The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 58 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1148
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    Likewise, traditionalist members of the Sikh religion believe that a man should avoid cutting his hair, and should bind it up in a turban. So what if an orthodox Sikh gets a job as a construction worker? He can’t get a hard hat on over the turban. Does he have the right to forgo the hard hat on the construction site, so as to retain his turban? The question went to the US courts, and they said Sikhs have to wear hard hats. If a brick fell on the turban and killed the Sikh worker, his family could after all sue the construction company for negligence since it did not require him to wear a hard hat.
    To add to your point (although not really specifically relevant to the HL healthcare law issue) employers are allowed to make employment decisions that would generally be considered discriminatory if there is a genuine, bone fide occupational qualification involved.

    Again, not all rights' violations equate to a law or behavior being unconstitutional. The most seminal example: you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim protection under your right to freedom of speech.
    Last edited by TarheelJD; Dec. 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr. 9, 2012
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    93

    Default

    It's no longer a matter between employer and employee. The government has stepped in and mandated a "benefit" that the employer did not previously provide and does not want to provide, due to religious reasons.

    David Green is paying out of pocket. He's made the decision to hire an employee and pay them from his pocket. The employee made the decision to work at HL based on what David Green was willing to pay her.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    The sense of entitlement in society today has reached a level that I can scarcely comprehend.
    The callous disregard for the lives of fellow human beings in society today has reached a level that I can scarcely comprehend.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    24 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbaymare View Post
    It's no longer a matter between employer and employee. The government has stepped in and mandated a "benefit" that the employer did not previously provide and does not want to provide, due to religious reasons.

    David Green is paying out of pocket. He's made the decision to hire an employee and pay them from his pocket. The employee made the decision to work at HL based on what David Green was willing to pay her.
    Once the employee has been compensated for performing her job duties, that money no longer belongs to David Green. His religious beliefs are irrelevant.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    15 members found this post helpful.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    Women EARN their benefits. David Green is NOT paying out of pocket for ANYTHING. Employees work. Employers pay. Employees spend their earned income and benefits as they see fit.
    An individual's benefits package is part of their compensation, and those benefits are paid for by the employer. If I make $6,000 a month, and the cost of my health insurance is $150 a month, my employment costs my employer $6,150 per month (plus the portion of my taxes that they are forced to pay). My employer can, at any time, renegotiate my compensation (assuming the employee doesn't have a contract that prohibits that). If the employer can't afford the $150 plan any longer, they can change to a lesser cost plan, with fewer benefits. If I don't agree, I can go work elsewhere.

    In 2009, when the economy took a nose dive, all non-equity partner lawyers at my firm took a substantial salary cut. Employers can and do have the right to change your compensation, which includes your benefits package.

    This is a completely separate issue from the requirements of Obamacare, which is a complicated and legitimate debate that reasonable people can fall on differing sides of.
    Last edited by TarheelJD; Dec. 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbaymare View Post
    It's no longer a matter between employer and employee. The government has stepped in and mandated a "benefit" that the employer did not previously provide and does not want to provide, due to religious reasons.

    David Green is paying out of pocket. He's made the decision to hire an employee and pay them from his pocket. The employee made the decision to work at HL based on what David Green was willing to pay her.
    Exactly. Very succinct and to the point. The issue now, whether the government can mandate such a benefit, is in the process of being addressed by our judiciary branch. That is how the system works.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    3 members found this post helpful.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr. 9, 2012
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    93

    Default

    How one chooses to spend the money one earns is obviously up to the individual.

    Monetary compensation and "benefits" are not equivalent.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Mar. 12, 2006
    Location
    Ocala
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happymom View Post
    Since "Businesses are people too, my friend" as determined by our SCOTUS, the door has swung wide open for such self profiting decision making.

    As I stated before, Progress Energy simply chose not to pay 16 million dollars in taxes in Citrus County, FL, bringing its economy to a standstill.

    I guess I'll choose not to pay my taxes this year and see what happens.

    I can't wait to be forced to sit in meetings promoting my employer's personal political agenda. Perhaps if I skip paying my taxes, I'll be able to skip those meetings.
    Its a little more involved than that re: Progress Energy

    http://www.chronicleonline.com/conte...sputes-numbers



  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov. 5, 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Most of you are missing the larger, more important issue. Our constitution set enumerated limitations on federal authority for this very reason. Imagine a government so powerful as to be able to shut down or control large portions of an economy and business and free enterprise, for the sake of redistribution of wealth and an unattainable utopia of equality, fairness, and cradle to grave welfare. This is "sharing" and "fairness" at the point of a gun. The only way to achieve any of this is through totalitarianism and central government control of the economy and free enterprise.
    Imagine further a populous that actually votes for this type of government. Congratulations!


    13 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Contraception is sound fiscal policy for employers. Contraceptives add NOTHING to the cost of a policy.

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2...tives/ib.shtml

    Evidence from well-documented prior expansions of contraceptive coverage indicates that the cost to issuers of including coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods in insurance offered to an employed population is zero.

    When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero. One study author concluded, "The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money."

    When indirect costs such as time away from work and productivity loss are considered, they further reduce the total cost to an employer. Global Health Outcomes developed a model that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs. They find that it saves employers $97 per year per employee to offer a comprehensive contraceptive benefit. Similarly, the PwC actuaries state that after all effects are taken into account, providing contraceptive services is “cost-saving.”

    Providing contraception through public programs is also cost-saving. Each year, public funding for family planning prevents about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Preventing these pregnancies results in 860,000 fewer unintended births, 810,000 fewer abortions and 270,000 fewer miscarriages. More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly-funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care services upon pregnancy. Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    Once the employee has been compensated for performing her job duties, that money no longer belongs to David Green. His religious beliefs are irrelevant.
    I really am trying to understand where you are coming from with this, but I must be missing it.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Apr. 25, 2011
    Posts
    856

    Default

    halo
    Its a little more involved than that re: Progress Energy
    No kidding, it's ALWAYS beneficial to invent complication to get one's way. Just look at the diversions invented by the NRA. Everything and everyone's at fault but assault weapons.

    But it boils down to "We ain't payin' our taxes."

    Me either.....


    2 members found this post helpful.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank B View Post
    Definitely support them. Big Brother is intruding far too much into our lives already.
    Getting back to this one... "Our" lives???? Tell you what, amigo, I think I'm fixing to propose a Federal law banning Viagra and requiring mandatory sterilization for rapists and child abusers. Then and ONLY then do you get to talk about Big Brother intruding into "our" lives.
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief


    17 members found this post helpful.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    Contraception is sound fiscal policy for employers. Contraceptives add NOTHING to the cost of a policy.

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2...tives/ib.shtml
    Once again, HL is not refusing coverage on all contraceptives. Indeed, almost all contraceptives would be covered. They are only objecting to contraceptive methods that involve the interference with the progression of a pregnancy post- conception.

    I personally have no problem with those post-conception methods, but apparently HL does.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    3 members found this post helpful.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Apr. 25, 2011
    Posts
    856

    Default

    It's appearing more and more that the Bill of RIGHTS was aptly named and, for some, goes only

    -------> that way.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Apr. 25, 2002
    Posts
    359

    Default

    I sort of like it when businesses show their true colors so I know which ones deserve my patronage. They are on my personal boycott list.


    15 members found this post helpful.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jul. 4, 2000
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,853

    Default

    Some good discussions here. In my mind, the relevant points are:

    -HL is a company, not a religious organization as defined by US laws and tax codes
    -it is very nice the owners of HL have strong religious beliefs and seek to run their company according to those beliefs
    -religious beliefs, however strongly held, are not license to break the law
    -the owners of HL have other options available to them that will allow them to stay within the law and their beliefs. Their current argument is that they are self-insured, therefore they bear the entire cost of the Healthcare reforms. They have the option of providing open market insurance for their employees, including paying as salary the monies they currently pay towards insurance and allowing their employees to buy whichever policy suits best.

    I do not believe that every single 'conviction', religious or otherwise, needs to be publicly debated or stated. The world would be a far less noisy place if people lived their convictions quietly, daily, rather than crowing about them.

    *star*
    "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
    - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926


    15 members found this post helpful.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    4,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    The callous disregard for the lives of fellow human beings in society today has reached a level that I can scarcely comprehend.
    don't worry, as there is a proposal by Obama on the table to tax the employee for the employer's contribution for paying the employee's health care which was pretax dollars will now become post tax dollars... supposed to raise about $150B from the workers


    3 members found this post helpful.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clanter View Post
    don't worry, as there is a proposal by Obama on the table to tax the employee for the employer's contribution for paying the employee's health care which was pretax dollars will now become post tax dollars... supposed to raise about $150B from the workers
    And the max contribution to your pre-tax FSA went down to $2,500 from $5,000 for 2013.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TarheelJD View Post
    Once again, HL is not refusing coverage on all contraceptives. Indeed, almost all contraceptives would be covered. They are only objecting to contraceptive methods that involve the interference with the progression of a pregnancy post- conception.

    I personally have no problem with those post-conception methods, but apparently HL does.
    However, according to some new recent studies, the morning after pill only prevents ovulation, and does not prevent implantation. The NIH has changed their statement regarding its action.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    8 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Fall flowers 80% off at Hobby Lobby!
    By NaniLio in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov. 17, 2012, 01:17 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Oct. 25, 2011, 03:26 PM
  3. Obamacare And Horseowners
    By Frank B in forum Off Course
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: Sep. 26, 2010, 08:08 PM
  4. Replies: 30
    Last Post: Oct. 7, 2009, 11:05 AM
  5. Spinoff- how do you support your dressage hobby?
    By CatOnLap in forum Dressage
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Jun. 13, 2008, 12:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •