chipwhich Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) But Obamacare is controversial, because Obama did it. (And, you see, the topic of the thread is Obamacare.) Wow now there is an argument. For some of us, Obamacare isn't controversial because Obama did it. I do realize it's impossible to have a position in the tailgate without it being solely based on your political affiliation. Edited April 7, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 ---------- 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 ---------- 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? if the dispute is over who pays it is the one paying since that is the enabler now if the employer refused to let the employee pay I might side with ya as that being imposing your freedom is not my bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Ah, so Hobby Lobby would be cool, if birth control were covered as remedial care, as opposed to preventative care? That would be a question for them You could always buy viagra and birth control through your insurance. The change now is FREE birth control provided by the government and more importantly the morning after pill. Arguing Viagra is arguing a non related issue. Edited April 7, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 if the dispute is over who pays it is the one paying since that is the enabler 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 change now is FREE birth control provided by the government and more importantly the morning after pill. The government's paying for it? Then what's Hobby Lobby's problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Man, how things have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) The government's paying for it? Then what's Hobby Lobby's problem? They aren't paying for it, the employer is. Government backed abortion (morning after pill)? Oh not sure why some people might mind. I am pro choice so I am not in that group, although you would probably have labeled me there. Oh wait I mean the government is subsidizing this for some folk. Edited April 7, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Deleted. Not gonna go there. Edited April 7, 2014 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Deleted. Not gonna go there. I was in the process of editing my post. The government is subsidizing health care for some, so employers and/or individuals aren't paying for all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 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. Whether it is his job is in dispute,as is the authority to compel such actions Observing govt compelling someone sure seems different than free exercise, pretty sure there is a rule about strict scrutiny and compelling govt interest to be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 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? For what it's worth to anyone in the thread, I believe Hobby Lobby covers about 14 kinds of birth control for free without objection. Their objection is the IUD and morning after pill, which they consider different than other forms of birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) For what it's worth to anyone in the thread, I believe Hobby Lobby covers about 14 kinds of birth control for free without objection. Their objection is the IUD and morning after pill, which they consider different than other forms of birth control. Exactly, because some believe the IUD causes an abortion of the fetus. The issue isn't a birth control issue, it's an abortion issue. People make a mockery of the birth control issue because that is easy. Edited April 7, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Correct. The left doesn't like to differentiate, but Hobby Lobby considers traditional birth control different than these items, which they consider abortifacients. Note: I'm not familiar with both sides of the argument over whether something like an IUD or morning after pill are appropriately considered an abortifacient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 For what it's worth to anyone in the thread, I believe Hobby Lobby covers about 14 kinds of birth control for free without objection. Their objection is the IUD and morning after pill, which they consider different than other forms of birth control. Thanks for the info. Was not aware of that. And yes, I think it casts their position in a different light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Probably one of your weakest opinions I have ever seen you post on this board. The morning after pill is quite controversial with or without Obama. The morning after pill is irrelevant. It's was legal and covered by insurance BEFORE Obamacare. Larry as usual, with the exception being when he argues against me vociferously, is correct. The name does matter. Poll: 'Obamacare' vs. 'Affordable Care Act' (CNN) – How do you feel about Obamacare? How about the Affordable Care Act? They're two different names for one law, but a new poll shows more Americans oppose the president's signature health care law when it has his name attached than when it's called the official name. According to a new CNBC poll that surveyed two different groups, 46% of the group that was asked about "Obamacare" was opposed to the law, while 37% of the group asked about the "Affordable Care Act" was opposed to the law. At the same time, more people support "Obamacare" (29%) than those who support ACA (22%.) In other words, having "Obama" in the name"raises the positives and the negatives," as CNBC put it. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/ Edited April 7, 2014 by JMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 in other words a bunch of people do not know what ACA is....or what day it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the info. Was not aware of that. And yes, I think it casts their position in a different light. Yes a worse light. They are required by law to provide healthcare for their employees because they are a multi billion dollar corporation with thousands of employees. And they want to decide which minimal healthcare they should have to pay for based on THEIR religion? What if they were Christian Science, could they drop out altogether? What if they were Santeria could they dictate you see a witch doctor rather than a Medical Doctor? The minimum set of healthcare coverage isn't about the employer, it's about their employees. in other words a bunch of people do not know what ACA is....or what day it is. Yep.. Edited April 7, 2014 by JMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) The morning after pill is irrelevant. It's was legal and covered by insurance BEFORE Obamacare. Larry as usual, with the exception being when he argues against me vociferously, is correct. The name does matter. JMS you always drop incorrect information and then either disappear or fail to address it. The pertinent information, you know the information that MATTERS and is what is being addressed in the argument is NOT whether or not the morning after pill is legal or whether birth control is legal. My girlfriend in high school could get birth control prescription...and I have a daughter in college. The ARGUMENT is that it is FREE. It wasn't FREE prior to Obamacare. So the employer is arguing that they don't want to PAY FOR ABORTION. Since the employer is providing the health insurance to the employee and paying the premium, they don't want what they consider to be abortion pills to be paid out of their pocket. I don't expect you to respond because you don't usually address your mistakes. Edited April 7, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The ARGUMENT is that it is FREE. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 They're objecting because they don't want it covered at all. Yes. They were unknowingly paying for the drugs on their old insurance plan. They didn't know that until the ACA came in with it's free birth control mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Now that's irony. They're objecting because Obamacare is making them pay for something they were already paying for, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Now that's irony. They're objecting because Obamacare is making them pay for something they were already paying for, anyway? I don't think that's true. Not positive, but I don't think they ever covered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 I don't think that's true. Not positive, but I don't think they ever covered it. I am looking for the quote from their attorney which I read somewhere, but can't seem to find it. Here is an article that makes reference to them finding out they already covered it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/24/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/ In 2012, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit Washington law firm, called Hobby Lobby's general counsel to inform him of the health law's contraception requirement and to ask whether the company wanted to file a suit. Mr. Green says he was shocked to discover Hobby Lobby was in fact offering in its insurance plan some of the emergency contraceptives at issue. He called for the insurer to revoke that coverage and signed onto the lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 8, 2014 Author Share Posted April 8, 2014 if it is your health ins then pay for it ...or have the govt pay for it LOL That's like saying if it's my salary I should pay for it. Health insurance is part of your compensation package... you pay for it by going to work and doing your job. and by the laws of this land since what the 1940's, if your company is a specified size part of your compensation package is health insurance to which the Federal Government gives tax credits to the company for providing you. The law has never said, employers get to cherry pick minimum benefits. Nor have employers ever legally been placed between a person and their doctors before. That spot is typically reserved in our country for political parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now