Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Contraceptive Case (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11   
Author Topic: Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Contraceptive Case
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Just want to reiterate what Pyrtolin said.
Good post, DJ.
Bad post, Al. [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"They are also the most effective way of reducing disabling pain from a period."

how so?

In a huge percentage of users periods stop altogether. For most others they significantly decrease the frequency and severity of periods.

quote:
how many Americans keep a job for 144 months in this economy?
If all health plans cover them then they can be amortized across multiple employers. (i.e. you have to pay for the people that are under your plan for only a couple years but not the people that came to your plan after having them covered by a previous plan) You may have just encountered another way this harms even non-Hobby Lobby employees.

quote:
And does your 500-1000 cost include cost of removal and installation?
Yes, it's inserted by a gyno in a short doctor's office visit. It's removed in any even shorter one.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Just want to reiterate what Pyrtolin said.
Good post, DJ.
Bad post, Al. [Razz]
Why?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If all health plans cover them then they can be amortized across multiple employers. (i.e. you have to pay for the people that are under your plan for only a couple years but not the people that came to your plan after having them covered by a previous plan) You may have just encountered another way this harms even non-Hobby Lobby employees.
Also, it's noteworthy that contraceptive coverage represents a net reduction in the cost of overall coverage, so taking action to prevent the company offering the health plan from offering contraceptive coverage to the person the plan is for represents a direct cost increase right out of the gate.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
I see D.W. I really hate it that we let people impose their elitist beliefs on me by refusing to buy my lunch, don't they know that money is a communal right? I also think that its egregious that when people send me gifts they get to pick what they are and how much they want to spend, it's clear that this imposition of their views on me should not be tolerated and I should be entitled to pick my own gifts on your credit.
So the rest of the nation all operates under a system where every employer, as part of a compensation package to their employees was forced to pay a lunch stipend with pre-tax dollars into a system where every employee was issued a diners card.
So to get this straight, you see a "parallel" to a mandatory free lunch system.
quote:
All or most local restaurants offered lunch selections and required no payment other than tracking your diners card then submitting to this system for reimbursements. There were federal guidelines as to quantity and quality of food as well as nutritional benchmarks. Several business owners happen to feel that eating a particular type of food is sinful.
Your analogy falls apart here. It's not the eating that is sinful, HL makes no attempt to prevent their employees from eating anything. A better analogy would be for instance the production of which involves animal cruelty. Like say, goose liver pate, which is made by intentionally forcing feeding geese or ducks more food than they can process to cause their livers to swell to up ten times normal size.

And to be really consistent, you'd have to have had an existing lunch program that covered everything but products certified as produced by creulty to animals by say PETA. Now, along comes Mr. Government and asserts that its vitally important that people who want Foie Gras for lunch not have to pay for it out of pocket, but rather that it be part of the mandatory lunch plan. Of course making it so, means that the employers are now forced to support an industry that they know is cruel, and for added weight it violates their constitutionally protected religious liberty as they are religiously prohibitted from supporting any unnecessary cruelty.

All this against a backdrop where Mr. Government is allowing many other employers not to pay for creulty products, and allowing many other employers not to even provide free lunch cards and where the cost of the cruely produced products is trivial in all but two cases, where if Mr. Government chose he could set up a program to provide not just to this handfull of people, but also to all the others who are not even getting a "free" lunch notwithstanding - sarcasm on -its absolutely critical importance to the employee's continued existence - sarcasm off.
quote:
Not unhealthy mind you but just against their morals. Maybe they are strict vegans. They set up a parallel system where no purchases that include meat or dairy items will be reimbursed.

Would I have a problem? Yep.

Why would you have a problem if Vegans refused to pay for you to eat meat? Do you really think the government should be entitled to do something so unnecessary as to force a Vegan to violate their deeply held convictions? Just to save you a couple bucks?
quote:
If part of the national standard for compensation suddenly included gifts...
This is exactly the problem. The concept, "suddenly includes." Why does it "suddenly include", because the government said so. Why shouldn't the government have to comply with the constitution in deciding what to "suddenly include"? How can it be a vital mandatory right to force someone else to pay for something?

Honestly, the goverment would be better off making employer provided insurance illegal, moving all tax benefits to the employees themselves, and declaring that any policy offered to any person is automatically available to any other person who wants it.
quote:
Employer provided healthcare is important because you are leveraging the purchasing power and risk mitigation of a large pool of people.
Yes, but there are other ways to achieve the same end. Many of which would work better.

Think of how unfair employer discounts are to every individual who works for employers without the leverage to get the best deal, to the self employed, to everyone in the individual market.

If you really want to help people why are you trying to prop up a deliberate system of haves and have nots?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
So not being able to force your employer into giving you certain kinds of compensation is bring punished... wow.
Compensation that you have a legal right to have for employment, yes.
A brand new, untested "legal right" that turns out to not have been so much of a legal right.
quote:
I mean, if someone says, "This is something every single worker in the country gets, except you, because your employer doesn't like it," how would you describe it?
And except for the millions of other women that the government made no effort to cover, or thousands of other employers that the government specifically exempted from having to comply - were their employees some how less worthy of protection? Or maybe they didn't need the same vital coverage?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
How the female employees use their insurance is none of Hobby Lobby's business, just like how they use the money Hobby Lobby gives them for their work is none of HL's business.

This is a false version of the story though. Insurance is not undifferentiated dollars, its a complex contract that covers some things and not others. HL is literally making thousands of judgements about what to include in any insurance product that they get. Nothing stops them from getting coverage for homeopathic remedies, but if they choose not to its not "interfering" with the employee's right to homepathic remedies.

You guys would have a point if we got companies out of the policy negotiation business and forced them to fund HSA's instead, and then they tried to control what you spent them on. But with the broken system in place today, it's not the case that any product has to be included, well at least until a government agency choose to make certain ones mandatory without consideration for any constitutional principals.
quote:
Hobby Lobby's fear that the compensation they provide their employees might be misused is how they are becoming involved in the personal lives of their female employees. [Mad]
Show one place where HL tried to interefere with how any employee spent their money. HL is against alcohol, they don't provide it at corporate functions, can you show any place where they prevented their employees from having it at home? Was it a violation of their employees rights that they don't provide free alcohol at company parties?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati-
quote:
Show one place where HL tried to interefere with how any employee spent their money.
Unless HL is paying for the insurance coverage in it's entirety that is exactly what they are doing.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why would you have a problem if Vegans refused to pay for you to eat meat? Do you really think the government should be entitled to do something so unnecessary as to force a Vegan to violate their deeply held convictions? Just to save you a couple bucks?
This breaks down on two points. First of all, the Vegans aren't paying you to eat anything,. They're giving you a grocery store gift card, then saying "But you're not allowed to spend it on certain things"

Second- they're specifically saying "You're not allowed to spend it on broccoli, because broccoli is meat"

As onerous as the the court supporting the first part is (considering that the Court subsequently ruled against the very mitigation they said existed to make it okay to put that kind of condition on the gift card), it's the second part that really makes this a horrible precedent, because the objection doesn't actually have to be based on any factual basis- it outright opens the door to making things up whole cloth and then claiming religious objections.

"We don't want allow bathroom breaks or employees to be allowed to pay sewage bills out of their paychecks because we believe that everything flushed down toilets is fed to evil demons" becomes a valid argument, despite being completely divorced from reality.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I have participated in corporate investment planning, as well as in my own. It would be unprofessional for a company to invest $73M into funds without a clear understanding of the manner and substance of how their funds would be invested in individual corporations.

I'm going to call nonsense. No one scrutinizes the specific portfolio of a mutual fund from a major complex to parse the details of individual companies. Anything that is done is done to determine the true levels of divirsity and risk. One could argue that they "should" have only allowed ethical mutual funds in their employee's 401k plan, but it's not a smoking gun that they allowed employees to invest into mutual funds. This is actually more evidence that they don't interfere with their employees decisions about how to spend their money.
quote:
Given that they are strongly moralistic in their principles it would behoove them to make sure their money wasn't going to be put to irreligious or immoral purposes.
It's not their money in a 401(k), don't you recall that from your "meetings"?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Seriati-
quote:
Show one place where HL tried to interefere with how any employee spent their money.
Unless HL is paying for the insurance coverage in it's entirety that is exactly what they are doing.
Actually, unless HL is directly providing the insurance coverage inhouse and not providing employees with a plan from a third party health coverage provider,it holds that that's exactly what they're doing.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
What is a definition that we can all agree on as being an "activist" Supreme Court decision? Does this meet that definition? Why, or why not?

Oddly, I thought both the majority opinion and principal dissent were both heavily activist. The authors - at least - knew the result they wanted and then tried to "justify" it in the opinion, rather than making a good faith attempt at applying the law to the circumstances.

One side or the other though had to get the five votes. Though, there are lots of potential problems created by a poorly reasoned opinion, this case really was about nothing other than whether people are entitled to have religious beliefs in their public enterprises. Deciding the other way would have been a clear statement that you're only allowed to be religious in the privacy of your own home.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A brand new, untested "legal right" that turns out to not have been so much of a legal right.
Nevertheless, the law currently says that if you are a full-time employee of a company of a certain size, you need to have insurance and this insurance must have a certain, minimum coverage.

Perhaps it is not a "right," but it is the law, and now a corporation can say they don't have to provide you the lawful coverage because the corporation "feels" it is immoral. Regardless of how you feel about it.

The company's morals trump yours. [Razz]

quote:
And except for the millions of other women that the government made no effort to cover, or thousands of other employers that the government specifically exempted from having to comply - were their employees some how less worthy of protection? Or maybe they didn't need the same vital coverage?
That is a good point--if the coverage is so vital, why isn't it completely universal. But I think the specifics address that point.

First off, who are these "millions of other women that the government made no effort to cover?" I thought the ACA tried to cover everyone (although it admits that it could not).

Second, the "thousands of other employers that the government specifically exempted from having to comply" were specifically religious organizations (IIRC), ones where there was an expectation that all employees were of the same religion. Assuming that they all adhere to the same tenents, then is it reasonable to assume that none of the employees will require proscripted medical procedures.

However, Hobby Lobby, et al, do not require their employees to be of a certain religious persuasion. They do not have to have exactly the same religious tenents as the corporation. So it is not reasonable to assume that they will subscribe to the same religious proscriptions.

So Hobby Lobby, et al, gets to proscribe certain medical procedures from being covered in their employees insurance because the employees might have the audacity to actually use it--to do something that the corporation feels is immoral. They are basically saying, "Your compensation for working for us will not include standard medical procedures we feel are immoral."

It is not so much that the coverage is so very vital (although in some cases it very well might be! [Eek!] ), but that the corporation gets to decide what type of insurance you can get, based on its morality, not yours. It will make you pay more--perhaps quite a bit more--because you are not as moral as it is.

Paying more because you are not moral enough--wouldn't you call that punishment?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Deciding the other way would have been a clear statement that you're only allowed to be religious in the privacy of your own home...
That seems to be just as inaccurate and exaggerated as claims that Hobby Lobby is denying women access to birth control.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[QB]
quote:
Why would you have a problem if Vegans refused to pay for you to eat meat? Do you really think the government should be entitled to do something so unnecessary as to force a Vegan to violate their deeply held convictions? Just to save you a couple bucks?
This breaks down on two points. First of all, the Vegans aren't paying you to eat anything,. They're giving you a grocery store gift card, then saying "But you're not allowed to spend it on certain things"
No it didn't break down. The Vegans were giving you a farmer's market card, or a card to the Vegan supermarket. It's only in your head that the "card" was as good as cash and this is a reduction. It's absolutely clear, that the government added to an existing program, not that HL took away from one.
quote:
Second- they're specifically saying "You're not allowed to spend it on broccoli, because broccoli is meat"
Which didn't happen here either. I've looked at the manufacturers own reports on this. There is no question that the forms objected to sometimes operate by preventing a fertilized eymbrio from implanting, which is enough to trigger a valid religious objection.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of everyone having access to birth control, I'd include condoms as well, but you don't get to define meat as brocolli just because you think you know someone else's religion better than they do.
quote:
As onerous as the the court supporting the first part is (considering that the Court subsequently ruled against the very mitigation they said existed to make it okay to put that kind of condition on the gift card), it's the second part that really makes this a horrible precedent, because the objection doesn't actually have to be based on any factual basis- it outright opens the door to making things up whole cloth and then claiming religious objections.
There is definitly risk on this opinion expanding. But your claims here are nonsensical, the court has a long history of distinguishing between sincere and insincere beliefs (which is what you're citing too) and has clearly expressed limits on the scope of this opinion (including in the opinion).

Pretty much it's a flat out false statement to argue that someone can make up a religious belief and use it with this opinion as support, just as its false statement to argue this allows for discrimination (which the court specifically said it did not) in employment.
quote:
"We don't want allow bathroom breaks or employees to be allowed to pay sewage bills out of their paychecks because we believe that everything flushed down toilets is fed to evil demons" becomes a valid argument, despite being completely divorced from reality.
Lol. If you were honest, you'd know already that fails under this opinion.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Seriati-
quote:
Show one place where HL tried to interefere with how any employee spent their money.
Unless HL is paying for the insurance coverage in it's entirety that is exactly what they are doing.
Actually, unless HL is directly providing the insurance coverage inhouse and not providing employees with a plan from a third party health coverage provider,it holds that that's exactly what they're doing.
No to both of you, but at least Mynnion has a legitimate argument.

I will say Mynnion the employee contribution angle is interesting, it was certainly a way that the government could have fixed this problem. Requiring that the employer permit employees to contribute to add riders to the policy (including one covering these items) at the incremental cost would have - in my view - been Constitutional. I know I'd love to have the ability to add specific riders, and I'm sure most others would as well, but we can't even get al la carte cable channels, what are the odds.

Even still though, it doesn't work because insurance is a bundle of rights not undifferentiate dollars. The employee is still getting a deal on buying the rights they get, and not remotely prevented from adding other rights to the mix if they chose.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Paying for = paying for insurance which pays for.
That's honest shorthand.

No, it's a very dishonest shorthand, because it glosses over the fact that levels of removal that exist between paying the employee with an insurance policy and the employee asking the insurance company to pay for a given procedure actively exceed the degree of removal that exists between giving the employee money or a gift card and the employee choosing to use that for something the company owner finds morally objectionable.
Your use of the word "dishonest" is pathetic, strained, and inaccurate.

How does pointing out that a certain "shorthand" that is actively misleading and relies on false assertions to stand in any way strain the use of dishonest?

quote:
Also, you say LEVELS of removal.whereas there are only one.
Shall we count?
Employer buys product for employee - 0 level

Employer pays employee
Employee buys product - 1 level

Person has Corporation
Corporation buys product for employee - 1 level

Person has Corporation
Corporation pays employee
Employee buys product - 2 levels

Employer has corporation
Corporation pays employee with access to third party service
Employee chooses product
Third party service pays for product - 4 levels

But we're not actually done here-

Person has corporation
Corporation pays employee with access to third party service
Doctor prescribes product
Employee chooses to exercise prescription
Third party service pays for product - 5 levels

--

And keep in mind, the reason that the Court explicitly cited that it was okay for people to be able to claim moral objections that far down the chain was because there was a less burdensome path- namely filing the religious exemption waiver, making it so that access to such coverage was provided trough a federal program with no involvement at all from the employer.

But then the court kicked the legs out from under that justification by saying that people that want their corporations to be be exempt don't need to file for that exemption because filing for a religious exemption was a violation of their religious liberty because it would mean that an unrelated party could step in and offer that coverage.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why would you have a problem if Vegans refused to pay for you to eat meat? Do you really think the government should be entitled to do something so unnecessary as to force a Vegan to violate their deeply held convictions? Just to save you a couple bucks?
Hmm that took awhile to get back around. Is my analogy tortured? Yes, it wasn’t mine to begin with but yes, it’s silly. Aren’t ALL analogies? The whole point is to take something complex and simplify it or make it more relatable. If you insist on picking them apart in detail, you are wasting everyone’s time. You may as well discuss the original topic and drop the shared silliness.

Why I would have a problem with anyone attempting to infringe my ability to do something that is legal but they find distasteful or evil? Because we have a democratic process in place to impose our collective will on the whole. Anyone who attempts to short circuit that process deserves opposition, education or ridicule.

I obviously do not care what restrictions someone puts on a gift they give me. If they are meeting an obligation as part of an exchange for services rendered (employment) then they better not mess with their end of the bargain.

The extent on what they are obligated to provide just changed. I don’t agree with that. I find it disgusting personally when someone attempts to prohibit lawful actions on moral grounds. Both from a perspective of individual freedom and from a perspective of alleged moral living absent choice.

quote:
This is exactly the problem. The concept, "suddenly includes." Why does it "suddenly include", because the government said so. Why shouldn't the government have to comply with the constitution in deciding what to "suddenly include"? How can it be a vital mandatory right to force someone else to pay for something?
Of all the things the government does or should do, I rank seeing that public health is maintained to be very high on the list. The method may “suddenly change” but the goal is pretty consistent. I don’t really care personally if all the money our employers and us employees contributed got taken as taxes instead if the government paid for the health insurance. Who “paid for something” is meaningless to me. I work, I get a paycheck and benefits. If I don’t’ get benefits as part of my compensation I have to pay for them anyway now. I would have anyway.
quote:
If you really want to help people why are you trying to prop up a deliberate system of haves and have nots?
You lost me here.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which didn't happen here either. I've looked at the manufacturers own reports on this. There is no question that the forms objected to sometimes operate by preventing a fertilized eymbrio from implanting, which is enough to trigger a valid religious objection.
They argues that they believed that the handful of methods were abortifacients, despite the fact that they factually are not. Pregnancy does not start if an embryo does not implant (something that happens naturally with extremely high frequency). You can't abort a pregnancy if it never started in the first place.

quote:
Even still though, it doesn't work because insurance is a bundle of rights not undifferentiate dollars.
A health plan is a service agreement between the plan provider and the beneficiary of the plan. HL is actively asserting the right to change the legal minimum requirements of what beneficiaries of such plans that happen to be their employees can use those plans for based on false assertions of the nature of what those services entail.

It doesn't matter that the money spent by the plan provider isn't differentiable, because the baseline plan itself is nondifferentiable, right up to the point that the owners of HL assert that they should be able to be free to use their corporate leverage to override that nondifferentiable baseline and assert their own (based on active misrepresentation of medical classifications at that).

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
A brand new, untested "legal right" that turns out to not have been so much of a legal right.
Nevertheless, the law currently says that if you are a full-time employee of a company of a certain size, you need to have insurance and this insurance must have a certain, minimum coverage.
Not exactly. What is you said is true enough, but no where in the law is the minimum coverage described. That was done by an administrative agency decision. Even if it was in the law, it's still have to be Constitutional. But where you have an agency judgement that conflicts directly with an actual law (which is what this case interpretted) and the Constitution (which in fairness is my view and not wholly consistent with the court's historical view), the agencies decision needs to go.
quote:
Perhaps it is not a "right," but it is the law, and now a corporation can say they don't have to provide you the lawful coverage because the corporation "feels" it is immoral. Regardless of how you feel about it.
It's not the "law" as it was found to violate religious freedom. This is in part why we have a court system.
quote:
The company's morals trump yours. [Razz]
They don't even trump their employee's since they don't restrict their use or buying of the products in question.
quote:
quote:
And except for the millions of other women that the government made no effort to cover, or thousands of other employers that the government specifically exempted from having to comply - were their employees some how less worthy of protection? Or maybe they didn't need the same vital coverage?
That is a good point--if the coverage is so vital, why isn't it completely universal. But I think the specifics address that point.

First off, who are these "millions of other women that the government made no effort to cover?" I thought the ACA tried to cover everyone (although it admits that it could not).

Any woman who works for an employer with less than 50 employees. Any woman who works for a religious organization, or more significantly who works for a religiously affiliated non-profit corporation (neither of which by the law are required to only higher co-religionists, and in some cases are prohibitted from discriminating in hiring on a religious basis). Any woman who's employer kept a grandfathered plan, as this wasn't considered one of the critical items that grandfathered plans had to add (by the way that "oversight" should completely kill the government's assertion as to vitality).

All told I think I read its over 30 million specifically excluded.
quote:
Second, the "thousands of other employers that the government specifically exempted from having to comply" were specifically religious organizations (IIRC), ones where there was an expectation that all employees were of the same religion.
See above, pretty sure that it's not accurate that all the women are the same religion. Though we should note, many of these employers choose to cover all birth control notwithstanding that they have a possible exemption.
quote:
So Hobby Lobby, et al, gets to proscribe certain medical procedures from being covered in their employees insurance...
There are literally thousands of proceedures not covered by insurance policies. If you look at the one you have and then do research on what "riders" your company didn't elect to add you'll find that your insurance doesn't cover things. It may cover a treatment for one condition but not the same treatment for another condition.

None of this is properly discribed as 'proscribed from covering'. Are you guys really not aware of what insurance is, cause it seems like you keep coming back to this idea. I don't mean to be dismissive - on this point [Smile] - but it's hard to really evaluate the actual issues in play when you're talking off to the side of what's really occuring.
quote:
They are basically saying, "Your compensation for working for us will not include standard medical procedures we feel are immoral."
Why say what they are "basically" saying? HL is actually saying, if you want an abortion you have to pay for it yourself.

I asked it before, but there were no takers. What would your opinion be if the government mandated that all employers pay for abortions and didn't bundle it with other health benefits?
quote:
It is not so much that the coverage is so very vital (although in some cases it very well might be! [Eek!] ), but that the corporation gets to decide what type of insurance you can get, based on its morality, not yours.
I don't get this objection, the corporation already is making thousands of decisions about what coverage you get.

Like I said I'd favor putting the actual control in the employees hands, though there a big downsides there as well with information disparity heavily in favor of the insurance companies.
quote:
Paying more because you are not moral enough--wouldn't you call that punishment?
What about the alcohol? They have to pay more since HL won't buy booze for company parties. Is that punishment?

Not giving someone something is not the same thing as punishing them. This epitomy of an entitlement mentality.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
Why would you have a problem if Vegans refused to pay for you to eat meat? Do you really think the government should be entitled to do something so unnecessary as to force a Vegan to violate their deeply held convictions? Just to save you a couple bucks?
Hmm that took awhile to get back around. Is my analogy tortured? Yes, it wasn’t mine to begin with but yes, it’s silly. Aren’t ALL analogies? The whole point is to take something complex and simplify it or make it more relatable. If you insist on picking them apart in detail, you are wasting everyone’s time. You may as well discuss the original topic and drop the shared silliness.
D.W., if you feel the time is lapsed you can drop it. But I changed the analogy because I think you completely missed the point with the original one. You have a focus on the employee being prohibitted from doing something, which invokes civil liberties, that doesn't match with what is occuring in this case. No had their rights taken away, no one had their conduct limited.
quote:
Why I would have a problem with anyone attempting to infringe my ability to do something that is legal but they find distasteful or evil?
No one did that here. Unless you have evidence that HL would dismiss an employee for using an IUD or even more on point for having an abortion directly, the argumet you are making is not on point.
quote:
The extent on what they are obligated to provide just changed. I don’t agree with that. I find it disgusting personally when someone attempts to prohibit lawful actions on moral grounds. Both from a perspective of individual freedom and from a perspective of alleged moral living absent choice.
No one prohibitted anything, so your disgust is misguided.
quote:
quote:
This is exactly the problem. The concept, "suddenly includes." Why does it "suddenly include", because the government said so. Why shouldn't the government have to comply with the constitution in deciding what to "suddenly include"? How can it be a vital mandatory right to force someone else to pay for something?
Of all the things the government does or should do, I rank seeing that public health is maintained to be very high on the list.
Then you'd have no problem if the government mandated that everyone wash their hands every hour, the public health benefits would be enormous. Or that required that everyone with an STD have a government mandated chasisy belt attached? Or how about mandatory isolation for everyone with a communicable disease?

These are absurd, I think you recognize that we have rights and that the government is not free to pursue its interestes in the controvention of our rights. Whether you like it - or not - religious freedom is a right that we have.
quote:
quote:
If you really want to help people why are you trying to prop up a deliberate system of haves and have nots?
You lost me here.
Corporate negotiated benefit packages are better than individual market ones. The 'haves' are those with job provided benefits the 'have nots' are those without. If you want to help the have nots, favor things that divorce health care from employers, rather than things like this that put more of it in the hands of employers.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. Any woman who works for a religious organization, or more significantly who works for a religiously affiliated non-profit corporation (neither of which by the law are required to only higher co-religionists, and in some cases are prohibited from discriminating in hiring on a religious basis).
You go off the rails here, because those women were explicitly covered- their employers had to file religious exemption waivers to be able to make insurers remove contraceptive coverage from their baseline plans, at which point a separate HHS program kicked in to provide that coverage independently.

The Court made its ruling based on the suggestion that HHS allow the covered corporations to sing up for the same religious exemption waivers, since the existence of that path represented a lesser burden on the employer.

Then it turned around and shut that path down in a ruling almost immediately subsequent to the ruling that it had just rested on that option.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Corporate negotiated benefit packages are better than individual market ones.
Were. The primary functional part of the ACA was to open up plans equivalent to the corporate ones to the general public, negotiated at the state level in the same way that the corporate ones are negotiated at the company level.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Which didn't happen here either. I've looked at the manufacturers own reports on this. There is no question that the forms objected to sometimes operate by preventing a fertilized eymbrio from implanting, which is enough to trigger a valid religious objection.
They argues that they believed that the handful of methods were abortifacients, despite the fact that they factually are not. Pregnancy does not start if an embryo does not implant (something that happens naturally with extremely high frequency). You can't abort a pregnancy if it never started in the first place.
There is no "fact" about what is an abortion and what is not that's actaully relevant. Abortion is a defined term, but its sophistry to argue that because you can make a technical argument that the substance is irrelevant.

For anyone that believes - honestly - life begins at fertilization, this is an issue that you can't "define" away. Makes no difference that the rate of spontaneous non-implantation is greater in women without the IUD than with for instance (which it is), only that in some cases it appears the IUD causes the non-implantation for their point to be valid.
quote:
quote:
Even still though, it doesn't work because insurance is a bundle of rights not undifferentiate dollars.
A health plan is a service agreement between the plan provider and the beneficiary of the plan.
Lol. That's a mighty friendly attempt at redefining reality there. If that's the case surely you're free to negotiate changes on your own behalf. What? You're not? Are you saying that someone else is responsible for negotiating those terms? How can that be. lol.
quote:
HL is actively asserting the right to change the legal minimum requirements of what beneficiaries of such plans that happen to be their employees can use those plans for based on false assertions of the nature of what those services entail.
Well past tense. HL successfully asserted that the government was not free to bundle products that violate their religious beliefs with the thousands of other products they chose to provide their employees.

No false assertions by the way - other than the ones you keep making when you describe others arguements.
quote:
It doesn't matter that the money spent by the plan provider isn't differentiable, because the baseline plan itself is nondifferentiable,...
That's just factually wrong. There are literally thousands of products that can be included or included differently but that aren't in literally every plan that exists.
quote:
...right up to the point that the owners of HL assert that they should be able to be free to use their corporate leverage to override that nondifferentiable baseline and assert their own (based on active misrepresentation of medical classifications at that).
Back to generalities again? How about right up to the point that the governement used its governmental power to override the decisions of everyone else based on a political point of view without regard to anyone's religious rights. That's actually when things went off track.

And of course, that's why your argument didn't end up winning. There were so many ways the government could have done this that passed Constitutional muster, but they choose to do it in a way that deliberated violated the religious rights of certain people and it didn't work.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are literally thousands of proceedures not covered by insurance policies. If you look at the one you have and then do research on what "riders" your company didn't elect to add you'll find that your insurance doesn't cover things. It may cover a treatment for one condition but not the same treatment for another condition.
Except we're not talking about something that's an optional extra here- we're talking about part of the minimum requirements to meet the federal definition of a qualifying health plan for tax and regulatory compliance purposes.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Corporate negotiated benefit packages are better than individual market ones.
Were. The primary functional part of the ACA was to open up plans equivalent to the corporate ones to the general public, negotiated at the state level in the same way that the corporate ones are negotiated at the company level.
Still are.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's a mighty friendly attempt at redefining reality there. If that's the case surely you're free to negotiate changes on your own behalf. What? You're not? Are you saying that someone else is responsible for negotiating those terms?
If someone gives me a gift card, I can't renegotiate the terms of that gift card with the store. That doesn't change the fact that, once they've given it to me it's my gift card, not the moral territory of the person that gave it to me.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Paying for = paying for insurance which pays for.
That's honest shorthand.

No, it's a very dishonest shorthand, because it glosses over the fact that levels of removal that exist between paying the employee with an insurance policy and the employee asking the insurance company to pay for a given procedure actively exceed the degree of removal that exists between giving the employee money or a gift card and the employee choosing to use that for something the company owner finds morally objectionable.
Your use of the word "dishonest" is pathetic, strained, and inaccurate.

How does pointing out that a certain "shorthand" that is actively misleading and relies on false assertions to stand in any way strain the use of dishonest?

quote:
Also, you say LEVELS of removal.whereas there are only one.
Shall we count?
Employer buys product for employee - 0 level

Employer pays employee
Employee buys product - 1 level

Person has Corporation
Corporation buys product for employee - 1 level

Person has Corporation
Corporation pays employee
Employee buys product - 2 levels

Employer has corporation
Corporation pays employee with access to third party service
Employee chooses product
Third party service pays for product - 4 levels

But we're not actually done here-

Person has corporation
Corporation pays employee with access to third party service
Doctor prescribes product
Employee chooses to exercise prescription
Third party service pays for product - 5 levels

--

And keep in mind, the reason that the Court explicitly cited that it was okay for people to be able to claim moral objections that far down the chain was because there was a less burdensome path- namely filing the religious exemption waiver, making it so that access to such coverage was provided trough a federal program with no involvement at all from the employer.

But then the court kicked the legs out from under that justification by saying that people that want their corporations to be be exempt don't need to file for that exemption because filing for a religious exemption was a violation of their religious liberty because it would mean that an unrelated party could step in and offer that coverage.

You are wrong.

7/9 of Scotus agreed that the corporation itself has first amendment rights, so your construction of that level of separqtion is wishful thinking on your part.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For anyone that believes - honestly - life begins at fertilization, this is an issue that you can't "define" away. Makes no difference that the rate of spontaneous non-implantation is greater in women without the IUD than with for instance (which it is), only that in some cases it appears the IUD causes the non-implantation for their point to be valid.
Even if one does believe that, it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the device terminates a pregnancy (the very minimum definitional requirement to call something an abortion) given that the fact they consider that fertilized cell to be life has no bearing on whether or not pregnancy has actually started. No implantation, no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, the perscription layer isnt relevant because nothing stops someone from asking their regular gp, during an ordinary visit, to perscribe an iud. It's only installation and product cost which hl's insurance wont pay for. Not.sure if it pays for removal. So there's only one.layer of separation between HL and paying for the product & service.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
7/9 of Scotus agreed that the corporation itself has first amendment rights, so your construction of that level of separqtion is wishful thinking on your part.
The level of separation still exists- you're just presuming that the corporation professes the same beliefs as some subset of its owners of it.

Leaving that aside, that removes one level of 5, leaving us with 4 degrees of separation between the corporation and the health plan company making a payment on behalf of the policyholder.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
For anyone that believes - honestly - life begins at fertilization, this is an issue that you can't "define" away. Makes no difference that the rate of spontaneous non-implantation is greater in women without the IUD than with for instance (which it is), only that in some cases it appears the IUD causes the non-implantation for their point to be valid.
Even if one does believe that, it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the device terminates a pregnancy (the very minimum definitional requirement to call something an abortion) given that the fact they consider that fertilized cell to be life has no bearing on whether or not pregnancy has actually started. No implantation, no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion.
I agree. And if the court had ruled.that way, i would.have cheered. But court lefties wont rule.that way because it would.expose that they were lying in stenberg v cahart when they characterized prevention of implantation as a form abortion.

See, unlike pop lefties, most.court lefties feel an obligation to keep their lies consistent.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No had their rights taken away, no one had their conduct limited.
First, I don’t think that point has been made. I’ve got no legal background so maybe I just missed it. Related to this. If everyone else is entitled (a fun word in this wider debate) to a service, even if it is a new entitlement, then that is STILL something being denied. Maybe not “take away” but denied. I don’t play semantic games well I find them silly for anything other than mental exercise which has its uses.
quote:
No one did that here.
Yes, yes they did. They “attempted” it. They can’t guarantee their employees don’t do something against their wishes but what they did is impossible to be seen objectively as anything but putting up barriers to make decisions they do not approve of more complicated, difficult or expensive. It was not going to cost them anything more. Unless you have evidence that the overall plan cost from the insurance provider is cheaper now that they made this exclusion. :eyeroll:
quote:
Then you'd have no problem if the government mandated that everyone wash their hands every hour, the public health benefits would be enormous. Or that required that everyone with an STD have a government mandated chasisy belt attached? Or how about mandatory isolation for everyone with a communicable disease?
You feel better now getting that out? It’s useless drivel but sometimes I like to indulge in this too to provoke a response. So here’s mine. Attempting to improve communal health is not synonymous with all of us living in government mandated bubbles. I would tell you to quit wasting my time but there are no victims on forum “discussion”. [Smile]

quote:
If you want to help the have nots, favor things that divorce health care from employers, rather than things like this that put more of it in the hands of employers.
Got it, and I do. I’m all for taking all this out of the hand of employers. However I don’t think the government, much less individuals are capable of leveraging the insurance industry with the (limited) success that the employer provided programs have. That this goal may be expedited by such legal wrangling is the only silver lining I see.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, the perscription layer isnt relevant because nothing stops someone from asking their regular gp, during an ordinary visit, to perscribe an iud. It's only installation and product cost which hl's insurance wont pay for. Not.sure if it pays for removal. So there's only one.layer of separation between HL and paying for the product & service.

They can ask, certainly. That does not mean that the GP will follow through (and I know many women that have had to fight at that stage because of misconceptions of the possibility of IUDs causing long term sterility, even if the woman in question would consider that a bonus rather than a drawback). The prescription layer exists specifically so there is a qualified medical professional providing an additional layer of separation in the process.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
For anyone that believes - honestly - life begins at fertilization, this is an issue that you can't "define" away. Makes no difference that the rate of spontaneous non-implantation is greater in women without the IUD than with for instance (which it is), only that in some cases it appears the IUD causes the non-implantation for their point to be valid.
Even if one does believe that, it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the device terminates a pregnancy (the very minimum definitional requirement to call something an abortion) given that the fact they consider that fertilized cell to be life has no bearing on whether or not pregnancy has actually started. No implantation, no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion.
I agree. And if the court had ruled.that way, i would.have cheered. But court lefties wont rule.that way because it would.expose that they were lying in stenberg v cahart when they characterized prevention of implantation as a form abortion.

Can you provide some indication of what you're talking about? The case you refer to covers DnX, something that's only possible long after implantation and once pregnancy (generally a non-viable one) is well under way.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But it's not a layer of separation BETWEEN HL and paying foe the service. You've mangled the antecedent. Remember, you were trying to justify your accusation of "dishonesty" as tp the statement that HL is simply refusing to pay for the iuds. Diagram it if you need to; between HL and the PAYMENT there is just one layer of separation. Yes thwre are lots of.cogs and wheels in the system, but that should not obfuscate the fact that they create no more than a single.layer of separation between HL and the payment.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, the perscription layer isnt relevant because nothing stops someone from asking their regular gp, during an ordinary visit, to perscribe an iud. It's only installation and product cost which hl's insurance wont pay for. Not.sure if it pays for removal. So there's only one.layer of separation between HL and paying for the product & service.

They can ask, certainly. That does not mean that the GP will follow through (and I know many women that have had to fight at that stage because of misconceptions of the possibility of IUDs causing long term sterility, even if the woman in question would consider that a bonus rather than a drawback). The prescription layer exists specifically so there is a qualified medical professional providing an additional layer of separation in the process.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Read the case. The freaking lefty twerps claimed at one point that the anti d&x law as written could reasonably be interpret to ban iuds.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
For anyone that believes - honestly - life begins at fertilization, this is an issue that you can't "define" away. Makes no difference that the rate of spontaneous non-implantation is greater in women without the IUD than with for instance (which it is), only that in some cases it appears the IUD causes the non-implantation for their point to be valid.
Even if one does believe that, it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the device terminates a pregnancy (the very minimum definitional requirement to call something an abortion) given that the fact they consider that fertilized cell to be life has no bearing on whether or not pregnancy has actually started. No implantation, no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion.
I agree. And if the court had ruled.that way, i would.have cheered. But court lefties wont rule.that way because it would.expose that they were lying in stenberg v cahart when they characterized prevention of implantation as a form abortion.

Can you provide some indication of what you're talking about? The case you refer to covers DnX, something that's only possible long after implantation and once pregnancy (generally a non-viable one) is well under way.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
There are literally thousands of proceedures not covered by insurance policies. If you look at the one you have and then do research on what "riders" your company didn't elect to add you'll find that your insurance doesn't cover things. It may cover a treatment for one condition but not the same treatment for another condition.
Except we're not talking about something that's an optional extra here- we're talking about part of the minimum requirements to meet the federal definition of a qualifying health plan for tax and regulatory compliance purposes.
So to be clear, you can over-write someone else's religious beliefs because you think you have the power to create a definition (and they don't) that moots them, yet when the government defines a belief as a "minimum" this creates a magical force that overwhelms constitutional rights?

The "minimum" definition was set arbitrarily. There is nothing inherent about birth control that mandates it should be paid by the government, by your employer, by your health insurance, by a health plan or yourself. If anything, condoms should be covered as these also act in a disease prevention role.

Deferring to authority here is the definition of circular reasoning.
quote:
quote:
That's a mighty friendly attempt at redefining reality there. If that's the case surely you're free to negotiate changes on your own behalf. What? You're not? Are you saying that someone else is responsible for negotiating those terms?
If someone gives me a gift card, I can't renegotiate the terms of that gift card with the store. That doesn't change the fact that, once they've given it to me it's my gift card, not the moral territory of the person that gave it to me.
If someone gives you a gift card to United Artists you can use it to get your popcorn instead of your ticket. If on the other hand they give you a free ticket, you pay for your popcorn yourself.

You're arguing that the gift of a free ticket should be viewed as having your popcorn stolen.
quote:
Even if one does believe that, it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the device terminates a pregnancy (the very minimum definitional requirement to call something an abortion) given that the fact they consider that fertilized cell to be life has no bearing on whether or not pregnancy has actually started. No implantation, no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion.
So what. You've hung your hat on a definition. The definition is irrelevant.

I happen to agree with you, makes no difference though, because neither one of us gets to control the definition. And its perfectly reasonable to believe that interfering with implementation is taking a human life, whether you call it abortion or not does not matter at all.

You don't get to define someone elses religious belief and claim that you won.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But it's not a layer of separation BETWEEN HL and paying foe the service. You've mangled the antecedent. Remember, you were trying to justify your accusation of "dishonesty" as tp the statement that HL is simply refusing to pay for the iuds. Diagram it if you need to; between HL and the PAYMENT there is just one layer of separation. Yes thwre are lots of.cogs and wheels in the system, but that should not obfuscate the fact that they create no more than a single.layer of separation between HL and the payment.
Payment for the thing that is morally objectionable (the IUD in this case) is out on the far side of the employees decision to get it and the insurance comanpy paying for it. You can't get any less that three levels of separation between the corporation providing the employee with a health plan (1), the employee choosing to get an IUD (2), and the health plan paying, with it's own funds, for the IUD (3). The fact that, the employee is free to use the health plan for things that the employer finds objectionable as presented out of the box does not mean that the employer is in any way responsible for the employee using it that way.

And again, at the time the court made the ruling, it expressly state that the only reason that it ruled in favor of HL was because HHS had the ability to remove all linkage between the employer and such coverage in the plan completely- it could use the same religious exception that it provides to religious institutions where HHS effectively provides the coverage directly without employer involvement. To whatever degree liability for use of the coverage exist, going the HHS route is clearly less, so it had room to rule that the less burdensome path be used.

Then it turned around and torched that bridge.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
No had their rights taken away, no one had their conduct limited.
First, I don’t think that point has been made. I’ve got no legal background so maybe I just missed it. Related to this. If everyone else is entitled (a fun word in this wider debate) to a service, even if it is a new entitlement, then that is STILL something being denied. Maybe not “take away” but denied. I don’t play semantic games well I find them silly for anything other than mental exercise which has its uses.
I have already pointed out that millions of women are not entitled to this service. Which pretty much proves this is not an entitlement by right.

It's neither a denial or taken away, the women of HL have the exact same right and power to buy an IUD that the women of small employers have, or the women whose healthcare plans are grandfathered have, or the women who work for any number of "officially approved" religious organizations have.

It is settled.

Did they get a raw deal? Yep. Does it make sense to me? Nope. Is it the right answer under the Constitution? You bet. Hard to even pretend that a Constitutional right should take a back seat to a political policy preference.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Why I would have a problem with anyone attempting to infringe my ability to do something that is legal but they find distasteful or evil?
No one did that here.
Yes, yes they did. They “attempted” it.
No they didn't. This is in no way, shape or form an infringement of a right. Refusing to buy someone lunch is not an infringement of their right to exist, preventing them from buying their own lunch is.

Even one instance of HL interfering with their employees using their own money to have abortions or drink alcohol and you have a point. Without it, your point is an overstatement.
quote:
They can’t guarantee their employees don’t do something against their wishes but what they did is impossible to be seen objectively as anything but putting up barriers to make decisions they do not approve of more complicated, difficult or expensive.
They didn't even try to prevent their employees from engaging in the conduct. Not paying for something is not a synonym for interfering with it.
quote:
It was not going to cost them anything more. Unless you have evidence that the overall plan cost from the insurance provider is cheaper now that they made this exclusion. :eyeroll:
If cost was the issue this would be relevant, as it is it's a complete nonsequitor.

Hell the government could have resolved this by exempting them from the fines. Or by insisting that "minimum" services always be made available to employees for payment from their own accounts. If your point is true, that this is a net benefit, then the insurance company could have sent the women a check for the negative balance! And it would have passed Constitutional muster. Even having this argument is ridiculous.
quote:
quote:
Then you'd have no problem if the government mandated that everyone wash their hands every hour, the public health benefits would be enormous. Or that required that everyone with an STD have a government mandated chasisy belt attached? Or how about mandatory isolation for everyone with a communicable disease?
You feel better now getting that out? It’s useless drivel but sometimes I like to indulge in this too to provoke a response. So here’s mine. Attempting to improve communal health is not synonymous with all of us living in government mandated bubbles. I would tell you to quit wasting my time but there are no victims on forum “discussion”. [Smile]
Violating Constitutional rights in the name of expediency makes no more sense than what I proposed. The generalized hostility we have in this country to religion does not excuse it.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1