[Isabeau Z Solace]

Yup, you have nutcases like my neighbors http://www.all.org/nav/index/cat/ODk/heading/OQ/


and then there's this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xe4wRhFf9Y

here's the whole video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auv6c0-FsjU

Ah yes!!! I've seen those.

Like the Church Lady used to say, "Well isn't that special?"

[LMH]

good points on the rider-I had not really worked it all out to send to Obama but it seemed a reasonable direction.

Perhaps we could co-write it?

I 'believe' but don't know that circumcision is considered an optional procedure...just a quick Google said that on one response.

As far as doing what you want-well this gets sticky again and relates to my question above...what kind of policy am I required to give you?

There are literally hundreds and thousands...will it include dental? vision? what kind of deductible?

In one sense yes it IS yoru right...but it should be my right to not financially support practices that are so to the core of my belief.

The government can allow the procedure (BC, abortion, vaccines, whatever) but should not MAKE me pay for it as a part of operating my private business.

[SaturdayNightLive]

LMH, I think where we are essentially disagreeing is on who is "paying". You are saying that the employer is the one paying for the insurance.

I'm saying that the employee is paying for that insurance with their labor. And no, you may not infringe upon what I have payed for with my labor.

You're paying for it, one way or another, so I'm taking it that it is the direct nature of it that you disagree with? Because that's really about perspective.

[LMH]

And now we get to the real point - women who have sex are sluts who should be punished.

It isn't about religion or anything else. It's about punishing the whores. And you wonder why people find you offensive?

Really? You think it is too much to ask for someone to be responsible before having sex? Really?

It is a choice-to have sex or not, to use bc or not, to have an abortion or not...those are ALLLLLLL your choices.

Why should I have to pay for any of them?

I am not talking about rape or incest. I am talking about an educated middle class or upper class girl. Someone completely educated in the risks of having sex with and without protection.

Why should my company have to pay for her choices?

Now I am aware that BC can be used for medical reasons but I can't even IMAGINE trying to regulate when it is used for one or the other.

The fact that you choose to misread and read into my posts and therefore find them offensive is also not my problem but perhaps your issue with ability to read for comprehension.

I thought we were having a serious discusion on the matter-it seems you are a bit emotional in your responses to have to be so snotty and rude.

[grayarabpony]

There were other ways and suggestions for dealing and solving these issues, without the federal government taking over one sixth of our economy.

The government has not taken over one sixth of our economy.

I suppose you don't want the government messing with your Medicare either?

[Coanteen]

I think we got here because of the insurance companies
...
Face it, for whatever reason (I blame greedy insurance companies), health insurance in this country has been set up to favor those who can get it through work. It is a new way to separate the "haves" from the "have nots".

Ok, people need to understand the genesis of health insurance. The UK, Canada and the US started their respective (modern) health insurance systems at roughly the same time in the late '20's, accelerated by the end of the war, the UK moving swiftly towards single-payer, Canada getting there after decades of various piecemeal legislation, and the US went the way of employer-provided insurance. Government legislation partly created this system through wage controls that didn't include things like health insurance, and later gave its stamp of approval when employer-provided health plans were initially made tax free (with more tax breaks later).

But at the beginning stage, health insurance was "insurance". Like your car or mortgage insurance. You used it if something really went wrong, but for the most part people didn't use it that much, if at all. It was insurance - it wasn't a benefit that is meant to be used routinely, as health care is these days.

By the late '50's/the 60's the majority of US population had health care, and with Medicare the elderly got it too, covering the vast majority. The number of insured people has actually been declining as health care and its premiums grows more and more expensive (since health insurance is no longer "insurance" in the true sense of the word, but a regularly used, pricey benefit) and businesses, especially smaller ones, can't afford to cover their employees.

The US set up a system of employer-provided health insurance, and government intervention had a lot to do with why that particular system became the one that worked for the US. It wasn't "greedy insurance companies"; at the time of this system being set up there was really nothing to be that greedy about.
Does it work as well now as it did 50 or 60 years ago? I think we can all agree that it doesn't, since the nature of health care has changed immeasurably, as has the workplace itself. Lifelong employment at one large business is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

[SaturdayNightLive]

Whatever you say, LMH.

[gaitedincali]

How fair is it to Michaels when their main competitor gets to jetison a major business expense on "religious" grounds? I think a better comparison is the Quakers who objected to their taxes being spent on war. Too bad, they lost that argument.

OTOH, Michaels might get a boost in business from people not wanting to give $$$ to a d-bag company. I don't have a Hobby Lobby by me, but if I did, I assure you I would not want them to be forced to go against their religious beliefs by associating with my athiest, sexually immoral (before marriage! The horror!!!) self.

I'm just glad my employer isn't a Jehovah's Witness who would refuse to cover any blood transfusions on religious grounds.

[LMH]

LMH, I think where we are essentially disagreeing is on who is "paying". You are saying that the employer is the one paying for the insurance.

I'm saying that the employee is paying for that insurance with their labor. And no, you may not infringe upon what I have payed for with my labor.

You're paying for it, one way or another, so I'm taking it that it is the direct nature of it that you disagree with? Because that's really about perspective.

It is about perspective...

I have said repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) that I don't care if you pay for it...*I* don't want to pay.

I don't have that option.

OK try this...

I own a company and I am offering you a job for $100,000 no benefits.

OR I can offer you $90,0000 and I will pay for your health insurance that costs me $10,000

In any case you are getting $100,000 of benefits.

I am paying out $100,000 for your labor.

I prefer the first scenario because it 'washes my hands' of your personal decisions.

Before this law you and I could even negotiate option 1 or 2...you could say-hey your group plan offers better insurance than I can get alone--would you include me in your plan? I would much prefer $90,000 and you buy my insurance.

Or you could say-I don't need insurance because my religion or personal belief does not trust eastern medicine-I would prefer your $100,000 package.

OR you could say I really want BC in my coverage then I could say-I am not comfortable with that. How about I provide basic coverage for at $8000...I will pay you $92,000 and you can then use $2000 for you BC coverage

We could work it out as two adults.

But now...NO. I must pay or be fined.

OR am I missing the option that I can opt out so long as I give you enough in your benefits package to simply buy your own?

Is that an option? I don't believe it is. That would have been the old way of doing it.

[SaturdayNightLive]

And as I have said repeatedly, you aren't the one paying for it. The employee pays for it with their labor. You made my point for me in your last post, and you don't even see it.

Think of it this way: the law now requires you to pay me part of my salary in ramen. You don't like ramen. I don't care, because I paid for it in labor and it is my g-d ramen!

Seriously, we need a head slamming into a brick wall emoticon.

[LMH]

And as I have said repeatedly, you aren't the one paying for it. The employee pays for it with their labor.

Seriously, we need a head slamming into a brick wall emoticon.

Yes we do.

That is why I brought up circumcision-that is a little less argued than BC an abortion.

Or vaccinations.

Before I as an employer could make the job attractive to you buy offering insurance if I choose OR offering enough $$ to you that you would take the job knowing you could buy your own.

Why is this not not good enough?

Perhaps because there are not enough jobs for people?

[SaturdayNightLive]

No, I think it was because employers were refusing to provide insurance (and not paying the monetary difference to the employee) and purchasing individual insurance was becoming prohibitively expensive.

[LMH]

purchasing individual insurance was becoming prohibitively expensive.

HA! so why not address the problem on this end?

Considering I pay for my own insurance this would make more sense to my selfish interest.

And wouldn't this avoid this entire issue altogether?

Look, I agree humans should be able to afford the most fundamental healthcare.

I just think how this law came about is so very wrong and creates issues like this one and who knows how many others.

Streamline it. Make it Simple.

2700 pages is not simple.

Then again I believe in a flat tax of some sort...consumption tax, something that has no loopholes, etc

And I believe in a federal budget and not operating with debt...so I am crazy like that.

[jetsmom]

I think privately owned businesses should have the right to not pay for birth control for their employees. I think government owned businesses should be required to.

[jen-s]

And if you are against BC (which I am not) then this pill would violate your religious beliefs.

OK let't try another topic...one to get some attention.

Circumcision.

Does insurance currently cover that procedure?

It has been established by some 'scientific studies' that it is 'healthier' to have it done.

Let's get this topic messy-Jews believe in it and have a big formal religious ceremony surrounding it.

Catholics do not believe in it.

Should the government come in and require a Catholic employer to pay for his Jewish employee's circumcision?

Should government say the procedure is not allowed anymore for anyone?

Where does it end?

I'll bite. I work in pediatric urology. Circumcision IS almost always covered for medical necessity--phimosis, vesicoureteral reflux, etc. It is NOT covered if someone just prefers the look of a circumcised weenie. And runs about $2200 here at Duke. Or you can have it done by your OB or PCP for much less, but when they mess it up and your precious son needs a penoplasty to fix it, then your insurance will likely cover it. And you'd be stunned at how many botched circumcisions we see.

My two cents, HL can bitch and moan all they like, but I'll NEVER darken their door again. Ever.

[bauhaus]

Really? You think it is too much to ask for someone to be responsible before having sex? Really?

It is a choice-to have sex or not, to use bc or not, to have an abortion or not...those are ALLLLLLL your choices.

Why should I have to pay for any of them?

I am not talking about rape or incest. I am talking about an educated middle class or upper class girl. Someone completely educated in the risks of having sex with and without protection.

Why should my company have to pay for her choices?

Now I am aware that BC can be used for medical reasons but I can't even IMAGINE trying to regulate when it is used for one or the other.

The fact that you choose to misread and read into my posts and therefore find them offensive is also not my problem but perhaps your issue with ability to read for comprehension.

I thought we were having a serious discusion on the matter-it seems you are a bit emotional in your responses to have to be so snotty and rude.

Ahhh, now we get to the real issue. Social conservatives who believe they have the right to impose their beliefs on others frame their argument in "freedom"-tastic language, when really they just think ladies should be holding an aspirin between their legs and they scream bloody murder whenever someone points out to them that this particular issue is a MEDICAL one and is no one else's business but the woman's and her doctor. The social aspects of contraception have no place in a discussion about a business owner's obligation to comply with US law, because we live in a country which separates religion and government. Period. If you'd prefer to live in a country which forces religious beliefs on its citizens, check out Saudi Arabia. Maybe you'd be happier there.

The bottom line is, no amount of arguing is going to change anyone's mind on this issue. Hobby Lobby can do whatever they want, but I'm not supporting them and I will have no sympathy for them if they suffer the consequences of their actions. I have lost all respect for the views of most social conservatives because they cannot accept the fact that they do not get to dictate others' beliefs, and they act like spoiled children who cannot understand that THEY are not personally being asked to use contraception, and the choices of others are none of their business. (It would make far more sense to me if they were calling for their right to fire any woman who used contraception, since the money they pay their employees is paying for it one way or the other. I assume they know they couldn't get away with it though so they don't even try).

[Alagirl]

pregnancy and motherhood is pretty much the number one reason for poverty among women...

Considering that most customers of the chain are female....

Ah shucks....I would love to frequent another company, but dammit, they are the only game in town. The small locally owned art supply store went strictly framing. I did drop some major coinage there last year to have a couple of pictures framed, but sheesh...

[TarheelJD]

And if you are against BC (which I am not) then this pill would violate your religious beliefs.

OK let't try another topic...one to get some attention.

Circumcision.

Does insurance currently cover that procedure?

It has been established by some 'scientific studies' that it is 'healthier' to have it done.

Let's get this topic messy-Jews believe in it and have a big formal religious ceremony surrounding it.

Catholics do not believe in it.

Should the government come in and require a Catholic employer to pay for his Jewish employee's circumcision?

Should government say the procedure is not allowed anymore for anyone?

Where does it end?

Trust me - lots of Catholics circumcize their male children! My mother is an OB-GYN in New Orleans, where the vast majority of people are Catholic, and the majority of her patients with male children go that route.

[Equibrit]

It is about perspective...

I have said repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) that I don't care if you pay for it...*I* don't want to pay.

So...if an employee of yours uses birth control, or does anything else that does not fit with your religion, then you are not going to pay them for the work that they do ? THAT is what you are saying, and it is discrimination of the worst kind. You MUST compensate an employee for the work that they do, it really does not matter if you are paying that compensation in the form of insurance or a pay check. YOU have absolutely NO RIGHT to dictate how they use that compensation, even if they go buy a gun and shoot you.

[carolprudm]

There is no 'both ways.'

An example. I own a corporation and I belong to a church that does not believe in working on Saturday.

So I close my business on Saturday.

This means my business is closed on Saturdays but it is closed because of my (the owner's) religious beliefs.

Businesses operate ALL the time according to personal beliefs. When these beliefs violate laws (race, sex, etc) it is not allowed...but religious belief normally (not always) trumps law.

There are exceptions all over the place-Christian Scientists and vaccinations would be one.

Yes there are times when public healthy trumps religious belief...just saying companies operate under personal beliefs all day long.

Hence Chik-Fil-A is closed on Sunday. Government can't FORCE them to open on Sunday.

Currently there is no law requiring fast food or any business to be open on sundays. However if the government did pass a law that said they must open and the Supreme Court said that the law was constitutional then yes, they probably would be required to open or face penalties.