Judge: Feds Can’t Make Domino’s Founder Offer Birth Control

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Helious
 


I am beginning to understand. Those who in favor of denial only see this as an issue against birth control and .... that's it. There are no other aspects to this argument. Period.

Those who are against the denial see a much larger picture. If this works for one classification of medication, why not others? Again, I will ask this question, if a Jehovah's Witness denies payment for blood transfusion is that okay? It goes against their religious belief.

Are you really willing to have someone else tell you how to live your life? While they are not coming out a directly saying you can't use birth control, they are saying they disapprove of your lifestyle and want nothing to do with how you live. Casting judgement in other words. But would I expect anything less from the religious tolerant?


No, you're NOT understanding!


Then don't work for the damned Jehovah's Witness if you don't like the insurance they're offering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take your skills and get a different job somewhere else!

Why do you feel it's ok to push YOUR views on the employer? This has nothing to do with "Religion" or "Tolerance" - only an ignorant sot would attempt to make it so! You forget who is working for whom! As an employee you do NOT own the company. The ONLY decision you are entitled to make is to work there or not - PERIOD!

I own a company. I can pay whatever the hell I want to pay - it's MY company! Not YOURS, not my employees, not the government's - MINE! If people don't want to work for me because my wages suck or my benefits suck - it's still MY choice to offer and YOURS to turn down. This is where it begins and ends. If my company suffers because I can't hire quality employees due to my poor compensation plan, then maybe I will decide to change it - but it is still MY choice.

Jumping Jesus in Heaven is there no way for you all to comprehend this basic and simple FACT!?!?!?




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Helious
 


I am beginning to understand. Those who in favor of denial only see this as an issue against birth control and .... that's it. There are no other aspects to this argument. Period.

Those who are against the denial see a much larger picture. If this works for one classification of medication, why not others? Again, I will ask this question, if a Jehovah's Witness denies payment for blood transfusion is that okay? It goes against their religious belief.

Are you really willing to have someone else tell you how to live your life? While they are not coming out a directly saying you can't use birth control, they are saying they disapprove of your lifestyle and want nothing to do with how you live. Casting judgement in other words. But would I expect anything less from the religious tolerant?


Listen, you would be hard pressed to find somebody more "anti-establishment" than me and I am by no means a corporate sympathizer, I'm not even a Republican.

That said and to answer your question of am I willing to have someone else tell me how to live my life..... No. But should the government really be forcing business owners to provide contraception to employees? I think all the business owner is saying is, we don't believe in it as a company, it is against our founding ideals and principles as a company and if you CHOOSE to take it, please pay for it yourself or find another employer that offers this benefit.

If your championing freedom in your mind in this argument shouldn't you be asking yourself why employees are entitled to benefits at all? That' usually is not how it works in a truly free society. The better companies should offer insurance to attract better employees. All this Obamacare socialistic medicine is good for is eroding rights, not helping the "little guy" better protect the ones they have.
edit on 15-3-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Honor93
 


I am not talking about emergencies. I am talking about when a patient visits their family doctor, the doctor writes a prescription and then the employer says no, I don't care what the doctor says.
ppl don't get RX orders without seeking resolve for a medical emergency/situation ... perhaps not as emergent as pending death, however, if not emergent, you wouldn't be seeking a DRs intervention, would you ?

the employer isn't preventing you from taking the RX, however, they aren't obligated to pay for it either.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The real bombshell is that
abortion coverage [color=gold] actually saves the
insurance companies about 600k,
over-the-life-of-the-woman.



The insurance companies have found a way to make money by the L O S S of L I F E.



So by not including it,
the penalties have to be high high.

Like at aleast $600,000 per person.

This one fact
has been totally
obfuscated out of the topic.




Why?


Cause at those kinds of savings the insurance companies
can afford to spend tons of money programming all the Women of America
to feel-good about their contraception,
and feel justified in beating up employers over it.


Ugly ugly
If you ask me.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 





Holy Jiminy Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Same to you! And why can't you get this...

A health benefits package is part of your earnings as an employee and 99% of the time the bulk of that package comes out of your own check meaning that the employer pays something like 5-10%. If the employer has reasons for not supporting EVERYTHING covered by insurance why not give the sum of their portion of the package to the employee and let the employee buy their own insurance with it?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

no one is ignoring the idea except Obama.
if we did what you suggest, why would we need Obamacare at all ????



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Why are there still people saying they don't want to pay for women's birth control, when they have to pay for men's erection pills?
Unless that has changed? I still see Viagra and cialis on tv ads constantly.

If men are covered by prescription to be doing it like bunnies, then women should have the right to not get pregnant.

It falls under the idea that "a prescription is a prescription" and it shouldn't be anyone's business who is getting what.

It seems like its a religious right to have sex, artificially pumped up by a pill, but women don't have the right to not get pregnant from it.

The US is a complicated country, full of odd contradictions.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I think that's a debate for another thread lol.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by kozmo
 





Holy Jiminy Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Same to you! And why can't you get this...

A health benefits package is part of your earnings as an employee and 99% of the time the bulk of that package comes out of your own check meaning that the employer pays something like 5-10%. If the employer has reasons for not supporting EVERYTHING covered by insurance why not give the sum of their portion of the package to the employee and let the employee buy their own insurance with it?


Excuse me... what world do you live in? I AM an employer. I own a company. I pay about 70% of my employee's healthcare cost! That is about the norm. You think that pathetic $200 to $400 per month from your check is 90% of the cost!?!? Time to get a ticket and travel back to reality!

A "Health benefits package" as part of your earnings is at the EMPLOYER'S DISCRETION - NOT yours! Many small businesses offer ZERO health benefits because they cannot afford the exorbitant cost - that is why businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt from Obamacare.

The reason I "Can't get this" is because you are living in a fantasy world. You have no clue what you're talking about. You are letting your emotions and ideals drive your argument and they hold NO water! Your rights as an employee are to stay or go - that's it!



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

i wouldn't disagree so why mention it in this thread ??
isn't Obamacare a done deal for the most part ? ... if so, we should have engaged such a debate a few years ago, don't ya think ?

however, that was then and this is now.

@snowspirit ... because ED is a treatable medical condition, pregnancy is not.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93


@snowspirit ... because ED is a treatable medical condition, pregnancy is not.


But women should medically be able to prevent an unwanted or possibly even an unaffordable pregnancy.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by Honor93


@snowspirit ... because ED is a treatable medical condition, pregnancy is not.


But women should medically be able to prevent an unwanted or possibly even an unaffordable pregnancy.


Then do it.
Who's stopping you?
Surely not the owner of Dominos.



Mike Grouchy



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Okay dude, I get it, you're a fan of tyranny and theocracy.
No need to shout.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by Honor93


@snowspirit ... because ED is a treatable medical condition, pregnancy is not.


But women should medically be able to prevent an unwanted or possibly even an unaffordable pregnancy.

to my knowledge, they have always been able to prevent such an event.

does this magical medical pill cause women to close their legs ??
if not, what purpose does it serve again ?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


I'm Canadian. I paid for my own birth control, our medical systems have more tiers of coverage. I did not opt on for prescriptions, as the basic medical was less than $50 per month.

I just don't understand the arguement of what should or shouldn't be covered, when there are unwanted pregnancies happening, and some of those people cannot afford to have children, and then other more expensive welfare systems end up supporting some of those families.

It seems counter productive.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 

medical conditions deserve medical intervention.

pregnancy is the direct result of a specific action, not a medical condition.
hopefully that helps you understand why one is covered and the other is not.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit

I'm Canadian. I paid for my own birth control, our medical systems have more tiers of coverage. I did not opt on for prescriptions, as the basic medical was [color=gold] less than $50 per month.



Given that,
do you still feel that the $100 PER - D A Y penalty is still reasonable?



“For example, a charitable organization with 100 employees will have to pay the federal government $140,000 per year for the “privilege” of not underwriting medical
services it believes are immoral,” she added.


Congress Told HHS Mandate Fines Could Total $620,000
February 28, 2012



Mike Grouchy
edit on 15-3-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
I own a company. I can pay whatever the hell I want to pay - it's MY company! Not YOURS, not my employees, not the government's - MINE! If people don't want to work for me because my wages suck or my benefits suck - it's still MY choice to offer and YOURS to turn down. This is where it begins and ends. If my company suffers because I can't hire quality employees due to my poor compensation plan, then maybe I will decide to change it - but it is still MY choice.


If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Those fines and penalties are absolutely insane, without a doubt.

We don't have fines up here. An employer does not have to cover employees, unless it's part of a union contract. Private businesses don't have to cover anyone.

Also people here, in the provinces that charge a monthly fee, don't impose fines on someone for not having coverage. If someone needs to go to a doctor or hospital, accident, illness, whatever reason, and they haven't applied for coverage (age 18 and older), the doctor will just set up coverage then.
I've seen them backdate coverage for people that had accidents with no medical.

To fine people is just wrong.
Am I right in assuming that the coverage Americans are being forced to purchase, is from privatized insurance companies?
That just sounds so illegal, and wrong on so many levels.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by kozmo
 


Okay dude, I get it, you're a fan of tyranny and theocracy.
No need to shout.


Oh ok... you're right. Freedom, free market principles, personal responsibility all equal "Tyranny and theocracy".

I'm done here. Ignorance is bliss. It must be nice to have big government nanny over you - since you have ZERO sense of personal responsibility. Does your mom still wipe your behind? Maybe we should have the government pass a law that your mom still has to wipe your behind for you... I mean, since you obviously don't want to have to be personally responsible for your own health or well-being.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join