The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-01-2014, 12:39 PM   #16
Beest
Adapt and Survive
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
I don;t see how it is a complicated notion that the health insurance given to employees becomes their property - and it should be up to them how they use it.

My employer doesn't have to right to tell me how to spend what it pays me.
As henry quirk says the employer contracts with the insurance company the employee is just a covered party.

The insurance isn't provided to the employee at no cost, the employer can then take the cost of the insurance out of the employees pay check ( or some proportion). The employee cannot just refuse the insurance either, unless they can prove alternate coverage. (That's how it works for me).
So yes, the employer is spending the employees pay.

At my corporation employees earning over $150K gross are responsible for 100% of the $22K cost of insurance. and it's crappy insurance for that money.
Theres sliding scale below that.
The big investor that owns this corporation and many others sets this as standard across all his companies.

"Insurance" is a misnomer anyway but I don't know a better word, "shell game" might be it. On our insurance you can still easily be out of pocket for thousands for day to day occurences, it just limits it instead of climbing into the tens of thousands in a dire circumstance.

Last edited by Beest; 07-01-2014 at 12:49 PM.
Beest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 12:55 PM   #17
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey View Post
Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are for breaking something that works.

Which is it?
It's both. Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are birth control. If female birth control isn't covered, then it's hypocritical to cover male birth control. But Viagra shouldn't come into it at all unless you want to mock men with health problems.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 01:05 PM   #18
Big Sarge
Werepandas - lurking in your shadows
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 3,408
So let me see, we've had a Supreme Court ruling that upheld that the government could not force you to go against your political beliefs with your privately owned business. Isn't this part of the intent of the Bill of Rights?

If the employees aren't happy with their health care coverage, why don't they work some place else?
__________________
Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Big Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 01:38 PM   #19
infinite monkey
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
Viagra is for having sex and IUDs are for having sex, so they are the same.

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken, and IUDs are for breaking something that works. They are opposites.

Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey View Post
What's opposite is covering Viagra AND vasectomies. Whatever the male wants, is good with them.

In other words: Viagra is for having sex and vasectomies are for having sex (without those pesky pregnancies.)

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are for breaking something that works.

Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
It's both. Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are birth control. If female birth control isn't covered, then it's hypocritical to cover male birth control. But Viagra shouldn't come into it at all unless you want to mock men with health problems.
I'll tell you what, I won't mock men who may have health problems if you won't mock women who may also have health problems that would make pregnancy a risk.
infinite monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 02:32 PM   #20
Big Sarge
Werepandas - lurking in your shadows
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 3,408
Why should this have anything to do with "mocking health issues"? This is simply the right of privately owned businesses to provide benefit packages of their selection. If you don't like it, work someplace else or pay out of your pocket. I don't believe any of their employees are indentured servants and not free to change employment. BTW:

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
__________________
Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by Big Sarge; 07-01-2014 at 03:28 PM.
Big Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 03:38 PM   #21
Gravdigr
The Un-Tuckian
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Central...KY that is
Posts: 39,517
Keep on dividing, people, keep on dividing...
__________________


These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, CDC, or FDIC. These statements are not intended to diagnose, cause, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. If you feel you have been harmed/offended by, or, disagree with any of the above statements or images, please feel free to fuck right off.
Gravdigr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 05:43 PM   #22
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Quote:
These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
I don't know about Ella, but on Plan B: this is all due to an anti-scientific misunderstanding of how the drug works.

It works by preventing ovulation.

Somehow, and good fuckin' lord I have no idea how this might happen, but somehow a bunch of miserable fucking dickheads got it into their tiny, uneducated minds, that Plan B prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

No. Plan B works exactly like every other birth control drug. Don't believe me, you can look it up. And so those miserable, tiny, anti-scientific, uneducated pricks

ARE

ACTUALLY

CAUSING

MORE

ABORTIONS

BY

PROTESTING

PLAN B.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 06:56 PM   #23
Big Sarge
Werepandas - lurking in your shadows
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 3,408
Well why did this have to go to the Supreme Court?? The women could have simply decided not to get pregnant.
__________________
Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Big Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 11:31 PM   #24
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk View Post
"The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees."

I disagree.

The issue boils down to: can employees force an employer to provide a benefit said employer finds morally repugnant?
Repugnant is an emotion. Emotions have no standing in the court. If this was about an emotion, it would have been never been heard.

Your sentence is missing fundamental underlying word that is the basis of their suit. It is completely about their religious beliefs. Their standards for what is socially acceptable (along with other irrelevant emotions such as ego) were never discussed in this case, were never considered, and was completely irrelevant to the court and to all parties. In fact, one who is emotional is often considered irresponsible or negligent. And so the word repugnant is never discussed by anyone but Henry Quick.

This case is 100% about their religious beliefs. To ignore the religion behind it is hypocrisy. Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees. Only posts relevent to this court decision must include the word religion. Some will try to justify that decision by ignoring the entire basis of this case - which is a religious belief. Repugnant is how one would avoid admitting the problem with this decision. The court says one can impose their religious beliefs on employees. Impossible to be honest and deny this is about religious beliefs.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 11:42 PM   #25
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sarge View Post
Why should this have anything to do with "mocking health issues"? This is simply the right of privately owned businesses to provide benefit packages of their selection.
The entire case is not about choice in general as you claim. It is completely about the right of privately owned businesses to impose their religious beliefs on employees benefits. Posting without mentioning the only issue - religion - is beyond absurd.

Nobody said anything about denying social security contributions, restricting safety equipment, providing employee parking, or other benefits based on the employers emotions or whims. Nobody suggested benefits denied due to an employee's race, gender, height, age, or citizenship status. Only discussed is whether they can deny benefits based on the owner's religious beliefs. Not based in anything else. Only based on the owners religious beliefs. Youf post is dishonest if it does not discuss prime issue of this entire case - religion.

How to inspire hatred and dissention? How to worship satan? Let anyone impose their religion on anyone else. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 12:00 AM   #26
sexobon
I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 02:36 AM   #27
Big Sarge
Werepandas - lurking in your shadows
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 3,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon View Post
But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole.
There might even be a Lobby for this in Washington
__________________
Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Big Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 06:24 AM   #28
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Of course, Hobby Lobby invests in the companies that make the same drugs they won't pay for...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...on-drug-makers
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 06:32 AM   #29
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
I don't know about Ella, but on Plan B: this is all due to an anti-scientific misunderstanding of how the drug works.

It works by preventing ovulation.

Somehow, and good fuckin' lord I have no idea how this might happen, but somehow a bunch of miserable fucking dickheads got it into their tiny, uneducated minds, that Plan B prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

No. Plan B works exactly like every other birth control drug. Don't believe me, you can look it up. And so those miserable, tiny, anti-scientific, uneducated pricks

ARE

ACTUALLY

CAUSING

MORE

ABORTIONS

BY

PROTESTING

PLAN B.
Which is how we know this is more about politics using religion rather than an ethics based stand.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 07:01 AM   #30
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Wull that and being against sex for pleasure, their traditional stomping ground, which tells them sex should have deadly serious consequences... amongst which, strangely enough, is... abortions. And a bunch of half-parented kids.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.