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  
•       •       •

5029 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2013 at 4:37 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



393 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 393 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report