Most of us have heard the story. If not link above is an article on it.
My question is why is the cooperation allowed to deny its employees certain types of healthcare? Should it not be the employee that makes the decision of whether or not they contraception goes against their personal beliefs?
One person who I spoke with personally dropped this nugget. It is slightly off topic, but us discussing this topic led to it.
(about universal healthcare)
THEM: "why would I let the government tell me what I can and can't do to my body?"
ME: "So you're against the government having some say in your healthcare, but your all for some people who believe in fairy tales telling their employees they can't have birth control?":facepalm:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
My biggest problem is if a company is owned by a Jehovah's Witness or a Christian Scientist but the company is not a subsidiary of their respective churches, should they be allowed to not cover blood transfusions or any medical expenses at all?
This is a case where people seem to think for a split second that THEY own the employees. Its not true. They may not want their employees to have birth control but they don't have any constitutional right to enforce their views on the employee. That is exactly what they are trying to do and I hope they get fined till they break or stop the insulting behavior of trying to rip people from their own right of religion.
The issue isn't about birth control in the traditional sense. It's about Plan B the potential abortion pill. If the plan offers traditional contraception then it should not have to cover these drugs when there are other alternatives covered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
So let them take 6x the dose. There is no difference between this and the government mandating that an insurance company cover a cancer treatment that is $45,000 a shot when there is an equally effective drug at $1500 a shot with a few less side effects.
The purpose is to reduce costs and give people more control. it's stupid to have employers make these kinds of decisions in the first place. Simply allow people to buy insurance on the open market (since its illegal to discriminate against them on price or pre-existing conditions).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
The issue isn't about birth control in the traditional sense. It's about Plan B the potential abortion pill. If the plan offers traditional contraception then it should not have to cover these drugs when there are other alternatives covered.
Plan B is not an abortion pill. You're thinking of RU-486. Plan B prevents ovulation thereby preventing fertilization.
So let them take 6x the dose. There is no difference between this and the government mandating that an insurance company cover a cancer treatment that is $45,000 a shot when there is an equally effective drug at $1500 a shot with a few less side effects.
The purpose is to reduce costs and give people more control. it's stupid to have employers make these kinds of decisions in the first place. Simply allow people to buy insurance on the open market (since its illegal to discriminate against them on price or pre-existing conditions).
Wait, there really is no difference yet you still want to create some arbitrary line?
So let them take 6x the dose. There is no difference between this and the government mandating that an insurance company cover a cancer treatment that is $45,000 a shot when there is an equally effective drug at $1500 a shot with a few less side effects.
The purpose is to reduce costs and give people more control. it's stupid to have employers make these kinds of decisions in the first place. Simply allow people to buy insurance on the open market (since its illegal to discriminate against them on price or pre-existing conditions).
Wait, there really is no difference yet you still want to create some arbitrary line?
The effectiveness is dependent on where she is in her hormonal cycle. Plan B is a progestin only pill, but that doesn't really matter.
What I found most interesting is that IUD implantation post intercourse is actually the most effective method (it's also long term) and can't be restricted because it's considered preventative. (you have to dig into the white paper for those details).
The site you linked states that under the ACA plan providers have the option to not cover certain types of contraception. If that's true it sounds to me if Hobby Lobby has an issue with these drugs they have an issue with their plan provider not the mandate.
Furthermore most of these according to the site you linked are available w/out prescription to people age 17+ which would include nearly every employee. Why should the insurance have to pay for it? Do they have to cover OTC allergy meds now that have a similar cost? No.
(From an underwriting perspective on the insurance company's part I can see why they would want it. $50 is a lot less than paying for prenatal care, labor and delivery.)
With all that said, this is just a stunt to challenge the ACA.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Just because a company provides insurance that covers abortion, it doesn't mean that the company is somehow endorsing abortion. It is 100% the employee's decision whether or not to use abortion. The employer gives the employee money that they could also use on plan B or other abortions, is that against the employer's moral values as well?
the logic just doesn't add up. This smells to me more like an excuse to hate obamacare than a real issue that the employers have with their morality.
Just because a company provides insurance that covers abortion, it doesn't mean that the company is somehow endorsing abortion. It is 100% the employee's decision whether or not to use abortion. The employer gives the employee money that they could also use on plan B or other abortions, is that against the employer's moral values as well?
the logic just doesn't add up. This smells to me more like an excuse to hate obamacare than a real issue that the employers have with their morality.
It sounds to me like you might be hitting the nail on the head. Its just another one of those clear as day laws that people try to pass off as being anything than what it was.
"Oh voter I.D. laws are a legitimate concern *wink wink nudge nudge* Not at all a voter suppression done right before the election"
Just because a company provides insurance that covers abortion, it doesn't mean that the company is somehow endorsing abortion. It is 100% the employee's decision whether or not to use abortion. The employer gives the employee money that they could also use on plan B or other abortions, is that against the employer's moral values as well?
the logic just doesn't add up. This smells to me more like an excuse to hate obamacare than a real issue that the employers have with their morality.
Would the same be true if a company provides firearms, that are used for suicide. Does that company endorse suicide?
Just because a company provides insurance that covers abortion, it doesn't mean that the company is somehow endorsing abortion. It is 100% the employee's decision whether or not to use abortion. The employer gives the employee money that they could also use on plan B or other abortions, is that against the employer's moral values as well?
the logic just doesn't add up. This smells to me more like an excuse to hate obamacare than a real issue that the employers have with their morality.
Would the same be true if a company provides firearms, that are used for suicide. Does that company endorse suicide?
I think thats what he was driving at. What the people do with their health insurance really isn't any bit of the Employer's damn buisnses. Providing guns isn't exactly the same thing but you couldn't blame the employer for the person's suicide and in no way would they employer be considered as endorcing suicide. Same with abortion and birth control.
I'm personally pro life. I don't agree with abortions. But at the same time I don't have a ****** and have never been prego so I don't feel I have as much say as someone who does.
I work in a pharmacy in PA, and I have never seen the morning after pill issued in a prescription. You go up, give us your DOB, and as long as you're 18 and have $40, you can buy one. It's not covered under FSA or by health care accounts. Unless these things aren't purchasable OTC in Colorado, they're just spoiling for a fight and have way too much money to spend on lawyers.
They are fighting the provision based on the 1st amendment which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The people of this company do not believe in birth control. Neither do catholic organizations.
There religious views affect how their companies are run. They are argueing that by forcing them to buy contraceptives that the government is infringing on their religious rights.
the lower courts have run afoul of past supreme court rulings by saying that a company isn't a person and can't have a religious view which is the exact opposite of what the SC has said about companies.
if a company can have the protection of freedom of speech then it has to be protected by the full 1st amendment it can't just be protected by some of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
In what way is telling their employees they won't pay for something telling their employees they can't have it? Hobby Lobby has at no point prohibited it's employees from buying/using contraceptives.
In what way is telling their employees they won't pay for something telling their employees they can't have it? Hobby Lobby has at no point prohibited it's employees from buying/using contraceptives.
You are correct on that. Hobby Lobby has just never provided contraception as part of their healthcare plan.
the problem for them is that obamacare forces them to have it on their healthcare plan which goes against their religious views.
they are not the only ones. there are about 40 or so challanges to obamacare going on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
In what way is telling their employees they won't pay for something telling their employees they can't have it? Hobby Lobby has at no point prohibited it's employees from buying/using contraceptives.
You are correct on that. Hobby Lobby has just never provided contraception as part of their healthcare plan.
the problem for them is that obamacare forces them to have it on their healthcare plan which goes against their religious views.
they are not the only ones. there are about 40 or so challanges to obamacare going on.
Not that I agree with their line of reasoning but from what I understand is that these companies see providing birth control to their employees through the healthcare plan, as the company directly paying for and in a sense promoting birth control. If the employee gets paid then goes and buys it, the money is "laundered" in a sense so that it is no longer attached to the company which is then ok in the companies eyes since they didnt directly pay for the birth control which puts it out of their control.
The difference could be looked at like... if an employee of a company donates their money to support an anti-gay marriage group versus the company itself donating the money.
They are fighting the provision based on the 1st amendment which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The people of this company do not believe in birth control. Neither do catholic organizations.
There religious views affect how their companies are run. They are argueing that by forcing them to buy contraceptives that the government is infringing on their religious rights.
the lower courts have run afoul of past supreme court rulings by saying that a company isn't a person and can't have a religious view which is the exact opposite of what the SC has said about companies.
if a company can have the protection of freedom of speech then it has to be protected by the full 1st amendment it can't just be protected by some of it.
Citation needed on the claim that the people of this country don't want abortion. I know I am pro life but I don't think that the majority of America feels that way.
Now here is my counter to your reasoning for their "religious freedom". They ARE NOT FORCED to have abortions. They have ZERO connections with abortions. If they are an insurance company then I could understand the argument. But they are not the insurance company. What they do have nothing to do with contraception.
If you think that the money they pay for insurance for their employees should be within their power....should they be able to decide what their employees spend their money on in other ways? Should they say that they can't go to Mcdonalds? Or that they have to give "X" amount of money to charity?
Why should an Employer have ANY say what so ever on the healthcare of an employee? It doesn't impede their religious freedom. That is like saying allowing gay marriage is impeding religious freedom. Opposition of religious oppression is not limiting religious rights of an individual.
Citation needed on the claim that the people of this country don't want abortion.
Where did this come from? i never mentioned anything about this at all so i am not citing anything.
Now here is my counter to your reasoning for their "religious freedom". They ARE NOT FORCED to have abortions. They have ZERO connections with abortions. If they are an insurance company then I could understand the argument. But they are not the insurance company. What they do have nothing to do with contraception.
No they are being forced to pay for contraception of which they do not believe in as part of their religious beliefs. Catholics do not believe in contraception.
by being forced to pay for contraception they do have something to do with it.
Why should an Employer have ANY say what so ever on the healthcare of an employee? It doesn't impede their religious freedom. That is like saying allowing gay marriage is impeding religious freedom. Opposition of religious oppression is not limiting religious rights of an individual.
Because the employer is the on paying the majority of the bill. just as the employer decides how much the person works how much they get paid and how much vacation they get as well, and everything else.
wrong the constitution clearly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
by forcing someone who's religious views doesn't allow them to believe in contraception and forcing them to provide that clearly violates that part of the constitution.
that is what they are argueing. Since companies other first amendment rights there is no reason that they aren't able to claim this as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
No they are being forced to pay for contraception of which they do not believe in as part of their religious beliefs. Catholics do not believe in contraception.
If an employee's benefits can be restricted by his or her employer can that employer restrict what the employee can do on vacation days? Can the employer restrict how the money in an employer matched retirement plan is spent later on? Can the employer restrict how the money from a life insurance settlement be spent?
For example, suppose my employer is strictly against cremation. Should I get life insurance through that employer (or really, go in on purchasing life insurance through my employer) and I die, can the employer prevent me from being cremated?
Why should an Employer have ANY say what so ever on the healthcare of an employee? I
They don't, and they aren't asking for that ability. If they get their way, there is still nothing prohibiting hobby lobby employees from buying contraceptives and/or using them. The fact that their boss isn't buying them condoms, doesn't mean their boss isn't allowing them to use condoms.
If your company does not pay for a catered lunch for you every day, are they prohibiting you from eating lunch? No, its just not a benefit they have chosen to provide.
If an employee's benefits can be restricted by his or her employer can that employer restrict what the employee can do on vacation days? Can the employer restrict how the money in an employer matched retirement plan is spent later on? Can the employer restrict how the money from a life insurance settlement be spent?
Restricting what benefits you provide is not the same as restricting how the employee utilizes the benefits you have provided.
Refusing to provide health insurance that covers contraception is an example of the first thing, not the second thing.
For example, suppose my employer is strictly against cremation. Should I get life insurance through that employer (or really, go in on purchasing life insurance through my employer) and I die, can the employer prevent me from being cremated?
No, because of the nature of life insurance. Life insurance doesn't pay for services -- it gives a lump sum to the beneficiary who can then determine how to spend it. If, however, the employer found some weird life insurance that pays for services rather than giving money to the beneficiaries, then yes it would be entirely reasonable for the company to decide they didn't want to purchase a plan that included the service they weer morally opposed to. That doesn't restrict what the dead person can do, it just means the company isn't giving them as many benefits.
The big disconnect here is thinking of health insurance plans as big monolithic "health care" plans. They aren't. Insurance isn't health care.
Citation needed on the claim that the people of this country don't want abortion.
Where did this come from? i never mentioned anything about this at all so i am not citing anything.
I misread. I thought you said country instead of company. My bad.
Now here is my counter to your reasoning for their "religious freedom". They ARE NOT FORCED to have abortions. They have ZERO connections with abortions. If they are an insurance company then I could understand the argument. But they are not the insurance company. What they do have nothing to do with contraception.
No they are being forced to pay for contraception of which they do not believe in as part of their religious beliefs. Catholics do not believe in contraception.
by being forced to pay for contraception they do have something to do with it.
They are not being forced to pay for contraception. The insurance company covers what it covers. They are attempting to inact power and authority over what their employee's do by refusing to give them their choice in health care. They aren't forced to actually have abortions or contraceptives. It doesn't matter that the money they spend goes towards it. The money they pay for their employees might go to drugs or guns or something else that they don't agree with but it still doesn't give them the right to stamp on the empolyee's legal rights to not be limited by the employer's views.
Why should an Employer have ANY say what so ever on the healthcare of an employee? It doesn't impede their religious freedom. That is like saying allowing gay marriage is impeding religious freedom. Opposition of religious oppression is not limiting religious rights of an individual.
Because the employer is the on paying the majority of the bill. just as the employer decides how much the person works how much they get paid and how much vacation they get as well, and everything else.
wrong the constitution clearly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
by forcing someone who's religious views doesn't allow them to believe in contraception and forcing them to provide that clearly violates that part of the constitution.
that is what they are argueing. Since companies other first amendment rights there is no reason that they aren't able to claim this as well.
They are attempting to stop someone else's right to religion. In NO WAY are thye infringing on the company's religious views by giving the employee's healthcare of their choice. The are not forced to practice any of the options and therefore are not affected by it. It really doesn't make a lick of difference if their money goes towards it or not. ITS NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE! The second the person puts in the hours, blood, sweat and tears for this compnay ITS NO LONGER the company's money. It is the money of the employee who earned it. So they aren't spending their money on the person's healthcare. The worker is spending their own money on healthcare. They have the option of going without benifits.
They are not being forced to pay for contraception. The insurance company covers what it covers.
and the company has to pay the premium for having birth control on their healthcare plan. which right now they don't have that as an option.
So yes the owners are being forced to pay for something that their religion prohibits.
They are attempting to inact power and authority over what their employee's do by refusing to give them their choice in health care
Wrong it is the employer that picks the healthplan not the employee. the company simply doesn't offer birth control as part of their health plan that doesn't stop employee's from buying it on their own.
It doesn't matter that the money they spend goes towards it. The money they pay for their employees might go to drugs or guns or something else that they don't agree with but it still doesn't give them the right to stamp on the empolyee's legal rights to not be limited by the employer's views.
You almost had it then you lost it with the EMO arguement. Your right nothing stops the employee from going out and buying birth control.
The company isn't stopping them from doing it. They simply do not offer that as part of their healthcare cover on their insurance.
Obamacare forces the company to have contraception on their healthcare plan. The owners of the company do not believe in contraception as a religious point of view. Hence why they do not have it in their coverage.
They are not stopping their employee's from getting it they are just not providing it through their insurance plan.
They are attempting to stop someone else's right to religion.
since when is contraception a religion? it isn't. cathalics do not believe in contraception nor do some mormans. it is part of their religious background.
again they are not stopping their employee's from getting it they are just not providing it as part of their insurance package.
In NO WAY are thye infringing on the company's religious views by giving the employee's healthcare of their choice.
the owners of the company do not believe in birth control. forcing them to provide contraception coverage does indeed infringe on their religious point of view which is how they run their company.
It really doesn't make a lick of difference if their money goes towards it or not. ITS NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!
yes it is their money. they pay the majority of the healthplan their employee's get. it should be their choice as to what coverage they supply.
the government is forcing them to cover something that is against their religious point of view. hence why they are argueing against it in court as a violation of the 1st amendment.
The second the person puts in the hours, blood, sweat and tears for this compnay ITS NO LONGER the company's money.
yep and the company isn't stopping them from getting their own birth control with their own money. they simply do not provide it as part of their insurance.
i think you really do not understand what the arguement is and are just making stuff up trying to prove something that you don't understand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
and the company has to pay the premium for having birth control on their healthcare plan. which right now they don't have that as an option.
So yes the owners are being forced to pay for something that their religion prohibits.
Wrong. they don't pay for jack-shat. The employee's earned that. They deserve to choose their own health care plan. If people want to seperate health insurance from jobs entierly then I could get behind that. But for whatever reason it has become intertwined in our society.
Just like we have a minimum wage there are minimum benifits that everyone should be entitled to if they so choose.
Wrong it is the employer that picks the healthplan not the employee. the company simply doesn't offer birth control as part of their health plan that doesn't stop employee's from buying it on their own.
I"m saying that the employer SHOULDN'T and ISN'T picking the plan anymore. That was unfair and the government has ruled that the employer shouldn't have that much control over the employee in this reguard.
Again. If you wanna make a case that all insurance should be seperate from their employment then go right ahead. I don't have a counter to that. But it is. And untill it isn't the employee has rights.
You almost had it then you lost it with the EMO arguement. Your right nothing stops the employee from going out and buying birth control.
The company isn't stopping them from doing it. They simply do not offer that as part of their healthcare cover on their insurance.
Obamacare forces the company to have contraception on their healthcare plan. The owners of the company do not believe in contraception as a religious point of view. Hence why they do not have it in their coverage.
They are not stopping their employee's from getting it they are just not providing it through their insurance plan.
I know I'm repeating myself but in reality its the same point over and over. If we are going to have an employer based insruance program be the norm in America then the employee should have say in it FAR more than the employer as the employee is the one that pays for it. Not the employer.
So again....make the case that employer's shouldnt' have to provide beneifits such as health care for employees on a trade off for a riase and I"ll go along with it. But so long as its mandadted for benifits in the way we have it then the employee has far more right to choose their healthcare coverage than the employer. The employee pays it. Not the employer. If they go without benifits then the employer pays them the difference. They don't loose or gain money if we were to drop healthcare benieifts in full time jobs. Till then *repeated argument*
since when is contraception a religion? it isn't. cathalics do not believe in contraception nor do some mormans. it is part of their religious background.
Let me correct myself Freedom FROM religion. The emplyer doesn't pay for the insurance. The employee does with their paychecks.
again they are not stopping their employee's from getting it they are just not providing it as part of their insurance package.
True but they are REQUIRED to give them the benifits. And if the employee earns those benifits then it should be to the employee's choosing.
the owners of the company do not believe in birth control. forcing them to provide contraception coverage does indeed infringe on their religious point of view which is how they run their company.
And the employee should be allowed to get the healthcare they want. End of story. They don't harm the empoyer's religous rights not even a little bit. The employer can continue going to church, practiciing all the daily things that they do and they are not taken into a dark room and having a condom forced on them while they kick and scream.
yes it is their money. they pay the majority of the healthplan their employee's get. it should be their choice as to what coverage they supply.
the government is forcing them to cover something that is against their religious point of view. hence why they are argueing against it in court as a violation of the 1st amendment.
Is the money that they cash when they get their paycheck still the employer's money? If it is then we will never agree on the subject. If not then its the same thing with health insurance. They aren't paying for anything. The employee is paying for it with their services. They are just the pathway.
They are not the insurance company. They are not forced to cover anything. They are forced to give their employee's benifits which is a law already inacted and to my knowledge no one is challenging it. And I still do not see at ALL how they are infringing on religous rights. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The employee is getting better and more open coverage THAT THEY EARNED. The company isn't just throwing gifts and abortions around.
yep and the company isn't stopping them from getting their own birth control with their own money. they simply do not provide it as part of their insurance.
i think you really do not understand what the arguement is and are just making stuff up trying to prove something that you don't understand.
I'm not making anything up. Please focus on the issues. I've used low blows in the past like the one your trying and I actually regret it. I usually used them when I ran out of things to say. Since I have tried to be at least a little more respectful.
So by all means make a thread dedicated to how employee's shouldn't be tied to health benifits and people should be able to opt out from an employe'rs perspectrive and simply give the employee's more money. That makes sense. but it doesn't make sense for them to intentionally try and inhibit an employee's ability to get health insurance by forcing them to go to a private insurance company when they are required by law to provide basic health service. Now all basic health plans are going to require a broader service of care.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most of us have heard the story. If not link above is an article on it.
My question is why is the cooperation allowed to deny its employees certain types of healthcare? Should it not be the employee that makes the decision of whether or not they contraception goes against their personal beliefs?
One person who I spoke with personally dropped this nugget. It is slightly off topic, but us discussing this topic led to it.
(about universal healthcare)
THEM: "why would I let the government tell me what I can and can't do to my body?"
ME: "So you're against the government having some say in your healthcare, but your all for some people who believe in fairy tales telling their employees they can't have birth control?":facepalm:
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/dose.html#dose
The purpose is to reduce costs and give people more control. it's stupid to have employers make these kinds of decisions in the first place. Simply allow people to buy insurance on the open market (since its illegal to discriminate against them on price or pre-existing conditions).
Plan B is not an abortion pill. You're thinking of RU-486. Plan B prevents ovulation thereby preventing fertilization.
Wait, there really is no difference yet you still want to create some arbitrary line?
The effectiveness is dependent on where she is in her hormonal cycle. Plan B is a progestin only pill, but that doesn't really matter.
What I found most interesting is that IUD implantation post intercourse is actually the most effective method (it's also long term) and can't be restricted because it's considered preventative. (you have to dig into the white paper for those details).
The site you linked states that under the ACA plan providers have the option to not cover certain types of contraception. If that's true it sounds to me if Hobby Lobby has an issue with these drugs they have an issue with their plan provider not the mandate.
Furthermore most of these according to the site you linked are available w/out prescription to people age 17+ which would include nearly every employee. Why should the insurance have to pay for it? Do they have to cover OTC allergy meds now that have a similar cost? No.
(From an underwriting perspective on the insurance company's part I can see why they would want it. $50 is a lot less than paying for prenatal care, labor and delivery.)
With all that said, this is just a stunt to challenge the ACA.
the logic just doesn't add up. This smells to me more like an excuse to hate obamacare than a real issue that the employers have with their morality.
It sounds to me like you might be hitting the nail on the head. Its just another one of those clear as day laws that people try to pass off as being anything than what it was.
"Oh voter I.D. laws are a legitimate concern *wink wink nudge nudge* Not at all a voter suppression done right before the election"
Would the same be true if a company provides firearms, that are used for suicide. Does that company endorse suicide?
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
I think thats what he was driving at. What the people do with their health insurance really isn't any bit of the Employer's damn buisnses. Providing guns isn't exactly the same thing but you couldn't blame the employer for the person's suicide and in no way would they employer be considered as endorcing suicide. Same with abortion and birth control.
I'm personally pro life. I don't agree with abortions. But at the same time I don't have a ****** and have never been prego so I don't feel I have as much say as someone who does.
The people of this company do not believe in birth control. Neither do catholic organizations.
There religious views affect how their companies are run. They are argueing that by forcing them to buy contraceptives that the government is infringing on their religious rights.
the lower courts have run afoul of past supreme court rulings by saying that a company isn't a person and can't have a religious view which is the exact opposite of what the SC has said about companies.
if a company can have the protection of freedom of speech then it has to be protected by the full 1st amendment it can't just be protected by some of it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
In what way is telling their employees they won't pay for something telling their employees they can't have it? Hobby Lobby has at no point prohibited it's employees from buying/using contraceptives.
You are correct on that. Hobby Lobby has just never provided contraception as part of their healthcare plan.
the problem for them is that obamacare forces them to have it on their healthcare plan which goes against their religious views.
they are not the only ones. there are about 40 or so challanges to obamacare going on.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Not that I agree with their line of reasoning but from what I understand is that these companies see providing birth control to their employees through the healthcare plan, as the company directly paying for and in a sense promoting birth control. If the employee gets paid then goes and buys it, the money is "laundered" in a sense so that it is no longer attached to the company which is then ok in the companies eyes since they didnt directly pay for the birth control which puts it out of their control.
The difference could be looked at like... if an employee of a company donates their money to support an anti-gay marriage group versus the company itself donating the money.
Citation needed on the claim that the people of this country don't want abortion. I know I am pro life but I don't think that the majority of America feels that way.
Now here is my counter to your reasoning for their "religious freedom". They ARE NOT FORCED to have abortions. They have ZERO connections with abortions. If they are an insurance company then I could understand the argument. But they are not the insurance company. What they do have nothing to do with contraception.
If you think that the money they pay for insurance for their employees should be within their power....should they be able to decide what their employees spend their money on in other ways? Should they say that they can't go to Mcdonalds? Or that they have to give "X" amount of money to charity?
Why should an Employer have ANY say what so ever on the healthcare of an employee? It doesn't impede their religious freedom. That is like saying allowing gay marriage is impeding religious freedom. Opposition of religious oppression is not limiting religious rights of an individual.
Where did this come from? i never mentioned anything about this at all so i am not citing anything.
No they are being forced to pay for contraception of which they do not believe in as part of their religious beliefs. Catholics do not believe in contraception.
by being forced to pay for contraception they do have something to do with it.
Because the employer is the on paying the majority of the bill. just as the employer decides how much the person works how much they get paid and how much vacation they get as well, and everything else.
wrong the constitution clearly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
by forcing someone who's religious views doesn't allow them to believe in contraception and forcing them to provide that clearly violates that part of the constitution.
that is what they are argueing. Since companies other first amendment rights there is no reason that they aren't able to claim this as well.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If an employee's benefits can be restricted by his or her employer can that employer restrict what the employee can do on vacation days? Can the employer restrict how the money in an employer matched retirement plan is spent later on? Can the employer restrict how the money from a life insurance settlement be spent?
For example, suppose my employer is strictly against cremation. Should I get life insurance through that employer (or really, go in on purchasing life insurance through my employer) and I die, can the employer prevent me from being cremated?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
They don't, and they aren't asking for that ability. If they get their way, there is still nothing prohibiting hobby lobby employees from buying contraceptives and/or using them. The fact that their boss isn't buying them condoms, doesn't mean their boss isn't allowing them to use condoms.
If your company does not pay for a catered lunch for you every day, are they prohibiting you from eating lunch? No, its just not a benefit they have chosen to provide.
Restricting what benefits you provide is not the same as restricting how the employee utilizes the benefits you have provided.
Refusing to provide health insurance that covers contraception is an example of the first thing, not the second thing.
No, because of the nature of life insurance. Life insurance doesn't pay for services -- it gives a lump sum to the beneficiary who can then determine how to spend it. If, however, the employer found some weird life insurance that pays for services rather than giving money to the beneficiaries, then yes it would be entirely reasonable for the company to decide they didn't want to purchase a plan that included the service they weer morally opposed to. That doesn't restrict what the dead person can do, it just means the company isn't giving them as many benefits.
The big disconnect here is thinking of health insurance plans as big monolithic "health care" plans. They aren't. Insurance isn't health care.
I misread. I thought you said country instead of company. My bad.
They are not being forced to pay for contraception. The insurance company covers what it covers. They are attempting to inact power and authority over what their employee's do by refusing to give them their choice in health care. They aren't forced to actually have abortions or contraceptives. It doesn't matter that the money they spend goes towards it. The money they pay for their employees might go to drugs or guns or something else that they don't agree with but it still doesn't give them the right to stamp on the empolyee's legal rights to not be limited by the employer's views.
They are attempting to stop someone else's right to religion. In NO WAY are thye infringing on the company's religious views by giving the employee's healthcare of their choice. The are not forced to practice any of the options and therefore are not affected by it. It really doesn't make a lick of difference if their money goes towards it or not. ITS NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE! The second the person puts in the hours, blood, sweat and tears for this compnay ITS NO LONGER the company's money. It is the money of the employee who earned it. So they aren't spending their money on the person's healthcare. The worker is spending their own money on healthcare. They have the option of going without benifits.
and the company has to pay the premium for having birth control on their healthcare plan. which right now they don't have that as an option.
So yes the owners are being forced to pay for something that their religion prohibits.
Wrong it is the employer that picks the healthplan not the employee. the company simply doesn't offer birth control as part of their health plan that doesn't stop employee's from buying it on their own.
You almost had it then you lost it with the EMO arguement. Your right nothing stops the employee from going out and buying birth control.
The company isn't stopping them from doing it. They simply do not offer that as part of their healthcare cover on their insurance.
Obamacare forces the company to have contraception on their healthcare plan. The owners of the company do not believe in contraception as a religious point of view. Hence why they do not have it in their coverage.
They are not stopping their employee's from getting it they are just not providing it through their insurance plan.
since when is contraception a religion? it isn't. cathalics do not believe in contraception nor do some mormans. it is part of their religious background.
again they are not stopping their employee's from getting it they are just not providing it as part of their insurance package.
the owners of the company do not believe in birth control. forcing them to provide contraception coverage does indeed infringe on their religious point of view which is how they run their company.
yes it is their money. they pay the majority of the healthplan their employee's get. it should be their choice as to what coverage they supply.
the government is forcing them to cover something that is against their religious point of view. hence why they are argueing against it in court as a violation of the 1st amendment.
yep and the company isn't stopping them from getting their own birth control with their own money. they simply do not provide it as part of their insurance.
i think you really do not understand what the arguement is and are just making stuff up trying to prove something that you don't understand.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Wrong. they don't pay for jack-shat. The employee's earned that. They deserve to choose their own health care plan. If people want to seperate health insurance from jobs entierly then I could get behind that. But for whatever reason it has become intertwined in our society.
Just like we have a minimum wage there are minimum benifits that everyone should be entitled to if they so choose.
I"m saying that the employer SHOULDN'T and ISN'T picking the plan anymore. That was unfair and the government has ruled that the employer shouldn't have that much control over the employee in this reguard.
Again. If you wanna make a case that all insurance should be seperate from their employment then go right ahead. I don't have a counter to that. But it is. And untill it isn't the employee has rights.
I know I'm repeating myself but in reality its the same point over and over. If we are going to have an employer based insruance program be the norm in America then the employee should have say in it FAR more than the employer as the employee is the one that pays for it. Not the employer.
So again....make the case that employer's shouldnt' have to provide beneifits such as health care for employees on a trade off for a riase and I"ll go along with it. But so long as its mandadted for benifits in the way we have it then the employee has far more right to choose their healthcare coverage than the employer. The employee pays it. Not the employer. If they go without benifits then the employer pays them the difference. They don't loose or gain money if we were to drop healthcare benieifts in full time jobs. Till then *repeated argument*
Let me correct myself Freedom FROM religion. The emplyer doesn't pay for the insurance. The employee does with their paychecks.
True but they are REQUIRED to give them the benifits. And if the employee earns those benifits then it should be to the employee's choosing.
And the employee should be allowed to get the healthcare they want. End of story. They don't harm the empoyer's religous rights not even a little bit. The employer can continue going to church, practiciing all the daily things that they do and they are not taken into a dark room and having a condom forced on them while they kick and scream.
Is the money that they cash when they get their paycheck still the employer's money? If it is then we will never agree on the subject. If not then its the same thing with health insurance. They aren't paying for anything. The employee is paying for it with their services. They are just the pathway.
They are not the insurance company. They are not forced to cover anything. They are forced to give their employee's benifits which is a law already inacted and to my knowledge no one is challenging it. And I still do not see at ALL how they are infringing on religous rights. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The employee is getting better and more open coverage THAT THEY EARNED. The company isn't just throwing gifts and abortions around.
I'm not making anything up. Please focus on the issues. I've used low blows in the past like the one your trying and I actually regret it. I usually used them when I ran out of things to say. Since I have tried to be at least a little more respectful.
So by all means make a thread dedicated to how employee's shouldn't be tied to health benifits and people should be able to opt out from an employe'rs perspectrive and simply give the employee's more money. That makes sense. but it doesn't make sense for them to intentionally try and inhibit an employee's ability to get health insurance by forcing them to go to a private insurance company when they are required by law to provide basic health service. Now all basic health plans are going to require a broader service of care.