It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

page: 71
49
<< 68  69  70    72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Daedalus

The health insurance industry is squeezing the working class dry, and then costing our dying parents every last penny they have saved in the name of capitalism. Part of the oligarchy that is firmly in place.



Exactly - which is why I fail to see it as a GOOD thing when the government tries to strong-arm us into that death-chute.




Have you ever seen how health care works outside the US?



Yes. It was not for the squeamish.




The statistics say a lot about the state of US health care compared to the rest of the world.



A quote from my Statistics professor - "There are lies, and then there are DAMNED lies, and lowest of all in trustworthiness, there are statistics".




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677

Promote the General Welfare. Part of the constitution.

It is in the General Welfare's best interest to curb the unwanted baby problem.


Somehow, I don't believe that when the founders said "promote the general welfare", that they had in mind welfare rolls... maybe I think that because there WERE no welfare rolls back then... and if they wanted them, if they thought they were a good idea, they could have had them, no? I mean, after all, they WERE framing a nation up...



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Our taxes pay for the wars we are currently fighting. We spend more killing people than we do trying to help the working class.

The working class is being squeezed left and right for any change they can give up. An extra $5 here, $20 there...it all adds up to thousands a year that are essentially swindled away from what was once the wealthiest group of people on this planet.

While this is happening we bicker over birth control.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Loveaduck
a reply to: nenothtu
Sounds like youre a family man. Drawing a nice picture of your hearth and home. And a missus too..... lucky guy.



Guilty as charged, on both counts - I am both a family man and a lucky guy. No hearth yet, but that'll come eventually.




I am not sure how Hobby Lobby is making abortion out of a medicine that keeps a fertilized egg from sticking to the womb.



I'm sure they have their reasons for making that connection, but I'm not here to debate those reasons. It always turns into a circular argument about chickens and eggs, and nothing ever gets accomplished.




If they are calling this abortion, I am calling "war" murder.



That is, of course, your prerogative. We still (for the moment) live in a nation where we all have the freedom to think as we wish.




It is curious how a handful of men can be entrusted with a decision that doesn't affect any of them. Interesting too how millions of women have to let 5 men decide their choices. Doesn't seem all that Democratic.



It is curious, isn't it? I suppose they do that because it's their job, not because it directly affects them otherwise. It's NOT democratic, which I am happy with. "Democracy" is the bane of humanity, something which I detest. I do not want a majority vote lording it over defenseless minorities, which is what "democracy" is. Can you imagine how much worse the US would be if the majority ruled on every little thing? Just pick a handful of issues, find the majority opinion on them, and then imagine what a tangled up web of chaos the US would be in now.

Take so-called "civil rights" as an example. Where would minorities be now if majority opinion had been allowed to prevail back in the day?

About that "millions of women allowing 5 men to make their choices for them" thing - no one made their choices for them. They can still make their own choices, they just have to find alternate suckers to pay for those choices, or *GASP* pay their own way!




edit on 2014/7/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
the women who are dropped from hobby lobby's insurance plan will still get their birth control coverage and I would be surprised if they have to pay more than what they pay for the policy hobby lobby is offering them
we the tax payers will pay it!

I mean it's only fair! After all these women just might be shelling money out of their pockets every week to the gov't to pay for the poor's whatever they need or the gov't feels they should have!!!



Correct, and rightfully so. The government is responsible for making this a requirement, and so the government SHOULD have to pay for it. Responsibility, choices, consequences, and paying the piper. They all go together.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
My boss didn't buy me breakfast this morning! My employer is denying my access to breakfast!

If he doesn't buy me lunch, there's a clear agenda here to block my access to all food!


lol


Mine didn't either!

It's clearly a conspiracy against the working man!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: nenothtu

Are you employed by Gryphon? If you are, and he gives you $1500 as compensation, can he tell you what you can do with that money? Is he entitled to know what you're spending that money on?



I think I pretty clearly said he doesn't need to know what I want the money for, in keeping with his philosophy, and he could just fork it over.

However, the analogy is imperfect - if he hands me cash, then no, he doesn't get to say what I spend it on. IF, however, he's paying bills directly to the provider, then of course he has to know what it's being spent on. Otherwise, he can't pay the bills at all, and I have to.

THIS is the case with most insurance plans - they don't just hand you cash and say "go wild with it" - they pay the medical bills.




A salaried employee usually gets so many paid vacation days. Does the employer have the right to tell this employee where he can and can't go on vacation? If the employer's religion is against gambling, can the employer tell the employee that he is not allowed to go to Vegas and gamble on his vacation? Should the employer be able to withdraw payment for said vacation because he doesn't like where the employee is going?



In keeping with your analogy, if I go to Vegas and the boss has to pay my gambling bills directly to the casino, then if he has a problem with that, I expect there is going to be trouble when I return from my vacation. There may be trouble BEFORE I return, if the boss just says to the casino "eff off, I ain't paying gambling debts - get your money from the gambler". In that case, I would consider going to Vegas a potentially bad choice of vacation spots, and would re-plan accordingly.

Kinda like having unprotected sex when I know that it will be ME paying the piper.




The way I look at it, health insurance is part of the compensation package in return for working for the employer, just like salary. You shouldn't even be entitled to know what that compensation is going to be used on. A person works for you, and in return you give them a paycheck, paid vacation days, and health insurance. What they do with those things is not your business. Especially when the employee is paying for part of that insurance out of their own paycheck.



"Not your business" UNTIL you have to pay directly, and the money is no longer handed over to the employee as a paycheck is. When you give THEM the money, it's theirs to do with as they see fit. When instead you are hanging on to the money until YOU give it to the vendor, it's YOURS to do with as you see fit.

The proper analogy is "I will pay for your vacation - just bill the hotel and whatnot to me, but if you go gambling, I will NOT pay for that - you're on your own. Don't bother sending gambling bills to me."



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: nenothtu

So you'd rather just remove the whole thing across the board and for everyone it's a "Pay to Play" type thing right???

If so then you should not be supporting this outcome as it is. Because this is not "Across the Board". This is Selective and for Fictional Persons only. Not for real people, yourself included. You realize that since Corps. Don't have to pay now that the Gov. makes up for it. Meaning that since Government money is our Tax dollars, the people now have to pay more while the Corps pay less.


Just adding another thought to what I've already replied on this post -

Once we give that tax dollar to the government, it's not OURS any more, it's THEIRS, and they may use it as they see fit.

Technically, it's NEVER ours, and ALWAYS theirs - just read the owner marks on a dollar bill.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: jrod

Do you really believe abstinence works?

Do you expect any reasonable person believes in it?



I do.

During those times I was abstinent, I impregnated NO women. Problem solved.





Ok, no offense here, but how much of that was your choice and how much was their choice??? (You don't have to answer that BTW.)


I don't know the percentages involved. Sometimes it was my choice when I wasn't married - yes, I HAVE "turned it down when it was being thrown in my face" - and sometimes it was theirs. Two out of the four wives put me on the couch for extended periods (I know, I know - you aren't really surprised by that), and I respected their wishes to the point of celibacy. I didn't kick down the bedroom door and have my wicked way with them, nor did I go "hunting for strange". In those instances, I don't know really how to assign percentages of choice in the matter - while the initial choice was theirs, I also had the choice available to react badly to it, but chose not to.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: nenothtu

Ok. Now I see where you're coming from. To be honest, I really have no argument with your stance either. Other than to say what you see as a "First Step" in the right direction isn't going to work out the way you're hoping it will.

The idea that this is about taking a stand for the People's Rights against the Government is just the narrative of what's happening. This isn't about helping Real People get their power back. This is just how Private Fictional Persons known as Corporations Steal what used to be the Power of the People.

But good luck all the same. I think you'll be upset when you find out this is only a win for Fictional People.


I understand that it's not about people getting their power back. At all times, in every case, in the entire history of the world, people have had to TAKE their power back when one government or another usurped it. This time will be no different, but anyone who wants to take a hand in the disassembly of the ACA has my blessings, in whatever capacity they choose to effect their portion of the disassembly.

As long as it is disabled and nullified, I'm good with it.

Wars are won - or lost - via individual actions - or inactions.

It's not even really the ACA that I have a problem with - it's that damnable Individual Mandate that chafes my ass. THAT is the unconstitutional part of it. For the first time in the history of the US, government has REQUIRED individuals to purchase a private product from a private industry that they neither want nor need in order to prop up a flagging and mis-managed private industry. I have a REAL problem with that, and the fascism it ushers in.




edit on 2014/7/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

Our taxes pay for the wars we are currently fighting. We spend more killing people than we do trying to help the working class.



Killing folks is expensive, especially if one hires the likes of me to do it for them. The "working class" isn't my responsibility. I don't do classes very well, but seem to be a member of that "class" myself at least I'm not in the "under class" or the "intelligentsia", so I guess I'm in the "working class" in this Brave New World - I work. I manage to make it on my own, and a lot more could if they just gave it the old college try.

It appears that it is the "under class", or "those who could be working class but refuse to be" that most of your ire is directed at, and your solution is to "throw more free stuff at them". MY take, on the other hand, is that there is no need to help them beyond 1 year's assistance. If they can't learn to fend for themselves in a year, too bad. Now it may be said that I have a bad attitude there, but I LIVE in it, and see the results every damned day. I'm entitled to my bad attitude.




The working class is being squeezed left and right for any change they can give up. An extra $5 here, $20 there...it all adds up to thousands a year that are essentially swindled away from what was once the wealthiest group of people on this planet.



That's one way to look at it, I reckon. My take differs somewhat - they can't be squeezed for money if they refuse to buy The Next Best Piece of Crap to Come Along. There's no squeezing people who live within their means, because... they live within their means.




While this is happening we bicker over birth control.



Exactly! Just buy it if you want it and move on to the next problem, and stop bitching about not getting a free ride!

TANSTAAFL! There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - what they give up in return for their "free" stuff is a life of chains and servitude, since the dependent is slave to the provider, who can put the squeeze on them to do his bidding in any instant, merely by cutting the provisions they have come to depend upon.






edit on 2014/7/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu
It's not even really the ACA that I have a problem with - it's that damnable Individual Mandate that chafes my ass. THAT is the unconstitutional part of it. For the first time in the history of the US, government has REQUIRED individuals to purchase a private product from a private industry that they neither want nor need in order to prop up a flagging and mis-managed private industry. I have a REAL problem with that, and the fascism it ushers in.



I totally understand where you're coming from and being forced into the way they did I also do not like either. However, in the same way I think the Government F**ked up in how they implemented it to begin with I also think this is yet another complete F**k up again in trying to fight against it. The reasons for that are many and varied but I won't bother you with the details of why, because as I already know, you have already taken your stand on this. I respect your position too and understand it fully. Which is the reason I'm not going to challenge your position. I still don't think it's going to work out for you though. Just like this ruling didn't work out for the People of this country but worked for the Corporations instead.

This will get worse too. Corporations, now that they have this crack in what was left of the blocks keeping them from truly running amok, will continue to widen the gap until they are allowed free reign across everything and everyone like the demons they are and they will grind and smash the people of this planet as they do it too. Just wait and see.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
The flood gates have now been opened for any company claiming "religious reason" to discriminate againt women, gays and anyone else that doesn't meet their religious standards.

news.yahoo.com...

www.forbes.com...


My predictions of a Corporate Theocracy seems to be right on the money....

rhrealitycheck.org...

Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm" All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.


yeah, thank obama care for that.

if it wasn't for the gov shoving contraceptives down every ones throats, this would never have happened.
(pun intended)

separation of church and state, yeah baby!

how many women of child bearing age work at hobby lobby?

why is everyone making it seem like this affects every woman in the world?

these same people have no problem of killing off about 50% of fetuses aborted each year, that are female.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Brilliant! I never thought of that. Why not just let them pay for it themselves? If they were going to an amusement park and wanted a $5 ride, I'd tell them to go pay for it.

Maybe while we're at it, we can solve the homeless problem too. We just tell the homeless people to get a job like the rest of us... Or do what this guy did: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao
I would venture to say that many women at the present time are effected by it
we are only looking at the damage that this might cause a few women who might need birth control and be working for one of these exempted companies.

what about the women who belief that it's wrong to have insurance covering this who don't work for such a company
or the taxpayers who will end up footing the bill when they make this night mare all equal in their eyes by shifted the responsibility off from the company's shoulder's onto theirs?

I think it's possible that you will have the businesses deciding weather or not birth control should be included and not able to avoid alienating someone from that decision and well all those alienated are then shifted over to the gov't
for equality's sake of course!
offending us all with more taxes!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: nenothtu

Brilliant! I never thought of that. Why not just let them pay for it themselves? If they were going to an amusement park and wanted a $5 ride, I'd tell them to go pay for it.

Maybe while we're at it, we can solve the homeless problem too. We just tell the homeless people to get a job like the rest of us... Or do what this guy did: www.youtube.com...



Obviously, you do not habitually hang out with homeless people. I do. It can be helped. When was the last time you bought a homeless guy a cup of coffee and talked about the world with him? I did it yesterday. He needed the coffee - to flush various other toxins out of his system. You seem to have no clue as to the situation amongst homless folk.

You lost me with the whole amusement park reference, though. I don't consider myself an amusement park, and certainly couldn't charge for a ride...



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu


However, the analogy is imperfect - if he hands me cash, then no, he doesn't get to say what I spend it on. IF, however, he's paying bills directly to the provider, then of course he has to know what it's being spent on. Otherwise, he can't pay the bills at all, and I have to.

THIS is the case with most insurance plans - they don't just hand you cash and say "go wild with it" - they pay the medical bills.


The employer doesn't pay the medical bills. The employer pays the insurance company. The insurance company pays the medical bills.

But, you raise an interesting point. Maybe this is a way around this silly Supreme Court ruling. Make Hobby Lobby take the total amount they would pay the insurance company directly for the policy, and have them hand a proportionate amount of that total to each employee in their paycheck (as compensation). Then have each employee's portion of that cash immediately go into a pot that goes to the insurance company. As part of the terms of employment, the employee signs a release form, allowing that money to be taken back out of their paycheck and into the health insurance pot. For a brief second, that cash was handed over to the employee, thus rendering Hobby Lobby's decision on what it covers invalid. Hobby Lobby is off the hook with God, because they gave the money to the employee. Now legally (and morally), it's the employee's money that's going to the insurance company, not Hobby Lobby's money. Just might work!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Exactly. It essentially formalizes the actual reality that employees are the ones doing the buying of their own health insurance anyway. This way HL's name is off the check replaced with HL employee health pool (lol).

People don't seem to understand that partial or full health benefits is compensation same as a paycheck. The trap is, an employer says they are providing... not really, all they are doing is taking part of of the money they could be paying the employee and using it to dump into a pool that health insurance companies deem less risky than individual purchasers and so offer significant discounts for.

Let's look at Hobby Lobby since they're the control freaks of focus... the base salary of a department head (FT job so includes full single payer benefits) is $12/hr. The US average for full employer 'provided' health insurance is $5,384/year with $4266 coming from the employer and $1,118 from the employee (yes essentially the SC declared what you can do with your own money). Full time workers average 2000 hours of work per year. So that's $2.13/hour for full health coverage of 1 full-time employee.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Here's the HHS explanation for non-profit exempted.

It might apply to Hobby Lobby and others now.....??



The final rules also lay out the accommodation for other non-profit religious organizations - such as non-profit religious hospitals and institutions of higher education - that object to contraceptive coverage. Under the accommodation these organizations will not have to contract, arrange, pay for or refer contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds, but such coverage is separately provided to women enrolled in their health plans at no cost. The approach taken in the final rules is similar to, but simpler than, that taken in the proposed rules, and responds to comments made by many stakeholders.

With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

But that "transaction" may trigger the amounts to be "earned" income and become taxable.

Right now, employees don't pay income tax on the value associated to the insurance cost.

It's an IRS regulation I think.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 68  69  70    72 >>

log in

join