|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 13:03:39 GMT
Women's right to sex and reproductive chooses does not translate into someone else paying for those chooses. Period. I don't understand the idea some of you have that women are "entitled" to have prescription meds to prevent pregnancy or to terminate it paid for by someone other than their spouses/SOs. With choice comes responsibility and one of the responsibilities is paying for your choices. ETA...IMO, the whole "war on women" is a bogus claim by liberals to try to rally female voters to Democrat candidates. Exactly. Hi Lynlam I disagree.....with both of you. Under the ACA, and for companies with more than 50 employees, women are entitled to have someone else pay for their choices. Some of us have the idea that the ACA has required this be part of an insurance package offered by employers. If that wasn't the case, HL wouldn't have had to go to court to seek exemption from the law, they would have just left that choice out of what they offered. I dislike the phrase 'war on women' it's a little to all encompassing for my taste, but you can't deny that a lot of Republicans would like to see women's rights curtailed. That's not a bogus claim at all.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 13:09:58 GMT
ACA is basically what's known in other countries as 'Universal Healthcare'. Everyone is required to be covered by a basic plan, and you can choose an add on plan that covers things that are not covered in the basic plan. So, no, there is no choice in the basic plan, just whether you choose an add on plan or not, and that you pay for out of your own pocket.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 13:10:00 GMT
OMG, let me throw myself off a cliff....y'all are right, the Waltons only own 50% of the stock these days. I didn't say that U-haul's stock was owned by one family, well, it is, by the 'Shoen Family' but there are many families within that realm and I didn't go look up what each one owned...as far as using the word family, in the same sentence as closely held, and small business... I was responding to a variety of things that have been said about the HL issue, news reports have used the same words, but if you break it down to its purely legal form, closely held does not mean family. The small business reference goes back to post someone else made about this ruling only effecting small business...HL is not a small business. JustKellie.....was I condescending in any of my posts where I quoted you? I don't think I was, I try to be fairly balanced in my comments and not make personal attacks on anyone. I don't mind being told I have something incorrect, I honestly don't spend my entire day researching facts in order to post on a forum, and I'm more than happy to be corrected, IF it's done nicely. So please, skip the b*tch act and chose your words a little more carefully, otherwise it's no fun having a discussion....and this thread IS a discussion not a lecture. Thank you. The problem is with misinformation - when you claim you can't be bothered to read the IRS document that clearly answers the questions regarding the differences between public and close hold and then cite two instances as privately held companies that meet close hold (which was incorrect) and then try to play the martyr saying you can't be bothered to research any aspect of your argument? To think you might influence people's opinions by stating gross misrepresentations of fact is disheartening to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 13:16:35 GMT
Bwahahahahaha!! How long have you been a NSBR Pea? If it's more than a month you ought to know that it doesn't matter what people say on these contentious threads, nobody ever changes their mind. Gross misrepresentation is rampant on both side of the aisle, we all know that. And I didn't say I couldn't be bothered reading the IRS document...that's gross misrepresentation of my words! I said I didn't wish to...which means at that very moment, I didn't wish to go chase down an IRS document. I may well read it later, or never, but by that time this thread will have disappeared and we'll all be on to something new.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 13:18:34 GMT
On the other side of the fence are those arguing that this decision is wrong, NOT because HL won the right to deny 4 methods of BC, but about the far reaching implications of this ruling. While it's probably true that ' "huge" Jehovah's Witness and orthodox Jewish business community is not going to start refusing to pay for transfusions and organ transplants, or banning employees from using electricity.' but they could certainly use this argument as precedence. Also that disturbing 'corporations are people' issue...not just on the basis of religion, but what that means to the corporate veil as it stands...and finally that a corporation has been allowed to use religion to gain exclusion from a federal law, while other companies, who do not have HL's money to pursue a lawsuit, are going to be forced to offer plans that provide BC whether they want to or not. And what's to stop a company from claiming they have religious beliefs that don't allow transfusions or whatever, because they don't want to pay? Amen - this was the issue before this ruling and will continue to be the issue after the ruling. People didn't really give crap about previous rulings that gave corporations this right until they feel like it got too close to home. Which, was too late, as once they were granted the right of free speech, it is only logical they would be granted other freedoms and rights enjoyed by normal people. You can't pick and choose rights to be granted - its an all or nothing thing. If this kind of uproar had occurred before corporations were granted the rights of an individual, then we might not be sitting here debating this issue to death. The fact of the matter, at this point, it will take major legislative change to fix what has been done, and you can be damn sure it won't happen before the next election - if ever - due to the power of the lobby.
|
|
|
Post by Judie in Oz on Jul 1, 2014 13:25:52 GMT
Can I ask a question? Does your employer pay for all of your health insurance, or just part of it? If it's only part, why can't you designate that your part is the one paying for the contraception? To be honest though, I've never understood why an employer should be paying for health insurance anyway. Also, has anyone read this? More food for thought. Insurance
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 13:25:49 GMT
Bwahahahahaha!! How long have you been a NSBR Pea? If it's more than a month you ought to know that it doesn't matter what people say on these contentious threads, nobody ever changes their mind. Gross misrepresentation is rampant on both side of the aisle, we all know that. And I didn't say I couldn't be bothered reading the IRS document...that's gross misrepresentation of my words! I said I didn't wish to...which means at that very moment, I didn't wish to go chase down an IRS document. I may well read it later, or never, but by that time this thread will have disappeared and we'll all be on to something new. At least you own up to your ignorance of the issue - and to think that there isn't a chance to learn something from an intelligent discussion is silly.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 1, 2014 13:32:32 GMT
JustKallie, I don't remember you from 2Peas, but I am so glad you're here.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 13:51:18 GMT
Did I say that? Umm, no, you are once again ascribing words to me that I never said....in fact, in an early post, I said I was always open to learning something new. So There!
BTW, I totally agree with your post before this one.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 13:57:01 GMT
Can I ask a question? Does your employer pay for all of your health insurance, or just part of it? If it's only part, why can't you designate that your part is the one paying for the contraception? To be honest though, I've never understood why an employer should be paying for health insurance anyway. Also, has anyone read this? More food for thought. InsuranceIt depends on the company. Some employer pay 100%, other pay a portion and the balance is taken out of the employees paycheck. Perhaps the concept is foreign to you because you have Universal Healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by shevy on Jul 1, 2014 14:03:38 GMT
I have come to the conclusion (and it only took 11 pages!) that there are two entirely different things going on here. One group is happy with the decision and feels like the SCOTUS ruling is all about whether HL still offers a variety of BC options, and are happy that the ruling was based on a religious conviction. So any argument is met with a let them eat cake attitude. On the other side of the fence are those arguing that this decision is wrong, NOT because HL won the right to deny 4 methods of BC, but about the far reaching implications of this ruling. While it's probably true that ' "huge" Jehovah's Witness and orthodox Jewish business community is not going to start refusing to pay for transfusions and organ transplants, or banning employees from using electricity.' but they could certainly use this argument as precedence. Also that disturbing 'corporations are people' issue...not just on the basis of religion, but what that means to the corporate veil as it stands...and finally that a corporation has been allowed to use religion to gain exclusion from a federal law, while other companies, who do not have HL's money to pursue a lawsuit, are going to be forced to offer plans that provide BC whether they want to or not. And what's to stop a company from claiming they have religious beliefs that don't allow transfusions or whatever, because they don't want to pay? The door has been opened for all kinds of issues...that's my major concern....of focused concern is that employees of HL are now going to be denied coverage for what employees of other companies will be getting under the ACA...based on religious convictions of the owners. Saying if employees don't like it, they shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out....is about as irrelevant as saying, well, if HL doesn't like the law that other companies have to adhere to, then let them close there stores. This is me too.
|
|
|
Post by shevy on Jul 1, 2014 14:06:55 GMT
Can I ask a question? Does your employer pay for all of your health insurance, or just part of it? If it's only part, why can't you designate that your part is the one paying for the contraception? To be honest though, I've never understood why an employer should be paying for health insurance anyway. Also, has anyone read this? More food for thought. InsuranceI cannot designate which parts of my medical/dental that my insurance covers. The plan is set by my employer and the insurance company prior to implementing it. Other plans may be different though, in that they're termed 'cafeteria" so that you can pick and chose the sections that you would pay for: ie no maternity because you are past the age of babies.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:25:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 14:10:59 GMT
Sorry, but ACA is nothing like Universal Health Care, well not in this country anyhow! and it's funded by tax revenue in the majority of other countries that I know of that offer UHC.
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 1, 2014 14:25:24 GMT
The last time I had a company sponsored investment plan, we were given a prospectus that included details of the mutual funds and what companies were included. You're implying that the information was unavailable to Hobby Lobby after they chose a company to manage these investments, which is not the case. If the media could figure it out, so could the owners of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed. If they do any corporate matching of the 401k plan, they ARE investing in abortion and contraception, however indirectly. Umm, many of the companies that make the medications you are pointing out also make many medications that save lives, and are VERY good investments if you actually want to create a return on your money in the grand scheme of retirement accounts. If you were presented investment options without pharmaceuticals in there, your investment portfolio would have under performed vs others that had. And lets face it, if you want to play the moral card when investing, there would be very little left to invest in, as Oil and Power would be out, Clothing and Manufacturing would be out (sweatshops), Tech would be out (most tech produced is in sweatshop like conditions), many commodities would be out due to poor labor conditions for workers and environments destruction due to poor farming methods, Defense Industries would be out... the list could go on and on. And again, the issue is moot because it really has no relevance to the case that was decided upon today. Throwing up "oh yeah, what ifs" with unrelated issues only further points out that most people don't understand what was really being decided on today, and if they don't like the decision, how to go about changing it. The reality, at the heart of this issue, the decision to recognize corporations as individuals when it came to free speech opened this can of worms.. It is like a geometry proof. Since Corporations are recognized as individuals in regards to free speech, and since individuals are protected from laws being passed by government infringing on their beliefs by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act --> therefore, corporations should be protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. What the Court did was say you can't pick and choose which individuals are protected by law. I understand the case and the relevance of the issue just fine, thank you. I am attempting to discuss the related concept that Hobby Lobby seems to pick and choose when their religious beliefs should apply. To quote myself, " If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed." If they choose not to show some internal consistency of beliefs and behavior, they should expect people to find them hypocritical.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 1, 2014 14:29:11 GMT
The last time I had a company sponsored investment plan, we were given a prospectus that included details of the mutual funds and what companies were included. You're implying that the information was unavailable to Hobby Lobby after they chose a company to manage these investments, which is not the case. If the media could figure it out, so could the owners of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed. If they do any corporate matching of the 401k plan, they ARE investing in abortion and contraception, however indirectly. And lets face it, if you want to play the moral card when investing, there would be very little left to invest in, as Oil and Power would be out, Clothing and Manufacturing would be out (sweatshops), Tech would be out (most tech produced is in sweatshop like conditions), many commodities would be out due to poor labor conditions for workers and environments destruction due to poor farming methods, Defense Industries would be out... the list could go on and on. (not sure why it isn't showing up as a quote, that part above wasn't mine) Well, it's pretty obvious that HL has absolutely NO moral qualms whatsoever with sweatshops and poor labor conditions.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 14:38:17 GMT
Umm, many of the companies that make the medications you are pointing out also make many medications that save lives, and are VERY good investments if you actually want to create a return on your money in the grand scheme of retirement accounts. If you were presented investment options without pharmaceuticals in there, your investment portfolio would have under performed vs others that had. And lets face it, if you want to play the moral card when investing, there would be very little left to invest in, as Oil and Power would be out, Clothing and Manufacturing would be out (sweatshops), Tech would be out (most tech produced is in sweatshop like conditions), many commodities would be out due to poor labor conditions for workers and environments destruction due to poor farming methods, Defense Industries would be out... the list could go on and on. And again, the issue is moot because it really has no relevance to the case that was decided upon today. Throwing up "oh yeah, what ifs" with unrelated issues only further points out that most people don't understand what was really being decided on today, and if they don't like the decision, how to go about changing it. The reality, at the heart of this issue, the decision to recognize corporations as individuals when it came to free speech opened this can of worms.. It is like a geometry proof. Since Corporations are recognized as individuals in regards to free speech, and since individuals are protected from laws being passed by government infringing on their beliefs by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act --> therefore, corporations should be protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. What the Court did was say you can't pick and choose which individuals are protected by law. I understand the case and the relevance of the issue just fine, thank you. I am attempting to discuss the related concept that Hobby Lobby seems to pick and choose when their religious beliefs should apply. To quote myself, " If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed." If they choose not to show some internal consistency of beliefs and behavior, they should expect people to find them hypocritical. Hobby Lobby has the right to be just as hypocritical as you, I or anyone else does. Why do they need to be held to a higher standard than you, I or anyone else? While you think that religious beliefs automatically should hold you to a higher standard, that is not the law, and not the purpose of the decision of this case, and quite frankly, are you comfortable with the idea of government legislating against hypocrisy?
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 1, 2014 14:41:52 GMT
I have come to the conclusion (and it only took 11 pages!) that there are two entirely different things going on here. One group is happy with the decision and feels like the SCOTUS ruling is all about whether HL still offers a variety of BC options, and are happy that the ruling was based on a religious conviction. So any argument is met with a let them eat cake attitude. On the other side of the fence are those arguing that this decision is wrong, NOT because HL won the right to deny 4 methods of BC, but about the far reaching implications of this ruling. While it's probably true that ' "huge" Jehovah's Witness and orthodox Jewish business community is not going to start refusing to pay for transfusions and organ transplants, or banning employees from using electricity.' but they could certainly use this argument as precedence. Also that disturbing 'corporations are people' issue...not just on the basis of religion, but what that means to the corporate veil as it stands...and finally that a corporation has been allowed to use religion to gain exclusion from a federal law, while other companies, who do not have HL's money to pursue a lawsuit, are going to be forced to offer plans that provide BC whether they want to or not. And what's to stop a company from claiming they have religious beliefs that don't allow transfusions or whatever, because they don't want to pay? The door has been opened for all kinds of issues...that's my major concern....of focused concern is that employees of HL are now going to be denied coverage for what employees of other companies will be getting under the ACA...based on religious convictions of the owners. Saying if employees don't like it, they shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out....is about as irrelevant as saying, well, if HL doesn't like the law that other companies have to adhere to, then let them close there stores. While no one really knows what will or could happen, I am less concerned about denial of blood transfusions, etc. I think that there is a difference between life saving medical procedures and elective procedures. That's why most insurances don't cover plastic surgery. But it's also why, back when hardly anyone covered contraceptives, if they were medically necessary (to treat or fix some problem) they would be covered. I think that's why insurances cover Viagra (although I don't think all do). It is used to treat or fix a medical malfunction. Whether we agree or not there is a difference in correcting a problem and fixing something that is not broken.
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 1, 2014 14:48:54 GMT
Hobby Lobby has the right to be just as hypocritical as you, I or anyone else does. Why do they need to be held to a higher standard than you, I or anyone else? While you think that religious beliefs automatically should hold you to a higher standard, that is not the law, and not the purpose of the decision of this case, and quite frankly, are you comfortable with the idea of government legislating against hypocrisy? If they are going to sue the government for the right to hold their moral beliefs, they should be held to that standard across the board.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 14:55:55 GMT
Hobby Lobby has the right to be just as hypocritical as you, I or anyone else does. Why do they need to be held to a higher standard than you, I or anyone else? While you think that religious beliefs automatically should hold you to a higher standard, that is not the law, and not the purpose of the decision of this case, and quite frankly, are you comfortable with the idea of government legislating against hypocrisy? If they are going to sue the government for the right to hold their moral beliefs, they should be held to that standard across the board. Nope, that is not how it works. Personally, you can deal with Hobby Lobby however you see fit. You can patronize them or not, that is your choice. But in regards to the law, there is no such thing as a higher standard in application of the law to those that have religious beliefs. That is called discrimination.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 1, 2014 15:01:56 GMT
I understand the case and the relevance of the issue just fine, thank you. I am attempting to discuss the related concept that Hobby Lobby seems to pick and choose when their religious beliefs should apply. To quote myself, " If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed." If they choose not to show some internal consistency of beliefs and behavior, they should expect people to find them hypocritical. Hobby Lobby has the right to be just as hypocritical as you, I or anyone else does. Why do they need to be held to a higher standard than you, I or anyone else? While you think that religious beliefs automatically should hold you to a higher standard, that is not the law, and not the purpose of the decision of this case, and quite frankly, are you comfortable with the idea of government legislating against hypocrisy? My view is that HL certainly has the right to be hypocritical. But in this case, they are holding their EMPLOYEES to the higher standard, while they themselves are exempt from it. Hey guys...I know that some of you women like to have sex, or need BCP or IUD for things other than not getting pregnant. But we don't want to pay for that, because it's immoral for you to use those products. They are evil and wrong because we have a very devout religious belief and we insist upon that belief being respected. Even though YOU are paying for part of the cost for your health insurance and maybe you're using these drugs/products for other reasons - heck, maybe you're not even sexually active!...well, the mere thought that it might cause something to happen that we would view as violating our religious beliefs, that just isn't OK with us. We should not be forced to spend OUR money on things that we view as sinful. But it's totally cool if we make a profit off of those same products because...money! Money is a good thing, and if we make money off of the products, we can use it to do the Lord's work! Do as I say, not as I do. Then again, with the whole human rights/sweatshops issue HL has shown that they're not particularly concerned with doing the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2014 15:04:40 GMT
I understand the case and the relevance of the issue just fine, thank you. I am attempting to discuss the related concept that Hobby Lobby seems to pick and choose when their religious beliefs should apply. To quote myself, " If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed." If they choose not to show some internal consistency of beliefs and behavior, they should expect people to find them hypocritical. Hobby Lobby has the right to be just as hypocritical as you, I or anyone else does. Why do they need to be held to a higher standard than you, I or anyone else? While you think that religious beliefs automatically should hold you to a higher standard, that is not the law, and not the purpose of the decision of this case, and quite frankly, are you comfortable with the idea of government legislating against hypocrisy? There is nothing wrong with citizens noting hypocrisy and, if they wish, adjusting their shopping habits accordingly. Or not. Everything is not necessarily about legislation. Sometimes people just want to vent, or to try to make sense of information.
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 1, 2014 15:06:16 GMT
If they are going to sue the government for the right to hold their moral beliefs, they should be held to that standard across the board. Nope, that is not how it works. Personally, you can deal with Hobby Lobby however you see fit. You can patronize them or not, that is your choice. But in regards to the law, there is no such thing as a higher standard in application of the law to those that have religious beliefs. That is called discrimination. I am not trying to hold them to a legal standard, I'm trying to hold them to their self-professed moral standard.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 15:07:07 GMT
Hobby Lobby has the right to be just as hypocritical as you, I or anyone else does. Why do they need to be held to a higher standard than you, I or anyone else? While you think that religious beliefs automatically should hold you to a higher standard, that is not the law, and not the purpose of the decision of this case, and quite frankly, are you comfortable with the idea of government legislating against hypocrisy? My view is that HL certainly has the right to be hypocritical. But in this case, they are holding their EMPLOYEES to the higher standard, while they themselves are exempt from it. Hey guys...I know that some of you women like to have sex, or need BCP or IUD for things other than not getting pregnant. But we don't want to pay for that, because it's immoral for you to use those products. They are evil and wrong because we have a very devout religious belief and we insist upon that belief being respected. Even though YOU are paying for part of the cost for your health insurance and maybe you're using these drugs/products for other reasons - heck, maybe you're not even sexually active!...well, the mere thought that it might cause something to happen that we would view as violating our religious beliefs, that just isn't OK with us. We should not be forced to spend OUR money on things that we view as sinful. But it's totally cool if we make a profit off of those same products because...money! Money is a good thing, and if we make money off of the products, we can use it to do the Lord's work! Do as I say, not as I do. Then again, with the whole human rights/sweatshops issue HL has shown that they're not particularly concerned with doing the right thing. Kinda like the "Do as I say, not as I do?" style of parenting we all probably engage in at one time or another? Their company, their rules and as long as those rules don't run afoul of the law - perfectly legal.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jul 1, 2014 15:07:26 GMT
I know this isn't the main discussion here, but I agree. I feel like when women such as the "refupeas" use this phrase we're being almost disrespectful to woman in the world today and those from decades and centuries gone by who suffer and have suffered so much simply due to being born a woman.
If I have to pay out of pocket for my birth control or even a prescription I use for medical reasons, I still feel my life as a woman is far, far better than many other women of today and years gone by.
I feel like if those women wanted to say there was a war on them, I could understand, but I just don't personally feel it applies to woman such as those on this message board for instance.
I still feel for anyone who has to fork out money for these things. I do. I've paid for plenty of things out of pocket over the years. It stinks. But I don't think it was because there was a war being waged against my gender.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jul 1, 2014 15:17:13 GMT
Well that's not totally true. I have changed my mind a few times over the years, usually due to a better understanding of all sides.
BUT anyone whose been lurking at the NSBR ought to know that not every thing everyone posts is correct or complete. (like the politicians they abhor so much )
Spinning, it's not just for color guard anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Jul 1, 2014 15:17:31 GMT
I will just repeat what Lauren said. It is nice to have a new voice in the pod.
|
|
Peamac
Pearl Clutcher
Refupea # 418
Posts: 4,229
Jun 26, 2014 0:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Peamac on Jul 1, 2014 15:21:11 GMT
Has anyone seen this article? It lists 16 forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby employees have access to, and 4 that they don't. Here's the link.Interesting information, considering we are not hearing much about this.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:25:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 15:52:42 GMT
JustKallie, I don't remember you from 2Peas, but I am so glad you're here. Word!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:25:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 15:53:08 GMT
and OMG it's a MIRACLE...I was able to quote...for real.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 1, 2014 15:55:24 GMT
|
|