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.

(WTOP)   Supreme Court to decide if you can use your religion as an excuse to make health decisions for your employees   (wtop.com) divider line 431
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, health law, reproductive healths, faiths  
•       •       •

4457 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-26 04:20:02 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.

You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.


yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.
 
2013-11-26 04:21:33 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: Who knows?  That type of corporation would probably have a tough time laying out their case.  Hobby Lobby is owned by one guy and his family; their religious beliefs have always been a large part of the company (e.g. closing on Sundays, mission statements, etc.)  Not as difficult for them to establish.  Again, it's not whether or not a corporation has a religion--it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.

Your last sentence undermines the rest of your post. You seem to be saying that's what's relevant isn't the religious affiliation of the corporation, but whether the law impacts the religious beliefs of a shareholder. No?


No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.  They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.  There's already precedence for corporations suing under the RFRA (i.e. non-profits)
 
2013-11-26 04:21:52 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: DECI


Took long enough for someone to point this out.
 
2013-11-26 04:22:30 PM

Sweaty Dynamite: Employer:  Well here is our food benefit plan, we will cover half of your grocery bills from store X.  We chose this store as our food provider for many reasons, but one of the main reasons is because they don't sell mustard.  I farking hate mustard, and I think no one should be subjected to it.

Employee:  But you are denying my access to mustard you condiment Nazi.

Employer:  No, you are free to buy your own mustard wherever you like.  I'm just not going to have money that I am spending for your food needs going for any god damned mustard.  In fact, save the $10/month you are spending on birth control and you can have a smorgasbord of mustard for all I care.  Anybody with that much mustard on their breath won't be getting laid anyway.


Close ...

Government: Employers must provide this (fictional) food service.

Employer: Ok ... but my invisible friend says mustard is bad so I will deny that part of the coverage even though the rules are that I provide coverage.

Hopefully what the SCOTUS says: Fark you ... if your invisible friend tells you not to eat mustard then you can choose not to for yourself. You don't get to choose for anyone else. Comply with the same rules as everyone else. Your belief in invisible friends does make you special but not in a good way.
 
2013-11-26 04:23:10 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: stewbert: And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea

How in God's name did you make that conclusion? It couldn't have been from Dancin_In_Anson: While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG so it had to come from somewhere else. Please elaborate.

Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.

You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Show your work

Wages and breaks are benefits and or compensation. Chained doors and safe working environments are a matter of public safety. Two entirely different animals.


Paying a living wage and not working someone to death aren't purvue of social policy. But letting a person choose to work for higher wages without the dastardly oppression of not allowing asbestos removers to work without masks or seamstresses to work without fire exits is?

You don't sound very bootstrappy.
 
2013-11-26 04:24:55 PM

Farking Canuck: Your belief in invisible friends does make you special but not in a good way.


Actually, religion is highly protected. Tough shiat for you, authoritarian canuck.
 
2013-11-26 04:25:03 PM

dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.


They're refusing to pay their employees what they're legally required to because they don't like what the employees are going to do with the money (get health care they don't approve of).  AT BEST it's theft.
 
2013-11-26 04:25:14 PM

Shryke: Having a middleman, corporations you work for, be the purchaser of your insurance is perfectly retarded and a major cause of all this mess.


If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.
 
2013-11-26 04:25:27 PM
Corporations do not have a right to exist.  There are conditions that must be met before a corporation may be formed and there are conditions that must be met to maintain the corporate charter.  A corporation that does not operate in the public interest may be dissolved.  Just make compliance with Obamacare a condition for incorporation and this question is answered.
 
2013-11-26 04:26:17 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates?



The individual plans would cost more than the negotiated group rates.
 
2013-11-26 04:26:18 PM

Shryke: Farking Canuck: Your belief in invisible friends does make you special but not in a good way.

Actually, religion is highly protected. Tough shiat for you, authoritarian canuck.


I did not say that religion was not protected. I said that adults with invisible friends are "special".
 
2013-11-26 04:26:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.

Show your work.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Forcing them to what? Provide insurance? How is that different than forcing them to pay minimum wage, a safe work environment, unchained emergency exits, breaks in a 8 hour day etc. ?

Exactly. (the middle two aren't the same as the first and last)


well what exactly is their standing for filing this suit?
how does it harm them other than their feelings?
why does it matter to them if their employees' insurance covers contraceptives?
it's not them purchasing them. the employees are.
that money they give the insurance company is actually their employee's deferred compensation.
The employees are actually purchasing the plan.
All the company is doing is getting them a discount.
 
2013-11-26 04:26:54 PM

Headso: Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered.  A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.

The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law. The rest of your post where you don't understand risk pools has nothing to do with the case.


I understand risk pools.  What you don't understand is that first dollar insurance policies are exactly the wrong approach to health care funding.  ACA took a system that was flawed and, in spite of the fact that the majority of the population got along with it and had coverage, pushed it as far as possible in the wrong direction.  Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.

It wouldn't work for everybody but guess what!  The old system didn't work for everybody and ACA looks like it's going to make it worse for more people and work for fewer people.
 
2013-11-26 04:27:34 PM
Still, even if a corporation has a religion, do they have the right to exert religious influence on others (employees)? I would think that is a non-starter.
 
2013-11-26 04:27:47 PM
If they allow this then you can call anything a religious belief. Don want to pay taxes? Against my religion. Don't want to serve black people just claim its against your religion. This precedent will allow anyone to ignore any law they please if they just claim a religious belief
 
2013-11-26 04:27:59 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: stewbert: And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea

How in God's name did you make that conclusion? It couldn't have been from Dancin_In_Anson: While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG so it had to come from somewhere else. Please elaborate.

Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.

You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Show your work

Wages and breaks are benefits and or compensation. Chained doors and safe working environments are a matter of public safety. Two entirely different animals.


So a living wage and not being worked to death are not part of the public interest. But not being able to choose to work for a higher wage without an asbestos mask or a fire exit is not?

Sounds pretty arbitray & non bootstrappy to me.
 
2013-11-26 04:28:08 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The Irresponsible Captain: It boggles my mind that we have to ask this question.

I hope I'm not disappointed in my country again.

/But I probably will be.

It boggles the mind that we are forcing employers to pay for insurance in the first place.

Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates? It's completely illogical.


Because it's a Republican idea...
healthcareforamericanow.org
 
2013-11-26 04:28:35 PM
Complete and total bullshyte. All the business must do is provide the insurance to meet the minimum coverage as mandated by law. It's up to the insurance companies what exactly gets covered, and by how much.
 
2013-11-26 04:28:43 PM

Headso: If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.


Let me get this straight: I would not have a problem with the ACA if the end users were actually paying for the services they used, based on what they used.

Yes, I have no problem with that. This is, of course, the opposite of what the ACA does.

That said, the "mess" I am referring to predates the ACA by several decades.
 
2013-11-26 04:30:35 PM

Farking Canuck: I did not say that religion was not protected.


Just that religious people were delusional and worse. Oh what a difference.
 
2013-11-26 04:31:14 PM

Coastalgrl: PunGent: Coastalgrl: I'm split. On the one hand, I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system HOWEVER, its forcing its belief system on its employees which is not right either. The argument can be made that if someone is working there by choice and could find work elsewhere...etc.

Its the forcing the company's religious beliefs (which it shouldn't have in the first place) on their workers which is incorrect. At the end of the day, I doubt they really care all that much about their religion but trying to find a loophole to not have to pay the benefits and save money to pad their profit margin.

I'm astounded when I watch CSPAN how many times religion is used as a platform. What happened to separation of church and state?

/I'm equally offended by all religions but uphold the ability for others to practice as they choose.
//Just not on my lawn. Or in my uterus.

Problem is, current Republicans really don't think it's YOUR uterus.

Oh fantastic. Next are they going to levy a tax if I don't produce viable offspring? Call it empty incubator tax or something patriotic like Future American Tax. Taxed every year I dont produce offspring? (No don't tell them that, don't give them any ideas)

I think President Obama said it really well in one of his debates last round. Republicans have 1950's esq social policy. If we lived in Eratosthenes time, the Republicans would be the one clinging to the earth is flat idea.

We keep getting closer and closer to Orwellian society. It was meant as a warning, not a roadmap


Obama spies on his own people.

But grrrr republicans bad.
 
2013-11-26 04:31:24 PM

Mr. Right: Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.


Citizens should just have a certain level of coverage no HSA required then if you want additional or better coverage you can purchase it. What you advocate puts more of the burden on the middle class and poor.
 
2013-11-26 04:31:43 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?



The asshole kind
 
2013-11-26 04:32:49 PM

Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered. A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.


Can't happen under current law.  This is one of my biggest beefs against Obamacare (and Romneycare, since I live in Mass.)

The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies.  Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them.  Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage.  So they still get fined.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:07 PM

Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up.  If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people.  Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's.  Think about that.  A world without McDonald's.  People would be starving without McDonald's.  Thank you, McDonald's.


+1 for the obviously dripping sarcasm.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:15 PM
I have no worries that John Roberts will be bribed/ blackmailed/ threatened into making the decision the Admin wants.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:30 PM

drumhellar: Has anybody noticed that Hobby Lobby isn't a corporation?

It is a privately-owed company, which significantly changes the issue.

The owners are still coonts, but still - it's unrelated from corporate personhood.


It is a corporation.  It says right on their website, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:51 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates?


The individual plans would cost more than the negotiated group rates.


I can see why that would be pre-PPACA (selection bias... half of Americans couldn't enroll in an individual plan for any amount of money).  But, post-PPACA where the individual plans are community rated?   There's a tiny bit of difference in overhead (and I'd say the employer-based plans might have higher overhead really... the insurer has to keep track of each enrollee anyway).  There's still a little selection bias (really really sick people don't tend to have jobs).  But, overall, why should group rates be much lower any more?
 
2013-11-26 04:34:04 PM

DamnYankees: Qellaqan: Conservative side: these rules are picking on certain states and regions, that's unfair. Liberal side: you were doing unfair things in your elections, these corrections fixed those problems. My solution: why not apply these limitations everywhere? Isn't it mostly the right to screw with an election at the last minute? That is asking the people in power to twiddle with things to their own benefit. Elections don't need last minute twiddling, lock them down well in advance everywhere.

I don't disagree with you as a matter of policy. But as a matter of judge-ship and acting in the capacity as a judge and not a legislator, the VRA decision was a true abomination.


My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'. However, they completely ignored the other part of the argument (to our great detriment, but legal arguments never seem to take that into account). That said, is the legislature barred from passing a VRA that applies to everyone (other than the breathtakingly pointless legislative body)?
 
2013-11-26 04:34:18 PM

Shryke: Headso: If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.

Let me get this straight: I would not have a problem with the ACA if the end users were actually paying for the services they used, based on what they used.

Yes, I have no problem with that. This is, of course, the opposite of what the ACA does.


yes I know, the ACA gives poor people coverage with the medicare expansion and helps the lower middle and middle class with subsidies, I know that is a problem for conservatives.
 
2013-11-26 04:34:44 PM

PunGent: The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies. Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them. Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage. So they still get fined.


Welcome to leftistism. Redistribution to assuage guilt.
 
2013-11-26 04:36:40 PM

rumpelstiltskin: There are two things you learn right fast about corporations: first, they want you to get a wife so you have some coont nagging you to work harder to get promotions. And second, they want you to have kids, so you feel tied down. Workplaces frowning on contraception isn't about being pro-life. It's about being pro-slavery, and you're the slave.

You would fit in very well in DeKalb County, Georgia, especially if you're called for jury duty.

 
2013-11-26 04:36:42 PM

PunGent: Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered. A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.

Can't happen under current law.  This is one of my biggest beefs against Obamacare (and Romneycare, since I live in Mass.)

The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies.  Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them.  Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage.  So they still get fined.


you couldn't buy those scam insurances you talk about even before Romneycare, MA has tough regs on all insurance companies that's why many of the big auto insurance companies are not in MA.
 
2013-11-26 04:36:47 PM

Cubicle Jockey: BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.
1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO
1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.
1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.
7000 shares are owned by the general public.
The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.

What is the religion of the employer?


What church does it go to on Sundays?
 
2013-11-26 04:37:17 PM

Headso: yes I know, the ACA gives poor people coverage with the medicare expansion and helps the lower middle and middle class with subsidies, I know that is a problem for conservatives.


Anything that can't be paid for is a problem for everyone. The best part about this, at least from my side of the coin, is the ass-raping the young are going to get is near-instant, unlike the Great Society initiatives that slowly but surely stole their money.
 
2013-11-26 04:38:17 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Well, the business will not be making health decisions for their employees. employees can take as much birth control cancer drugs as they like. You can walk around with a bag of RU-486 immunosuppresors and pop 'em like candy all day long.The court will decide whether the business has to pay for it via insurance


What is the difference between your version and mine, morally?


To me, nothing.
IMO you should be able to offer coverage for everything but immunosuppressors and cancer drugs if you want, it's your company.

And you wouldn't be making health care decisions for your employees either, hence the falseness of the headline.
 
2013-11-26 04:38:19 PM

Shryke: Headso: If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.

Let me get this straight: I would not have a problem with the ACA if the end users were actually paying for the services they used, based on what they used.

Yes, I have no problem with that. This is, of course, the opposite of what the ACA does.

That said, the "mess" I am referring to predates the ACA by several decades.


That's the system we had before the ACA. You can see how well it's worked out.

Insurance is not on a "pay per use" system. It's a constant input so we can amortize costs across people. If I get cancer, there's no way I could pay for how much I'd use in the system. But now, I pay more into the system than I use on the off chance that I do get cancer or other serious illnesses.

Do you think that your employer should be able to a-la-carte choose which healthcare you're allowed to use? Because that's what it seems like you're advocating, and is the exact opposite of empowering the person. It makes the employee much more of a slave, and gives the corporation master status. Can it with the "just find a different job" shiat, too. If someone has to choose between not eating tomorrow and working for a bad company, you know which one they'll choose. Believe it or not, not everyone has thousands of dollars in the bank and the ability to pick and choose employers at their whim. Yet, they're still people and do not deserve to be taken advantage of.
 
2013-11-26 04:38:49 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.  Why should this be different?  It doesn't mean specious will get a pass and shape policy.  Moreover--since the government publicly and voluntarily accepted a high burden here--they certainly seemed willing to take on the responsibility,  Isn't the best course of action to let their power to be checked?

I agree with this in general, but I'm unclear on what the nature claim here is. We seem to be vacillating between 2 different claims, and I haven't been sure what it is you're thinking about:

1) A claim on behalf of the corporation, claiming the the corporation itself has some religious beliefs which are being violated.

2) A claim on behalf of a shareholder of a corporation, claiming that by imposing certain laws on the corporation, the religious rights of the shareholder are being violated.

Which is it? Because these are 2 distinct claims that need to be responded to differently.


All this talk about "corporations having religion" is a red herring.  It's purely about whether a for-profit employer can assert a claim against the Federal government for infringing on his/her/its religious beliefs with the Obamacare mandate.  Hobby Lobby organization structure is tiny and religiously homogenous.  The owners are all in the same family, and assert their beliefs with one voice. 

There's no reason to deny them standing on the basis of the father incorporating the business and sharing ownership with his children. 

Oh--and I believe there is legal precedent for non-profit corporations suing the government under the RFRA
 
2013-11-26 04:39:07 PM

BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.


And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?
 
2013-11-26 04:39:26 PM

Headso: yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.


They own the business, they have the say just as you do in your business.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Paying a living wage and not working someone to death


If you don't like your pay and you don't like your hours, you are not forced by anyone to work there. Nor should you be forced to work there. Or do anything against your will for that matter.

Hobodeluxe: well what exactly is their standing for filing this suit?
how does it harm them other than their feelings?
why does it matter to them if their employees' insurance covers contraceptives?


Why does it matter to you?

Hobodeluxe: it's not them purchasing them. the employees are.
that money they give the insurance company is actually their employee's deferred compensation.
The employees are actually purchasing the plan.
All the company is doing is getting them a discount.


So how about this? They have no company insurance and they choose to buy their own insurance that will cover whatever their little hearts desire. Better yet they can make the choice to go to work elsewhere that offers them something more attractive. You're hiring aren't you? $20/hour plus full benes too I'm sure.
 
2013-11-26 04:39:40 PM
Company: My religious belief is that the US Dollar is an evil currency so I need to pay employees with credit to the company store... because 1st Amendment!
 
2013-11-26 04:39:58 PM
You don't like it?   Go buy your own health insurance.
 
2013-11-26 04:40:42 PM

Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'


You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.
 
2013-11-26 04:41:46 PM

Shryke: Headso: yes I know, the ACA gives poor people coverage with the medicare expansion and helps the lower middle and middle class with subsidies, I know that is a problem for conservatives.

Anything that can't be paid for is a problem for everyone. The best part about this, at least from my side of the coin, is the ass-raping the young are going to get is near-instant, unlike the Great Society initiatives that slowly but surely stole their money.


You should google the hippocratic oath and learn that even before Obamacare people still would get care even without coverage. You should also google "health care spending growth at it's lowest" and then come back and amend your concern trolling about costs.
 
2013-11-26 04:41:51 PM

Lawnchair: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates?


The individual plans would cost more than the negotiated group rates.

I can see why that would be pre-PPACA (selection bias... half of Americans couldn't enroll in an individual plan for any amount of money).  But, post-PPACA where the individual plans are community rated?   There's a tiny bit of difference in overhead (and I'd say the employer-based plans might have higher overhead really... the insurer has to keep track of each enrollee anyway).  There's still a little selection bias (really really sick people don't tend to have jobs).  But, overall, why should group rates be much lower any more?


Exactly. If the exchanges are so great, let people buy their own insurance. With community rating it wouldn't be much, if any, more expensive than group plans. And the consumer would in many cases get more choice than under group cafeteria plans.
 
2013-11-26 04:42:09 PM

Novart: Coastal


Never said the man or the party was perfect.

Given a choice between someone listening in on my phone conversation vs being forced to breed, I'll take the spying.

No spying is wrong and I can't stand it. But if I get knocked up due to rape, guess what, I'll drive to wherever I need to and take whatever pill I need to get rid of it.

Also, I have no party affiliation. I refuse based on principle.
 
2013-11-26 04:42:33 PM
2010 - Corporations are People
2014 - People have religious rights so therefore Corporations have religious rights
2016 - Stand your ground is upheld for Corporations, employees can be shot at will
2020 - Layoffs become known as corporate abortions

isomkuadejournal.com
 
2013-11-26 04:42:38 PM

Pitabred: If I get cancer, there's no way I could pay for how much I'd use in the system.


False.

Additionally, it is indicative of the shiat logic most of the left attach to "health insurance" in the first place.

By definition, health insurance premiums exceed the amount consumed. Or the company closes. Health insurance isn't magic; the opposite is true: it is very good math. The only "magic" in this discussion is the preposterous idea that insuring already sick/disabled/dying people can somehow work out to "affordable", via redistribution.
 
2013-11-26 04:43:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Exactly. If the exchanges are so great, let people buy their own insurance.


This is, like, one step above "oh yeah, well if you love exchanges so much, why don't you marry them!"
 
2013-11-26 04:43:36 PM

Triumph: DamnYankees: Triumph: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception.

I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.

What's the legal basis by which a corporation would have the right to deny one form of medical care on the basis of religious belief, but not another?

Oh, I don't really think there is one, I just hate it when people call abortion contraception.


Really?  How often does that happen?
 
Displayed 50 of 431 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report