Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

reply to post by bbracken677


My argument comes directly from the documents of the Supreme Court decisions.

Your evidence includes the inimitable jurisprudence of Slate Magazine, et. al.

I have made no claims about my legal qualifications; you're merely attacking a strawman.

The decision says what it says. I have posted that evidence.

Ask yourself this question: if the matter of whether "Corporations are People" had previously been settled, why is SCOTUS hearing the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga cases AT ALL? If your assertion were correct (and it's not) they would have merely cited the previous decisions.

They didn't; your position is incorrect.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


It is cool if you disagree and I may not have articulated my message well. I am not trying to equate BC to ABS as life saving but as mandates both handed down to those companies for their end products.

On a side note BC in some cases are used as medication for women for the purpose other than preventing births as I am sure you are aware.


What I am saying as well is Hobby Lobby end result will be to make another company offers a product that as far as I am aware of they do not offer ATM. Maybe they will turn to a Religiously exempt insurance company if they exist.

Gryphon66
The idea that health insurance plans should only cover those areas that a particular individual needs is utterly spurious. That's not the way health insurance has ever worked. You buy a plan and you use what you need. What if you NEVER need it? Well, then, in hindsight you've wasted your money. Sadly, most of us cannot predict the future.

Buying into an insurance plan does not equate to subsidizing health costs of the other members; that's ludicrous.

You buy a plan. It covers what it covers. You use it if you need it. If you don't need it, hoorah!, you're in good health.

Except that the wife and I will be paying for baby making coverage...coverage we would not have chosen (I know...been there before) and coverage we will never use. However we are mandated to accept the coverage regardless of what our needs are and regardless of what our choices would have been. We are being coerced, in a manner of speaking.

My previous plan did not include such coverage. Prior to the Affordable Care Act (or unaffordable as may be the case) you could actually tailor plans to suit your needs. Obviously octogenarian needs are different from the needs of someone in their 20s and there were plans that provided coverage accordingly.

Bottom line: We are being forced to purchase a product/service by the federal govt. Something that is expressly forbidden by the constitution.

Grimpachi
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

It is cool if you disagree and I may not have articulated my message well. I am not trying to equate BC to ABS as life saving but as mandates both handed down to those companies as end products.

On a side note BC in some cases are used as medication for women for the purpose other than preventing births as I am sure you are aware.


What I am saying as well is Hobby Lobby end result will be to make another company offers a product that as far as I am aware of they do not offer ATM. Maybe they will turn to a Religiously exempt insurance company if they exist.

I would just like to point out that you are required to have auto insurance in order to drive on city/state/federal roads....but you are not required to drive. Hence, you still have a choice in the matter.

As Obummercare is currently there is no choice available except how much you will pay and how well you will be covered...in a nutshell. Larger deductible = smaller payments. Therein lie the extent of your choices.

reply to post by bbracken677


You and "the wife" are paying for a plan. The plan includes certain coverages. While consumers have often had to add coverages for certain medical issue and/or diseases that the blood-sucking leeches, I mean, insurance companies excluded, there has never been to my knowledge a "choose 20 items of coverage" insurance plan. It covers what it covers.

A plan may cover heart treatment, but you die of cancer. It may cover hospitalization, but a piano drops on you.

With all respect, this line of reasoning is "straining at a gnat" ...

As to our other contention, allow me to say that personally, I despise the idea that the legal fiction of a corporation could or would have the natural rights arising from Personhood and protected in the Bill of Rights.

I find it abhorrent. We very nearly had an element in the Bill of Rights restricting Monopoly, and I believe that the spirit of that would cut the modern "corporation" to ribbons.

Jefferson lost though, and that was not included. And my opinions are my own.

The facts, however, remain.

reply to post by Grimpachi


honestly, my biggest problem with ACA is that every fiber of my being is 101% opposed to it in every possible way. I am so opposed to it, I might be prone to justifying almost anything, right or wrong, that has an ability to help topple it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

ABS saves lives. Birth control pills do not.

This is a patently false claim.

HOWEVER, condoms do. And using a condom negates the need for birth control and morning after pills 99% of the time, while simultaneously preventing the spread of disease.

Oh, okay! Lets take all the responsibility off of the women and put ALL the responsibility, faith and trust in her male counterpart to do the right thing?

Do you understand what you're saying here? How many women are going to go for that logic?

reply to post by Aleister


I have to agree with Aleister. He's not running a religious organization. He is running a business. He's trying to turn the monetary impact into a religious issue.

Now, I cringe at the pushing of ObamaCare. I hate that it has made worse the already screwed up big insurance racket that is taking place in the USA.

The real issue is something greater than a religious business owner turning money into religion. Understand that ObamaCare is about destroying the American economy. Will it accomplish this single-handedly? Absolutely not. It's a mere piece to the bigger puzzle that will ultimately bring the American workforce to its knees.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

honestly, my biggest problem with ACA is that every fiber of my being is 101% opposed to it in every possible way. I am so opposed to it, I might be prone to justifying almost anything, right or wrong, that has an ability to help topple it.

That's one of the few perfectly honest comments I've seen regarding the ACA in this or any other discussion. When I saw what ACA was originally, I knew that it was an, pardon the phrasing, abortion. It is typical of the modern political nature of the Congress and the Presidency, the worst aspects of all of it. It is a sycophantic and parasitic smootch on the hind-quarters of Big Insurance, Big Pharma and Big Medicene.

What was needed was a complete refit of the healthcare system in this country, what we have now is worse than nothing.

BUT, I still believe that when we resort to "justifying almost anything" as one can see in this thread, even to topple a menace like the ACA, we lose something precious and in woeful short supply in this country.

Buy you a drink though.

windword
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

ABS saves lives. Birth control pills do not.

This is a patently false claim.

HOWEVER, condoms do. And using a condom negates the need for birth control and morning after pills 99% of the time, while simultaneously preventing the spread of disease.

Oh, okay! Lets take all the responsibility off of the women and put ALL the responsibility, faith and trust in her male counterpart to do the right thing?

Do you understand what you're saying here? How many women are going to go for that logic?

I may be naive in love. I married my current wife of 20 years after dating her for around 4 months. From the beginning, all such decisions were something we both discussed and worked out together. It wasn't my burden, it wasn't hers. It was our decision to make, however, together. Since we were participating in it together.

Now, my base presumption here is that (excepting cases of rape), sex is typically an act consented between two adults. Right? If either party proceeds with the act, they both own the results. So "all the responsibility" goes on whoever chooses to participate.

What I am saying, and I fully realize it, is that everyone should be responsible for themselves. Personal accountability. Its lack is a large part of the array of issues facing the youth. Strangely enough, they are the ones most effected in this whole discussion.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Well, as a manager of a business (that has always provided insurance to our employees at a 17% cost in an industry that none of our competitors ever have) I am on board with the idea that Hobby Lobby is expressing here. Essentially, insurance is a part of our compensation package. We pay out of profits for it so that we can provide a compensation package that is competitive and attracts the kind of people that we want to work for us.

To have the government start requiring that we change our compensation package, which in our case was kind of a real bonus for our employees to begin with, that we have to offer specific services just pisses me off. Not that if effected what we offered. Its just that now we have 1 less choice we can make, and have lost leverage and bargaining power with talent (which is hard to bring into a small town).

China's national law executes mandatory abortions and birth control.

Hobby Lobby purchases the majority of its merchandise from China to ensure that maximum profits are extracted for the owners regardless of the effect it has on the American economy or the consumers that purchase goods there.

Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization.

Hobby Lobby is not a patriotic organization.

Hobby Lobby is also not David Green, and David Green is not Hobby Lobby.

David Green is typical of the ludicrously-moneyed class in this country that thinks the rules shouldn't apply to him because he waves his dollars and his bible around. He has no problem with "supporting abortion" or he wouldn't subsidizing the Chinese economy. He thinks that the American people are too stupid to see that his "bible based company" only exerts it's ethics when it's bottom line is in danger of a dip.

THEY BUY THEIR CRAP FROM CHINA!

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Your post is factually incorrect on multiple accounts.

Massachusetts Health Insurance of Boston offered early group policies with a relatively comprehensive list of benefits as early as 1847. Individual "health" plans became available in the US during the Civil War.(Source - History of Health Insurance)
(Source 2) (Source 3)

There are different kinds of health insurance plans with different levels of coverage available, certainly. This does not mean that each plan goes up with each and every choice of what is to be covered, as if one were ordering from a menu. There is always a scope of coverage that is basic to a given plan, other coverages are additional, and that is what is under contention in this discussion. (Source - How Health Insurance Works)

The ACA does provide means for coverage to be extended to as many people as possible. I don't mind going on record as saying that I think it does a monstrously poor job of doing so. Bring the troops home from the unconstitutional wars around the world, cash out the military-industrial complex, and use those trillion$ to offer comprehensive single payer insurance to every American citizen from the cradle to the grave.

NO implications of the ACA means that by purchasing an insurance plan from whatever source, an individual is personally subsidizing anyone else's health care costs.

That's merely specious.

edit on 17Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:57:46 -060014p052014266 by Gryphon66 because: Changed

That's quite incorrect. People used to be able to buy catastrophic health insurance plans that were very much cheaper than comprehensive plans and thus they had an inexpensive way of protecting themselves. Here they are explained: www.ehealthinsurance.com...
www.ibx4you.com...

You reduce your expense by paying for routine care out of pocket.

From your own links provided (I notice how you picked the only example that fit your claim, ignoring all of the rest.)

In the 1920s, most people still felt health insurance was not necessary and stayed with sickness insurance plans instead. In 1929, however, a group of Dallas-based teachers formed a partnership with an area hospital to provide a set amount of sickness and hospitalization days in exchange for a fixed, prepaid fee. Prepaid hospital service increased during the Depression, proving mutually beneficial during a difficult economy times.

Health insurance in the United States is a relatively new phenomenon. The first insurance plans began during the Civil War (1861-1865). The earliest ones only offered coverage against accidents related from travel by rail or steamboat.

Did you even read the links you cited? They clearly state that the first insurance plans covered unexpected and severe illness and injury, necessating hospitalization. It was comparable to a "catastrophic plan above." Routine care was still an out of pocket, fee for service, system. It wasn't until the wage freezes of WWII that comprehensive healthcare plans really took off. Employers could not used promise of higher wages to attract workers from a limited labor pool, but they could cover things like housing and healthcare. This is where comprehensive plans and tying healthcare to employment became the norm. Of course, there is no surprise that governmental regulation and interference caused this issue. Government is always making new laws to fix problems they started. We can thank FDR for the wage freeze.


Of course you subsidize others for healthcare under the ACA. The entire way to make the ACA feasible is to have as many low risk, healthy young people paying in to offset the cost of the sick and older people. The entire plan was designed this way and this is why there is a big push to get the young enrolled and this is why they are not happy that young people are not signing up.

•To work properly, an insurance risk pool needs a lot of young and healthy people enrolled to cancel out the higher cost of care for older and sicker people.
•Insurance offered under the Affordable Care Act charges young people higher prices, and this causes fewer young people to buy insurance.
•When fewer young people buy insurance, this makes the risk pools more unbalanced, and leads to even higher prices.
•This drives more young people away from the market and starts the vicious cycle over again.

informationstation.org...

Instead of being able to choose to have no insurance or a policy that only covers the unlikely event of illness or injury, young people are, under the ACA, forced to by comprehensive plans they don't need to balance the higher cost of the old and the sick and thus are forced to subsidize other people's care.

edit on 5-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


That's fine, if that's what you really meant, but it isn't what you said.

You said that birth control doesn't save lives, which is incorrect, and, you said that women don't NEED birth control because men can wear condoms.

I'm guessing that you don't have any dating age daughters.

Lost the post somehow. Oh well.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You know the ACA is not my idea of great legislation although there are some things I like about it when remembering what we had. There are many laws on the books I am completely against some which you and I may agree on. I feel the ACA is the direct result from a broken government that had refused to work together to find the middle ground. It was pushed through in lue of what had been proposed by its detractors which was nothing.

I do not support a repeal then replace mantra I would support a replace mantra. We always want to see something better but currently nothing of that nature has been presented. All we can do is work within the guidelines of what we have now until some bright individuals or group can find a better way.

Grimpachi
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You know the ACA is not my idea of great legislation although there are some things I like about it when remembering what we had. There are many laws on the books I am completely against some which you and I may agree on. I feel the ACA is the direct result from a broken government that had refused to work together to find the middle ground. It was pushed through in lue of what had been proposed by its detractors which was nothing.

I do not support a repeal then replace mantra I would support a replace mantra. We always want to see something better but currently nothing of that nature has been presented. All we can do is work within the guidelines of what we have now until some bright individuals or group can find a better way.

Like i keep saying: cut military spending in half, and you have enough to give the whole nation free healthcare. Well, as free as anything our taxes pay for.

windword
I'm guessing that you don't have any dating age daughters.

edit on 5-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

Well, i haven't killed any teen boys yet, have i? LOL. No, two sons. But the oldest is gay and is prone to calling himself our daughter. Does that count?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


HAHA! Nope! Not unless he can get "knocked up"!

nixie_nox

LewsTherinThelamon

grey580

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by grey580

 

Actually, by insinuating that a business is a "public place" you are implying that we all somehow, collectively, own every business in the US.

We don't.

It reminds me of when the smoking ban was enacted for businesses in Ohio. The mob was allowed to vote on whether or not business owners could allow smoking in their bars and restaurants.

If we can vote on such matters concerning privately owned businesses, then we can also vote on such matters for privately owned homes. If a business owner has to put up with the tyranny of the majority, then why not home owners?

I'm not insinuating. It's the law. You open a business then you must abide by city, county, state and federal law. I dare you to open a business and not follow any laws that apply to you. See how long you last.

The problem with cigarette smoke is that not only does it kill the people that smoke cigarettes. It kills on the average of 50K people a year that inhale second hand smoke. Personally I hated coming home from a club and smelling like an ash tray. So afaic it's a good move.

Now there are definite differences between a business that's open to the public and a private club that requires a membership. Not all rules apply.

I am sorry. I will forever disagree with you. The collective does not have any rights over another person's property. That's tyranny through and through. If people weren't insufferably whiny, many of them could have simply opened their own smoke-free bars/restaurants. But, instead, the borg thinks they are partial owners (and even if you do not think this, participating in voting to force a business owner to acquiesce to your demands means that you believe it) of all the businesses in the US and would rather use force to coerce people to do what they want.

That's called mob mentality. That's called tyranny of the majority, it's "two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner." Democracy sucks. That is why there were supposed to be things in our republic that people were not supposed to be allowed to vote on. Private property is one of those things. Even if an owner allows people into his business, that is a privilege on their part. They have no rights over his property.

People who cry about business owner's rights, are people who support rampant racism and discrimination and probably want Jim Crow laws to come back. Mainly libertarians, the supporters of the old white guys in charge, party.

Everyone's rights are equally important. That is extremely hateful of you to insinuate that I am racist simply because I think that, in all aspects of life, every human being should have the freedom to choose within the context of ownership and property. Property is a buffer from raging majorities and minorities. Property protects everyone.

You are just making yourself look as if you hate business owner's. That would also be a form of bigotry.

There is no reasonable correlation between libertarianism and "rampant racism and discrimination." You are attacking me. You are putting words in my mouth, and you are making the assumption that you know what nationality I hail from, which makes you doubly ignorant (my mother was Asian and my father was part native American).