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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 43 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