ot; hobby lobby

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=paramount]sex is elective.[/quote]

consensual sex is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredyclassic]”turns out that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan, according to documents filed with the Labor Department and written about by Mother Jones, is heavily invested in the very pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the products the company refuses to cover for its employees.

Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million yuan invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.

In her 35-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from another case that underscores the importance of birth control to women: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey).

But the five male justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby just handed employers a powerful tool to opt out of laws they don’t like. Hear that, everyone? If you want the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you better check out the religious beliefs of your bosses.

How do they feel about your sex life? Are they cool with the monthly birth control pills you take to control your endometriosis? Do they think you or your children should be immunized, or is that against their religion?

The door is now open for all that.”[/quote]

Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.

Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?

This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.

[scaredyclassic]

agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…

actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredyclassic]if I’m a christian scientist, can I just provide a reading room instead of health insurance?

some religions don’t believe in blood transfusions…better check with your employer to see what they believe…why should I have to pay for your blood transfusion if it’s against my religion?

“That question is there, of course, because of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This Christian sect was founded in 1872 by Charles Russell, and its members’ stance on blood transfusion is derived from their interpretation of Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17 to “not eat from the bread of life,” as well as the verses in Acts 15:20, Acts 21:25, and elsewhere that Christians must “abstain from … blood.” Adherents do not accept blood products, regardless of the possibility of death. For Jehovah’s Witnesses, receiving blood products may lead to excommunication from their community and fear of eternal damnation.”

seems like there’s no way we can have jehovahs witnesses businesses cover blood transfusions. so i guess you can’t really have that surgery without the blood transfusion. this is going to be really great to have religion involved in deciding all kinds of medical care! awesome![/quote]

Versus all those waivers and exclusions already granted under the ACA to all manner of secular groups, including corporations, unions, etc?

How is this any different?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…

actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]

You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.

You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.

I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]”turns out that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan, according to documents filed with the Labor Department and written about by Mother Jones, is heavily invested in the very pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the products the company refuses to cover for its employees.

Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million yuan invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.

In her 35-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from another case that underscores the importance of birth control to women: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey).

But the five male justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby just handed employers a powerful tool to opt out of laws they don’t like. Hear that, everyone? If you want the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you better check out the religious beliefs of your bosses.

How do they feel about your sex life? Are they cool with the monthly birth control pills you take to control your endometriosis? Do they think you or your children should be immunized, or is that against their religion?

The door is now open for all that.”[/quote]

Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.

Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?

This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]

yes. HYPOCRITES. if you are so sincerely aghast at these products, mr hobby lobby, you wouldn’t invest in their producer. if you are appalled by apartheid in the 80s, you don’t invest in south africa…or if you do, and people call you a HYPOCRITE you have no response other than, yeah, I want to make as much money as possible and have as few expenses as possible… you don’t stack krugerrands and pretend to support Mandela…

and in the current case cloak it all in Christianity for litigation purposes…

risible? red herring?

hobby lobby is the one pretedning to have these overwhelmingly improtant principles…but only insofar as they apply to providing coverage..and they’re not doctors…able to opine on its medical necessity..just a BUSINESS….but when it comes to profiteering and investing…there are NO PRINCIPLES..only profit…if they could get a decent return on a conglomerate that had a diviosn running highly profitable abortion mills and it was ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL, i suspect they’d pony up the cash…

and where does it end? obamacare is lame, yes, and it’sall ridiculous, and single payer makes much more sense, and maybe it doesn’t matter that our wealthy nation just doesn’t give a crap about it’s people enoughto give them some basic health care,…

i guess the goal is utimately profit…but to couch it all in terms of sicnerely held religious belief…sheesh…

i could vomit..

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…

actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]

You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.

You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.

I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.[/quote]

ah..frankly I don’t care…i don’t know the ins or outs…i hate obamacare myself…but this business of religion litigating health care just …well..sickens me…

we need to start developping some religions right now that will be sincere and profitable in terms of gaining competitive market advantages…or using relgions that currently exist and finetuning them…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…

actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]

You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.

You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.

I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.[/quote]

the goal of prviding some level of insurance to its citizens is not gov. running roughshod over everyone in its path…and the characterization of the debate this way is perhaps a good example of the tribal diviisions in this country and how fundamentally we do not give a crap about our fellow citizens so long as we have ours…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]”turns out that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan, according to documents filed with the Labor Department and written about by Mother Jones, is heavily invested in the very pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the products the company refuses to cover for its employees.

Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million yuan invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.

In her 35-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from another case that underscores the importance of birth control to women: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey).

But the five male justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby just handed employers a powerful tool to opt out of laws they don’t like. Hear that, everyone? If you want the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you better check out the religious beliefs of your bosses.

How do they feel about your sex life? Are they cool with the monthly birth control pills you take to control your endometriosis? Do they think you or your children should be immunized, or is that against their religion?

The door is now open for all that.”[/quote]

Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.

Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?

This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]

yes. HYPOCRITES. if you are so sincerely aghast at these products, mr hobby lobby, you wouldn’t invest in their producer. if you are appalled by apartheid in the 80s, you don’t invest in south africa…or if you do, and people call you a HYPOCRITE you have no response other than, yeah, I want to make as much money as possible and have as few expenses as possible… you don’t stack krugerrands and pretend to support Mandela…

and in the current case cloak it all in Christianity for litigation purposes…

risible? red herring?

hobby lobby is the one pretedning to have these overwhelmingly improtant principles…but only insofar as they apply to providing coverage..and they’re not doctors…able to opine on its medical necessity..just a BUSINESS….but when it comes to profiteering and investing…there are NO PRINCIPLES..only profit…if they could get a decent return on a conglomerate that had a diviosn running highly profitable abortion mills and it was ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL, i suspect they’d pony up the cash…

and where does it end? obamacare is lame, yes, and it’sall ridiculous, and single payer makes much more sense, and maybe it doesn’t matter that our wealthy nation just doesn’t give a crap about it’s people enoughto give them some basic health care,…

i guess the goal is utimately profit…but to couch it all in terms of sicnerely held religious belief…sheesh…

i could vomit..[/quote]

Scaredy: How did we wind up in South Africa in the 1980s? I take your point and I don’t dispute it. However, and I’m not defending Hobby Lobby, but investing in South Africa during apartheid is way different than investing in a large pharma, which markets potentially thousands of products, of which less than four are objectionable. That makes the comparison something of a false equivalence.

Further, Obama had a legitimate crack at single payer and didn’t take it. He did, however, take the opportunity to involve private insurance companies in ACA through a series of backroom deals.

If you want to discuss the profit motive and disenfranchising those who should receive an adequate and free standard of care, shouldn’t we start there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…

actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]

You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.

You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.

I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.[/quote]

the goal of prviding some level of insurance to its citizens is not gov. running roughshod over everyone in its path…and the characterization of the debate this way is perhaps a good example of the tribal diviisions in this country and how fundamentally we do not give a crap about our fellow citizens so long as we have ours…[/quote]

I’m actually all for the single payer approach as exemplified by Medicare. But Obama wasn’t interested in actually providing a good product or program, he was interested in his legacy, and this the unworkable piece of shit we’re saddled with.

Where I have the most heartburn is the government compelling me to action, without considering what I may wish to do as a private citizen. Sorry, but that’s no bueno and fuck that. That is precisely government running roughshod, no two ways about it.

[paramount]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

the goal of prviding some level of insurance to its citizens is not gov. running roughshod over everyone in its path…and the characterization of the debate this way is perhaps a good example of the tribal diviisions in this country and how fundamentally we do not give a crap about our fellow citizens so long as we have ours…[/quote]

The SCOTUS decision wasn’t a defeat for healthcare; it was a victory for freedom of religion.

Actually, I’m not sure if that’s true; I just opposed it on an economic/anti-socialist basis.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]”turns out that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan, according to documents filed with the Labor Department and written about by Mother Jones, is heavily invested in the very pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the products the company refuses to cover for its employees.

Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million yuan invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.

In her 35-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from another case that underscores the importance of birth control to women: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey).

But the five male justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby just handed employers a powerful tool to opt out of laws they don’t like. Hear that, everyone? If you want the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you better check out the religious beliefs of your bosses.

How do they feel about your sex life? Are they cool with the monthly birth control pills you take to control your endometriosis? Do they think you or your children should be immunized, or is that against their religion?

The door is now open for all that.”[/quote]

Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.

Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?

This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]

yes. HYPOCRITES. if you are so sincerely aghast at these products, mr hobby lobby, you wouldn’t invest in their producer. if you are appalled by apartheid in the 80s, you don’t invest in south africa…or if you do, and people call you a HYPOCRITE you have no response other than, yeah, I want to make as much money as possible and have as few expenses as possible… you don’t stack krugerrands and pretend to support Mandela…

and in the current case cloak it all in Christianity for litigation purposes…

risible? red herring?

hobby lobby is the one pretedning to have these overwhelmingly improtant principles…but only insofar as they apply to providing coverage..and they’re not doctors…able to opine on its medical necessity..just a BUSINESS….but when it comes to profiteering and investing…there are NO PRINCIPLES..only profit…if they could get a decent return on a conglomerate that had a diviosn running highly profitable abortion mills and it was ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL, i suspect they’d pony up the cash…

and where does it end? obamacare is lame, yes, and it’sall ridiculous, and single payer makes much more sense, and maybe it doesn’t matter that our wealthy nation just doesn’t give a crap about it’s people enoughto give them some basic health care,…

i guess the goal is utimately profit…but to couch it all in terms of sicnerely held religious belief…sheesh…

i could vomit..[/quote]

Scaredy: How did we wind up in South Africa in the 1980s? I take your point and I don’t dispute it. However, and I’m not defending Hobby Lobby, but investing in South Africa during apartheid is way different than investing in a large pharma, which markets potentially thousands of products, of which less than four are objectionable. That makes the comparison something of a false equivalence.

Further, Obama had a legitimate crack at single payer and didn’t take it. He did, however, take the opportunity to involve private insurance companies in ACA through a series of backroom deals.

If you want to discuss the profit motive and disenfranchising those who should receive an adequate and free standard of care, shouldn’t we start there?[/quote]

it is exactly the same as apartheid. if you have a principle, you stand by it. if these drugs are so obviously evil you cannot in good conscience offer investments in them to your employees, and NO MONIES may be invested by your employees in the 401k plans in them.

ABSOLUETLY ZERO. with NO POSSIBILITY of any money being invested in companies producing these heinous objects, even if it means foregoing some profits in the pharma investments. because it would be HORRIFYING to think of even gaining some tiny profit by their manufacture. how could hobby liobby sleep at night if it made even one thin dime from their production?

it’s WORSE than south africa. we are talking about companies who manufacture the DEATHS of innocent people..babies!!!. murderers. apartheid was arguably a legal regimeoperating validly by laws with an imbalanced but valid social order. these pharma companies produce nothing but MURDER…

i would say if anything the comparison is too soft…you cannot claim to have a principle in one breath, and in the other say just because you do not profit exclsuively or immensely by violating that principle youa re still sincerely ascribing to that principle.

a belief is a belief and must be complied with in the greatest and esp. the smallest regard…

i actually believe this…

im wondering why there’s not an evangelical christian mutual fund to help these people out. is a hedge fund dude putting the prospectus togetehr as we speak?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Scaredy: And I respect that belief, sincerely. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that, in previous postings, you’ve actually argued the opposite, to wit, that moral relativism and ambiguity isn’t such a bad thing.

So, doesn’t that put you in the somewhat slippery position of picking and choosing, along the very same lines of what you’re accusing Hobby Lobby of?

Like I said, I have no ax to grind here. The type of Christianity as practiced by the proprietors of that company is not my own and I have no truck with foisting my beliefs on others, which is why I generally hugely appreciate the government staying the fuck out of my business.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]agreed. i think this is good. maybe to cut down on insurance costs, businesses can bring on as partial owners all kinds of people with all kinds of exclusionary and unique religious beliefs that make it impossible to provide insurance. this way, no one can have any insurance of any knd! it’ll be really cheap! the jehovah’s witness police avoiding all surgeries should be cut rate. why should only JW businesses get that advantage? let all businesses have a JW on board to get that benefit…

actually maybe a business can broker out these religious owners to small businesses to help avoid insurance costs…[/quote]

You make a joke, but you’ve inadvertently touched on two key issues here. The first is that the ACA has done nothing to cut private insurers out of the mix, perpetuating the fucked up, neither fish nor fowl system, and, second, it illuminates the coercive power of the government to run roughshod over anything in its path.

You seem to bemoan the restrictions placed on this collectivist piece of shit legislation, while conveniently ignoring that we’re a nation of individuals, some of whom might associate with others of similar beliefs or ideologies.

I’m thinking there was some piece of legislation that President Clinton passed in 1993 that covered that.[/quote]

the goal of prviding some level of insurance to its citizens is not gov. running roughshod over everyone in its path…and the characterization of the debate this way is perhaps a good example of the tribal diviisions in this country and how fundamentally we do not give a crap about our fellow citizens so long as we have ours…[/quote]

I’m actually all for the single payer approach as exemplified by Medicare. But Obama wasn’t interested in actually providing a good product or program, he was interested in his legacy, and this the unworkable piece of shit we’re saddled with.

Where I have the most heartburn is the government compelling me to action, without considering what I may wish to do as a private citizen. Sorry, but that’s no bueno and fuck that. That is precisely government running roughshod, no two ways about it.[/quote]

kind of. although if you exercise your liberty and don’t ahve insurance, and you have a heart attack while we’re out drinking and arguing about this, I’ll call an ambulance, you’ll run up a giant tab at the local hospital, and if you’re broke you’ll declare bankruptcy. you won’t just die quietly with your principles, and i won’t decline to call 911 because you made your choices and elected to go a certain path…. so i guess the real consistent thing to do would be to let you have your hardwon principles and also let you die int he gutter without your insurance but with your ability to choose intact…

but i guess we don’t do that, i guess id be worried about you and on the phone pronto to 911 and call an ambulance and probably give you CPR because, well, we have the money as a nation, and because heoretically we give a shit about one another. sort of… except if it costs us a buck…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: And I respect that belief, sincerely. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that, in previous postings, you’ve actually argued the opposite, to wit, that moral relativism and ambiguity isn’t such a bad thing.

So, doesn’t that put you in the somewhat slippery position of picking and choosing, along the very same lines of what you’re accusing Hobby Lobby of?

Like I said, I have no ax to grind here. The type of Christianity as practiced by the proprietors of that company is not my own and I have no truck with foisting my beliefs on others, which is why I generally hugely appreciate the government staying the fuck out of my business.[/quote]

look, if i ahve to remember what i argued recently, im never going to be able to say anything, because i have no idea what i actually believe.

[Author]

Posts