Larry

Population of Washington state: A bit under 7 million. Population of New York state: Just under 20 million.

That assertion seems grossly out of line with what I read, when Obamacare first proposed this cap. What I read was that a large majority of insurance companies were already below 20% overhead. And that the vast majority of the ones that weren't, were only a few percent above it. Granted, I'm just going from memory.

1) You've made this claim before, although not in so much detail. Could you back this claim up? 1a) The part about the insurance companies supposedly paying for contraception out of their own pocket, and requesting that it be mandated? 2) And I suppose you can already tell that the next point is going to be for somebody to point out where "the insurance company's money" came from? Although, as to that point I'm pointing out, I'll offer a rebuttal. If Hobby Lobby pays an employee $10 an hour. And said employee goes out and pays for contraception. Then has Hobby Lobby paid for contraception? If the answer to the above question is "no" (and I assume it will be), then can you explain the difference between that transaction, and one in which Hobby Lobby gives money to an insurance company, and the insurance company pays for contraception? ---------- Daily Show poked fun at that notion, too. "What exactly does that mean, anyway, no same sex mergers?" "That's right, Jon. It's Bed, Bath, and Beyond, not Bed, Bath, and Steve." ---------- Well, there is that pesky "allowing people to avoid a pregnancy which they don;t want". Although I suppose you could call that "political", if you want. I think somebody has posted that the morning after pill is typically around 50 bucks. (And that's retail.) Do you really want to demand that he prove that the average pregnancy costs more than 50 bucks? Or can we just all agree that it does, without proof?

I assume he's theorizing about Hobby Lobby's motives. The theory that they really want to make this form of contraception illegal, and they're only howling about "you're forcing me to violate my religion" as a cover for their real agenda. And he may be right. I've been known to speculate as to the motives behind some of the positions of various political arguments, myself, from time to time. But, right now, I'm trying to at least pretend that their stated position is their actual position, for the same of trying to keep the discussion more rational. I don't have to demonstrate that your claim that there has never been regulation of insurance coverage before, is untrue. You just did.

Chip, you seem to be running rapidly from saying one thing, to saying something else. (Twa's better at it than you are). No one is disputing that the morning after is legal. (Yeah, there provably are some people, somewhere, who want to make it illegal. But that's not the subject of the thread). No one is disputing that it is covered, under some plans. (In fact, it appears that Hobby Lobby was paying for such a plan, and didn't even know it). Some people are claiming that there's a problem with Obamacare mandating that it must be FREE. (Lots of things are covered by health insurance, but aren't free). (I think that they're wrong. Hobby Lobby is not objecting to morning after being free. They're objecting to it being covered, at all.) A lot of people are objecting to the law mandating that it must be covered. The issue is the law stating that, to avoid a fine, your company MUST PAY for insurance which must cover this item, at no charge to the user.

Hate to interrupt your untrue sound bites, but laws have regulated insurance companies, including specifying things they must cover, for a very long time. And he probably got the notion that regulating what insurance will or won't cover equals standing between people and their doctors from the "death panel" episode of the Twilight Zone.

Now that's irony. They're objecting because Obamacare is making them pay for something they were already paying for, anyway?

Actually, I don;t think that's correct. At least as I understand the argument, they aren't saying "I'd be OK with this, if the insurance paid for part of the morning after pill, and the customer had a copay". They're objecting because they don't want it covered at all. (Other than that, your point seems to agree with my understanding. HL is complaining because they're being mandated to pay for insurance which covers it.) A point which, I will point out, can be debated. But it's a convoluted argument, and not really important.

Really surprised that I'm not reading all kinds of reports from the ES amateur talent evaluators, today. Yeah, I get it that today was just about exercising. But I would have thought that somebody would be reporting on how many jumping jacks DJax did, or RG3's throwing motion, or what color pants people wore with the white t shirts.

Thanks for the info. Was not aware of that. And yes, I think it casts their position in a different light.

Deleted. Not gonna go there.

Observing that "the one paying" is "the employer". Sounds like we've at least dealt with the "the employee has the right to refuse to do his job if he claims it's against his religion" argument. The government's paying for it? Then what's Hobby Lobby's problem?

---------- So, twa, An employer and an employee have a difference of opinion, on a matter which at least one of them is claiming is based on his belief system. Which one's belief system is the one that wins the argument?

But Obamacare is controversial, because Obama did it. (And, you see, the topic of the thread is Obamacare.) Ah, so Hobby Lobby would be cool, if birth control were covered as remedial care, as opposed to preventative care?

Just an opinion, but I think the biggest problem most people have with it, is that Obama did it. ---------- Uh, no, it's really not like you saying that. Yeah, I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a perfect parallel. But that one really isn't all that close, even.

Just pointing out that the employer-employee relationship involves two people. Just like the employer isn't the only one who has religious freedom, the employee isn't the only one, either. I would say that the amount of rights they have, somewhat varies depending on what kind of "business" it is. I would assert that yes, the Catholic church absolutely has the right to impose Catholic doctrine on nuns, for example. Although I think that said exemption from laws diminishes, as the relationship between the religion and the business becomes more tenuous. I would assert that, just as the church is granted a whole lot of latitude and exemption from laws, when they're dealing with nuns, that they have at least almost the same latitude when we're talking about the guy who mows the lawn and does the maintenance at the church. But that, said latitude diminishes, as the job becomes less religious and more job-like. The guy who mops the floors at the Catholic hospital is just another employee, and should be subject to the same laws and protections as the guy who mops the floors at a private hospital.

Looks like some Republicans arranged for a back door, deniable, way to pass something, without then actually having to take the heat for passing it. At least the way the article describes it, every single Republican in the House can claim that they didn't know what Ghey were voting for. (And there was no roll call for the vote, any way). As to the legislation, looks like what it does, is allow small businesses to give employees high deductible plans (yay). Apparently, large businesses and individuals were already allowed to use them, and small businesses had already been exempted till 2015. But now, it's permanent. So, looks like a really minor change.

Thanks to 98ORAKPO98, and in honor of our re-signing Rob Jackson:

I still remember when Rush Limbaugh (Steelers fan) played the Steelers team song. It's a polka. Which, after I got over laughing at, I figured I'm OK with. Who says football songs all have to sound like Sousa marches? And I can kinda associate the polka with the Pittsburgh image of the hard-working steel town.

From the Paul Ryan thread, about Sarah Palin.

I've heard that hanging wallpaper can do that, too.

Oh, corporations certainly have the right to sue, for example. I'm not really sure how much difference it makes, legally, if they're arguing about their "corporate religion", or just the religion of the owner, CEO, or whatever.

I assume that their argument is that there are two entities involved in the employer-employee relationship. One of them has always had a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. One of them had no Constitutional rights whatsoever, until the SC decided to invent them. (Don't really see that argument flying, in this case. I think there are others which are much better. And I'm not even sure that they are good enough.) (IMO, this is a case of "not a good enough societal interest to justify the mandate.") (But then, I always thought of this mandate as simply pandering to the women's vote, any way.)

Just pointing out that I believe she was speaking strictly for herself. (Which, I grant, means that it doesn't mean much.) And, funny, I don't see the words "for the same coverage" in there. Actually, it can be. My premium hasn't changed by one penny. I had a plan that already met the minimums. (Well, there may have been some things they didn't meet. I have no clue whether my plan covered contraceptives. Before, or now. But, either it met the minimums, or they were so small that BCBS decided to cover it without increasing my premium.) But I certainly assume that I'm an extreme outlier. And I also know how easy it is to make bombastic claims, when you're comparing apples and oranges, and throwing in the words "up to".

Suppose it would be silly for me to ask you to support this claim that the average person's premium doubled, for the same coverage? Since you've been making claims like that for what seems like 5 years, and I've been asking you to support it for five years, and you haven't so much as acted like you read it, yet.