[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 988: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 988: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4505: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4507: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4508: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4509: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
www.goodeatsfanpage.com • View topic - Hobby Lobby decision

Hobby Lobby decision

Want to talk politics? Find your threads here! (NOTE: If you started a politics thread in the general forum, it's probably here by now.)

Moderator: Chef Mongo

Hobby Lobby decision

Postby tj » Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:33 pm

Anyone care to explain it to me?

Alito's comment about a secular decision being wanted is interesting.
tj
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:29 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:07 pm

What don't you understand about it? He said corporations rights trump those of it's employees.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:25 pm

Not getting into the political discussion, and have only read basic news reports, but keep in mind these companies are objecting to IUD and emergency contraception. I can't cite a source right now, but believe they will cover mechanical and hormonal methods of birth control.
I'm not supporting the decision, just making a factual observation. I worked in birth control for years. and yes, I realize IUD's (probably most now) contain hormones, but that is not their only mode of action.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby ABwannabe » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:58 pm

I haven't had the time to read anything in depth. But, on the surface, I applaud the decision.

In my opinion, forcing a business -- particularly a "closely held" or "family run" business -- to act unethically (as the business defines ethics) is usually wrong*. I happen to think that forcing businesses to even provide insurance (and specifc, controversial insurance) is wrong. Businesses should be able to choose whether, and what form, of insurance they provide. And, frankly, I don't konw why an interstate free market of insurance companies is a bad idea, to make the offerings better. This is little different than forcing a business to match 401(k) offerings.

*obviously there *is* a line in allowing the business to define ethics. Child labor laws, etc. I happen to contend that this issue doesn't cross that line.
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby tj » Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:40 pm

I wonder if the employees involved are informed in advance of the specific religious tenets which govern their employment. this could make the world of retail quite interesting.
tj
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:29 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby ABwannabe » Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:52 pm

Tj, there actually are laws governing a business' requirements to inform amployeesemployees of expected behavior. For instance, policy concerning porn has to be spelled out before an employee can be fired for it. I believe the "welcome to work" packet that an employee signs includes specific insurance plocies.

I'm on my phone so I hope this makes sense.
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:06 pm

I sure hope Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are questioning Viagra prescriptions. I doubt most of them are for the purpose of procreation. And testosterone supplements are pretty damn unnecessary. It's called aging. Get used to it.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:42 pm

That 'closely held' crap is buffalopoop. A company incorporates to take advantage of legal and monetary benefits afforded to corporations, even if they are just one person. They are putting a wall between themselves as an individual and their business. If you want to be incorporated and enjoy the benefits of it you can no longer claim any personal feelings as a basis for what you do. No corporation is a person, it is a business. It does not have any personal rights. It does not have freedom of religion.

In the first place what happens between you and your doctor is none of your employer's business. They shouldn't even know if you use any birth control. They have no right to dictate what treatment you can have.

I don't see this standing, it's just too full of wrong.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:56 pm

ABwannabe wrote:For instance, policy concerning porn has to be spelled out before an employee can be fired for it.


I rescind my comment that I will not engage. :twisted:

ABW, is this true even if it contravenes county, state or federal law?

We'll see, okbye. Citizens United is still standing. The Supreme Court is why I vote democrat for prez.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Nitro » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:02 pm

ABwannabe wrote:I haven't had the time to read anything in depth. But, on the surface, I applaud the decision.

In my opinion, forcing a business -- particularly a "closely held" or "family run" business -- to act unethically (as the business defines ethics) is usually wrong*. I happen to think that forcing businesses to even provide insurance (and specifc, controversial insurance) is wrong. Businesses should be able to choose whether, and what form, of insurance they provide. And, frankly, I don't konw why an interstate free market of insurance companies is a bad idea, to make the offerings better. This is little different than forcing a business to match 401(k) offerings.

*obviously there *is* a line in allowing the business to define ethics. Child labor laws, etc. I happen to contend that this issue doesn't cross that line.


Birth control pills have been used for other medical purposes. Why should one person's prescribed medication be paid for, but another's not be? The court says this ruling doesn't apply to vaccines or blood transfusions, but should a company that provides health coverage be allowed to not allow those to be covered because they are against it? Should a company be able to cover an abortion if the life of the mother is at risk but not cover it in a rape because of how the owners beliefs are aligned?
User avatar
Nitro
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Nitro » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:09 pm

carla wrote:
ABwannabe wrote:For instance, policy concerning porn has to be spelled out before an employee can be fired for it.


I rescind my comment that I will not engage. :twisted:

ABW, is this true even if it contravenes county, state or federal law?

We'll see, okbye. Citizens United is still standing. The Supreme Court is why I vote democrat for prez.


I don't know about this particular situation but do know that there have been cases where a computer hacker got off because the system he hacked did not have a logon banner prohibiting unauthorized access.
User avatar
Nitro
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:39 am

I may be spot on. Research is in order.
"Hobby Lobby -- now free to drop emergency "morning after" pills and intrauterine devices from its workers' health insurance plans -- has given no indication that it plans to stop helping its male employees obtain erectile dysfunction treatments."
Viagra AND implants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/3 ... r=Business

IUD's no longer kill and sterilize women, that was the Dalkon Shield. I have a friend who had to adopt because of the Dalkon Shield. Nowadays, I know several women who comfortably and healthily use an IUD, and Paragard does not use hormones (Mirena does). They are now a viable and good method, although I believe they are recommended most for women who have already had a child, for physiological reasons involving the cervix. Oh well. Science and doctors don't play enough of a role in this issue. Surgical sterilization is best. Insurance LOVES that, much more than child birth.
ETA: Science, doctors and patients should be the ONLY PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE.
Last edited by carla on Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:45 am

I sure am out of the loop. The first search hit I get says:

"Both types of IUDs work primarily by preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg."
http://www.babycenter.com/0_intrauterin ... ud_3564.bc

If true, it's not an abortifacient. But I know better, it's not that simple. Not that I wouldn't use this method.

"There are two types of IUDs available in the United States. One type releases the hormone progestin, which causes the cervical mucus to become thicker so the sperm cannot reach the egg. The hormone also changes the lining of the uterus, so implantation of a fertilized egg cannot occur. (I acknowledge this, though I have no problem with it.) There are two hormone IUDs available: Mirena can be used for up to 5 years and the Skyla can be implanted for up to 3 years.
The other type doesn't use hormones. It contains copper, which is slowly released into the uterine cavity. The copper stops the sperm from making it through the vagina and uterus to reach the egg, thus preventing fertilization. There is one copper IUD available, the ParaGard T380A, which can be kept in place for up to 10 years.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ ... ine-device

Some studies put miscarriage, aka spontaneous abortion, in the first trimester at 11-22%. Put more money into pre-natal care and family planning.

In other words, the Supreme Court is once again playing doctor. It's not their role. It is indeed up to a person and their doctor, and only those two parties. Nitro alluded to this. I miss working at a clinic.
Last edited by carla on Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:53 am

ABwannabe wrote:In my opinion, forcing a business...to act unethically (as the business defines ethics) is usually wrong*. *obviously there *is* a line in allowing the business to define ethics. Child labor laws, etc. I happen to contend that this issue doesn't cross that line.


Child labor laws and segregation. and other forms of discrimination.
This is an anti-woman issue. If men went through the physical issues that women do; if men had unwanted pregnancies, this would not be an issue.

Sometimes government must define ethics, after people do. It's always a people's movement. Sometimes people must die for their ethics. Yes, I'm referring to the civil rights movement. (not that I'd have the guts to die for my beliefs, but hey, the older one gets, the more possible it is. Go out feeling good.)
Women's rights need another push, I hope this is it.
HEY! People have died in our lifetimes for civil rights and reproductive freedom! People were murdered in the 90's at women's clinics! There was a fire bombing in my county at one of our clinics, let alone Brookline and others; Drs. Tiller, Slepien, Gunn; and employees Lowney and Nichols were MURDERED! (could have been me or my colleagues; I did testify in court against a protester who assaulted our clinic director.) Does anyone still care about domestic terrorism?!

I'm shocked out of my shoes and sob watching civil rights documentaries. I was born in '61. I figure people will eventually have a strong reaction to reproductive rights documentaries. Time to go make my first political donation in years, or pay for someone's IUD, or both.
(I do acknowledge that many do and will sob watching the other side, the one I don't support, of the reproductive rights battle.)
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby ABwannabe » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:36 am

This wasn't about "birth control" but "abortificant 'birth control'". I'm not a doctor, and I haven't read Carla's links so I won't comment on whether those 4 forms of BC are abortificants (may depend on the view of when life starts?). If I recall correctly, it was only 4 forms of BC out of many (hundreds?). I would think that if those 4really aren't abortificants (at least by a very conservative definition) the case wouldn't have gone this far. Despite what we like to say, there were very smart people arguing and judging this.
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Nitro » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:38 am

From what I understand, the pill can also be used to treat endometriosis, and symptoms of a painful period. As a man, I have no idea what that's like, and my wife doesn't have them, so I have no real frame of reference. It wasn't something I ever discussed with my mother :)

It is a very slippery slope, but it's not surprising how it went down, with all the men on the court, other than Breyer, ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. It's not just the specifics for these two companies, it's what happens in the future based on this ruling.

A good resource to read about the opinion (and the others) is http://www.scotusblog.com. They do very well in putting the rulings in plain english.

Unfortunately yesterday, they got a lot of tweets directed to them like they are the Court. The Justices don't even do email, let alone Twitter.

Yes, the Justices are very smart, but the Supreme Court has been wrong before, though sometimes society needs to make a shift to see it.
User avatar
Nitro
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby ABwannabe » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:49 am

carla wrote:
ABwannabe wrote:For instance, policy concerning porn has to be spelled out before an employee can be fired for it.


I rescind my comment that I will not engage. :twisted:

ABW, is this true even if it contravenes county, state or federal law?

We'll see, okbye. Citizens United is still standing. The Supreme Court is why I vote democrat for prez.


I was (am again) on my phone so not as clear as I could be; I also didn't want to digress too much. I believe there's some "reasonable expectation" verbiage as well. For instance, running naked through the office singing an explicit rap song and making suggestive motions *should* be grounds for dismissal, without being specifically called out.

I'm referring to laws lawsuits where a teacher has been fired for affairs, being on an adult website, etc. Many times, the fired teacher won the suit because there was no clear policy forbidding it.
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:27 am

Not hundreds AB, 26.

IUDs work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, it won't work if there is a foreign body in the uterus. Some of them exude hormones as an added precaution because no form is 100% effective. So the ones that have hormones are a 2for1. The objection to the IUD by hobby lobby is that it considers the 4-cell fertilized egg as a human being and because if an egg is not allowed to implant it will die and be flushed out with the woman's next period they consider that an abortion. I personally find that notion ridiculous. Not only ridiculous but irrelevant, it is none of your employer's business what medical care you get. There is no reason on Earth they should even know what medications or procedures you are getting.

Smart does not always equal right. The 5 judges that voted for this are all christians. Three of the ones that voted against it are Jewish.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:46 am

Another terrible SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS is there to decides broad constitutional issues. The decision should have been businesses can/cannot be forced by the government to spend money in a certain way. But because issuing the correct ruling (they cannot be forced to) would invalidate Obamacare in it's entirety they tried to issue a narrow "in this case, under these circumstances, for this group, in this particular instance" ruling which just makes things worse. Blood products & Jehovah's witnesses example is a perfect illustration of this.

The SCOTUS needs to quit trying to split political hairs, take these cases, read the Constitution as it's written, apply a little common sense and apply the constitution even if it makes their particular political affiliations unhappy. We'd be a lot better off.
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Nitro » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:55 am

I have less issue with companies being allowed to say whether they offer insurance or not (as long as there is an affordable third party alternative), but the problem really is when a company that offers insurance can decide what they will or won't cover, when it's not things like elective surgeries etc.

It kind of reminds me of the cases where a pharmacist refused to fill a valid prescription on moral grounds. They should not have that right. Don't be a Pharmacist. If you are against paying for certain medical procedures etc, don't offer health coverage. But make it affordable for employees to get third party insurance. A medical situation without insurance can be devastating financially, even for someone that saves.
User avatar
Nitro
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:54 am

Nitro wrote:I have less issue with companies being allowed to say whether they offer insurance or not (as long as there is an affordable third party alternative), but the problem really is when a company that offers insurance can decide what they will or won't cover, when it's not things like elective surgeries etc.

It kind of reminds me of the cases where a pharmacist refused to fill a valid prescription on moral grounds. They should not have that right. Don't be a Pharmacist. If you are against paying for certain medical procedures etc, don't offer health coverage. But make it affordable for employees to get third party insurance. A medical situation without insurance can be devastating financially, even for someone that saves.



Why is this the company's responsibility? If you don't like their policy - don't work there. Unlike the government forced insurance issue no one is forcing someone to work there. No one is being denied anything, if you want a particular item that isn't covered - go buy it.
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby tj » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:33 pm

I think, Slam, that you make a good point, though the purpose of insurance seems to be to make medical care available to as many as possible at reasonable cost. I am in the process of having a prescription filled that, without the help of Medicare, would cost $508. It is still expensive at $169 with the coverage, but a lot less of a burden. Women who need the help could be placed in a real bind by having to pay full price.
tj
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:29 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby tj » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:39 pm

Frankly, this decision gives me the willies. It seems to allow certain corporations, who are in business to make money for their stakeholders, to use a religious mask for purposes of increasing monetary gains.

If this does not violate the letter of the establishment clause, it certainly challenges the spirit of it.

The government simply has no business in religion. With its actions, Hobby Lobby is forcing government to be involved in an area they should not. This, to me, is an unethical ploy.
tj
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:29 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:23 pm

tj wrote:Frankly, this decision gives me the willies. It seems to allow certain corporations, who are in business to make money for their stakeholders, to use a religious mask for purposes of increasing monetary gains.

If this does not violate the letter of the establishment clause, it certainly challenges the spirit of it.

The government simply has no business in religion. With its actions, Hobby Lobby is forcing government to be involved in an area they should not. This, to me, is an unethical ploy.

None of what you wrote is true; you're drinking the kool-aid

You need to understand what isn't being publicized.

First, the contraception coverage requirement wasn't part of Obamacare as passed. It was added by fiat of questionable legality.

Second, there already is a simple remedy, it's the same one that Obama issued via regulation when the same situation arose with non-profits. Obama via Sebilus decreed that the non-profits who objected to paying for contraception coverage didn't have to, the insurance company did with no charge back to the non profit. Alito notes this in his opinion (have you read it?). Here's the relevant passage: "The effect of the HHS-created accommodation," meaning the effect of Kathleen Sebelius writing a regulation after the law was signed -- "on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing." plus the face that no one is harmed by this decision since there is an administrative solution already in place that can be applied. Obama won't apply that solution because he doesn't want the problem solved - he wants the issue to campaign with.

Here's some more fun facts.
There are 20 FDA approved contraceptives.
Hobby Lobby included 16 of those in it's insurance package even prior to Obamacare (including the pill). it only objects to 4 specific ones
Hobby Lobby starts it's employees at $14/hr or more (29.5k / year) so they can probably afford $9 a month for non covered contraception
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:45 am

Where are you getting $9/month contraception? According to 'the net' the uncovered IUDs would cost a month's salary if they had to buy them out of pocket. I'm afraid it's you Slam who always drink the republican poison kool aid. It could be the best healthcare plan the world has ever seen and you would hate it because Obama is president.

Here are some fun facts for you

Contraception is much cheaper than a child, especially an unwanted child. Republicans and religious nuts all insist the clump of cells must be saved but are unwilling to do a thing once that child is born to a woman who can't afford it. You must have life, now try to survive.

You don't get to make laws based on what your imaginary friend says is right and wrong. That violates the very point of the constitution. A corporation is not a person, it cannot have religious views. End of.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:10 am

okbye wrote:You don't get to make laws based on what your imaginary friend says is right and wrong. That violates the very point of the constitution. A corporation is not a person, it cannot have religious views. End of.

You need to go back and take 7th grade US history and civics again - your hatred of all things religious notwithstanding.

And corporations ARE people in the eyes of the law (since 1819) Read the SCOTUS Dartmouth College v. Woodward decision

All your mis direction aside - if this is SUCH a crisis for these poor ladies, why hasn't the Obama admin simply used the administrative remedy that I listed (and you ignored)?
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Nitro » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:17 am

Slamdunkpro wrote:
Nitro wrote:I have less issue with companies being allowed to say whether they offer insurance or not (as long as there is an affordable third party alternative), but the problem really is when a company that offers insurance can decide what they will or won't cover, when it's not things like elective surgeries etc.

It kind of reminds me of the cases where a pharmacist refused to fill a valid prescription on moral grounds. They should not have that right. Don't be a Pharmacist. If you are against paying for certain medical procedures etc, don't offer health coverage. But make it affordable for employees to get third party insurance. A medical situation without insurance can be devastating financially, even for someone that saves.



Why is this the company's responsibility? If you don't like their policy - don't work there. Unlike the government forced insurance issue no one is forcing someone to work there. No one is being denied anything, if you want a particular item that isn't covered - go buy it.


Would an owner be allowed to change his mind? Say something like "I went on a church retreat last weekend and now feel this procedure is morally wrong, so I'm no longer going to cover it", or cover something in certain situations and not others? Like insurance will pick up the cost of a medically necessary abortion if the life of the mother is at stake, but not if it was rape?
User avatar
Nitro
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:57 am

Nitro wrote:
Slamdunkpro wrote:
Nitro wrote:I have less issue with companies being allowed to say whether they offer insurance or not (as long as there is an affordable third party alternative), but the problem really is when a company that offers insurance can decide what they will or won't cover, when it's not things like elective surgeries etc.

It kind of reminds me of the cases where a pharmacist refused to fill a valid prescription on moral grounds. They should not have that right. Don't be a Pharmacist. If you are against paying for certain medical procedures etc, don't offer health coverage. But make it affordable for employees to get third party insurance. A medical situation without insurance can be devastating financially, even for someone that saves.



Why is this the company's responsibility? If you don't like their policy - don't work there. Unlike the government forced insurance issue no one is forcing someone to work there. No one is being denied anything, if you want a particular item that isn't covered - go buy it.


Would an owner be allowed to change his mind? Say something like "I went on a church retreat last weekend and now feel this procedure is morally wrong, so I'm no longer going to cover it", or cover something in certain situations and not others? Like insurance will pick up the cost of a medically necessary abortion if the life of the mother is at stake, but not if it was rape?


It doesn't work like that. Employers negotiate an insurance package with underwriting companies based on what they want to pay and what the Obamacare law requires for a fixed period of time. They then offer that package to their employees as a benefit. They can't go back and arbitrarily change the coverage without renegotiating the entire package. The bottom line is that with the stroke of a regulation the 4 contraceptives Hobby Lobby objects to paying for would be paid for by someone else (the insurance company) and voila! For some unknown reason the Obama regime won't do this like they did for nonprofits.
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby ABwannabe » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:44 am

Slam and Okbye, may I make an observation and request?

You're both smart people with valuable insight. It saddens me to see personal insults brought into discussions when you both can (and often do) contribute much more.

Slamdunkpro wrote: you're drinking the kool-aid
okbye wrote:I'm afraid it's you Slam who always drink the republican poison kool aid. It could be the best healthcare plan the world has ever seen and you would hate it because Obama is president.
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby ABwannabe » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:52 am

okbye wrote:Contraception is much cheaper than a child, especially an unwanted child.

That's beside the point. The ruling wasn't to determine whether a fetus is a child; it was to determine whether the government has the authority to force its definition of when a fetus is a child onto a business.

Plus, your statement above could be used as a first -- of not too many -- steps towards a China-like "One child" policy. I'm not saying that you would agree with that; it would certainly be a major imposition of personal rights, religious and non-religious. It also sounds like you're putting a price tag on human life.
ABwannabe
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Next

Return to Poli-FRY

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron