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  
•       •       •

4471 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (44 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 08:17:58 PM

d23: Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?

You do realise, don't you, that if you're somehow morally against certain rules and laws that one MUST follow if they own a corporation that they are free to NOT own a corporation, right?

You want take advantage of the vast and growing privileges one gets by owning parts or all of a corporation you sure as hell better be willing to accept the rules.  I know the massive hordes of whining corporate execs and corporate worshipers won't agree with me... still.


So it's not ok to argue with the government? You just accept the administrative regulations and like it?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 08:23:55 PM

flucto: So it's not ok to argue with the government? You just accept the administrative regulations and like it?


Firstly, if you don't like rules and regulations and organization, then Somalia is for you.

Secondly, there is *no* group of people on the planet that has legislators ears more than corporate executives.  My idiot rep, for instance, doesn't even listen to his constituents, it's all ALEC with him.  So they have plenty of input on the laws... much more than me.  And they biatch more than any group as well.  To say that they have no input is asinine.  If they want to be in the US follow the law.
 
2013-11-26 08:29:22 PM

d23: flucto: So it's not ok to argue with the government? You just accept the administrative regulations and like it?

Firstly, if you don't like rules and regulations and organization, then Somalia is for you.

Secondly, there is *no* group of people on the planet that has legislators ears more than corporate executives.  My idiot rep, for instance, doesn't even listen to his constituents, it's all ALEC with him.  So they have plenty of input on the laws... much more than me.  And they biatch more than any group as well.  To say that they have no input is asinine.  If they want to be in the US follow the law.


DRINK!
 
2013-11-26 08:29:33 PM

d23: Firstly, if you don't like rules and regulations and organization, then Somalia is for you.


Really? When the next Republican administration issues some moronic directive everyone who is opposed can just move to Somalia and forget due process?

"If they want to be in the US follow the law. " - the law includes the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. An administrative ruling issued by HHS does not overshadow that. You're obviously passionate about this but you are misguided as relates to the rights of these companies to challenge the directive of HHS regarding something they've added to the new law. That's how our country is supposed to work.
 
2013-11-26 08:30:56 PM
God's law is clear as is written in the Bible. God's law trumps man's law as these people will find out once it's too late. God is love but He will cast you into Hell if you deny Him.
 
2013-11-26 08:31:32 PM

phrawgh: God's law is clear as is written in the Bible. God's law trumps man's law as these people will find out once it's too late. God is love but He will cast you into Hell if you deny Him.


Shut up.
 
2013-11-26 08:34:17 PM
How can we convince the supreme court that individual people with individual bodys and minds and rights are somehow different from business models used to describe organizations of people and resources into an authoritarian work structure and as a definition for tax purposes are different?  Seems far fetched to me.

\sarcasm off.

The reason rights are so valuable is because they are reserved for individuals.  If you really believe gay marriage taints and undermines "traditional" marriage then you must believe that corporate person-hood taints and undermines individual person-hood.  The difference is that one is a protection of the rights of individuals against the theoretical expense of the many, where corporate person-hood takes everyone and makes them less powerful when compared with their Frankenstein corporate person cousins in real definable money/man-power terms.

Some in the supreme court seem to be  naive children who are unable or unwilling to critically examine what the result of their decisions will be.  Corporate person-hood is a lie on top of a lie.  Don't fall for it.
 
2013-11-26 08:42:14 PM
what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?
 
2013-11-26 09:02:09 PM

Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?


They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?
 
2013-11-26 09:19:03 PM

pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?


Except that the current health care situation is that if you don't get it from your employer, it's obscenely expensive, and any analogies are pretty fundamentally broken. Imagine if they said you can buy red wine, but they won't offer beer, and beer is $100 for a Coors Light when purchased without the company's aid? That's the problem here - that analogy is pretty accurate but won't resonate because it doesn't make sense that Coors Light would ever be $100. But birth control pills, frequently used for medical maladies unrelated to farking, ARE just like that.
 
2013-11-26 09:22:05 PM

pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?


Your job shouldn't have any say in what you do with your remuneration for services performed.  That means it's quite all right if you want to buy 40 year old scotch with your pay, but there is nothing saying that that is part of your remuneration (unless it was agreed to in your work contract).

However, if you are going to argue that an employer should have the right to make decisions for their employees as to how and where they spend their money (which once paid, no longer belongs to the employer), then you are arguing for a return to something like the company store.  Mainly due to if you say a company can decide what an employee does with their money, they can also decide to pay them only in company scrip, with specific instructions and rules on what it can & can't be spent on.

If you really want to go down that road, it basically gives employers almost free reign to live their employees lives for them, once the employee signs a work contract with them.  Now, I hear you say, you can just go to another job!  But the fact is there are very few really well paying jobs out there, so that's a fallacy.  Do you really believe it's in the best interests of the nation to give corporations almost unlimited power over their employees?  I don't.
 
2013-11-26 10:40:16 PM

Hobodeluxe: give me


And if they don't you're going to force them to under the threat of violence. Is this a great country or what?
 
2013-11-26 11:17:12 PM

Headso: 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.


No idea what you're talking about:  catastrophic health care isn't an auto insurance product.
 
2013-11-26 11:19:09 PM

Shryke: 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.


Romney's not considered "leftist" by most people, but whatever floats your boat.
 
2013-11-26 11:34:46 PM

flucto: debug: Why?

Condoms, gym memberships, vitamins, vegetables, yoga, vacations: all healthy. None are "health care" per se. There has to be a line, surely? I like "medically necessary"


Birth Control Pills aren't medically necessary either.  Neither is an IUD or any other contraceptive.  So why single out condoms?
 
2013-11-26 11:56:06 PM
Just maybe? it's time to take the insurance issue away from the employer you may want to quit some time down the road (maybe sooner than later) and allow every American equal access to insurance without a penalty imposed because he / she does not work for the richest global corporation.
   By it's nature, insurance should be evenly applied, every human should have equal insurance rights AND costs.  That's why they call it "INSURANCE" that's how it's supposed to work!
WE, as humans are not an expensive car or boat with costs that justify varying rates .  Humans should not be pro-rated like property! we are all equally susceptible to the same illnesses and accidents who ever we work for.
 
2013-11-27 12:16:33 AM

ZzeusS: ciberido: ZzeusS: OK, well.  Your company's religion required contraception.

Mine requires insemination.

You don't like it?  Too bad for you.  Assume the position.


[static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 700x525]
I am programmed for your pleasure.

I noticed how they survived 30 years after the nukes, and can make laundry and do bedding, sort and stack books, but no one can grab a broom.


Brooms were first against the wall when the Revolution came.

Also:
www.vgcats.com
 
2013-11-27 12:20:25 AM

Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?


I'll probably regret responding to this, but what the hell.

In what way, precisely, do you imagine that Obama forces reproductive choices on those against it?
 
2013-11-27 12:27:31 AM

This text is now purple: Donnchadha: So, could this easily be defeated by requesting evidence that the corporation, as a person-entity is actually active (or a registered member) in said religion?

Short: No.
Long: Of course not. Don't be obtuse.


media2.onsugar.com
 
2013-11-27 01:02:36 AM

pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?


Were you guaranteed scotch in your contract?  No?  Then shut the fark up.

My employment contract includes health coverage.  If they decided to start taking out parts of that coverage because the corporate religion finds it offensive, I would have issues with them.  Legal issues involving a court.
 
2013-11-27 06:42:11 AM
I'm worried about this. There are so many ways giving others the power to force their religious beliefs onto your healthcare will lead to hardship, illness and death.
 
2013-11-27 07:04:17 AM

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.


And some folks claim that vaccinations are against their religion.
 
2013-11-27 12:49:16 PM

debug: flucto: debug: Why?

Condoms, gym memberships, vitamins, vegetables, yoga, vacations: all healthy. None are "health care" per se. There has to be a line, surely? I like "medically necessary"

Birth Control Pills aren't medically necessary either.  Neither is an IUD or any other contraceptive.  So why single out condoms?


Except they are for certain people, like those with PCOS --  I believe it's also standard treatment for endometriosis as well.  You know, just preventing crippling pain, excessive bleeding, also decreasing risks of certain cancers... Nobody would consider that medically necessary, right?
 
2013-11-27 12:56:34 PM

Onyx Serpent: Nobody would consider that medically necessary, right?


If the doctor convinces the insurance company, fine. Are you pretending that enough people are in that category to extend it to everybody? Because there's a LOT of things that should be covered before that if we're talking about large groups. Veggies, gyms, education. Why doesn't HHS mandate those? Oh yeah, that's not pandering to their constituents.
 
2013-11-27 01:11:09 PM

flucto: Onyx Serpent: Nobody would consider that medically necessary, right?

If the doctor convinces the insurance company, fine. Are you pretending that enough people are in that category to extend it to everybody? Because there's a LOT of things that should be covered before that if we're talking about large groups. Veggies, gyms, education. Why doesn't HHS mandate those? Oh yeah, that's not pandering to their constituents.


Yes there are.  Myself, 3 or 4 of my cousins, my ex roommate, my best friend through high school, a couple of gaming buddies of mine, and that's just off the top of my head.  And I'm pretty much a hermit, so that's a fairly significant sample size, even accounting for genetics.  Not all for the same reason, of course, but they were all put on it (initially, at least) because of medical rather than contraceptive reasons.

Hell, Wikipedia says that 5% - 10% of reproductive-age women may have PCOS (ignoring everything else that BC would treat), which sounds about right percentage-wise.  If you don't think that's enough of a section of the population, then you better be saying that people with Random Obscure Disease of Your Choice have to pay full costs for their prescription as well.
 
2013-11-27 01:18:18 PM
Okay I may be being a bit strawman-y there.  The "BC pills are 100% optional" thought just drives me up a wall.
 
2013-11-27 02:08:34 PM

OgreMagi: pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?

Were you guaranteed scotch in your contract?  No?  Then shut the fark up.

My employment contract includes health coverage.  If they decided to start taking out parts of that coverage because the corporate religion finds it offensive, I would have issues with them.  Legal issues involving a court.


Do most people have contracts?  No?  Then shut the fark up.
 
2013-11-27 02:13:29 PM

Killthatgecko: By it's nature, insurance should be evenly applied, every human should have equal insurance rights AND costs. That's why they call it "INSURANCE" that's how it's supposed to work!
WE, as humans are not an expensive car or boat with costs that justify varying rates . Humans should not be pro-rated like property! we are all equally susceptible to the same illnesses and accidents who ever we work for.


Not sure if serious.

If serious:
That's not how insurance works at at all.

We are not all susceptible to the same illnesses and accidents.  People who choose to engage in risky behavior do not have the same injuries as those who are more careful.  People who take care of themselves-eating right, exercise, and/or paying attention to their symptoms do not suffer from the same illnesses as people who like to drink excessively, eat crap all the time, and/or ignoring symptoms.

Insurance is a risk pool that everyone contributes to.  The more of a risk you are to the pool, the more your contribution is.  THAT is how insurance works.
 
2013-11-27 02:16:24 PM

pedrop357: OgreMagi: pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?

Were you guaranteed scotch in your contract?  No?  Then shut the fark up.

My employment contract includes health coverage.  If they decided to start taking out parts of that coverage because the corporate religion finds it offensive, I would have issues with them.  Legal issues involving a court.

Do most people have contracts?  No?  Then shut the fark up.


You should try working outside of the fast food service industry.

Also, shut the fark up.
 
2013-11-27 02:50:09 PM

Onyx Serpent: Yes there are. Myself, 3 or 4 of my cousins, my ex roommate, my best friend through high school, a couple of gaming buddies of mine, and that's just off the top of my head. And I'm pretty much a hermit, so that's a fairly significant sample size, even accounting for genetics. Not all for the same reason, of course, but they were all put on it (initially, at least) because of medical rather than contraceptive reasons.

Hell, Wikipedia says that 5% - 10% of reproductive-age women may have PCOS (ignoring everything else that BC would treat), which sounds about right percentage-wise. If you don't think that's enough of a section of the population, then you better be saying that people with Random Obscure Disease of Your Choice have to pay full costs for their prescription as well.


If a doctor says it's medically necessary insurance companies tend to pay. You know perfectly well this is not about medical care it's about pandering.
 
2013-11-27 09:19:39 PM
Count on it.

Theres a reason why the GOP keeps blocking Obama judge appointees.  Even if the GOP sucks, conservative judges is going to be their legacy.
 
Displayed 31 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