ot; hobby lobby

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=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 do’t ahve insurance, and you need help, you’ll run up a giant tab and declare bankruptcy. you won’t just die quietly with your principles. 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 i guess we don’t do that because, well, we have the money as a nation, and because heoretically we give a shit about one another. sort of..[/quote]

Ah, but that’s not true. I can simply purchase catastrophic insurance and thus head off the scenario you mention above.

ACA grants even more power to those that profit most already, the private insurance companies.

They’re being allowed to limit coverage and doctors through the use of “narrow networks” and will have all of their downside risk covered by the taxpayers through the implementation of “risk corridors” per the ACA.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Other than that bit earlier about the nefarious nature of Big Pharma, right?

[UCGal]

As mentioned above. What if a private corp is owned by a Christian Scientist. Are they allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and offer NO medical care?

Or Jehovah Witnesses – refuse to cover blood transfusions?

What about Catholics? They believe any birth control is a sin, right? So can Catholic business owners insist that the employer provided insurance provide not birth control – even if it’s being used for non – birth control purposes?

I find it interesting that the precedence for this decision was the one that allowed (vs restricted) the use of peyote for religious purposes. The precedence was expanding the ways to practice your beliefs (without impacting those around them.) This case is a twist on that – the religious rights of the owners trump the religious rights of the employees. They are allowed to restrict access to something that is legal and should be between a woman and her doctor. They are basically putting the employer/owners in the position of parent, and the employees in the position of child.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=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.[/quote]

Other than that bit earlier about the nefarious nature of Big Pharma, right?[/quote]

No. I just said I believe that for emphasis.

[scaredyclassic]

I’m going to start an automobile religion and opt out of car insurance.

[scaredyclassic]

It’s cheaper for most people to opt for bankruptcy than buy catastrophic ins. Not to mention the people who can’t get the catastrophic insurance due to preexisting conditions.

In terms of running roughshod over u it doesn’t seem tthat much more oppressive than car ins. Given how mandatory car ownership is around here.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=UCGal]As mentioned above. What if a private corp is owned by a Christian Scientist. Are they allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and offer NO medical care?

Or Jehovah Witnesses – refuse to cover blood transfusions?

What about Catholics? They believe any birth control is a sin, right? So can Catholic business owners insist that the employer provided insurance provide not birth control – even if it’s being used for non – birth control purposes?

I find it interesting that the precedence for this decision was the one that allowed (vs restricted) the use of peyote for religious purposes. The precedence was expanding the ways to practice your beliefs (without impacting those around them.) This case is a twist on that – the religious rights of the owners trump the religious rights of the employees. They are allowed to restrict access to something that is legal and should be between a woman and her doctor. They are basically putting the employer/owners in the position of parent, and the employees in the position of child.[/quote]

I think one of the more important factors determining how you feel about the decision is whether or not you have a uterus not political affiliation.

[scaredyclassic]

I don’t know. Maybe it is awful to have you not have catastrophic ins. I’m sorry. If I had to balance it against preexisting conditions being covered, and I had to decide how I Wang the system to be without knowing in advance which class I’d fall into I think I’d want a larger more inclusive ins. Pool.

Maybe that “COLLECTIVIST BULLSHIT” is another way of saying I’d prefer to see us care for one another. As a matter of principle. Not that Obama care does thst. But it’s an impulse that doesn’t seem evil to me.

[scaredyclassic]

If you had that weird condition where your testicles swelled up to 50 lbs and I worshipped at a religion that venerated male genitals I’d let you get your damn testicle surgery even if I thought it were morally wrong.

Cause they’re your testicles.

[scaredyclassic]

End time religions definitely should not be covering any obgyn/childbirth stuff.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]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]

It IS hypocritical. They claim that can’t be part of paying for those 4 birth control devices because they claim (incorrectly) that those products lead to abortions. And then they invest in companies who make abortion products. How is that not hypocritical?

Do you really believe that there is no war on women?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal]As mentioned above. What if a private corp is owned by a Christian Scientist. Are they allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and offer NO medical care?

Or Jehovah Witnesses – refuse to cover blood transfusions?

What about Catholics? They believe any birth control is a sin, right? So can Catholic business owners insist that the employer provided insurance provide not birth control – even if it’s being used for non – birth control purposes?

I find it interesting that the precedence for this decision was the one that allowed (vs restricted) the use of peyote for religious purposes. The precedence was expanding the ways to practice your beliefs (without impacting those around them.) This case is a twist on that – the religious rights of the owners trump the religious rights of the employees. They are allowed to restrict access to something that is legal and should be between a woman and her doctor. They are basically putting the employer/owners in the position of parent, and the employees in the position of child.[/quote]

UCGal: You’re engaging in an overly broad reading of an extremely limited decision of narrow scope.

But if we follow the bouncing ball, and? If I read the decision correctly, an employee is eligible for recompense, regardless.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]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]

It IS hypocritical. They claim that can’t be part of paying for those 4 birth control devices because they claim (incorrectly) that those products lead to abortions. And then they invest in companies who make abortion products. How is that not hypocritical?

Do you really believe that there is no war on women?[/quote]

SK: I never said it wasn’t hypocritical. What I said was that I found comparing investment in a pharma company to investment in South Africa during apartheid to be something of a false equivalence.

As to the “War on Women”: Are we discussing the actual war on women, or the vote-getting scheme as practiced by the Democratic Party?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredyclassic]If you had that weird condition where your testicles swelled up to 50 lbs and I worshipped at a religion that venerated male genitals I’d let you get your damn testicle surgery even if I thought it were morally wrong.

Cause they’re your testicles.[/quote]

Scaredy: Thank you. You just made my point for me! Yes, they’re MINE, so what I choose to do with them is my business and everyone else, including the government, can fuck off.

[Hobie]

How many expresso’s this morning scaredy? 🙂 you are on a roll!

[Author]

Posts