we assume an employee makes use of that coverage and takes a contraceptive, at which point the resulting impact to the employer is what?  The added overall cost of the program when they negotiate with the insurer?  Is the CEO of Hobby Lobby so farking stupid he believes that some day he'll get run over by a car, or shot by some militant atheist and then, upon reaching the holy gates he will answer for his life.  Having been a true and devote christian he lays out his trials and triumphs and his devotion to jesus and is about to enter when he is stopped, Hey, didn't your company participate in a nationwide standard that pooled your companies money along with many other companies money and some of that ended up being used by someone else to purchase contraceptive?  TO HELL WITH YOU!  I know religion is often crazy but that right there, that's bullshiat no matter how you look at it.

Companies are not people and should not receive the benefit of inalienable rights like a true individual person does.  As far as I can tell they are using a religious principle as a front to insist on the possibility of a lower premium for money, how noble.

Religion is all just made up beliefs and rules that people choose for themselves(or are indoctrinated into a young age).  Those conditions are self-imposed and should remain strictly that.  When you decide to deny this coverage you are making this decision for someone else as if you had the right.  A lot of CEOs surely feel that they are the proper person to make this decision for the people in their company as they make so many decisions for and about these people, but this decision is far different from what style name tags they have or how casual casual friday is, but this is a decision about the lives of the employees and their time away from the company when the CEO shouldn't be controlling their choices.  So Obama thinks the right to choice belongs to the INDIVIDUAL employee and the republicans believe that the right to choice belongs to the INDIVIDUAL company owner who then decides for everyone that works for him.

Christians believe that your body is not yours but God's body.  It belongs to Him and you don't get to choose to do things to it or with it if He says you can't.  Of course this ignores many barbaric things the bible says they SHOULD do, but what else is new.  Christian's:  I support your right to believe and do as you wish with your own body.  All I am asking is that you allow me the same.  I am willing to let you conduct yourself in accordance with your beliefs even though I do not agree with them.  All I am asking is that you allow me the same.  You don't get to force the rest of the world to obey the Bible just because you believe unwaveringly.  You don't get to pretend participation in an insurance pool is anything but a financial transaction devoid of moral and spiritual content.  Just because you believe crazy things doesn't mean you get to force other people to act crazy so you can feel normal about it.

The puritans didn't come to the new world to escape religious persecution.  They came so they could do it themselves.
 
2013-11-01 11:23:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: How is it unreasonable given the fact that corporations cannot by definition have faiths?

Also, the government did provide the benefits and defend the provision of the benefits at the ballot box AND in the courts. Did 2012 not happen for you?


A corporation can't have a faith and it's not necessary for a corporation to have what it can't have: a faith.  By law, there are corporations that are exempt from providing health benefits of any kind, regardless of the faith of any of their managers because they are small employers  The statute only applies to certain employers who have a certain number of full time employees. Proponents of the Act are therefore not acting out of a moral impulse of any kind, merely a practical one of sending the bill, as far as they can. to somebody else (other than themselves).

Prior to the enactment of the Act, there was already a great deal of law showing that regardless of incorporated status, that managers and/or owners are personally responsible for the actions of their companies.  In which case, it's highly debatable whether the decision to do business in the US means you must suspend your personal rights, including those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, just because you choose to do business in the U.S.

The government did not provide the reproductive health services it now asks some employers to provide.  It never did and still doesn't.  It provided a small portion of these sorts of benefits. Had it actually covered these items to the extent considered necessary by government. there wouldn't now be new legislation passing a buck (that was never ever paid in full by government) to somebody else.

Obviously I was around in 2012.  While I'm low on being patronized lately, kindly fill me up with some Premium and don't pass off the merely 87 octane stuff to me.
 
2013-11-02 12:04:25 AM

Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted?

No, that's called argumentum ad absurdum. To take your opponent's argument to the absurd to attempt to discredit it.

Well, you win. I give up. I a useless piece if shiat and deserve all the bad shiat that happens to me. I get it.


What you really deserve is to come to terms with the fact that bad things happen to people that are way beyond their control and that you are deserving of help just as surely as people who lose everything in a natural disaster are deserving of help.  People shouldn't have to face crushing medical fees on their own.  It's really inhumane.  Fortunately your family loves you, but I'm sure they aren't rich, so maybe you should have been asked to pay a fair share and, since your insurance company didn't want to do their job, let the other 300 million of us help with the rest.
 
2013-11-02 12:11:25 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: Whatever, fine, you guys win. I will double my insurance and tax withholdings from what I make to ensure I'm a much more productive member of society doing my part for the collective.That's whatyou wanted?

No, that's called argumentum ad absurdum. To take your opponent's argument to the absurd to attempt to discredit it.


I usually just call that "being a petulant child," but hey, Latin's cool.
 
2013-11-02 12:12:50 AM
Scary how?  Someone might not get free birth control?
 
2013-11-02 12:19:24 AM

Old Smokie: Scary how?  Someone might not get free birth control?


Scary because, once again, religious morons are sticking their noses into other people's health matters.  Never mind that coverage is part of your compensation, not a gift, as so many like to characterize it.
 
2013-11-02 12:24:55 AM

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister:
Yes I did have help. And I am paying off the loan every paycheck, because I didn't have a choice in them paying.
Your analogy assumes that I asked and took the handout and then said I did it on my own. What I did was more akin to having someone thrust money into my hand against my will which I now feel obligated and honorbound to pay back.
Believe me when I say I would have rather died than have to burden my family.


I am going to assume that your family contacted the hospital directly, which then violated HIPA law, and paid your bill.
Otherwise? They stole your billable mail and paid behind your back
Or? they asked and you told them - and they lent you the money over your protest but realistic assessment of what you owed.
if that last then you could have taken that money, not paid the bill with it instead sending it back to them in payment while also making payments on the bill itself - which would have been the really self-reliant-my-mess scenario.

Look? you had help - you may hate it and you are honorable enough to pay it back while protesting you'd rather be dead (something that would bring your mother to heartbroken tears, no doubt, you cad)
I'm rather surprised you aren't spending more time railing at your "totally voluntary" insurance plan that covered nothing.

Oh, trust me, I spent a good deal of time trying to get reimbursements and payouts. It was worse than useless based on all the money I put in in premiums. Now I'd rather just squirrel away money and not have to deal with those sack sucking leeches.

Look I have no problems with insurance. I keep saying that. I get the logic behind it, and why its useful. Charity I can draw from if I need to like the food bank.

But don't make it sound like some kind of right you have when its a gentleman's agreement to pool resources and nothing more. Me personally, I rather have the option to just pay my own way because fark health insurance companies and their goddamn useless crap.


Ohhhhhhhh ... that's a good one ... partly because your merry band of useful idiots in the GOP have decided to cut food stamps (which are economically positive to the tune of $1.73 of activity for every $1 spent) and force people to head to food banks, who are already strapped too thin.

It's like the argument that the GOP idiots are making that poor people shouldn't be on welfare while protecting the same companies that literally force by the thousands of people to use welfare to shore up their own underpaid labor force.

It's these sorts of obscene intellectual pretzel knots are why this country is going downhill, and downhill fast.  Like it or not, a government sponsored single-payer healthcare system where salaries are prescribed and benefits are enumerated is the ONLY way we will ever reduce our rather stupid 20% of GDP healthcare spending we already do in this country.
 
2013-11-02 12:24:56 AM
It seems like these religious corporations are really only asking a small favor -- that we all have more gay sex.  And I support this position.  And other positions, too.  Lots of other positions.  Doggy style.  Cowboy.  Inverse mantis.  And yes, sometimes even missionary.  69.  68. #2.  But nothing scandalous like scissoring.
 
2013-11-02 12:35:21 AM

MrHappyRotter: It seems like these religious corporations are really only asking a small favor -- that we all have more gay sex.  And I support this position.  And other positions, too.  Lots of other positions.  Doggy style.  Cowboy.  Inverse mantis.  And yes, sometimes even missionary.  69.  68. #2.  But nothing scandalous like scissoring.



i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-02 02:50:40 AM
If you cannot afford condoms, I do not want you risking having sex to begin with. Period.

Sorry snowflake, but if you're that broke, you're not worth the 1% risk of getting pregnant with contraceptives anyways. Put down the Doritos and Code Red, log off WoW and get a job if you want sex. It's a privilege, not a right. Remember, in the real world, you're actually supposed to be proving you are worthy of mating and can provide for young before you have them, just like all the other animals.
 
2013-11-02 03:11:28 AM

Terrible Old Man: If you cannot afford condoms, I do not want you risking having sex to begin with. Period.

Sorry snowflake, but if you're that broke, you're not worth the 1% risk of getting pregnant with contraceptives anyways. Put down the Doritos and Code Red, log off WoW and get a job if you want sex. It's a privilege, not a right. Remember, in the real world, you're actually supposed to be proving you are worthy of mating and can provide for young before you have them, just like all the other animals.


Are we talking about condoms?!  No, we're not talking about condoms because condoms are an over the counter contraceptive.  So, take your walker back across your lawn, Terrible Old Man, and go clean your dentures or something.
 
2013-11-02 06:34:18 AM
There's also people for whom vaccinations, blood transfusions and any medical care at all are against their religious beliefs.  If employers are allowed to deny abortion and birth control coverage, what's to stop employers of those other beliefs from doing the same thing?
 
2013-11-02 07:20:08 AM
I had to look up "ukase", the term Brown used to refer to the contraception mandate.

It's an edict issued by the Russian government.

Cuz soshulizm.
 
2013-11-02 09:25:22 AM

acohn: capn' fun: So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?

No, you and your wife and your daughter and her SO get to decide that by whatever legal means available.  That's a separate issue of whether an employer, particularly a non-publicly-held stock corporation, must pay for those means.


No, it is not a separate issue.  Employers do not provide health care coverage; they subsidize a portion of the cost of a private insurance plan for each employee-from a publicly-held corporation (if you can find a private health insurer, then I'll be happy to acknowledge being wrong on that point).  The decisions as to what is covered or what isn't fall to the insurer, and the financial relationship as to medical treatment is between the employee/patient and the insurer (i.e., co-pays, out of pocket).

This group of employers is demanding to insert themselves in between the employee/patient and the insurer/health care provider and saying, essentially, "I realize that my role in all of this is simply to cut a check for a portion of my employee's health insurance, but because I'm doing that, I DEMAND the right to dictate which medications and procedures my employee receives, based solely on my religious views.  Because Jesus!"  And, incredibly, SCOTUS agrees with them.  I'm still floored by that-haven't had a chance to read the opinion, yet.
 
2013-11-02 11:44:03 AM

ginandbacon: acohn: ginandbacon: acohn: My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?

No.

Then why do different types of insurance plans for business exist?  Why do sr. executives and the officers of a corporation frequently get better coverage than low-level employees?

Why do child labor laws exist? Or OSHA regulations? Or the Family Medical Leave Act? Or overtime laws? Or antidiscrimination laws? Or oh heck, fire alarms?


You're arguing a strawman.  Please stay on point.  It's clear that those in charge of a company, and especially a sub-chapter S corporation, can pick an choose the benefits they offer all employees or any subset of employees, so long as the choices don't run afoul of the government's compelling interest in the health of those employees.  Those arguments are precisely the ones that the circuit court used in finding for the defendants.
 
2013-11-02 12:02:40 PM

acohn: ginandbacon: acohn: ginandbacon: acohn: My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?

No.

Then why do different types of insurance plans for business exist?  Why do sr. executives and the officers of a corporation frequently get better coverage than low-level employees?

Why do child labor laws exist? Or OSHA regulations? Or the Family Medical Leave Act? Or overtime laws? Or antidiscrimination laws? Or oh heck, fire alarms?

You're arguing a strawman.  Please stay on point.  It's clear that those in charge of a company, and especially a sub-chapter S corporation, can pick an choose the benefits they offer all employees or any subset of employees, so long as the choices don't run afoul of the government's compelling interest in the health of those employees. Those arguments are precisely the ones that the circuit court used in finding for the defendants.


I strongly encourage you to read the bolded part and ask yourself how reproductive healthcare is *not* about health. Or do you actually think employers have the right to deny compensation to women? If so, why?
 
2013-11-02 12:04:33 PM

iodine: supayoda: Unfortunately, in cases where you have such inequality the federal government is often the only agency that is capable of leveling the field. See also, civil rights and women gaining the right to vote.

Since when!?  Specifically in the case of women gaining the right to vote, a lot of that struggle played out very visibly in Seneca Falls at a grass roots level and/or in Kansas at a state level, long long long before it became a federal issue.  DECADES later, at a federal level, there was the debate about the 15th Amendment and belatedly therein, women were thrown off that bus of enfranchisement.  FIFTY years later than that, the federal government rethought that decision and enfranchised women.  I'll agree with you, sometime within 70 years of an issue becoming of interest to progressives but receives no accommodation of any kind, the federal government has business to consider.

In that example, despite many many decades of discussion of women's suffrage, there wasn't any in the US.  In the present example, there is PLENTY of coverage from many sources to varying degrees of all manner of reproductive health services, up to and including boner pills.

Since there does appear to be a lot of relief and remedy for reproductive health services; however spotty (unlike Vote for Women in the 1850s) is IS very debatable as to whether or not the federal government should be "laying down the law" on this issue. (or on boner pills for everybody).


You realize we've been fighting for the right to have birth control for decades now, right? It's been an issue for at least 50 years, since the pill was made available in the 1960s. Since then, there have been numerous attempts to outlaw it. And let's not get into the fact (again) that it's medically necessary for some women-- including me, where I would otherwise be dealing with abnormally heavy bleeding, migraines, and mood swings.
 
2013-11-02 12:08:05 PM

iodine: And when we take all arguments I've seen above into account, the following question remains for a federal government to answer:

If there is a federal "right to choose" via Roe v Wade then why doesn't the federal government guarantee that right and do it on its (our) own dime?  Rather it coerces enterprise, enacting legislation that reads more like "there is a right to freedom from pregnancy. Your employer, if large enough, shall buy enough insurance to pay for it, else, we'll punish your employer.  If you work for somebody with 10 employees, call Planned Parenthood.  They might cut you a break for $200.

I don't see Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony or Margaret Sanger standing up and saluting that piece of technocratic crap.


I'm sure you can find someone in New Orleans to remedy that for you.

/Voodoo, ftw.
 
2013-11-02 01:24:14 PM

chapman: theorellior: chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.

This is about people getting their preferred method of birth control paid for by their employer through insurance.This is not about people getting chemo under their insurance, so please feel free to STFU yourself.


Untll BC ls OTC, lt should be covered.
 
2013-11-02 03:12:21 PM
And when we take all arguments I've seen above into account, the following question remains for a federal government to answer:

If there is a federal "right to choose" via Roe v Wade then why doesn't the federal government guarantee that right and do it on its (our) own dime?  Rather it coerces enterprise, enacting legislation that reads more like "there is a right to freedom from pregnancy. Your employer, if large enough, shall buy enough insurance to pay for it, else, we'll punish your employer.  If you work for somebody with 10 employees, call Planned Parenthood.  They might cut you a break for $200.

I don't see Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony or Margaret Sanger standing up and saluting that piece of technocratic crap.


The other side of that argument is that the government has a compelling public interest in coercing enterprise into doing something for the benefit of society at large, e.g, bearing the costs of an unwanted pregancy, spending federal aid money on children (via SNAP, for example).  An example of that is the federal minimum wage, and the minimum coverages for employer-sponsored health insurance even before that ACA went into effect.

I think that the two sides of this issue, as they pertain to mandatory contraception under the ACA, are new, valid, and ripe for consideration by the SCOTUS.
 
2013-11-02 03:48:40 PM

Kit Fister: As to society, I gladly pay in taxes or directly for what I take and use, because to me that's how it should work: I pay for what I need and sell what I have or what skills I have to earn themoney to pay for what I need.


Except that as a society, we've decided that we don't want it to work like that.  Your property taxes pay for some other children's education as well as your own, for police to protect the well-being of the community at large, and for the fire dept. to put out the fire at somebody else's house as well as your own.  Your gas taxes pay for roads all over your state and the country, not just the ones you drive.  Hell, Social Security works by directly transferring money you pay in during your working years to people you've never met and are done working to spend as they need.

If you want your taxes to pay directly only for what you take and use,  then you really don't want to live in any kind of modern society.
 
2013-11-02 04:49:18 PM

acohn: If you want your taxes to pay directly only for what you take and use, then you really don't want to live in any kind of modern society.


Given what I've seen of modern society, I think that goes without saying.
 
2013-11-02 08:16:46 PM

iodine: Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.  If Gilardi's doesn't want to fund insurance benefits for contraception or abortion and the courts agree with them, then folks can suck it (and make them pay the wage premium that would provide for personal funding of this very personal benefit). Plenty of employers legally offer no health benefits at all.

One might complain that neither position should be allowed, but even in the twilight of Obamacare, that argument is going nowhere quickly, at least as a practical matter of politics being "the art of the possible".

Let's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.


I agree, no company should be buying insurance. We should have single payer, problem solved.
 
2013-11-03 01:52:18 AM

vrax: FFS, you are so full of shiat!  it is compensation for services rendered and is usually subsidized by varying degrees by the employee!


This is what liberals actually believe.  That's not only scary, it explains why adults need to run the health care system.  Fark Dependents don't have any idea who is actually paying for employer-based health care.
 
2013-11-03 02:17:41 AM

Lsherm: vrax: FFS, you are so full of shiat!  it is compensation for services rendered and is usually subsidized by varying degrees by the employee!

This is what liberals actually believe.  That's not only scary, it explains why adults need to run the health care system.  Fark Dependents don't have any idea who is actually paying for employer-based health care.


Ultimately, that would be paying customers (and taxpayer subsidies), but I suspect that wasn't what you were attempting to say.
/You're still dead wrong.
 
Displayed 393 of 393 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report