If it's the responsibility of an employer to provide healthcare under certain circumstances, then it should be the responsibility of an employer to provide basic healthcare under certain circumstances.
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".
Oh my goodness the irony of your post is just amazing.
Sacrificing Virgins in the name of religion is bad so we should sacrifice virgins (ie. babies) in the name of government. Yeah, that's much better!
And the obtuseness in your post is just as amazing.
Abortion isn't done in the name of government. A government exists to protect an individual's freedom. It is a woman's freedom to not get pregnant via contraceptives (condoms or birth control). Neither of these are sacrificing babies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
If it's the responsibility of an employer to provide healthcare under certain circumstances, then it should be the responsibility of an employer to provide basic healthcare under certain circumstances.
Why is this controversial?
Presumably because the underlying premise "its the responsibility of an employer to provide health care" is not held as true by all participants in the system.
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.
What if employees are paying $.01?
I'm not sure where you are going with this, so I'll stumble blindly into it... why would that change it?
Presumably because the underlying premise "its the responsibility of an employer to provide health care" is not held as true by all participants in the system.
Myself included.
Sure, if you don't accept that, then I can see the objection.
Where does all of this stuff about birth control come in if your problem is with employers covering employees?
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.
If someone has a job that is a good enough job to get them health benefits, then they make enough money to be able to afford birth control. It's not exactly expensive.
Presumably because the underlying premise "its the responsibility of an employer to provide health care" is not held as true by all participants in the system.
Myself included.
Sure, if you don't accept that, then I can see the objection.
Where does all of this stuff about birth control come in if your problem is with employers covering employees?
Because while I object that it shouldn't be my responsibility I can't object that the government has mandated that I provide it (assuming I'm the hypothetical employer).
Now I object that I have to provide it, yes. But I *also* object that I am being forced to provide a service I find morally objectionable.
Two levels of objection: first that I have to provide anything at all, and second that I have to provide something specific that I think is morally abhorrent. Elimination of the first problem solves both, but at the very least I'd like to eliminate the second.
(note, that was me in hypothetical employer mode, and not necessarily my personal views).
A large portion of the population simply disagrees your opinion. I'd count myself among them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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
Because that dang Constitution and it's "rights" and limitation of powers.
Dang that thing, cause without it we could just state who could do what and have some real change and progress forward to what one groups wants over the expense of all others.
...unless that group wants to deny others basic medical services.
My employer doesn't get to enforce their religion on me, especially when it has to do with my basic health and well being.
Now I object that I have to provide it, yes. But I *also* object that I am being forced to provide a service I find morally objectionable.
I'm also sorry that you find healthcare morally objectionable.
And I said that... where?
It seems to be in particular bad form to misrepresent what I said in that way.
First, because I noted that I was speaking from "hypothetical employer" position, not my own position, and second because even in hypothetical employer position all I said was I found providing a particular service (paying for contraception) morally objectionable.
[And I said that... where? It seems to be in particular bad form to misrepresent what I said in that way.
First, because I noted that I was speaking from "hypothetical employer" position, not my own position, and second because even in hypothetical employer position all I said was I found providing a particular service (paying for contraception) morally objectionable.
For shame.
Then I'm sorry the hypothetical "you" finds healthcare morally objectionable.
Because that "particular service (paying for contraception)" is basic healthcare.
Then I'm sorry the hypothetical "you" finds healthcare morally objectionable.
Because that "particular service (paying for contraception)" is basic healthcare.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't basic healthcare. It's a supplementary service that is not even remotely necessary for basic healthy living.
antibiotics for an infection is basic healthcare. Access to an emergency room is basic healthcare. Wanting to be able to boink whenever you want willy nilly without repercussions is not basic healthcare.
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".
Oh my goodness the irony of your post is just amazing.
Sacrificing Virgins in the name of religion is bad so we should sacrifice virgins (ie. babies) in the name of government. Yeah, that's much better!
And the obtuseness in your post is just as amazing.
Abortion isn't done in the name of government. A government exists to protect an individual's freedom. It is a woman's freedom to not get pregnant via contraceptives (condoms or birth control). Neither of these are sacrificing babies.
You are incorrect.
In 1857 was wrong in the idea that a man is the same as chattle. Further Taney's position that "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." is so wrong that it's offensive today.
Our current court declares that a human inside the womb who has a heartbeat, brainwaves, feels pain, has it's own DNA sequence is not a human and in effect is a "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the HUMAN race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the GOVERNMENT was bound to respect."
Make's a much more simple point to debate outside of religious fervor. It's jsut that there isn't any John Brown's alive today to bring the point to violence and you can dispose of a carcus the size of your thumbnail pretty easily, even if you're killing 750,000 a year.
Too bad your facts are wrong.
There are 1.1-1.3 million abortions a year in the USA alone.
An additional 680,000+ babies are naturally lost due to miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, and stillbirths. (God must be pro-choice too ;))
Worldwide, the numbers are not easily tracked. But they are somewhere around 40.4 million abortions, and 30 million miscarriages.
We have more abortions by choice here, because we are 1st world - but in most of the world, more babies are lost not by choice at all. They don't have the prenatal care, vitamins, and health services in many countires that ensure babies are brought to term.
I believe life begins at conception, science agrees, though people still argue about what to call them.
I call them babies. I am still pro-choice.
I would rather have adoptions, or contraception, but I'd also rather keep abortion legal and performed by a doctor, than illegal and done by a coat hanger.
Just make the women pay for it themselves.
So then, what should we do about most of these policies that already cover viagra, cialis, or levitra?
Seems its okay to cover dick pills, but not Plan B?
Hobby Lobby is wrong here. Unless of course, they only hire people who share their same religious beliefs - a violation of equal hiring practice laws already.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Now, in your example you talked about sacrificing humans outside the womb i the name of a religion. Instead we now allow the killing of humans inside the womb as a RIGHT of the citizen. Since the power is expressed and protected by the government, then we should logically conclude that it is done in the name in the government.
No, we cannot logically conclude that. If the pope tells you to go on a holy crusade and you do, your actions are done in the name of religion.
If your government allows you to take contraceptives, or buy a car, or go to the mall, or go to school, or take out a loan, and you do any of those things, those actions are not done in the name of government.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
No, we cannot logically conclude that. If the pope tells you to go on a holy crusade and you do, your actions are done in the name of religion.
If your government allows you to take contraceptives, or buy a car, or go to the mall, or go to school, or take out a loan, and you do any of those things, those actions are not done in the name of government.
How does this argument jive with the fact that the whole objection stems from the government dictating that hobby lobby MUST pay for insurance including contraceptives?
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.
Technically its SOME contraception is just like SOME diabetic supplies are.
There absolutely are plenty of contraception methods/supplies that are not covered. (I.e. when the wife and I mused the possibility of trying for a child now that we knew my condition could be screened w/o abortion via IVF - I looked into coverage to retie things after on me, still zero coverage.) (Although since IVF they probably could've skipped undoing and redoing the surgery with a painful needle didn't think of it before)
Like for example insulin isn't but synthetic insulins apparently are at 80%. And I see LESS problems in the 94 PDR that I have with the synthetics.
No, we cannot logically conclude that. If the pope tells you to go on a holy crusade and you do, your actions are done in the name of religion.
If your government allows you to take contraceptives, or buy a car, or go to the mall, or go to school, or take out a loan, and you do any of those things, those actions are not done in the name of government.
How does this argument jive with the fact that the whole objection stems from the government dictating that hobby lobby MUST pay for insurance including contraceptives?
It completely jives with the fact that you are not allowed to force your religious hang-ups upon your employees.
(disclaimer: nothing below reflects the opinions or practices of Chic-Fil-A)
If Chic-Fil-A were to descriminate against hiring gays, or even fire an employee because they were gay - they'd go down in lawsuit flames so fast it'd be hilarious.
So, by proxy of equal rights, Chic-Fil-A is being "forced" by the government to hire, or maintain the employment of (and therefore pay money to) gays. Something they disagree with on a religious basis.
This healthcare plan is not for the business, it is for the employees. Hobby Lobby cannot force their beliefs upon their employees. The government is not forcing them to use contraception - but it might be forcing them to cover it.
That's the way I see it anyways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It completely jives with the fact that you are not allowed to force your religious hang-ups upon your employees.
They aren't. they are not stopping their employee's from going out and buying contraceptives. they are simply not supplying it through their insurance plan.
If Chic-Fil-A were to descriminate against hiring gays, or even fire an employee because they were gay - they'd go down in lawsuit flames so fast it'd be hilarious.
So, by proxy of equal rights, Chic-Fil-A is being "forced" by the government to hire, or maintain the employment of (and therefore pay money to) gays. Something they disagree with on a religious basis.
They are not even close to the same.
This healthcare plan is not for the business, it is for the employees. Hobby Lobby cannot force their beliefs upon their employees. The government is not forcing them to use contraception - but it might be forcing them to cover it.
actually it is for the business. it is an incentive to get people to work for them.
they aren't forcing their belief's. they just are not covering contraceptives. that doesn't stop their employee's from getting it.
the case could be argued that the government is interferring in the free exercise of religion. The owners of hobby lobby religious views do not believe in contraception.
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
BLatch: Come 2016 pretty much any job will qualify. Only for 2 years is the mandate partial with wiggle room. (Via providing it or penalty with the employee autoqualifying for Medicaid)
BLatch: Come 2016 pretty much any job will qualify. Only for 2 years is the mandate partial with wiggle room. (Via providing it or penalty with the employee autoqualifying for Medicaid)
Huh? What is this in response to? ./missing sometihng
Mystery45: Freedom of religion as an excuse has failed in the past in most cases for example more than a few have claimed opposition to taxation that has gotten laughed out by the SCOTUS each time.
And with a new pope soon who's to say he won't adjust John Paul's stance on contraception - abortion is rock solid but contraception especially should the AFRICAN cardinal get the nod is likely going to be revised... and he's the frontrunner. Without the Catholic church promoting the idea its going to lose any momentum it had.
BLatch: Come 2016 pretty much any job will qualify. Only for 2 years is the mandate partial with wiggle room. (Via providing it or penalty with the employee autoqualifying for Medicaid)
Huh? What is this in response to? ./missing sometihng
Late last page - you stated any job good enough to have insurance makes contraception affordable. Quite true today - 2016 notsomuch unless new loopholes crop up.
Why is this controversial?
And the obtuseness in your post is just as amazing.
Abortion isn't done in the name of government. A government exists to protect an individual's freedom. It is a woman's freedom to not get pregnant via contraceptives (condoms or birth control). Neither of these are sacrificing babies.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Presumably because the underlying premise "its the responsibility of an employer to provide health care" is not held as true by all participants in the system.
Myself included.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, so I'll stumble blindly into it... why would that change it?
Where does all of this stuff about birth control come in if your problem is with employers covering employees?
If someone has a job that is a good enough job to get them health benefits, then they make enough money to be able to afford birth control. It's not exactly expensive.
Because while I object that it shouldn't be my responsibility I can't object that the government has mandated that I provide it (assuming I'm the hypothetical employer).
Now I object that I have to provide it, yes. But I *also* object that I am being forced to provide a service I find morally objectionable.
Two levels of objection: first that I have to provide anything at all, and second that I have to provide something specific that I think is morally abhorrent. Elimination of the first problem solves both, but at the very least I'd like to eliminate the second.
(note, that was me in hypothetical employer mode, and not necessarily my personal views).
A large portion of the population simply disagrees your opinion. I'd count myself among them.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
My employer doesn't get to enforce their religion on me, especially when it has to do with my basic health and well being.
And I said that... where?
It seems to be in particular bad form to misrepresent what I said in that way.
First, because I noted that I was speaking from "hypothetical employer" position, not my own position, and second because even in hypothetical employer position all I said was I found providing a particular service (paying for contraception) morally objectionable.
For shame.
Because that "particular service (paying for contraception)" is basic healthcare.
And you appear unable to read.
I was talking about contraceptives. Not abortion. The only thing we're debating here is contraceptives.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Because that "particular service (paying for contraception)" is basic healthcare.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't basic healthcare. It's a supplementary service that is not even remotely necessary for basic healthy living.
antibiotics for an infection is basic healthcare. Access to an emergency room is basic healthcare. Wanting to be able to boink whenever you want willy nilly without repercussions is not basic healthcare.
Too bad your facts are wrong.
There are 1.1-1.3 million abortions a year in the USA alone.
An additional 680,000+ babies are naturally lost due to miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, and stillbirths. (God must be pro-choice too ;))
Worldwide, the numbers are not easily tracked. But they are somewhere around 40.4 million abortions, and 30 million miscarriages.
We have more abortions by choice here, because we are 1st world - but in most of the world, more babies are lost not by choice at all. They don't have the prenatal care, vitamins, and health services in many countires that ensure babies are brought to term.
I believe life begins at conception, science agrees, though people still argue about what to call them.
I call them babies. I am still pro-choice.
I would rather have adoptions, or contraception, but I'd also rather keep abortion legal and performed by a doctor, than illegal and done by a coat hanger.
Just make the women pay for it themselves.
So then, what should we do about most of these policies that already cover viagra, cialis, or levitra?
Seems its okay to cover dick pills, but not Plan B?
Hobby Lobby is wrong here. Unless of course, they only hire people who share their same religious beliefs - a violation of equal hiring practice laws already.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I disagree with some of what you said, but for the sake of discussion, lets narrow it down -- what about religious companies that self insure?
That seems to fit your "religious insurance companies" complaint.
I'm trying to avoid the abortion debate because it's irrelevant.
No, we cannot logically conclude that. If the pope tells you to go on a holy crusade and you do, your actions are done in the name of religion.
If your government allows you to take contraceptives, or buy a car, or go to the mall, or go to school, or take out a loan, and you do any of those things, those actions are not done in the name of government.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
How does this argument jive with the fact that the whole objection stems from the government dictating that hobby lobby MUST pay for insurance including contraceptives?
Technically its SOME contraception is just like SOME diabetic supplies are.
There absolutely are plenty of contraception methods/supplies that are not covered. (I.e. when the wife and I mused the possibility of trying for a child now that we knew my condition could be screened w/o abortion via IVF - I looked into coverage to retie things after on me, still zero coverage.) (Although since IVF they probably could've skipped undoing and redoing the surgery with a painful needle didn't think of it before)
Like for example insulin isn't but synthetic insulins apparently are at 80%. And I see LESS problems in the 94 PDR that I have with the synthetics.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
It completely jives with the fact that you are not allowed to force your religious hang-ups upon your employees.
(disclaimer: nothing below reflects the opinions or practices of Chic-Fil-A)
If Chic-Fil-A were to descriminate against hiring gays, or even fire an employee because they were gay - they'd go down in lawsuit flames so fast it'd be hilarious.
So, by proxy of equal rights, Chic-Fil-A is being "forced" by the government to hire, or maintain the employment of (and therefore pay money to) gays. Something they disagree with on a religious basis.
This healthcare plan is not for the business, it is for the employees. Hobby Lobby cannot force their beliefs upon their employees. The government is not forcing them to use contraception - but it might be forcing them to cover it.
That's the way I see it anyways.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
They aren't. they are not stopping their employee's from going out and buying contraceptives. they are simply not supplying it through their insurance plan.
They are not even close to the same.
actually it is for the business. it is an incentive to get people to work for them.
they aren't forcing their belief's. they just are not covering contraceptives. that doesn't stop their employee's from getting it.
the government is violating the 1st amendment.
The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.
the case could be argued that the government is interferring in the free exercise of religion. The owners of hobby lobby religious views do not believe in contraception.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Huh? What is this in response to? ./missing sometihng
And with a new pope soon who's to say he won't adjust John Paul's stance on contraception - abortion is rock solid but contraception especially should the AFRICAN cardinal get the nod is likely going to be revised... and he's the frontrunner. Without the Catholic church promoting the idea its going to lose any momentum it had.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Late last page - you stated any job good enough to have insurance makes contraception affordable. Quite true today - 2016 notsomuch unless new loopholes crop up.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.