Wrong. they don't pay for jack-shat. The employee's earned that.
This is where you are wrong. a benefit is something that is added on condition that does not have to be offered. trust me i worked for a guy that did not offer benefits. no healthcare, no vacation or sick time.
if he decided to pay you for taking time off then he was being generous.
a benefit is something optional it is not required. companies offer benefits as a way to attract employee's.
m saying that the employer SHOULDN'T and ISN'T picking the plan anymore.
which is the issue and why they are fighting it in court.
That was unfair and the government has ruled that the employer shouldn't have that much control over the employee in this reguard.
the first part is your opinion and the second part is not true.
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.
again i don't know where you get your information from but it is not correct. most companies pay for about 80-90% of their employee's insurance plans.
but this has nothing to do with what hobby lobby is argueing.
Let me correct myself Freedom FROM religion. The emplyer doesn't pay for the insurance. The employee does with their paychecks.
please see the above statement. this is not correct.
True but they are REQUIRED to give them the benifits.
no they are not. under obamacare they now have to provide insurance, but they had insurance before. they just didn't cover contraception since the owners of the company (and others) view it as abortion.
And the employee should be allowed to get the healthcare they want. End of story.
this is an opinion not and irrelevant. you will not dictate your insurance coverage to your employer. they will tell you what you offer and you can either sign up for it or not.
the choice is yours.
Is the money that they cash when they get their paycheck still the employer's money?
Nope and nothing stops them from buying their own birth control. it seems you don't understand this.
They are forced to give their employee's benifits which is a law already inacted and to my knowledge no one is challenging it.
actually there are about a dozen different people challanging the exact same stipulation.
Wrong. they don't pay for jack-shat. The employee's earned that.
This is where you are wrong. a benefit is something that is added on condition that does not have to be offered. trust me i worked for a guy that did not offer benefits. no healthcare, no vacation or sick time.
if he decided to pay you for taking time off then he was being generous.
a benefit is something optional it is not required. companies offer benefits as a way to attract employee's.
Sounds like you got cheated. They are required to give you benifits if you are full time. Probably wasn't always that way. And if you so choose to go without benifits you get extra pay. Its what I do.
m saying that the employer SHOULDN'T and ISN'T picking the plan anymore.
which is the issue and why they are fighting it in court.
True. But the new law is as it stands till the trial is over. If obamacare is beaten by this then the system will fail which is more than likely the true goal of the compnay.
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.
again i don't know where you get your information from but it is not correct. most companies pay for about 80-90% of their employee's insurance plans.
Actually they earned it. Companies are not known for being charitable and simply giving you something for nothing. I would like to see evidence that the compnay goes into the hole for the employee's healthcare.
Let me correct myself Freedom FROM religion. The emplyer doesn't pay for the insurance. The employee does with their paychecks.
please see the above statement. this is not correct.
Then we will simply disagree. They earned the beneifits via the work. They are not simply handing out free healthcare. I mean who are they, Obama?
True but they are REQUIRED to give them the benifits.
no they are not. under obamacare they now have to provide insurance, but they had insurance before. they just didn't cover contraception since the owners of the company (and others) view it as abortion.
show me where it is legal to work full time for a compnay and recieve no benifits?
And the employee should be allowed to get the healthcare they want. End of story.
this is an opinion not and irrelevant. you will not dictate your insurance coverage to your employer. they will tell you what you offer and you can either sign up for it or not.
the choice is yours.
Thats what Obamacare actually fights for. Its what unions fight for. People fight for their rights. Opinion or not your stance isn't any more justified or far from opinion. It is your opinion that employers should have the ability to choose the healthcare. Up untill now you would be correct but as of now the times are changing.
Is the money that they cash when they get their paycheck still the employer's money?
Nope and nothing stops them from buying their own birth control. it seems you don't understand this.
You don't quite seem to understand that the health benifits are BOUGHT with the employee's money. If I get insurance though my employer not only do I get a cut in pay but I get a big chunk of my paycheck taken out to PAY FOR IT. This is something you don't seem to understand.
They are forced to give their employee's benifits which is a law already inacted and to my knowledge no one is challenging it.
actually there are about a dozen different people challanging the exact same stipulation.
I wouldn't pay for another's birth control unless I could benefit from it in some way.
If Hobby Lobby wants to protest, simply raise your prices and try to turn your consumers against the legislation. Assuming your customer base doesn't just take their business elsewhere.
If obamacare is beaten by this then the system will fail which is more than likely the true goal of the compnay.
No if it is beaten by this then the constitution still holds the power that it should.
whether obama wants to believe it or not he still has to follow the constitution.
Actually they earned it. Companies are not known for being charitable and simply giving you something for nothing. I would like to see evidence that the compnay goes into the hole for the employee's healthcare.
if they didn't offer it which there are some companies that don't they lose employee's and they go somewhere else.
which means more turnover which means less money.
show me where it is legal to work full time for a compnay and recieve no benifits?
Federal and state laws require employers to pay agreed-upon wages for all hours an employee works, including overtime pay when applicable, but they do not mandate benefits.
You don't quite seem to understand that the health benifits are BOUGHT with the employee's money. If I get insurance though my employer not only do I get a cut in pay but I get a big chunk of my paycheck taken out to PAY FOR IT. This is something you don't seem to understand.
from the same article above.
With respect to health insurance, employers covered 82 percent of the premium costs for single coverage and 70 percent of the costs for family coverage.
so i understand perfectly fine.
It is your opinion that employers should have the ability to choose the healthcare. Up untill now you would be correct but as of now the times are changing.
Not really. companies still choose their employee's healthcare. in fact companies are cutting back hours and some are slashing employee's to get around the obamacare rules.
every company offers their own standard of benefits. you can either enroll in their options or not. you dont' get to dictate your own coverages.
Good for them I guess? Not really relevant to this case.
actually it is since you stated that no one was fighting it.
they are fighting it the exact same reason that hobby lobby is fighting it.
they do not believe in birth control or abortion and by the government forcing them to cover it in their health plans the government is violating their religious freedom which is a good arguement to make.
citation needed.
sorry you are the one that has to prove it you are the one making the claim, but to save time it is in the link above.
which some people aruge doesn't violate the 1st amendment. Beyond this its just pure opinion.
they are going to have to prove that it doesn't.
the supreme court ruled that companies/corporations are technically people. if that is the case and they are technically people then the 1st amendment applies to them in full.
that includes religious protections.
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
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?
If your employer owns the policy, then yes they can since they control the payment after your death. This is different than group policies which are assigned by default to a designated beneficiary who can do what he/she chooses with the proceeds.
Anyone who can get it on their own should own a policy outside of work.
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.
No if it is beaten by this then the constitution still holds the power that it should.
whether obama wants to believe it or not he still has to follow the constitution.
True. However no one on this forum has the right to deem it unconstitutional or otherwise. I personally side that it doesn't. we'll see how the courts work it out.
if they didn't offer it which there are some companies that don't they lose employee's and they go somewhere else.
which means more turnover which means less money.
Either way its part of their pay. They earned those benifits as it was part of their contract. right now most people can't afford to simply "leave this job" and go find another that fits their healthcare needs. So without obamacare they are at the mercy of the employer. Obamacare at its core is attempting to sever this. If its deemed unconstitutional then i'm sure the left wing will try to get it appealed a million bazillion times.
Federal and state laws require employers to pay agreed-upon wages for all hours an employee works, including overtime pay when applicable, but they do not mandate benefits.
Fine. I concede this point to you.
from the same article above.
With respect to health insurance, employers covered 82 percent of the premium costs for single coverage and 70 percent of the costs for family coverage.
so i understand perfectly fine.
I still fail to see how the company is "paying for it" out of pocket rather than saying its part of their payment. So what someone gets a dollar more an hour or extra vacation time. What is agreed upon is agreed upon. They should simply a bandon the idea of giving health care insurance in the first place if it cannot be agreed upon. Seems to make the most sense rather than trying to force a specific halfassed type of healthcare. IF Obamacare is going to fine them for not giving healthcare and they have no way to opt out of giving health insurance without a fine then there ARE regulatory laws inacted for what needs to be given to full time employees and your link would be out of date.
So again why don't they just stop giving health benifits?
Not really. companies still choose their employee's healthcare. in fact companies are cutting back hours and some are slashing employee's to get around the obamacare rules.
every company offers their own standard of benefits. you can either enroll in their options or not. you dont' get to dictate your own coverages.
True as that may be a compnay should not have the right to deny any worker basic health coverage on the basis of the bigoted religious belifes. I still stand by my statement that the company owners are not having religous rights infringed upon by covering these health benifits.
actually it is since you stated that no one was fighting it.
they are fighting it the exact same reason that hobby lobby is fighting it.
they do not believe in birth control or abortion and by the government forcing them to cover it in their health plans the government is violating their religious freedom which is a good arguement to make.
I said "to my knowledge". I didnt' say for sure no one was fighting against it. As of right now I have not heard any major new stories attempting to remove all health benifits from companies. Thank you for the link thought.
And explain to me again how it does have something to do with the original point?
they are going to have to prove that it doesn't.
the supreme court ruled that companies/corporations are technically people. if that is the case and they are technically people then the 1st amendment applies to them in full.
that includes religious protections.
Or hopefully companies/cororpations will be overruled as being considered people and shall have those rights stripped from them. I'd like to see that. I still don't understand the logic behind calling them people. It doesn't make any sense and smells of corruption.
they do not believe in birth control or abortion and by the government forcing them to cover it in their health plans the government is violating their religious freedom which is a good arguement to make.
I fail to see any good argument. Where in the constitution does it say people have the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others?
If the owners of Hobby Lobby have a religious objection to abortion, they are free not to get abortions. If they want to go to a public place and preach against abortion, they can do that to. That's what the first amendment protects.
Freedom of religion does not allow them to disregard the law in an effort to enforce their personal religious beliefs on others. It never has.
In the case of a church or other religious organization, where the members of the organization are all members of the same religion, I could kind of understand granting an exception to the law (although I think it make more sense to leave the healthcare law alone and if people have a religious objection to these pills they simply do not take them).
I still don't understand the logic behind calling them people. It doesn't make any sense and smells of corruption.
Corporations are nothing more than groups of people working together. Why would a group of people lose rights the individuals that make up that group have?
My question is why is the cooperation allowed to deny its employees certain types of healthcare?
The owners of the company are allowed to break the law if they choose, and they can pay the penalty.
they do not believe in birth control or abortion and by the government forcing them to cover it in their health plans the government is violating their religious freedom which is a good arguement to make.
I fail to see any good argument. Where in the constitution does it say people have the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others?
If the owners of Hobby Lobby have a religious objection to abortion, they are free not to get abortions. If they want to go to a public place and preach against abortion, they can do that to. That's what the first amendment protects.
Freedom of religion does not allow them to disregard the law in an effort to enforce their personal religious beliefs on others. It never has.
In the case of a church or other religious organization, where the members of the organization are all members of the same religion, I could kind of understand granting an exception to the law (although I think it make more sense to leave the healthcare law alone and if people have a religious objection to these pills they simply do not take them).
What you're seeing with this is a failing directly resulting from the inability of congress to pass a single payer bill. The owners of hobby lobby have a very valid point that they are being forced to pay for a service they find morally objectionable -- and because the government isn't paying, they actually have a strong case in their favor.
If, however, the government had raised a tax and used it to provide a single payer healthcare plan then the Catholic contingent would have no leg to stand on (constitutionally).
It's a conundrum, because on the one hand their religious liberties *are* being eroded, and on the other hand the obama adminsitration has deemed contraceptives and abortion "essential" healthcare (even more essential than stuff like insulin for a diabetic apparently).
Ultimately what I think it will come down to is that contraceptives and abortions are *not* essential healthcare, and scotus will use that argument to state that the religious liberties interests trump.
Diabetic supplies already had programs to help supply them - perhaps not enough - but it had SOMETHING already in place, which insurance previously did not have regarding contraception.
Diabetic supplies already had programs to help supply them - perhaps not enough - but it had SOMETHING already in place, which insurance previously did not have regarding contraception.
It's a side note on the whole issue, and not SUPER relevant, but its still absolutley ridiculous to me that diabetic supplies are not fully covered and contraception is.
Clearly, it is much more important that we allow people to have consequence free sex for no cost, then it is that we allow people to live for no cost.
Ultimately what I think it will come down to is that contraceptives and abortions are *not* essential healthcare, and scotus will use that argument to state that the religious liberties interests trump.
Man, I couldn't disagree with you more on contraception and access to abortion being essential healthcare. Giving women access to the ability to control their reproductive cycle seems like a very important and essential healthcare option in my book.
Giving a pass on these options based on religious beliefs opens the door to allow them to do anything based on religious beliefs. It will be a very dangerous precedence to set.
It's a side note on the whole issue, and not SUPER relevant, but its still absolutley ridiculous to me that diabetic supplies are not fully covered and contraception is.
Clearly, it is much more important that we allow people to have consequence free sex for no cost, then it is that we allow people to live for no cost.
I agree that diabetic supplies should be covered. But I also don't believe there should be any consequence to having sex, and it should be free as well.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Ultimately what I think it will come down to is that contraceptives and abortions are *not* essential healthcare, and scotus will use that argument to state that the religious liberties interests trump.
Regardless of the religious issue, reproductive health is a HUGE issue with real consequences for public health and on welfare spending. Family size is a major contributor to poverty, and if we cut the number of people having children at a young age, we nip in the bud the other major problems fiscal conservatives hate - WIC goes down, Welfare goes down, Food Stamps go down, Public School Lunch assistance goes down, etc.
Distributing condoms in Africa stopped the aids epidemic in it's tracks once we got past the religious nonsense (where everyone wanted to pretend that condoms = greater rates of immoral sex, rather than less danger with existing sex acts).
Contraceptives have very real benefits from a fiscal and public health perspective. Preventive medicine is much, much cheaper than dealing with chronic illnesses.
It's a side note on the whole issue, and not SUPER relevant, but its still absolutley ridiculous to me that diabetic supplies are not fully covered and contraception is.
Clearly, it is much more important that we allow people to have consequence free sex for no cost, then it is that we allow people to live for no cost.
My mother has Type I diabetes, I can tell you the ACA actually does a decent amount.
The fact that she can now switch health plans at all is a pretty big deal. Before she basically had to stay on my Dad's insurance at a high premium because no other insurance would take her.
The reason contraceptives are covered fully but not insulin supplies are not is because contraceptives are a long-term cost saver, while insulin supplies are not (and in fact simply lead to greater and greater costs and the diabetic's health deteriorates). From a purely fiscal perspective, I understand the logic. 8.3% of the population is Diabetic, and less than half use Insulin. 50% of the Population is female, and half of that in prime childbearing age. Contraceptives ultimately save a lot of money.
The ACA covers a lot of the preventive medicine for diabetics (like Metformin to get it under control before the need for insulin). The problem is real preventive medicine for diabetes involves nipping it at its source - sugar intake - which requires regulating food intake or dealing with food deserts, things that are incredibly politically sensitive. So supplying contraceptives and supplying insulin aren't things you can equate on the same level.
And, as a related side note, Gestational Diabetes represents the majority of Diabetes cases in the country (I believe it was 63%).
Ultimately what I think it will come down to is that contraceptives and abortions are *not* essential healthcare, and scotus will use that argument to state that the religious liberties interests trump.
Regardless of the religious issue, reproductive health is a HUGE issue with real consequences for public health and on welfare spending. Family size is a major contributor to poverty, and if we cut the number of people having children at a young age, we nip in the bud the other major problems fiscal conservatives hate - WIC goes down, Welfare goes down, Food Stamps go down, Public School Lunch assistance goes down, etc.
<Snipped irrelevant part about Africa>
Contraceptives have very real benefits from a fiscal and public health perspective. Preventive medicine is much, much cheaper than dealing with chronic illnesses.
Sure, I'm not arguing that. But it's not essential healthcare. Is it necessary to live? No. then it's not essential.
It may be good.
It may be desirable.
It may be beneficial.
But its not essential.
that is what you are missing from my argument. I'm not saying its bad and we shouldn't cover it (although I DO think thats true with regards to abortion), I'm saying its not essential, so we should not mandate that people pay for it for other people despite sincere religious objections.
I don't think the ACA is going to win out on this issue (or rather, the ACA will be fine, but the regulations resulting from the ACA won't be).
Contraceptives aren't any more essential to healthcare than gym memberships.
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.
Because contraception works in a 100% of the cases, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I'm saying its not essential, so we should not mandate that people pay for it for other people despite sincere religious objections.
The entire point is to push preventive medicine as a means of controlling healthcare costs. Since apparently half of all pregnancies are unintended, and pregnancy opens up women to a wide range of health issues, I'd consider it pretty essential.
In any case, it's the preventive care issue that's truly essential, and the contraceptives are just one thing in a wide range of women's health issues that the preventive treatments are all now covered at no additional charge.
The Africa portion of my statement is very relevant, because it shows just how easily cheap and available contraceptives can turn around a public health crisis, and how puritanical values based in dogma are a major roadblock to good public health.
Contraceptives aren't any more essential to healthcare than gym memberships.
Contraceptives are something people actually want and will use. I already gave you the equivalent preventive measure for exercise and weight gain: regulating sugar intake.
If you can answer this question, I think you find whose interests are of greatest import; and given that, who should have ultimate determination of what should be in the plan?
The person paying for the plan. Every. Single. Time. That issue right there is the whole reason single payer system would have been vastly preferable, and would actually have accomplished what they were trying to accomplish.
For what its worth I don't think employers should be involved in insurance at all, but while they are I think they should look at it like the typical pay check. They can't control what their employee buys. Money is capable of covering abortion/pills. Insurance is too. You aren't paying for it directly by giving your employee access.
The problem is its *not* like the typical paycheck. It's the company providing a service for the employee. If the employee doesn't want that service, or would rather more options be included, they are free to seek those options elsewhere.
To resurrect my earlier analogy in this thread:
If a company provides free lunches to its employees every day, but they only offer to provide Hamburgers and French fries -- is the company prohibiting the employee from eating salads? Should we somehow FORCE the employer to also provide salads because it was generous enough to offer hamburgers?
The employees compensation is not "health insurance" in general, the employees compensation is the specific health insurance plan provided by the employer.
The person paying for the plan. Every. Single. Time.
This is complicated when both parties are paying. For example, I pay about half the costs of my health insurance and my employer pays the rest. Who should be ultimately responsible for what the plan covers in that case?
Contraceptives and Plan B reduce the rate of pregnancy, and thereby the number of abortions.
But religious conservatives don't like contraceptives either. They say wait til marriage.
But who waits til marriage? ( by choice :lol: )
It's an unrealistic setup, that pretty much ignores reality, human urges. It's attempting to live an ancient lifestyle in a modern world that looks nothing like the ancient one.
If someone wants to stick their head in the sand like that, be my guest. But the freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion, and companies should not be able to force their unrealistic lifestyle on their employees.
But it's now 2013 and I'm just so sick and tired of people still thinking the earth is 6,000 years old, condoms are bad, gays ruin society, rock music is satan and Magic: The Gathering was created by the beast himself.
The person paying for the plan. Every. Single. Time.
This is complicated when both parties are paying. For example, I pay about half the costs of my health insurance and my employer pays the rest. Who should be ultimately responsible for what the plan covers in that case?
I agree, this does complicate it. My personal stance is that it would be fine to mandate that *if* the employee is paying partial costs, the employer cannot dictate specifics of coverage. I think that could easily be constitutionally supported. The religious objection is also easily addressed by the employer's ability to pay for full coverage. In other words, you want your religious exemption thats fine -- but you have to pay for all of it.
If someone wants to stick their head in the sand like that, be my guest. But the freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion, and companies should not be able to force their unrealistic lifestyle on their employees.
No it isn't. Not even in the slightest.
Whats more, failing to provide something is not the same as prohibiting something (I'm not going to repeat the arguments, since this isn't a particularly long thread so its not onerous for you to go back and read them. If you disagree, by all means quote what I said and why its wrong).
If someone wants to stick their head in the sand like that, be my guest. But the freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion, and companies should not be able to force their unrealistic lifestyle on their employees.
No it isn't. Not even in the slightest.
Whats more, failing to provide something is not the same as prohibiting something (I'm not going to repeat the arguments, since this isn't a particularly long thread so its not onerous for you to go back and read them. If you disagree, by all means quote what I said and why its wrong).
I feel that in some cases, denying may as well be the same as prohibiting. For example, if someone has a job, a decent one, they have tenure there, and their employer "denys" them a necessity of life such as birth control, it's a lot easier said than done for that person to have to go and find a new job, risk their livelihood, etc.
I understand there is a fine philosophical line and yes, the two are not the same. However, I'd say they're "close enough" and it's sad that a first world nation such as ours is still crippled in many regards by bronze age mythology. Especially since our peers in Europe have largely abandoned this sort of crap decades ago and moved on. These sort of topics are not even a matter of debate in many countries.
I agree, this does complicate it. My personal stance is that it would be fine to mandate that *if* the employee is paying partial costs, the employer cannot dictate specifics of coverage. I think that could easily be constitutionally supported. The religious objection is also easily addressed by the employer's ability to pay for full coverage. In other words, you want your religious exemption thats fine -- but you have to pay for all of it.
The dumb thing is if our economy didnt blow this wouldnt even be an issue. Job benefits shouldnt need to be legislated. If there was a competitive job market the only people that would work for a company that does not provide contraception would be those who dont care about that coverage, everyone else would just work somewhere else. Then as time goes on the companies that dont offer certain benefits may find themselves falling behind as they cannot compete for certain talent in the workforce.
It's a conundrum, because on the one hand their religious liberties *are* being eroded, and on the other hand the obama adminsitration has deemed contraceptives and abortion "essential" healthcare (even more essential than stuff like insulin for a diabetic apparently).
I think in some cases we put the law above religious liberty, just like how I can't go around sacrificing virgins to Quetzacoatl because it's my "religion".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is where you are wrong. a benefit is something that is added on condition that does not have to be offered. trust me i worked for a guy that did not offer benefits. no healthcare, no vacation or sick time.
if he decided to pay you for taking time off then he was being generous.
a benefit is something optional it is not required. companies offer benefits as a way to attract employee's.
which is the issue and why they are fighting it in court.
the first part is your opinion and the second part is not true.
again i don't know where you get your information from but it is not correct. most companies pay for about 80-90% of their employee's insurance plans.
but this has nothing to do with what hobby lobby is argueing.
please see the above statement. this is not correct.
no they are not. under obamacare they now have to provide insurance, but they had insurance before. they just didn't cover contraception since the owners of the company (and others) view it as abortion.
this is an opinion not and irrelevant. you will not dictate your insurance coverage to your employer. they will tell you what you offer and you can either sign up for it or not.
the choice is yours.
Nope and nothing stops them from buying their own birth control. it seems you don't understand this.
actually there are about a dozen different people challanging the exact same stipulation.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/26/us/scotus-health-care-religion/index.html
wrong this is just simply wrong.
which to some people violate the 1st amendment. which is why it is being challanged in court and i figure will end up in the SCOTUS again.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Sounds like you got cheated. They are required to give you benifits if you are full time. Probably wasn't always that way. And if you so choose to go without benifits you get extra pay. Its what I do.
True. But the new law is as it stands till the trial is over. If obamacare is beaten by this then the system will fail which is more than likely the true goal of the compnay.
Actually they earned it. Companies are not known for being charitable and simply giving you something for nothing. I would like to see evidence that the compnay goes into the hole for the employee's healthcare.
Then we will simply disagree. They earned the beneifits via the work. They are not simply handing out free healthcare. I mean who are they, Obama?
show me where it is legal to work full time for a compnay and recieve no benifits?
Thats what Obamacare actually fights for. Its what unions fight for. People fight for their rights. Opinion or not your stance isn't any more justified or far from opinion. It is your opinion that employers should have the ability to choose the healthcare. Up untill now you would be correct but as of now the times are changing.
You don't quite seem to understand that the health benifits are BOUGHT with the employee's money. If I get insurance though my employer not only do I get a cut in pay but I get a big chunk of my paycheck taken out to PAY FOR IT. This is something you don't seem to understand.
Good for them I guess? Not really relevant to this case.
citation needed.
which some people aruge doesn't violate the 1st amendment. Beyond this its just pure opinion.
If Hobby Lobby wants to protest, simply raise your prices and try to turn your consumers against the legislation. Assuming your customer base doesn't just take their business elsewhere.
No if it is beaten by this then the constitution still holds the power that it should.
whether obama wants to believe it or not he still has to follow the constitution.
if they didn't offer it which there are some companies that don't they lose employee's and they go somewhere else.
which means more turnover which means less money.
http://www.ehow.com/about_7541504_labor-laws-full-time-benefits.ht
Federal and state laws require employers to pay agreed-upon wages for all hours an employee works, including overtime pay when applicable, but they do not mandate benefits.
from the same article above.
With respect to health insurance, employers covered 82 percent of the premium costs for single coverage and 70 percent of the costs for family coverage.
so i understand perfectly fine.
Not really. companies still choose their employee's healthcare. in fact companies are cutting back hours and some are slashing employee's to get around the obamacare rules.
every company offers their own standard of benefits. you can either enroll in their options or not. you dont' get to dictate your own coverages.
actually it is since you stated that no one was fighting it.
they are fighting it the exact same reason that hobby lobby is fighting it.
they do not believe in birth control or abortion and by the government forcing them to cover it in their health plans the government is violating their religious freedom which is a good arguement to make.
sorry you are the one that has to prove it you are the one making the claim, but to save time it is in the link above.
they are going to have to prove that it doesn't.
the supreme court ruled that companies/corporations are technically people. if that is the case and they are technically people then the 1st amendment applies to them in full.
that includes religious protections.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If your employer owns the policy, then yes they can since they control the payment after your death. This is different than group policies which are assigned by default to a designated beneficiary who can do what he/she chooses with the proceeds.
Anyone who can get it on their own should own a policy outside of work.
True. However no one on this forum has the right to deem it unconstitutional or otherwise. I personally side that it doesn't. we'll see how the courts work it out.
Either way its part of their pay. They earned those benifits as it was part of their contract. right now most people can't afford to simply "leave this job" and go find another that fits their healthcare needs. So without obamacare they are at the mercy of the employer. Obamacare at its core is attempting to sever this. If its deemed unconstitutional then i'm sure the left wing will try to get it appealed a million bazillion times.
Fine. I concede this point to you.
I still fail to see how the company is "paying for it" out of pocket rather than saying its part of their payment. So what someone gets a dollar more an hour or extra vacation time. What is agreed upon is agreed upon. They should simply a bandon the idea of giving health care insurance in the first place if it cannot be agreed upon. Seems to make the most sense rather than trying to force a specific halfassed type of healthcare. IF Obamacare is going to fine them for not giving healthcare and they have no way to opt out of giving health insurance without a fine then there ARE regulatory laws inacted for what needs to be given to full time employees and your link would be out of date.
So again why don't they just stop giving health benifits?
True as that may be a compnay should not have the right to deny any worker basic health coverage on the basis of the bigoted religious belifes. I still stand by my statement that the company owners are not having religous rights infringed upon by covering these health benifits.
I said "to my knowledge". I didnt' say for sure no one was fighting against it. As of right now I have not heard any major new stories attempting to remove all health benifits from companies. Thank you for the link thought.
And explain to me again how it does have something to do with the original point?
Or hopefully companies/cororpations will be overruled as being considered people and shall have those rights stripped from them. I'd like to see that. I still don't understand the logic behind calling them people. It doesn't make any sense and smells of corruption.
Spam infraction.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I fail to see any good argument. Where in the constitution does it say people have the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others?
If the owners of Hobby Lobby have a religious objection to abortion, they are free not to get abortions. If they want to go to a public place and preach against abortion, they can do that to. That's what the first amendment protects.
Freedom of religion does not allow them to disregard the law in an effort to enforce their personal religious beliefs on others. It never has.
In the case of a church or other religious organization, where the members of the organization are all members of the same religion, I could kind of understand granting an exception to the law (although I think it make more sense to leave the healthcare law alone and if people have a religious objection to these pills they simply do not take them).
Corporations are nothing more than groups of people working together. Why would a group of people lose rights the individuals that make up that group have?
The owners of the company are allowed to break the law if they choose, and they can pay the penalty.
What you're seeing with this is a failing directly resulting from the inability of congress to pass a single payer bill. The owners of hobby lobby have a very valid point that they are being forced to pay for a service they find morally objectionable -- and because the government isn't paying, they actually have a strong case in their favor.
If, however, the government had raised a tax and used it to provide a single payer healthcare plan then the Catholic contingent would have no leg to stand on (constitutionally).
It's a conundrum, because on the one hand their religious liberties *are* being eroded, and on the other hand the obama adminsitration has deemed contraceptives and abortion "essential" healthcare (even more essential than stuff like insulin for a diabetic apparently).
Ultimately what I think it will come down to is that contraceptives and abortions are *not* essential healthcare, and scotus will use that argument to state that the religious liberties interests trump.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
It's a side note on the whole issue, and not SUPER relevant, but its still absolutley ridiculous to me that diabetic supplies are not fully covered and contraception is.
Clearly, it is much more important that we allow people to have consequence free sex for no cost, then it is that we allow people to live for no cost.
Man, I couldn't disagree with you more on contraception and access to abortion being essential healthcare. Giving women access to the ability to control their reproductive cycle seems like a very important and essential healthcare option in my book.
Giving a pass on these options based on religious beliefs opens the door to allow them to do anything based on religious beliefs. It will be a very dangerous precedence to set.
I agree that diabetic supplies should be covered. But I also don't believe there should be any consequence to having sex, and it should be free as well.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Regardless of the religious issue, reproductive health is a HUGE issue with real consequences for public health and on welfare spending. Family size is a major contributor to poverty, and if we cut the number of people having children at a young age, we nip in the bud the other major problems fiscal conservatives hate - WIC goes down, Welfare goes down, Food Stamps go down, Public School Lunch assistance goes down, etc.
Distributing condoms in Africa stopped the aids epidemic in it's tracks once we got past the religious nonsense (where everyone wanted to pretend that condoms = greater rates of immoral sex, rather than less danger with existing sex acts).
Contraceptives have very real benefits from a fiscal and public health perspective. Preventive medicine is much, much cheaper than dealing with chronic illnesses.
My mother has Type I diabetes, I can tell you the ACA actually does a decent amount.
http://www.diabetes.org/assets/pdfs/advocacy/aca-2nd-anniversary-brief.pdf
The fact that she can now switch health plans at all is a pretty big deal. Before she basically had to stay on my Dad's insurance at a high premium because no other insurance would take her.
The reason contraceptives are covered fully but not insulin supplies are not is because contraceptives are a long-term cost saver, while insulin supplies are not (and in fact simply lead to greater and greater costs and the diabetic's health deteriorates). From a purely fiscal perspective, I understand the logic. 8.3% of the population is Diabetic, and less than half use Insulin. 50% of the Population is female, and half of that in prime childbearing age. Contraceptives ultimately save a lot of money.
The ACA covers a lot of the preventive medicine for diabetics (like Metformin to get it under control before the need for insulin). The problem is real preventive medicine for diabetes involves nipping it at its source - sugar intake - which requires regulating food intake or dealing with food deserts, things that are incredibly politically sensitive. So supplying contraceptives and supplying insulin aren't things you can equate on the same level.
And, as a related side note, Gestational Diabetes represents the majority of Diabetes cases in the country (I believe it was 63%).
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Sure, I'm not arguing that. But it's not essential healthcare. Is it necessary to live? No. then it's not essential.
It may be good.
It may be desirable.
It may be beneficial.
But its not essential.
that is what you are missing from my argument. I'm not saying its bad and we shouldn't cover it (although I DO think thats true with regards to abortion), I'm saying its not essential, so we should not mandate that people pay for it for other people despite sincere religious objections.
I don't think the ACA is going to win out on this issue (or rather, the ACA will be fine, but the regulations resulting from the ACA won't be).
Contraceptives aren't any more essential to healthcare than gym memberships.
Because contraception works in a 100% of the cases, right?
The entire point is to push preventive medicine as a means of controlling healthcare costs. Since apparently half of all pregnancies are unintended, and pregnancy opens up women to a wide range of health issues, I'd consider it pretty essential.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338192/
In any case, it's the preventive care issue that's truly essential, and the contraceptives are just one thing in a wide range of women's health issues that the preventive treatments are all now covered at no additional charge.
The Africa portion of my statement is very relevant, because it shows just how easily cheap and available contraceptives can turn around a public health crisis, and how puritanical values based in dogma are a major roadblock to good public health.
Contraceptives are something people actually want and will use. I already gave you the equivalent preventive measure for exercise and weight gain: regulating sugar intake.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Irrelevant. No, really, that question is absolutely 100% irrelevant to the constitutional issue.
The person paying for the plan. Every. Single. Time. That issue right there is the whole reason single payer system would have been vastly preferable, and would actually have accomplished what they were trying to accomplish.
The problem is its *not* like the typical paycheck. It's the company providing a service for the employee. If the employee doesn't want that service, or would rather more options be included, they are free to seek those options elsewhere.
To resurrect my earlier analogy in this thread:
If a company provides free lunches to its employees every day, but they only offer to provide Hamburgers and French fries -- is the company prohibiting the employee from eating salads? Should we somehow FORCE the employer to also provide salads because it was generous enough to offer hamburgers?
The employees compensation is not "health insurance" in general, the employees compensation is the specific health insurance plan provided by the employer.
This is complicated when both parties are paying. For example, I pay about half the costs of my health insurance and my employer pays the rest. Who should be ultimately responsible for what the plan covers in that case?
[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.
Contraceptives and Plan B reduce the rate of pregnancy, and thereby the number of abortions.
But religious conservatives don't like contraceptives either. They say wait til marriage.
But who waits til marriage? ( by choice :lol: )
It's an unrealistic setup, that pretty much ignores reality, human urges. It's attempting to live an ancient lifestyle in a modern world that looks nothing like the ancient one.
If someone wants to stick their head in the sand like that, be my guest. But the freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion, and companies should not be able to force their unrealistic lifestyle on their employees.
But it's now 2013 and I'm just so sick and tired of people still thinking the earth is 6,000 years old, condoms are bad, gays ruin society, rock music is satan and Magic: The Gathering was created by the beast himself.
I agree, this does complicate it. My personal stance is that it would be fine to mandate that *if* the employee is paying partial costs, the employer cannot dictate specifics of coverage. I think that could easily be constitutionally supported. The religious objection is also easily addressed by the employer's ability to pay for full coverage. In other words, you want your religious exemption thats fine -- but you have to pay for all of it.
No it isn't. Not even in the slightest.
Whats more, failing to provide something is not the same as prohibiting something (I'm not going to repeat the arguments, since this isn't a particularly long thread so its not onerous for you to go back and read them. If you disagree, by all means quote what I said and why its wrong).
I feel that in some cases, denying may as well be the same as prohibiting. For example, if someone has a job, a decent one, they have tenure there, and their employer "denys" them a necessity of life such as birth control, it's a lot easier said than done for that person to have to go and find a new job, risk their livelihood, etc.
I understand there is a fine philosophical line and yes, the two are not the same. However, I'd say they're "close enough" and it's sad that a first world nation such as ours is still crippled in many regards by bronze age mythology. Especially since our peers in Europe have largely abandoned this sort of crap decades ago and moved on. These sort of topics are not even a matter of debate in many countries.
What if employees are paying $.01?
I think in some cases we put the law above religious liberty, just like how I can't go around sacrificing virgins to Quetzacoatl because it's my "religion".