Hobby Lobby tells Obamacare, "Go **** yourself"...

[Turd_Ferguson]

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby will not comply with a federal law that requires employee health care plans to provide insurance coverage for certain kinds of contraception that the firm's owners consider to be “abortion inducing drugs and devices,” an attorney for the company said Thursday.

With Wednesday's rejection of an emergency stay of that federal health care law by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Hobby Lobby and sister company Mardel could be subject to fines of up to $1.3 million a day beginning Jan. 1.
“They're not going to comply with the mandate,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty that is representing the company. “They're not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan.”
As for the potential fines, Duncan said, “We're just going to have to cross that bridge when we come it.”
The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby and Mardel, filed a lawsuit in September challenging part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. They said a provision dealing with insurance coverage for certain types of contraception — the morning-after pill, the week-after pill and some intrauterine devices — went against the family's beliefs. The Greens believe those types of contraception could cause abortions.
Duncan said the company will continue its legal battle in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://newsok.com/hobby-lobby-to-defy-federal-law-requiring-contraception-coverage-for-employees-attorney-says/article/3741050

Good on'm.

[Sooner5030]

Good for them....I'm not against it for religious reasons as I am not a puritan. I'm against taking selective care and pooling it like insurance. Buy your own f-ing BC.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

as the culture AND the economy spiral down. Good voting, America!!!

[XingTheRubicon]

Good for them....I'm not against it for religious reasons as I am not a puritan. I'm against taking selective care and pooling it like insurance. Buy your own f-ing BC.

.........Pretty much that................right there^^^^^^^^^

[XingTheRubicon]

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4469/sandraflukehypocrisypos.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/sandraflukehypocrisypos.jpg/)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4469/sandraflukehypocrisypos.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/sandraflukehypocrisypos.jpg/)is that Fluck?

[XingTheRubicon]

yup

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

She's pretty hawt looking. No wonder she spends $1000 a month for birth control.

[Midtowner]

They're privately owned, so they can do what they want and pay that $1.2MM/day fine. God knows the treasury needs the help.

[Turd_Ferguson]

They're privately owned, so they can do what they want and pay that $1.2MM/day fine. God knows the treasury needs the help.

Maybe they'll close their ****'n doors and add 17k+ to the unemployment line instead...

[soonercruiser]

is that Fluck?

Fluck, yes!
:fox:

[okie52]

Didn't the Catholics get around this...or was it just their hospitals?

[SCOUT]

They're privately owned, so they can do what they want and pay that $1.2MM/day fine. God knows the treasury needs the help.
They could unionize

[Sooner5030]

Didn't the Catholics get around this...or was it just their hospitals?

IIRC it depended on the employee....if you were a nurse working for a religious org you were subject to ACA.... if your primary duty is religious in nature then I think you are not subject to ACA.

Our resident JDs can correct me on this though.

[pphilfran]

If I am not mistaken you have to be non profit along with religious beliefs...I think....possibly...

[Turd_Ferguson]

Mercy Hospital employee insurance will NOT pay for BC...

[olevetonahill]

Mercy Hospital employee insurance will NOT pay for BC...

Aint there places that give Condoms away fer free?
What else ya need?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Aint there places that give Condoms away fer free?
What else ya need?

Don't know. My wife ain't got a youterruss, so I ain't got to worry bout it...

[olevetonahill]

Don't know. My wife ain't got a youterruss, so I ain't got to worry bout it...

But what about yer Girlfriend you Insensitive Clod.

[Turd_Ferguson]

But what about yer Girlfriend you Insensitive Clod.

I always boink her in hole #2...

[olevetonahill]

I always boink her in hole #2...

Well thats OK then.

[TitoMorelli]

is that Fluck?

Ever hear of Diana Fluck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Dors

British sex symbol of the 1950's-60's.



In the week of James Naughtie’s gaffe on the Today programme, it is amusing to recall — amusing to me, at any rate — a clanger of a rather similar sort that occurred many years ago at a church fete in Swindon. A former colleague of mine was present at the occasion and swore to me that the story was true.

It involves the actress Diana Dors, who was brought up in Swindon, where she is commemorated today in a saucy bronze sculpture, which was created in 1991 by John Clinch. It stands outside the cinema at Shaw Ridge Leisure Park.

Diana was Britain’s answer in her 1950s heyday to Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. And like the former Norma Jeane Baker and Vera Jayne Palmer, she had changed her name before making her bid for stardom. It is easy to see why she decided to do this, because she was born and brought up as Diana Fluck.

The vicar at the church fete was reminded of this before he mounted the podium to welcome the celebrity.

Thus it was that he was able to tell his audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I introduce to you our star guest. We all love her, especially as she is our local girl. I therefore feel it right to introduce her by her real name.

“Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the very lovely Miss Diana Clunt.”


http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/gray_matter/8726435.Vicar_s_Diana_Dors_clanger_at_the_church_f ete/?ref=rss

[sappstuf]

Didn't the Catholics get around this...or was it just their hospitals?

..


Obamacare could drive Little Sisters of the Poor out of the US

A religious order of nuns is concerned about its future presence in the United States because of Obamacare’s impact on its charitable operations. The Little Sisters of the Poor told The Daily Caller that it may not qualify for a long-term exemption from Obamacare’s healthcare mandate. The law requires the order to provide government-approved health insurance to its 300 sisters who tend to the elderly in 30 U.S. cities.

The exception is needed, said Sister Constance Carolyn Veit, the Little Sisters’ communications director, because Catholic teaching opposes contraception and medical treatments that cause sterility or can cause abortions.

President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul law requires employers to include those services in qualifying health care plans they provide for their employees. Failure to comply will bring hefty fines — even for religious orders whose members have taken vows of poverty.

“[I]t could be a serious threat to our mission in the U.S.,” Constance told TheDC, “because we would never be able to afford to pay the fines involved. We have difficulty making ends meet just on a regular basis; we have no extra funding that would cover these fines.”

The crux of the matter is a religious exemption that the federal government is expected to make available to Catholic churches, but not to other Catholic institutions.

That’s because unlike Catholic parishes and dioceses, the church’s many affiliated schools, charities, religious orders and hospitals don’t discriminate in their hiring or service, often employing staff — and serving people in need — who come from other Christian denominations or from other faiths entirely.

“We are not exempt from the [Obamacare] mandate because we neither serve nor employ a predominantly Catholic population,” Constance added. ”We hire employees and serve/house the elderly regardless of race and religion, so that makes us ineligible for the exemption being granted churches.”

Those employees, she said, number in the thousands.

“We employ about 100 employees per home; many of them receive their health insurance through us,” Constance explained. “So the financial burden with fines is not primarily for our own insurance coverage, but for theirs, a much bigger dollar amount.”

The one concession the Obama administration made to religious groups like hers was a one-year extension of time before they would be expected to provide their staff with health insurance that met with the White House’s approval. That extension will expire at the end of 2013, but the sisters have only a few weeks left to make their case for an exemption beyond the end of next year.

“We just cannot not say what will happen,” Constance told TheDC. “We are continuing to pray that our backs will not be up against the wall in 2014. If we are forced to make a decision, we will seek concrete direction from the U.S. bishops.”

The Little Sisters of the Poor take care of elderly patients in 31 countries, but on Dec. 16 a representative told the congregation of Saint Raymond of Peñafort Church in Springfield, Va., that her order could conceivably be forced to pull out of the United States if paying fines and penalties is the only alternative to compromising on the doctrines of their religion.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/19/obamacare-could-drive-little-sisters-of-the-poor-out-of-the-us/#ixzz2GJpAlXMt

Good on Obama for driving these Nuns out of this kind of business... They are worse than assault weapons.

[SCOUT]

Freedom of religion is superseded by the will of the government. Just how the framers laid it out.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They could unionize, and then get stimlus money.FI

[StoopTroup]

This will all work itself out in time.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

[Midtowner]

Freedom of religion is superseded by the will of the government. Just how the framers laid it out.

Actually no, neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Check out Employment Division v. Smith where the Supreme Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use."

In that case, peyote use was central to the Appellee's religion, but since the law applied to absolutely everyone and had a secular purpose, though there was an effect on free exercise, that didn't invalidate the law.

According to your view, I could go Rasta and start smoking marijuana right away. Johnny Law couldn't touch me. Of course I'd be wrong and quickly convicted of various narcotics related offenses. Tell me how Hobby Lobby's BC argument is any different?

[cleller]

Will Kanye West now stand up and proclaim: "Barack Obama does not care about religious people." ??

What a bunch of crap we've let this country endure. Kowtowing to whoever has the biggest mouth.

[Midtowner]

Will Kanye West now stand up and proclaim: "Barack Obama does not care about religious people." ??

What a bunch of crap we've let this country endure. Kowtowing to whoever has the biggest mouth.

Or maybe Obama cares more about not allowing employers to force their ancient and paternalistic views onto their employees. Frankly, Hobby Lobby wanting to spend millions of dollars to be able to get out of providing for their employees' birth control is a little creepy. Not to mention ignorant. Lots of women take BC for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

[cleller]

Or maybe Obama cares more about not allowing employers to force their ancient and paternalistic views onto their employees. Frankly, Hobby Lobby wanting to spend millions of dollars to be able to get out of providing for their employees' birth control is a little creepy. Not to mention ignorant. Lots of women take BC for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

Nah, Obama is the one that changed the rules without considering the religious liberty that is a sacred and long held standard of this country.
He's the one forcing his ideas, not Hobby Lobby. No one is preventing anyone access to these affordable things, Obama is forcing his view on others, while disregarding and outlawing their religious freedoms. He's no better than Benedict Arnold on this one.

[Midtowner]

Nah, Obama is the one that changed the rules without considering the religious liberty that is a sacred and long held standard of this country.

What religious liberty is that? The religious liberty of employers in purely secular, for-profit settings to opt out of paying for insurance benefits for their employees because they claim those benefits violate their religious liberties?

How 'bout they form the church of no Obamacare and exempt themselves from the whole bill?

Regardless, unless the SCOTUS changes the law, Employment Division vs. Smith is still controlling here.

[cleller]

Frankly, Hobby Lobby wanting to spend millions of dollars to be able to get out of providing for their employees' birth control is a little creepy.

Obama's "Government is your father" agenda is working very well if you think Hobby Lobby is the creepy one here. Hobby Lobby/Mart Green is just standing up to the government as opposed to weakly knuckling under to an overpowerful government's reach.

A couple hundred years ago Obama would have been out on a rail for these tactics, and Mart Green celebrated. Now, the roles are slowly reversing. That must be why you cannot recognize the religious liberty issue.


What religious liberty is that? The religious liberty of employers in purely secular, for-profit settings to opt out of paying for insurance benefits for their employees because they claim those benefits violate their religious liberties?

How 'bout they form the church of no Obamacare and exempt themselves from the whole bill?

Regardless, unless the SCOTUS changes the law, Employment Division vs. Smith is still controlling here.

Look, if you can't step back and see that the government telling a man that he MUST do something that runs counter to his religious beliefs does not fly in the face of our country's history of religious freedom, its already too late. Hopeless, you've been assimilated.

This is Mr. Green's company. He will be the one paying. No legal twisting will change that in his mind. Trying to lay the blame off on the Supreme Court or anyone else doesn't fly. Its called Obamacare for a reason.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What religious liberty is that? The religious liberty of employers in purely secular, for-profit settings to opt out of paying for insurance benefits for their employees because they claim those benefits violate their religious liberties?

How 'bout they form the church of no Obamacare and exempt themselves from the whole bill?

Regardless, unless the SCOTUS changes the law, Employment Division vs. Smith is still controlling here.

Say's the guy that won't provide insurance for his own employees...

[Midtowner]

This is Mr. Green's company. He will be the one paying. No legal twisting will change that in his mind. Trying to lay the blame off on the Supreme Court or anyone else doesn't fly. Its called Obamacare for a reason.

Companies have to obey employment laws or face consequences. If Mr. Green is content to pay $1.7MM per day, I guess that's up to him. Telling someone they have to do something directly ain't the same as requiring them to pay for insurance which is in turn required to cover certain things. It's a very indirect complaint he has. It'd be just the same as refusing to pay taxes because the feds give grants to Planned Parenthood. See how far that argument would fly.

[olevetonahill]

Or maybe Obama cares more about not allowing employers to force their ancient and paternalistic views onto their employees. Frankly, Hobby Lobby wanting to spend millions of dollars to be able to get out of providing for their employees' birth control is a little creepy. Not to mention ignorant. Lots of women take BC for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

Are you really this ****in THICK?

So yer sayin Mr wonderful is Protecting the innocent worker from an employer FORCING his views on said Worker By FORCING His views on the Employer? THICK .

As for this tired old argument of "LOTS OF WOMEN TAKE BC FOR REASONS OTHER" Why dont you trot out one of yer Home made Charts and Graphs and show us just what percentage is what?

Full Retard Bro You has it.

[cleller]

Companies have to obey employment laws or face consequences. If Mr. Green is content to pay $1.7MM per day, I guess that's up to him. Telling someone they have to do something directly ain't the same as requiring them to pay for insurance which is in turn required to cover certain things. It's a very indirect complaint he has. It'd be just the same as refusing to pay taxes because the feds give grants to Planned Parenthood. See how far that argument would fly.

Like I said, Obama is the one that changed the rules. Green is not griping about paying for the insurance, its the new tenets Obama has mandated.
Give me liberty or give me death probably sounds creepy too.

[Soonerjeepman]

Telling someone they have to do something directly ain't the same as requiring them to pay for insurance which is in turn required to cover certain things. It's a very indirect complaint he has.

seriously? HE IS DIRECTLY TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO HAVE bc/abortion IN THE PLAN...dude aren't you a lawyer? good grief, you just contradicted yourself.

You have really "drank the koolaide" as you libs like to say. Talk about gov control.

[diverdog]

Like I said, Obama is the one that changed the rules. Green is not griping about paying for the insurance, its the new tenets Obama has mandated.
Give me liberty or give me death probably sounds creepy too.

Does anyone know what percentage of HL workers are covered under their health care plan?

[KantoSooner]

It's the law until changed. And, especially in purely business/for profit settings, there is no reason anyone should get a pass to ignore or contravene a law. Even priests on their way to comfort the sick are not allowed to drive 150 mph in school zones while chugging (sacramental) wine.
This requirement is one of coverage, not of use. It protects employees of Mr. Green's who may not share all of his religious beliefs. Considering that his company is a fully for-profit operation and not a religious institution, it is impossible to impose religious tests on prospective employees, so some heathens may escape his steely glare and actually gain employment there.
For anyone offended by BC or vaccination or medical care in general (after all, isn't it the Lord's will whether we live or die? Why bother with unholy science and medicine at all? It's a waste of money that could be better spent spreading the good word. Catch bubonic plague? Fall from a ten story building, bouncing off awnings on your way down? Just curl up in the corner and pray that pain away!), the solution is simple: don't use what offends you.

The fact that pickled beets are available on a buffet line that I've paid good money for does NOT in any way oblige me to eat them. The principle is the same and the ultimate importance of Mr. Green's charmingly primitive take on his fairth is likewise about as important.

I am interested to see how long they continue to pay the fine. Render unto Caesar and so forth, but I've noted that, when it comes to money, our born again brethren tend to have breathtakingly Wall Street-ish views. My bet? He doesn't make six weeks before he's 'given guidance' from a 'pastor' who works out a way in which he can back down. I'll be amused to read the tortured rationale.

[XingTheRubicon]

Does anyone know what percentage of HL workers are covered under their health care plan?

Curious as well....

[diverdog]

It's the law until changed. And, especially in purely business/for profit settings, there is no reason anyone should get a pass to ignore or contravene a law. Even priests on their way to comfort the sick are not allowed to drive 150 mph in school zones while chugging (sacramental) wine.
This requirement is one of coverage, not of use. It protects employees of Mr. Green's who may not share all of his religious beliefs. Considering that his company is a fully for-profit operation and not a religious institution, it is impossible to impose religious tests on prospective employees, so some heathens may escape his steely glare and actually gain employment there.
For anyone offended by BC or vaccination or medical care in general (after all, isn't it the Lord's will whether we live or die? Why bother with unholy science and medicine at all? It's a waste of money that could be better spent spreading the good word. Catch bubonic plague? Fall from a ten story building, bouncing off awnings on your way down? Just curl up in the corner and pray that pain away!), the solution is simple: don't use what offends you.

The fact that pickled beets are available on a buffet line that I've paid good money for does NOT in any way oblige me to eat them. The principle is the same and the ultimate importance of Mr. Green's charmingly primitive take on his fairth is likewise about as important.

I am interested to see how long they continue to pay the fine. Render unto Caesar and so forth, but I've noted that, when it comes to money, our born again brethren tend to have breathtakingly Wall Street-ish views. My bet? He doesn't make six weeks before he's 'given guidance' from a 'pastor' who works out a way in which he can back down. I'll be amused to read the tortured rationale.

Pure genius! I stand in awe once again.

[Soonerjeepman]

Don't believe HL has said none of his employees can use BC...did they? If HL provides insurance then they do not want to pay for that part. I'm amazed that you know what his thoughts are. Honestly, the company doesn't open on Sundays for a reason. Nice of you to lump anyone with opposing views as someone against medical care, science, etc.

How about all his employees pay for a portion of their coverage themselves. That will allow them to receive bc coverage and HL off the hook for paying for it. Seems reasonable to me. problem is it ISN'T a CHOICE. The gov is forcing them to do it. Again, for you guys against any gov control into personal lives you sure jump on this one.

[Midtowner]

Are you really this ****in THICK?

Can you state your case without being such a jackass about it?


So yer sayin Mr wonderful is Protecting the innocent worker from an employer FORCING his views on said Worker By FORCING His views on the Employer? THICK .

Yep. Under Mr. Green's rule, employers who subscribe to the Christian Science religion could simply state that forcing them to pay for ANY medical care would be a sin. I'm sure you'd see quite a few conversions of CEOs. [/quote]


As for this tired old argument of "LOTS OF WOMEN TAKE BC FOR REASONS OTHER" Why dont you trot out one of yer Home made Charts and Graphs and show us just what percentage is what?

From WebMD (you could have found this if you were only a little bit inquisitive):


WebMD Feature from "Redbook" Magazine
By Janis Graham

The Pill isn't just for birth control: Did you know that it can also protect against certain life-threatening cancers, plus help relieve some painful period symptoms? Here, experts explain the top seven health benefits of taking the Pill and how to make them work for you.

Pill perk #1: Lower cancer risk

Taking oral contraceptives (OCs) can slash your risk for both endometrial and ovarian cancer by more than 70 percent after 12 years; even just one to five years may lower your risk by 40 percent. They work by reducing the number of times you ovulate in your lifetime: Ovulation may trigger cell changes in the ovaries that can lead to cancer. If you're worried about using the Pill for too long, relax. "You can safely take the Pill for 20 years or more," says Stephanie Teal, M.D., director of family planning at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Barring health issues, the only reason to stop is if you want to get pregnant.

Pill perk #2: Clearer skin

Estrogen - the female hormone found in most OCs - helps clear your skin by decreasing levels of testosterone, a male hormone that stimulates oil production. Although Ortho Tri-Cyclen is often used to treat acne, many pills, such as Yasmin or Desogen, can banish blemishes. You'll likely see results within a couple of months.

Pill perk #3: Lighter, less painful periods

When you're on the Pill, you don't ovulate, so your uterine lining doesn't build up as much. In fact, you don't have a true "period" during the placebo phase - just withdrawal bleeding, in which your uterine lining breaks down in response to the drop in hormones. So most OC takers bleed less for a shorter time, and have little or no cramping. If you want an even lighter flow, ask your doctor about Seasonique, a new pill that gives you four periods a year and helps reduce period length to three days on average.

Pill perk #4: PMS relief

Hormonal shifts during the second half of your cycle are the main cause of PMS symptoms. The Pill can provide relief by steadying hormones, but different symptoms require different pills. If breast tenderness is your complaint, an OC that is lower in estrogen (such as Mircette) is your best bet. If you want to beat bloating, try a pill (such as Yasmin or Yaz) with drospirenone, a progestin shown to help prevent fluid retention. "Use the Pill for three to four months to see if it provides the relief you're looking for," says Pelin Batur, M.D., a women's health specialist at the Cleveland Clinic Independence Family Health Center.

Pill perk #5: Endometriosis relief

Endometriosis, a condition in which uterine-lining tissue grows in other pelvic areas, can lead to scarring, severe pain, and sometimes infertility. The Pill stops the growth of tissue in other areas by reducing the hormones that cause the lining to build up.

Pill perk #6: Fewer periods

Women on the Pill can reschedule their period so it doesn't come at inconvenient times. To do so, make sure you're on a monophasic formula, which contains pills in only two different colors: one for the active pills and one for the placebos. You simply keep taking active pills (typically up to three months) and switch to placebos when you're ready to menstruate. "I often prescribe an extra pack of pills," says Teal, "so a woman can dip into her spare to postpone a period."

Pill perk #7: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) relief

This isn't the first time I've shown you this list. You ought to lay off the full retard comments when you can't remember basic facts which have been presented to you over and over again. Just accept the basic biology lesson you just received and go on your merry way.

I'd also take a look at these statistics if you're anti-abortion:


Despite the availability of contraception, over two in five women in the United States forgo any form of protection during sex, says a new survey, possibly because they misjudge how likely they are to get pregnant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/birth-control-study-over-2-in-5-women-dont-use-contraception_n_1904802.html

While BC pills can't stop stupid, they can prevent unwanted pregnancy. When more women have access to BC, fewer abortions will happen. That's predictive, so not testable, but there's a strong enough correlation there. As far as your request for statistics showing the % of folks using BC while not being sexually active, again, you should learn how to use Google, this was easily found:


Many women are popping the pill for more than its pregnancy-prevention benefit, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute. The study finds 33 percent of U.S. teens and 14 percent of all U.S. women taking the oral contraceptive are doing so solely to treat menstrual cramps or for another purpose not related to birth control.

http://www.livescience.com/17061-oral-contraceptive-pill-guttmacher-survey.html

You could just do your own research on these things, but as usual, you don't have the facts on your side. Keep livin' in your bubble though, all impervious to facts and books and stuff.

[Midtowner]

Don't believe HL has said none of his employees can use BC...did they? If HL provides insurance then they do not want to pay for that part. I'm amazed that you know what his thoughts are. Honestly, the company doesn't open on Sundays for a reason. Nice of you to lump anyone with opposing views as someone against medical care, science, etc.

How about all his employees pay for a portion of their coverage themselves. That will allow them to receive bc coverage and HL off the hook for paying for it. Seems reasonable to me. problem is it ISN'T a CHOICE. The gov is forcing them to do it. Again, for you guys against any gov control into personal lives you sure jump on this one.

But he's not paying for BC. He's paying for insurance and the insurance company is mandated to cover BC.

I have strong questions as to whether Green even has standing here as I don't think he can demonstrate any way in which he has even been harmed.

[okie52]

But he's not paying for BC. He's paying for insurance and the insurance company is mandated to cover BC.

I have strong questions as to whether Green even has standing here as I don't think he can demonstrate any way in which he has even been harmed.

If an employer provides no insurance coverage at all what would his fine be? Seems like individuals that don't provide their own health insurance are subject to a $2500 fine but I don't know what it would be for employers.

[Midtowner]

If an employer provides no insurance coverage at all what would his fine be? Seems like individuals that don't provide their own health insurance are subject to a $2500 fine but I don't know what it would be for employers.

I honestly have no idea. Like olevet, I suggest you do your own research and get back to us.

[okie52]

I honestly have no idea. Like olevet, I suggest you do your own research and get back to us.

Too lazy for that and not that interested.

[badger]

Since they pretty much bailed out Oral Roberts University, perhaps they can make Hobby Lobby part of ORU's business college to declare non-profit status, give themselves CEO-level salaries within the university and... wait, that's what got ORU in trouble in the first place.

I'm not sure there's any other way around this though. Either find a way to make your business non-profit or be beholden to the government.

I remember a religious radio station back in Wisconsin used to have to run political ads for national candidates (president, U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives) even if the station didn't want to, or the views conflicted with the station's Christian beliefs. So, it went non-profit and didn't have to run ads like that anymore.

[olevetonahill]

Can you state your case without being such a jackass about it?



Yep. Under Mr. Green's rule, employers who subscribe to the Christian Science religion could simply state that forcing them to pay for ANY medical care would be a sin. I'm sure you'd see quite a few conversions of CEOs.



From WebMD (you could have found this if you were only a little bit inquisitive):



This isn't the first time I've shown you this list. You ought to lay off the full retard comments when you can't remember basic facts which have been presented to you over and over again. Just accept the basic biology lesson you just received and go on your merry way.

I'd also take a look at these statistics if you're anti-abortion:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/birth-control-study-over-2-in-5-women-dont-use-contraception_n_1904802.html

While BC pills can't stop stupid, they can prevent unwanted pregnancy. When more women have access to BC, fewer abortions will happen. That's predictive, so not testable, but there's a strong enough correlation there. As far as your request for statistics showing the % of folks using BC while not being sexually active, again, you should learn how to use Google, this was easily found:



http://www.livescience.com/17061-oral-contraceptive-pill-guttmacher-survey.html

You could just do your own research on these things, but as usual, you don't have the facts on your side. Keep livin' in your bubble though, all impervious to facts and books and stuff.[/QUOTE]

You may have blubbered yer "Facts" to some one else. But Yer still a Full Blown Retard

http://www.ozfashion.com.au/images/uploads/Patches/Patch%20Dazzle%20Brilliance.jpg

[sappstuf]

Can you state your case without being such a jackass about it?



Yep. Under Mr. Green's rule, employers who subscribe to the Christian Science religion could simply state that forcing them to pay for ANY medical care would be a sin. I'm sure you'd see quite a few conversions of CEOs.



From WebMD (you could have found this if you were only a little bit inquisitive):



This isn't the first time I've shown you this list. You ought to lay off the full retard comments when you can't remember basic facts which have been presented to you over and over again. Just accept the basic biology lesson you just received and go on your merry way.

I'd also take a look at these statistics if you're anti-abortion:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/birth-control-study-over-2-in-5-women-dont-use-contraception_n_1904802.html

While BC pills can't stop stupid, they can prevent unwanted pregnancy. When more women have access to BC, fewer abortions will happen. That's predictive, so not testable, but there's a strong enough correlation there. As far as your request for statistics showing the % of folks using BC while not being sexually active, again, you should learn how to use Google, this was easily found:



http://www.livescience.com/17061-oral-contraceptive-pill-guttmacher-survey.html

You could just do your own research on these things, but as usual, you don't have the facts on your side. Keep livin' in your bubble though, all impervious to facts and books and stuff.

Per the CDC in 2009..


Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 99 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method in their lifetime.

Women who accidently got pregnant were asked why:

44% - Didn't think they could get pregnant.
23% - Didn't mind if they got pregnant.
14% - Didn't plan on having sex
16% - Worried about side effects of birth control

That is 97% right there. Access is not listed anywhere.

In another words, access to contraceptives is not an issue.... At all. This portion of Obamacare is an answer searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

[badger]

Wouldn't it be something if the federal government enforces this law but continues to ignore enforcement of its pot smoking laws?

[Midtowner]

In another words, access to contraceptives is not an issue.... At all. This portion of Obamacare is an answer searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

You're not even arguing the same thing Green is. No one is suggesting that women absent insurance coverage won't have access to BC, that's an issue nowhere. The question is who pays and why BC should be treated any differently than diabetes meds.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Don't believe HL has said none of his employees can use BC...did they? If HL provides insurance then they do not want to pay for that part. I'm amazed that you know what his thoughts are. Honestly, the company doesn't open on Sundays for a reason. Nice of you to lump anyone with opposing views as someone against medical care, science, etc.

How about all his employees pay for a portion of their coverage themselves. That will allow them to receive bc coverage and HL off the hook for paying for it. Seems reasonable to me. problem is it ISN'T a CHOICE. The gov is forcing them to do it. Again, for you guys against any gov control into personal lives you sure jump on this one.

Wow, that's great news jeepman! I presently pay 1/3 of my family's health insurance costs with my company paying 2/3. I didn't know the gov't will make companies pay for all of it! That's a huge windfall for me!

[okie52]

Wouldn't it be something if the federal government enforces this law but continues to ignore enforcement of its pot smoking laws?

Or continues to allow 12,000,000 illegals benefits and residency in the US?

[Midtowner]

You may have blubbered yer "Facts" to some one else. But Yer still a Full Blown Retard

You asked for facts and there they are. Quit yer bitchin.

[olevetonahill]

You asked for facts and there they are. Quit yer bitchin.

And again Yer wrong as usual . I simply asked you for the Percentage of women who use BC that do so strictly for "Other" reasons. But dont let a simple question stand in the way of you Going Full Gas bag on us.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Let's see. How can I insert the issue of illegal immigration into yet one more thread?...

[olevetonahill]

...

He dint say anything at all about yer Outlaw In-laws.

[badger]

Let's see. How can I insert the issue of illegal immigration into yet one more thread?
It kind of fits though, doesn't it?

Will the federal government enforce some of its laws while ignoring some of its other laws?

Or perhaps, Hobby Lobby is calling the government's bluff, much like illegal immigrants have for decades?

[Midtowner]

And again Yer wrong as usual . I simply asked you for the Percentage of women who use BC that do so strictly for "Other" reasons. But dont let a simple question stand in the way of you Going Full Gas bag on us.

Go reread my post. I gave you that number. 33% of teens and 14% of adults.

You have literacy problems now too to go along with your lack of research skills?

[Midtowner]

It kind of fits though, doesn't it?

Will the federal government enforce some of its laws while ignoring some of its other laws?

Or perhaps, Hobby Lobby is calling the government's bluff, much like illegal immigrants have for decades?

12 million people who are going to end up influencing a major centrist voting block make a much less popular target than a company which donates millions of dollars to your political opposition and has taken affirmative steps to attempt to dismantle the President's most important accomplishment.

How absurd it is to simply state that it is against my religion to follow labor laws. Say I belong to a church where women are not allowed to work, so I only hire men? How horrible for the government to FORCE me to not discriminate against women?

Green's argument is falling on its face because it's absolutely absurd.

[olevetonahill]

Go reread my post. I gave you that number. 33% of teens and 14% of adults.

You have literacy problems now too to go along with your lack of research skills?

Not really, I just dont read every thing you Post, I ask a simple question and you go off like a North Korean Rocket on every subject that even remotely has anything to do with what I asked. Im pretty much just gonna ignore yer Full Retard Gas bag reply's.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

He dint say anything at all about yer Outlaw In-laws.

2012 was a good year. Three of my in-laws became U.S. citizens and one got her green card.

[badger]

Go reread my post. I gave you that number. 33% of teens and 14% of adults.

You have literacy problems now too to go along with your lack of research skills?
Goodness there's a lot of negativity on this board here today. It's the holidays. Lighten up. :)

As for BC, unless you're practicing abstinence or using condoms, you usually need a prescription to get pills. With that in mind, the doctor should be able to follow your insurance's guidelines if you ask, or if there's any question to what the BC will be used for, check medical records for why it was prescribed.

[olevetonahill]

2012 was a good year. Three of my in-laws became U.S. citizens and one got her green card.

tell em Grats, whats the leave another 28 to go?:D

[okie52]

...

Now Juan, I thought you were getting better about this. HL will be punished for disobeying the law. Illegals and their offspring will be rewarded for disobeying the law. Not that hard to follow.

[okie52]

2012 was a good year. Three of my in-laws became U.S. citizens and one got her green card.

Congrats...how long were they in the country illegally?

[OU_Sooners75]

Say's the guy that won't provide insurance for his own employees...

Wouldn't he really have to have a business to have employees?

Midtowner is too feeble and dependent thinking to be a business man, let alone an attorney.

[cleller]

Now Juan, I thought you were getting better about this. HL will be punished for disobeying the law. Illegals and their offspring will be rewarded for disobeying the law. Not that hard to follow.

HL has assets. That always gets the Feds' attention. Its the lessor known version of the Haves and Have Nots.

[okie52]

HL has assets. That always gets the Feds' attention. Its the lessor know version of the Haves and Have Nots.

Employers of illegals have assets....

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Now Juan, I thought you were getting better about this. HL will be punished for disobeying the law. Illegals and their offspring will be rewarded for disobeying the law. Not that hard to follow.

409,849 aliens were deported in fiscal 2012, a record number.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Congrats...how long were they in the country illegally?

As if you're not as pissed about those who come legally.

[okie52]

409,849 aliens were deported in fiscal 2012, a record number.

Not near enough...Hussein had to tone that down to just deport criminals.

[okie52]

As if you're not as pissed about those who come legally.

I'm good with the 600,000 LEGAL IMMIGRANTS we grant citizenship to each year...of course they represent a broad spectrum of cultures and nationalities, they all speak English and are usually highly skilled labor and/or are very educated...does that sound like the 12,000,000 illegals we have here?

[Midtowner]

Not really, I just dont read every thing you Post, I ask a simple question and you go off like a North Korean Rocket on every subject that even remotely has anything to do with what I asked. Im pretty much just gonna ignore yer Full Retard Gas bag reply's.

Ah iggy.. the coward's way out. You asked questions and I answered them and you're still crying about it.

[SCOUT]

Actually no, neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Check out Employment Division v. Smith where the Supreme Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use."

In that case, peyote use was central to the Appellee's religion, but since the law applied to absolutely everyone and had a secular purpose, though there was an effect on free exercise, that didn't invalidate the law.

According to your view, I could go Rasta and start smoking marijuana right away. Johnny Law couldn't touch me. Of course I'd be wrong and quickly convicted of various narcotics related offenses. Tell me how Hobby Lobby's BC argument is any different?


Compelling someone to do something against their religion doesn't exactly correlate, but you knew that.

[badger]

Compelling someone to do something against their religion doesn't exactly correlate, but you knew that.

Well, we aren't Egypt yet, and I hope we never are... we're not heading in that direction with sh!t like this, are we?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I'm good with the 600,000 LEGAL IMMIGRANTS we grant citizenship to each year...of course they represent a broad spectrum of cultures and nationalities, they all speak English and are usually highly skilled labor and/or are very educated...does that sound like the 12,000,000 illegals we have here?

Well that's good to hear. If I have 28 more in-laws, that's well under 600,000.

[Midtowner]

Compelling someone to do something against their religion doesn't exactly correlate, but you knew that.

So do you think Christian Scientists should be exempt from paying for healthcare altogether?

Do you think radical Muslims should be allowed to not hire women because they don't think they should work?

Do you think Christians who believe in domestic discipline should be allowed to beat their wives and children because the Bible tells them to?

Sorry, no. If you run a for-profit business or exist in this society, you have to follow laws.

That aside, the morning after pill does not induce an abortion.

That aside, birth control pills have many other uses not related to preventing pregnancy.

That aside, Mr. Green will not be directly paying for anything against his religion.

Unless the law is changed, it will stand. The law's purpose is secular. It is generally applicable and does not discriminate against religion.

[okie52]

Well that's good to here. If I have 28 more in-laws, that's well under 600,000.

They're probably a lock, juan...that family reunification will get them to the front of the line. Could throw in your migrant workers class for good measure.

[Midtowner]

Well, we aren't Egypt yet, and I hope we never are... we're not heading in that direction with sh!t like this, are we?

Who knows wtf Egypt is right now...

That said, a Theocracy we ain't. Congress can't compel you to do something because it's in the Bible. They can, however, tell you that murdering and stealing is against the law. Though that's in the Bible, the reasons we don't allow murder and stealing have nothing to do with the 10 Commandments.

[SCOUT]

So do you think Christian Scientists should be exempt from paying for healthcare altogether?

Do you think radical Muslims should be allowed to not hire women because they don't think they should work?

Do you think Christians who believe in domestic discipline should be allowed to beat their wives and children because the Bible tells them to?

Sorry, no. If you run a for-profit business or exist in this society, you have to follow laws.

That aside, the morning after pill does not induce an abortion.

That aside, birth control pills have many other uses not related to preventing pregnancy.

That aside, Mr. Green will not be directly paying for anything against his religion.

Unless the law is changed, it will stand. The law's purpose is secular. It is generally applicable and does not discriminate against religion.
Let me help you out. No, I don't think Christian Scientists should be compelled to pay for healthcare if they don't want it. I also don't think Muslims should be compelled to hire a woman. My complaint is the force of action.

Do you think Synagogues should be forced to serve bacon? I mean Christians may visit and might want some.

[badger]

Goodness there's a lot of negativity on this board here today. It's the holidays. Lighten up. :)

To clarify: I cannot force anyone here to lighten up. The "MODADOR" tag is a sham, and I only have that status on the vBookie board so that I can post vBookie events, duties that I have mostly neglected since becoming a mom 9 months ago.

Please lighten up all of you and remember that its the holidays and that message boards should be fun for everyone... but also understand that there will be no recourse from me if you don't continue to not be merry and get angry.

In addition, I will not be doling out any punishments for anyone that offends anyone else, myself included. The worst I can do is hijack a thread with videos and photos, which some tell me I am very good at. I can also type fast, so I can bog down posts with tons of words.

If you want me to do any of those, **** off :P

[SoonerAtKU]

Can I ask a potentially ignorant question? My understanding is this: the new law requires that insurance companies cover certain forms of birth control in some fashion. Do we know if there are restrictions on how much it can cost or what percentage must be covered by that insurer? If there is some wiggle room, couldn't Hobby Lobby select an insurance provider that makes their BC provisions prohibitively expensive? If that's the case, then Hobby Lobby's gripe should be with the insurers who haven't come up with an alternate plan offering to cater to these niche customers who want this specialized service.

On the subject of Birth Control, I'm in complete disagreement with any religious argument, but if someone wants to front me some start-up cash, I'll incorporate and insure all of those who want BC to be $1000 a pill. They'll be paid up, they'll save some money by complying with ACA, and I get to rake in those sweet fundamental premiums. I promise I can put on a tie and wear a cross if you pay me enough.

[SoonerAtKU]

Let me help you out. No, I don't think Christian Scientists should be compelled to pay for healthcare if they don't want it. I also don't think Muslims should be compelled to hire a woman. My complaint is the force of action.

Do you think Synagogues should be forced to serve bacon? I mean Christians may visit and might want some.

Does bacon save lives? I submit that it might, therefore, I'm in agreement!

[badger]

Can I ask a potentially ignorant question? My understanding is this: the new law requires that insurance companies cover certain forms of birth control in some fashion. Do we know if there are restrictions on how much it can cost or what percentage must be covered by that insurer? If there is some wiggle room, couldn't Hobby Lobby select an insurance provider that makes their BC provisions prohibitively expensive? If that's the case, then Hobby Lobby's gripe should be with the insurers who haven't come up with an alternate plan offering to cater to these niche customers who want this specialized service.

You might be on to something, where Hobby Lobby offers multiple plans:

Plan A: Everything except for "abortion" BC covered, low co-pays, very affordable.
Plan B: Everything including "abortion" BC covered, high co-pays, eats up most of your paycheck, if not all and then some, especially if you're covering your family too.

Offering it, but highly discouraging it. Sounds like the free will that God offered Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden... but we all know how that one turned out :(

[Midtowner]

Do you think Synagogues should be forced to serve bacon?

Can you make up a law which doesn't have the purpose of religious discrimination or regulation and is generally applicable and would also pass rational basis review? I sure as heck can't.

If we had a law stating "All synagogues must serve bacon." That'd clearly be a law tailored to regulate or discriminate against a particular religion. Even if you said "All places of worship have to serve bacon," that'd still be a law with the purpose of regulating religious practice and not generally applicable.

So how about a more generally applicable law "All facilities open to the public must serve bacon." The law still has to pass rational basis review and if the egg and sausage producers sued and said they were being discriminated against and their sales were going down because of the prominence of bacon, they'd win because there's no legitimate governmental interest here.

This only goes to show that you really don't understand your own opinion and ought to do a little more research.

[Midtowner]

couldn't Hobby Lobby select an insurance provider that makes their BC provisions prohibitively expensive?

Nope. All insurance companies are going to be (or maybe already are) required to cover BC.

And that's one place Green's argument fails. He's buying insurance. It's the insurance company which would be spending money on BC, not Green.

[SCOUT]

Can you make up a law which doesn't have the purpose of religious discrimination or regulation and is generally applicable and would also pass rational basis review? I sure as heck can't.

If we had a law stating "All synagogues must serve bacon." That'd clearly be a law tailored to regulate or discriminate against a particular religion. Even if you said "All places of worship have to serve bacon," that'd still be a law with the purpose of regulating religious practice and not generally applicable.

So how about a more generally applicable law "All facilities open to the public must serve bacon." The law still has to pass rational basis review and if the egg and sausage producers sued and said they were being discriminated against and their sales were going down because of the prominence of bacon, they'd win because there's no legitimate governmental interest here.

This only goes to show that you really don't understand your own opinion and ought to do a little more research.
Since Badger has asked us to be nice, I will be.


However I can't ignore this gem. "That'd clearly be a law tailored to regulate or discriminate against a particular religion." Why cant that same claim be made about Catholics and birth control?

Snarky comment snarky comment.

[Midtowner]

Why cant that same claim be made about Catholics and birth control?

Easy. It's a law of general applicability.

Constitutional Law 101 stuff.

[SoonerAtKU]

Nope. All insurance companies are going to be (or maybe already are) required to cover BC.

And that's one place Green's argument fails. He's buying insurance. It's the insurance company which would be spending money on BC, not Green.

Oh no, I'm aware, I just don't know what the requirements are for the level and type of coverage. Do they have to provide a certain pill at a certain cost, or certain procedures with a certain %age of coverage?

[badger]

Since Badger has asked us to be nice, I will be.


However I can't ignore this gem. "That'd clearly be a law tailored to regulate or discriminate against a particular religion." Why cant that same claim be made about Catholics and birth control?

Snarky comment snarky comment.

This is really a touchy subject, so I appreciate your cordiality :)

This law is starting to tread on really shaky ground when it comes to freedom of religion. Government wants to be able to stick its nose where it can, and most can agree that it should have the right to regulate things that benefit from government programs.

But what about churches, and their hospitals and child care centers? They're tax-exempt.

But, they're non-profit, so they get a pass, right?

But they rake in so much money (as the stereotype goes).

It's a very tricky road to navigate.

[Midtowner]

Oh no, I'm aware, I just don't know what the requirements are for the level and type of coverage. Do they have to provide a certain pill at a certain cost, or certain procedures with a certain %age of coverage?

Just guessing, but I would assume if the care is mandated, they can't make copays any different than they would for any other type of coverage. The only way I imagine they could wire around anything is to make copays for all meds something like $35, which is more than you'd pay if you just paid cash for ordinary BC pills. That wouldn't work though if someone wanted to use an IUD or Depo shot or something along those lines.

[KantoSooner]

Do you think Synagogues should be forced to serve bacon? I mean Christians may visit and might want some.

No, but both Muslims and Jews are required to pay taxes, and some of those taxes go to the Dept of Agriculture and part of THEIR expenditures are in support of swine raising research and promoting consumption and sales of pork products (including the Holy Meat, Bacon, hallowed be its name, now and forever, world without end). THUS, if one wished to be as assinine as Mr. Green, one could make an argument identical to his stating a religiously based refusal to pay income tax on the basis that your taxes were going to forward and promote a practice (pork eating) that was anathema to your religion.

And guess just what your odds of success would be when the gentlemen from the IRS came calling? About what Mr. Green's are in the instant case.

[okie52]

The Employer Mandate
ObamaCare’s employer mandate is among the new laws most anti-growth provisions. When implemented, it will force most American businesses to offer government-approved health insurance to their employees or else pay new federal taxes for not doing so. This costly new requirement will make it more expensive for firms to hire workers in the future. Consequently, it will destroy jobs, and many firms are likely to slow down on hiring in anticipation of its implementation.

“Free-Rider” Provision

ObamaCare does not impose a straight-forward requirement that employers offer health insurance to workers. Proponents of the new law wanted to avoid the charge that the new law was directly imposing new costs on American business. So, instead, they created a back-door mandate, what they call the “free-rider” provision.

If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)

The tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will bring in approximately $10 billion in annual revenue once it’s fully implemented.

Penalties For Failure To Insure

For firms which do not offer insurance any insurance, have more than 50 employees, and have at least one employee receiving insurance subsidies, they must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The tax is applied to all of a firm’s employees (after excluding the first 30), not just those that are subsidized. For example a firm with 51 employees would pay $42,000 in new annual taxes, and an additional $2,000 tax for every new hire.

For firms that do offer insurance, the penalty is the lesser of $2,000 for every employee (after exempting the first 30) or $3,000) for every employee receiving a subsidy.

The National Federation of Independent Business has a clear and informative table which examines the taxes assessed under different scenarios here.

Disincentives to Hire

ObamaCare’s employer mandate will discourage business development and growth. Small firms with 50 or fewer workers will have very strong disincentives to expand. These businesses can avoid the new penalties by staying small; growth will simply add new costs and burdens. Many businesses with low profit margins are unable to pay the substantial cost of providing comprehensive insurance to all of their employees or the new taxes under ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Once companies reach 50 employees, they are likely to turn to contractors and outsource work to evade the new mandate, even if such arrangements are less efficient than directly hiring new workers.

Part-Time and Seasonal Employees

Fines to employers under the employer mandate also are imposed on workers who are not full-time employees, where a combination of employees working 120 hours per month (around 30 hours per week) count as one employee. This provision in the bill especially hurts seasonal businesses, where it is frequently not cost effective to provide insurance benefits to an employee who will only be with the firm for a short period of time.

Penalizing Low Income Households

ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.

http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/employer-mandate


Now just looking at the employer fines/taxes for providing no insurance vs the fines projected for HL it would seem they would be much better off just dumping Obamacare altogether.

17,000 employees X $2,000=$34,000,000

Of course I may not be computing this correctly or have all of the facts.

[Midtowner]

But what about churches, and their hospitals and child care centers? They're tax-exempt.

I suppose under current (very recent) law, it'd come down to whether the employee has any ministry-related duties. So can they exclude BC protection for nuns? Yep. For nurses or doctors on their staff? Probably not. That case was related to employment discrimination, but it was a 9-0 decision, so I would speculate the same rule would apply here. I'm not sure whether it's in the regs that way, but it's a very famous case, so I'm guessing that even if it isn't in there, organizations would have little problem marching into Federal District Court and obtaining a quickie TRO.


It's a very tricky road to navigate.

Not really. Benefit providers and insurance companies just follow the regs and they'll be fine. If they do their job, which is reading and complying with Byzantine state and federal regulations, life will go on.

[olevetonahill]

Ah iggy.. the coward's way out. You asked questions and I answered them and you're still crying about it.

Son. Ima Lot of things A Jackass? Ok Ille give ya that, A Provert? That too. a Cynic dayum skippy. But you wont find ONE cowardly bone in my body.
Calling me a coward because I dont read you long winded so called reply's is rather asinine of you Again heres yer school picture your Mother sent me .
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bRnEt20VD6s/T-2wOtPXgDI/AAAAAAAACXM/5nVb--ArphA/s320/super-retard.jpg

[Midtowner]

http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/employer-mandate


Now just looking at the employer fines/taxes for providing no insurance vs the fines projected for HL it would seem they would be much better off just dumping Obamacare altogether.

17,000 employees X $2,000=$34,000,000

Of course I may not be computing this correctly or have all of the facts.

These sorts of sites on both sides of the aisle seldom have all the facts.

[Midtowner]

Son. Ima Lot of things A Jackass? Ok Ille give ya that, A Provert? That too. a Cynic dayum skippy. But you wont find ONE cowardly bone in my body.
Calling me a coward because I dont read you long winded so called reply's is rather asinine of you Again heres yer school picture your Mother sent me.

Just callin' a spade a spade, you ignorant slut.

[okie52]

These sorts of sites on both sides of the aisle seldom have all the facts.

Feel free to supply different computations. I was just looking for fines/taxes for employers. I know it is a hell of a lot cheaper for most individuals to pay the fine rather than pay for healthcare...I just wondered if it was true with employers.

[olevetonahill]

Just callin' a spade a spade, you ignorant slut.

And Contrary to what Flag says I aint Black so dont be calling me racist names :frown:

[Midtowner]

Feel free to supply different computations. I was just looking for fines/taxes for employers. I know it is a hell of a lot cheaper for most individuals to pay the fine rather than pay for healthcare...I just wondered if it was true with employers.

Found this on ThinkProgress... about as credible as "obamacarewatch.org"


One of the attacks leveled against Obamacare is that it will further hamper the already sluggish economy by imposing new costs on employers who want to hire. But a new study by the Urban Institute — modeling the effect of Obamacare’s various provisions on employer behavior had the law been in effect in 2012 — found the health care reform law would’ve only impose a modest increase of 2.2 percent on total employer spending. More strikingly, for small businesses of 100 employees or less, total spending would’ve actually decreased by 1.4 percent:

The drop in total spending for small firms was due to three factors. One, Obamacare exempts employers with 50 workers or less from penalties levied for not providing mandated coverage. Two, it provides a tax credit for two years to employers with 25 workers or less — and an average pay of $50,000 or less — in order to help with the costs of premiums. Third, Obamacare’s exchanges are expected to lower costs by providing a centralized marketplace in which both firms and individuals can comparative shop. On net, these factors completely overwhelm the new costs imposed on smaller businesses from Obamacare’s new coverage requirements.

Because larger businesses will still be subject to the new coverage requirements, but won’t enjoy the tax credits or the exemption for the smallest firms, their total spending increases under the model. For businesses of 101 to 1,000 employees, overall spending would increase 9.5 percent, mainly due to expanded enrollment. For businesses over 1,000 employees, the increase would be 4.3 percent. In both cases, those increases fall on larger firms more capable of absorbing the costs.

The findings from The Urban Institute’s model are also in line with real world results from the health care reform that was passed in Massachusetts. Like Obamacare, that reform imposed new requirements on businesses to cover their employees along with penalties for the firms that failed to comply. As a result, the percentage of small businesses offering coverage to their employees jumped from 70 percent to 77 percent, and employers saw their costs rise 9 percent between 2009 and 2010. At the same time, no evidence of reduced employment could be found.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/09/979101/study-obamacare-reduces-costs-for-small-businesses/?mobile=nc

How much stock am I putting in an Urban Institute study? Not a lot. That said, the alternative is the status quo, which is one of the most inaccessible health care systems in the world. Yes, it's going to cost something, but fortunately, most businesses will pass their costs along. Costs will go up a little on everything, but that'll be fine.

The interesting thing is that this'll put businesses on the Dem's side in the future as they'll be wanting these costs to be directly subsidized by the taxpayers and not their HR departments. Obama's playing chess and y'all are playing checkers.

[badger]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bRnEt20VD6s/T-2wOtPXgDI/AAAAAAAACXM/5nVb--ArphA/s320/super-retard.jpg


you ignorant slut.

See? I can't do sh!t :D

Maybe I'll go post some vBookie stuff so that I can Mod you all.. Oooo, I'll show YOU how powerful a vMod can be... I'm gonna take away your vCash!!!!!

At the very least, I'm vSmiling. As Bill Callahan would scream while being pelted by oranges and serenaded with boos, you ****ing hillbillies, the lot of you. Have a happy ****ing new year. :D

[diverdog]

Son. Ima Lot of things A Jackass? Ok Ille give ya that, A Provert? That too. a Cynic dayum skippy. But you wont find ONE cowardly bone in my body.
Calling me a coward because I dont read you long winded so called reply's is rather asinine of you Again heres yer school picture your Mother sent me .
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bRnEt20VD6s/T-2wOtPXgDI/AAAAAAAACXM/5nVb--ArphA/s320/super-retard.jpg

Not to jump in this fight but you should know that my wife and I were custodian of her uncle who had Downs Syndrome. It is a shame people use their disability to make fun of them. Every person I have known who had Downs were some of the most caring and thoughtful people I have ever been around. We could learn a lot from their civility to others.

[okie52]

Found this on ThinkProgress... about as credible as "obamacarewatch.org"



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/09/979101/study-obamacare-reduces-costs-for-small-businesses/?mobile=nc

How much stock am I putting in an Urban Institute study? Not a lot. That said, the alternative is the status quo, which is one of the most inaccessible health care systems in the world. Yes, it's going to cost something, but fortunately, most businesses will pass their costs along. Costs will go up a little on everything, but that'll be fine.

The interesting thing is that this'll put businesses on the Dem's side in the future as they'll be wanting these costs to be directly subsidized by the taxpayers and not their HR departments. Obama's playing chess and y'all are playing checkers.

You're missing my point. I'm not looking at the pros or cons of Obamacare beyond what Hobby Lobby might do to counteract the law. If HL says screw healthcare and we will just pay the tax it appears they would be much better off financially than paying the fines that are suggested in this thread for not being in compliance (not to mention the savings on healthcare costs). I don't know if that is true but that is the angle I am approaching it from.

[Midtowner]

See? I can't do sh!t :D

Maybe I'll go post some vBookie stuff so that I can Mod you all.. Oooo, I'll show YOU how powerful a vMod can be... I'm gonna take away your vCash!!!!!

At the very least, I'm vSmiling. As Bill Callahan would scream while being pelted by oranges and serenaded with boos, you ****ing hillbillies, the lot of you. Have a happy ****ing new year. :D

It's a term of endearment :)

k80nW6AOhTs

[Midtowner]

You're missing my point. I'm not looking at the pros or cons of Obamacare beyond what Hobby Lobby might do to counteract the law. If HL says screw healthcare and we will just pay the tax it appears they would be much better off financially than paying the fines that are suggested in this thread for not being in compliance (not to mention the savings on healthcare costs). I don't know if that is true but that is the angle I am approaching it from.

They might have a tough time attracting workers then. At least in my experience (anecdotal, but broad) employees at retailers are there as much for the benefits as the paycheck. Take the benefits away and HL might start having staffing problems. I also don't think that's Green's philosophy. While in this particular case, he's an idiot and is going to spend a lot of money on attorneys only to find out that Jesus and his prayer rug aren't going to win him this court case, he also has a history of doing right by his employees.

[olevetonahill]

Not to jump in this fight but you should know that my wife and I were custodian of her uncle who had Downs Syndrome. It is a shame people use their disability to make fun of them. Every person I have known who had Downs were some of the most caring and thoughtful people I have ever been around. We could learn a lot from their civility to others.

No matter what, Some ones going to get offended by something we post. That wasnt a slam On folks with Downs , more a refection of Matlocks general being


It's a term of endearment :)

k80nW6AOhTs

Oh Matlock, Will you love me long time ? heres yer 2 dollar

[okie52]

They might have a tough time attracting workers then. At least in my experience (anecdotal, but broad) employees at retailers are there as much for the benefits as the paycheck. Take the benefits away and HL might start having staffing problems.

That may be true, of course, they could raise their wages with the savings so that the workers could get their own Obamacare. I have never gotten the impression that HL wants to abandon healthcare but rather just wants to avoid the BC issue. This might be a way out for them.

Personally I want BC to be free to everyone...way too many unwanted kids out there.

[Midtowner]

Oh Matlock, Will you love me long time ? heres yer 2 dollar

Vet, I have nada against you.

You just take some frustratingly silly positions and aren't moved by facts. You also make a lot of personal attacks for no good reason.

[Midtowner]

That may be true, of course, they could raise their wages with the savings so that the workers could get their own Obamacare. I have never gotten the impression that HL wants to abandon healthcare but rather just wants to avoid the BC issue. This might be a way out for them.

Trouble is, that makes horrible business sense. The cost per worker for HL to get healthcare is much lower than for an employee of HL to get healthcare on their own. That may change with the exchanges though, we have yet to see how that'll play out on the national stage.


Personally I want BC to be free to everyone...way too many unwanted kids out there.

Yep. In the long run, BC prevents abortions, which I would assume Jesus would rather prevent abortions than prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, and since this ain't a theocracy, you can't get both.

But religious people are seldom pragmatic...

[OULenexaman]

hmmmm....no changes at this place.

[okie52]

Trouble is, that makes horrible business sense. The cost per worker for HL to get healthcare is much lower than for an employee of HL to get healthcare on their own. That may change with the exchanges though, we have yet to see how that'll play out on the national stage.



Yep. In the long run, BC prevents abortions, which I would assume Jesus would rather prevent abortions than prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, and since this ain't a theocracy, you can't get both.

But religious people are seldom pragmatic...

I'm not saying the overall economic impact wouldn't be better for HL and their employees to just accept Obamacare BC provisions and move on although I can certainly understand any groups objections to the morning after pill (if that is in fact part of the mandated coverage).

If, however, there are religious convictions they are unwilling to bend to accept Obamacare mandates then I just wonder what their options are.

Many religions have no problem with the pill...in fact my own doesn't seem to have any rules at all other than being against murder. I don't get some religions stance against BC but also supports the "rhythm method" since the obvious intent of the "rhythm method" is to avoid pregnancies.

[olevetonahill]

Vet, I have nada against you.

You just take some frustratingly silly positions and aren't moved by facts. You also make a lot of personal attacks for no good reason.

I dont get mad at retards either, I just dont agree that a lot of your Facts are really FACTS, rather i think you make up a lot of shat and post it as Fact.
How many times have you post a chart or a graph with NO supporting C.Vs and expect us to believe it because YOU posted it?

I asked you a very simple question, you went Full retard and then said the answer was buried in a 5 or 6 paragraph response. Sorry I aint wading thru a ton of shat to get one little nugget

[Midtowner]

I was raised Catholic, but these days, I don't follow the teachings of men in pointy hats who helped cover up child sexual abuse while at the same time making ignorant claims like the morning after pill is the same thing as abortion (it prevents fertilization) or that BC is against God's will.

Ex Cathedra is an untenable concept when the speaker is basically a horrible person.

--although some of the best Popes were personally awful people, Alexander VI, for example.

[Midtowner]

I dont get mad at retards either, I just dont agree that a lot of your Facts are really FACTS, rather i think you make up a lot of shat and post it as Fact.
How many times have you post a chart or a graph with NO supporting C.Vs and expect us to believe it because YOU posted it?

I asked you a very simple question, you went Full retard and then said the answer was buried in a 5 or 6 paragraph response. Sorry I aint wading thru a ton of shat to get one little nugget

Well, let's go through that post... you stated that you doubted anyone used BC for anything other than preventing pregnancies. I gave you 5 or 6 paragraphs of other uses for BC than preventing pregnancies (which I've given you before) and then gave you the actual percentages you asked for and links to the study if you cared to further look in to things.

Don't whine about it when I give you exactly what you asked for.

[olevetonahill]

hmmmm....no changes at this place.

Heh
http://saptstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/stir-the-pot.jpg

[SoonerAtKU]

Feel free to supply different computations. I was just looking for fines/taxes for employers. I know it is a hell of a lot cheaper for most individuals to pay the fine rather than pay for healthcare...I just wondered if it was true with employers.

Well let's take it as of now. It's infinitely cheaper for a business to not offer health care to their employees right now, yet so many do. There's no penalty currently, so there's no monetary incentive to do it. Why would they?

[olevetonahill]

Well, let's go through that post... you stated that you doubted anyone used BC for anything other than preventing pregnancies. I gave you 5 or 6 paragraphs of other uses for BC than preventing pregnancies (which I've given you before) and then gave you the actual percentages you asked for and links to the study if you cared to further look in to things.

Don't whine about it when I give you exactly what you asked for.

But there ya have it Simpleton, I never asked for ALL the reasons I asked for the percentage of those on BC were so for other reasons besides Not gettin knocked up.

[okie52]

I was raised Catholic, but these days, I don't follow the teachings of men in pointy hats who helped cover up child sexual abuse while at the same time making ignorant claims like the morning after pill is the same thing as abortion (it prevents fertilization) or that BC is against God's will.

Ex Cathedra is an untenable concept when the speaker is basically a horrible person.

--although some of the best Popes were personally awful people, Alexander VI, for example.

Well I learn something new everyday...so the morning after pill isn't an abortion? I didn't know that.

As to the Catholics coverup of the child molestation, a horrible thing it was. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most religions, ideologies, causes, etc... have their historical scars.

[Midtowner]

Well let's take it as of now. It's infinitely cheaper for a business to not offer health care to their employees right now, yet so many do. There's no penalty currently, so there's no monetary incentive to do it. Why would they?

Because employees will be drawn to employers who offer benefits and seeing as how it's cheaper for employers to provide benefits to employees than for employees to procure them on their own, it's cheaper for employers to offer benefits than it is to pay employees enough to afford those things on their own.

[okie52]

Well let's take it as of now. It's infinitely cheaper for a business to not offer health care to their employees right now, yet so many do. There's no penalty currently, so there's no monetary incentive to do it. Why would they?

I'm sure most employees like to get healthcare at the employers group rate and would be willing to forgo some salary as a trade off. Doesn't mean there isn't a point in time where an employer doesn't find healthcare costs too expensive to offer.

[Midtowner]

But there ya have it Simpleton, I never asked for ALL the reasons I asked for the percentage of those on BC were so for other reasons besides Not gettin knocked up.

You said this:


Are you really this ****in THICK?

So yer sayin Mr wonderful is Protecting the innocent worker from an employer FORCING his views on said Worker By FORCING His views on the Employer? THICK .

As for this tired old argument of "LOTS OF WOMEN TAKE BC FOR REASONS OTHER" Why dont you trot out one of yer Home made Charts and Graphs and show us just what percentage is what?

Full Retard Bro You has it.

First, I pointed out that it wasn't a tired old argument by showing you the other things women take BC for. If you could rub your last couple of brain cells together for a moment, you might see how that argument right there stuffs Green's argument in that BC is taken by many for the same purpose a diabetic takes insulin, to alleviate symptoms.

Then I provided you with the actual numbers.

Are you going to keep crying about this? You were acting like an a$$, you were demonstrated to be wrong about the argument being tired or old and you still won't sit down and shaddap about it. Quitcherbitchin and go on.

[KantoSooner]

It would be nice if everyone, since our society is composed of enough differing groups that someone is almost always going to have their nose out of joint about something, could accept that our government is going establish a baseline in a lot of areas and that those mostly don't interfere with individual action and move on.

Ex:
1. Healthcare. BC is available but not required. Your religion forbids it? Fine, don't take it.

2. You're a habitual drunk? Fine, but you can't drink AND drive simultaneously.

3. You're a veteran qualifying for educational benefits? But you don't want to go to school? Fine. Don't. (But you don't get whatever chunk of money you decide would have been in your pay packet instead).

4. You're a Hindu, driving on I-5 South of Gilroy. You're plenty bummed out by that feedlot/slaughter facility that goes on for about 5 miles? Tough. Have a coke and a smile. We all have to make little adjustments to live together.

And lots of other examples we could cite. Me? I find the exemption from taxation for religious orgs to be absolutely insane and discriminatory unless I'm allowed to simply declare myself a religion and stop paying tax forthwith. But, guess what? I'm pretty sure I'd go to jail if I did that, I'm not going to go do a Don Quixote against the tax code and I'm not even going to ruin my life worrying about it. We all have little compromises to make.

[Midtowner]

I'm sure most employees like to get healthcare at the employers group rate and would be willing to forgo some salary as a trade off. Doesn't mean there isn't a point in time where an employer doesn't find healthcare costs too expensive to offer.

It's genius politically, really. There's going to be some cost there whether businesses buy insurance or not. The American people, once presented with these benefits, if they act like they always have, are at first OMG MEDICARE IS COMMUNIST and after receiving it OMG PROTECT MY MEDICARE.

The political will will move to socialized medicine where the taxpayers directly subsidize their own care (which is better anyhow) and we can really start to take advantage of economies of scale like every other civilized country in the world does.

Ask the average European or Canadian whether they like their current healthcare, a lot of them won't. Ask them if they'd trade what they have for what we have? Almost to a person, the answer is going to be no.

[badger]

It's stuff like this that reminds me that while the government has tons of control in my life, I still have some control over my own health.

As my old avvie used to say: DIET NOW OR BECOME TRABER

[olevetonahill]

You said this:



First, I pointed out that it wasn't a tired old argument by showing you the other things women take BC for. If you could rub your last couple of brain cells together for a moment, you might see how that argument right there stuffs Green's argument in that BC is taken by many for the same purpose a diabetic takes insulin, to alleviate symptoms.

Then I provided you with the actual numbers.

Are you going to keep crying about this? You were acting like an a$$, you were demonstrated to be wrong about the argument being tired or old and you still won't sit down and shaddap about it. Quitcherbitchin and go on.

If you didnt have ME to argue with , Who would spend the time with that you are prolly billing clients for?

[okie52]

It's genius politically, really. There's going to be some cost there whether businesses buy insurance or not. The American people, once presented with these benefits, if they act like they always have, are at first OMG MEDICARE IS COMMUNIST and after receiving it OMG PROTECT MY MEDICARE.

The political will will move to socialized medicine where the taxpayers directly subsidize their own care (which is better anyhow) and we can really start to take advantage of economies of scale like every other civilized country in the world does.

Ask the average European or Canadian whether they like their current healthcare, a lot of them won't. Ask them if they'd trade what they have for what we have? Almost to a person, the answer is going to be no.

But Obamacare has almost no cost containment measures to make health insurance more affordable...which is precisely why we are at the point of moving towards socialized medical care. I would be fine with the Swiss system that would provide a base coverage to all and upgrades/options to the base plan for additional cost. I think the Swiss pay about 60% of what the US pays. But Obamacare did little to embrace all of the cost containment measures that are utilized by the Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc...so healtchcare costs will still be unaffordable for a large segment of our population.

[olevetonahill]

Oh and for the record? I dont GAS if an employer supplies BC or not
Hells bells it aint like wimmens didnt get it before fairly easy and cheaply
PPH ring any bells?

[yermom]

But Obamacare has almost no cost containment measures to make health insurance more affordable...which is precisely why we are at the point of moving towards socialized medical care. I would be fine with the Swiss system that would provide a base coverage to all and upgrades/options to the base plan for additional cost. I think the Swiss pay about 60% of what the US pays. But Obamacare did little to embrace all of the cost containment measures that are utilized by the Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc...so healtchcare costs will still be unaffordable for a large segment of our population.

the idea with Obamacare is that if you mandate healthy people, there are more people paying in to fund all the old people

[okie52]

the idea with Obamacare is that if you mandate healthy people, there are more people paying in to fund all the old people

I'm sure some of that is true although you have also added additional costs for pre-existing conditions. CBO projections weren't good for the next decade regarding Obamacare.

[OU_Sooners75]

Easy. It's a law of general applicability.

Constitutional Law 101 stuff.

What a failure.

Constitutional Law 101 also speaks of the separation of church and state.

So why is it the government is over stepping the constitution to make it mandatory for health insurance cover birth control? IMO this is a very easy issue to solve. Allow insurance companies to give options that cover BC or that don't.

[Midtowner]

But Obamacare has almost no cost containment measures to make health insurance more affordable...which is precisely why we are at the point of moving towards socialized medical care.

I agree with you there. ObamaCare is the insurance companies' last chance to get their act together or be legislated out of existence. I don't think the CBO's predictions can take that into account.


I would be fine with the Swiss system that would provide a base coverage to all and upgrades/options to the base plan for additional cost. I think the Swiss pay about 60% of what the US pays. But Obamacare did little to embrace all of the cost containment measures that are utilized by the Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc...so healtchcare costs will still be unaffordable for a large segment of our population.

I believe that to be on purpose. And FWIW, if it takes a little stupid to convince people to do something smart, I'm okay with that.

[bluedogok]

HL is not against birth control, they are against certain forms of birth control (like the "morning after pill") that they feel amount to an abortion that are mandated under Obamacare. Regular birth control pills have been covered under their insurance for a long time.

If you are an employee at any of their companies and do not know they are a business rooted in faith, they you are pretty much an oblivious moron. If the owners religion offends an employee that employee has every right to seek employment elsewhere. It isn't like people "have to work" for one of their companies.

[Midtowner]

What a failure.

Constitutional Law 101 also speaks of the separation of church and state.

So why is it the government is over stepping the constitution to make it mandatory for health insurance cover birth control? IMO this is a very easy issue to solve. Allow insurance companies to give options that cover BC or that don't.

There's no issue and nothing to solve. The government doesn't have to draft around religious minorities' objections for all of its legislation. Either you didn't read a word I said on the subject or you don't agree. If you don't agree, I don't care, because I wasn't stating an opinion, I was telling you what the Supreme Court has said on this subject. You might have seen the portion where I think there's a good chance a ministerial exception might apply to a select few workers, but not, for example, to nurses and doctors working for the Sisters of Mercy.

[Midtowner]

HL is not against birth control, they are against certain forms of birth control (like the "morning after pill") that they feel amount to an abortion that are mandated under Obamacare. Regular birth control pills have been covered under their insurance for a long time.

And that right there makes them a bunch of morons. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy by inducing the egg to be ejected (I forget the terminology) before it's fertilized. I wonder why people think religious kooks are scientifically uneducated?


If you are an employee at any of their companies and do not know they are a business rooted in faith, they you are pretty much an oblivious moron. If the owners religion offends an employee that employee has every right to seek employment elsewhere. It isn't like people "have to work" for one of their companies.

Actually, no, you have every right not to be discriminated against in the worklplace where your religion is concerned unless you're performing some sort of ministerial function.

[Sooner5030]

In a world of scarce resources every $ spent on improving current plans is a $ taken away from providing basic care to those that do not currently have it. Pay for your own BC you lazy POS. This is why our current system is broke and broken...everyone wants something without paying for it.

Also, there are exemptions to the ACA but it will likely only apply to the Amish and a few other groups. I guess we will see in 2014.

[olevetonahill]

Im gonna start up a church of Al Bundy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65RipfZQBPg

[Midtowner]

In a world of scarce resources every $ spent on improving current plans is a $ taken away from providing basic care to those that do not currently have it. Pay for your own BC you lazy POS. This is why our current system is broke and broken...everyone wants something without paying for it.

Also, there are exemptions to the ACA but it will likely only apply to the Amish and a few other groups. I guess we will see in 2014.

You're entitled to your opinion of course.

That doesn't change the law or the constitution though.

And what the hell are you talking about wanting something without paying for it? Employees will still have to pay a portion of their own healthcare coverage. The issue here is why BC should be treated differently than insulin or migraine meds. I've already pointed out that 33% of teens and 14% of adults who take it are not sexually active.

[Sooner5030]

You're entitled to your opinion of course.

That doesn't change the law or the constitution though.

And what the hell are you talking about wanting something without paying for it? Employees will still have to pay a portion of their own healthcare coverage. The issue here is why BC should be treated differently than insulin or migraine meds. I've already pointed out that 33% of teens and 14% of adults who take it are not sexually active.

I see BC as selective care. Yes there are other benefits but the primary purpose is to prevent pregnancy.....which is not a disease. Less than 50% of employees will be able to get a script for BC but now the costs will be pooled or shared to a certain extent among the entire group. If companies only pass on the costs to those that are eligible to receive BC then that is fine. However, if not then the addition of BC to the plans is consistent with the "free lunch" mentality.

I'm more interested in making sure little johnny gets his compound fracture reset without BKing mom & dad who do not currently have insurance. Instead your Dems made sure their crony friends (pharma & med-tech) got some some goodies out of the ACA.

[KantoSooner]

Vet, when you start up the Church of Al Bundy, can I become an Elder? Put me in charge of the Altar girls. I'll keep them in line.

[Midtowner]

I see BC as selective care.

I'm sure you've never experienced uterine cramps, endometrios, excessive menstrual bleeding, would like to have a lesser risk of cancer, etc. That's just as inconvenient as migraines and pain killers and muscle relaxers. Would you exempt those as well? Lots of drugs have secondary uses, but prevention of pregnancy sounds great as pregnancy can be pretty darn debilitating, especially after it ends if you don't have the resources to care for a child. You're failing wholly to tell us why BC is different from treatment for any other medical condition.

Frankly, your "selective care" argument sounds a little silly. You haven't said a word about viagra (covered by most insurance) or many hair restoration drugs which are covered by insurance. This is the anti-woman wing of the Republican Party rearing its ugly head and gawdang you guys are hypocrites.


I'm more interested in making sure little johnny gets his compound fracture reset without BKing mom & dad who do not currently have insurance. Instead your Dems made sure their crony friends (pharma & med-tech) got some some goodies out of the ACA.

Med-tech had a sales tax slapped on them and they're pretty PO'd about that one. Pharma is pharma... when I go back and do a search here am I going to find Sooner5030 complaining about Bush's expansion of medicare, maybe the biggest giveaway to a lobby ever?

[olevetonahill]

Vet, when you start up the Church of Al Bundy, can I become an Elder? Put me in charge of the Altar girls. I'll keep them in line.

You betcha.

[Sooner5030]

I'm sure you've never experienced uterine cramps, endometrios, excessive menstrual bleeding, would like to have a lesser risk of cancer, etc. That's just as inconvenient as migraines and pain killers and muscle relaxers. Would you exempt those as well? Lots of drugs have secondary uses, but prevention of pregnancy sounds great as pregnancy can be pretty darn debilitating, especially after it ends if you don't have the resources to care for a child. You're failing wholly to tell us why BC is different from treatment for any other medical condition.

Frankly, your "selective care" argument sounds a little silly. You haven't said a word about viagra (covered by most insurance) or many hair restoration drugs which are covered by insurance. This is the anti-woman wing of the Republican Party rearing its ugly head and gawdang you guys are hypocrites.



Med-tech had a sales tax slapped on them and they're pretty PO'd about that one. Pharma is pharma... when I go back and do a search here am I going to find Sooner5030 complaining about Bush's expansion of medicare, maybe the biggest giveaway to a lobby ever?

Is Viagra required to be included in plans by law? If so i am against it.....if however insurance companies provide it voluntarily then that is fine. Just like it is fine if insurance companies voluntarily include BC in their plans.

[Midtowner]

Is Viagra required to be included in plans by law? If so i am against it.....if however insurance companies provide it voluntarily then that is fine. Just like it is fine if insurance companies voluntarily include BC in their plans.

The thing is, it's not the insurance companies who don't want to provide BC. In fact, BC saves them a lot of money by preventing pregnancies. An uninsured uncomplicated delivery is >$10,000. The cost of BC is $20 something per month. Which do you think the insurance company would rather do?

The insurance companies will definitely want to provide this voluntarily.

[olevetonahill]

The thing is, it's not the insurance companies who don't want to provide BC. In fact, BC saves them a lot of money by preventing pregnancies. An uninsured uncomplicated delivery is >$10,000. The cost of BC is $20 something per month. Which do you think the insurance company would rather do?

The insurance companies will definitely want to provide this voluntarily.

So yer sayin that wimmens will get knocked up and have kids because they are to cheap to pay 20 bucks a month out of pocket?
Retard

[Midtowner]

So yer sayin that wimmens will get knocked up and have kids because they are to cheap to pay 20 bucks a month out of pocket?
Retard

Not at all. That there's no good legal reason to treat BC anything different than pain meds or insulin.

It's a principle thing. Why should women's birth control not be covered and viagra and propecia covered?

[olevetonahill]

Not at all. That there's no good legal reason to treat BC anything different than pain meds or insulin.

It's a principle thing. Why should women's birth control not be covered and viagra and propecia covered?

My point being if its ONLY 20 bucks a month why dont they just pay it them selves and STFU?

Fer 20 bucks a woman can **** all onth long fer 20 bucks of Viagra a Guy gets 2 shots That shat aint fair

[okie52]

The thing is, it's not the insurance companies who don't want to provide BC. In fact, BC saves them a lot of money by preventing pregnancies. An uninsured uncomplicated delivery is >$10,000. The cost of BC is $20 something per month. Which do you think the insurance company would rather do?

The insurance companies will definitely want to provide this voluntarily.

If the actuaries are doing their jobs it shouldn't make much difference. Maternity care is optional on most policies (or it used to be) and is usually an expensive option to add. Most people aren't going to add that coverage unless they are trying to have kids. There is a probationary time also for the coverage to take effect.

[Midtowner]

If the actuaries are doing their jobs it shouldn't make much difference. Maternity care is optional on most policies (or it used to be) and is usually an expensive option to add. Most people aren't going to add that coverage unless they are trying to have kids. There is a probationary time also for the coverage to take effect.

I would hope not. If you're gettin' it on the regular, even with BC, prégo can happen.

[okie52]

I would hope not. If you're gettin' it on the regular, even with BC, prégo can happen.

Yep, unwanted pregnancies can happen and that is a risk of not having maternity care option if a woman is in child bearing years. But it is usually an expensive option and many will forgo it if they aren't trying to have a kid.

[SicEmBaylor]

Maybe they'll close their ****'n doors and add 17k+ to the unemployment line instead...

That's what I'd do. Cash out then head to Galt's Gulch.

[StoopTroup]

I shop at Michaels.

[SicEmBaylor]

I shop at Michaels.

Gay. Just like your face.

[StoopTroup]

Gay. Just like your face.

Your the expert on gay.

[SicEmBaylor]

Your the expert on gay.

You're the expert on.....uh.....well.....hmmm.......let's see.....uh....

:crickets:

[Midtowner]

Yep, unwanted pregnancies can happen and that is a risk of not having maternity care option if a woman is in child bearing years. But it is usually an expensive option and many will forgo it if they aren't trying to have a kid.

I can't even begin to tell you how many of my divorce clients have hospital bills left over from births where they weren't carrying insurance. You'd better bet the wife carries that option whether we're trying or not.

--of course, I'm also not an idiot, I buy insurance not required of me by law, UM and other such things because I'm not rich enough to absorb a random $10,000 expense, but a few hundred bucks a quarter I can part with just fine.

[FirstandGoal]

So its been a really crappy long week and I don't have time to read every post on an 8 page thread. Here is what I've gathered so far from skimming:

1. Mid and Vet are on the opposite side of an argument-- color me surprised.
2. Despite her best efforts, Badj can't get anybody to lighten up (for what its worth Badj, I was amused)
3. Sic'em is full of **** and vinegar after his Bears' performance last night and made a cameo (great jorb Baylor!)
4. I'm not really sure what all Mid really said cause I've had him on iggy for the last few weeks (not a coward, just someone who has limited time to read and post and got tired of wasting time reading all his bull**** nonsense)
5. Vet's gonna start a new religion-- already has a few converts lined up ready to go.
6. Its about to be January and this place is going through its annual off-season sucktitude (I barely post from Jan-May because of this)
7. The only thing missing from this is Dean popping in to tell everyone we're gay for posting in this thread.


Did I miss anything?

[olevetonahill]

So its been a really crappy long week and I don't have time to read every post on an 8 page thread. Here is what I've gathered so far from skimming:

1. Mid and Vet are on the opposite side of an argument-- color me surprised.
2. Despite her best efforts, Badj can't get anybody to lighten up (for what its worth Badj, I was amused)
3. Sic'em is full of **** and vinegar after his Bears' performance last night and made a cameo (great jorb Baylor!)
4. I'm not really sure what all Mid really said cause I've had him on iggy for the last few weeks (not a coward, just someone who has limited time to read and post and got tired of wasting time reading all his bull**** nonsense)
5. Vet's gonna start a new religion-- already has a few converts lined up ready to go.
6. Its about to be January and this place is going through its annual off-season sucktitude (I barely post from Jan-May because of this)
7. The only thing missing from this is Dean popping in to tell everyone we're gay for posting in this thread.


Did I miss anything?

Nope Ya pretty much nailed it
Ya want be One of my Altar Girls? :D

[FirstandGoal]

Nope Ya pretty much nailed it
Ya want be One of my Altar Girls? :D

LOL, only if Sunny agrees to be one with me!

[olevetonahill]

LOL, only if Sunny agrees to be one with me!

Well There ya go. You Sunny and Tail, Yall can make sure the beer is cold and the sammichs fresh

[nutinbutdust]

Daym, I go out to get my nose suctioned out and have to read this thread later. lol, By the way it was covered by my health insurance that I pay about %40 percent of. lol I remember when my insurance was covered 100% by my employer, and out of pocket costs were low... Oh, those were the days....

[FaninAma]

Per the CDC in 2009..



Women who accidently got pregnant were asked why:

44% - Didn't think they could get pregnant.
23% - Didn't mind if they got pregnant.
14% - Didn't plan on having sex
16% - Worried about side effects of birth control

That is 97% right there. Access is not listed anywhere.

In another words, access to contraceptives is not an issue.... At all. This portion of Obamacare is an answer searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

The only thing that will reduce the increasing rate of single mother births is for the government to stop subsidizing single mother births.

[Curly Bill]

The only thing that will reduce the increasing rate of single mother births is for the government to stop subsidizing single mother births.

What this guy said ^^^^^^^^.

[olevetonahill]

What this guy said ^^^^^^^^.

Yup

[sappstuf]

Trouble is, that makes horrible business sense. The cost per worker for HL to get healthcare is much lower than for an employee of HL to get healthcare on their own. That may change with the exchanges though, we have yet to see how that'll play out on the national stage.



Yep. In the long run, BC prevents abortions, which I would assume Jesus would rather prevent abortions than prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, and since this ain't a theocracy, you can't get both.

But religious people are seldom pragmatic...

Birth control is already universally available in our country which has been shown by the government's own studies. Access to BC doesn't even rank anywhere in the issue of accidental pregnancies.

[diverdog]

Birth control is already universally available in our country which has been shown by the government's own studies. Access to BC doesn't even rank anywhere in the issue of accidental pregnancies.

Here is the deal. How about the men butt out of this subject and let women decide a course of action. Gawd only knows they pay for an awful lot of stupid **** we men do. It is about time they get to decide the best way to take care of their bodies and how it is covered.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Here is the deal. How about the men but out of this subject and let women decide a course of action. Gawd only knows they pay for an awful lot of stupid **** we men do. It is about time they get to decide the best way to take care of their bodies and how it is covered.

How about if I'm gonna help pay for it, then I get to have a say in it...

[Midtowner]

Birth control is already universally available in our country which has been shown by the government's own studies. Access to BC doesn't even rank anywhere in the issue of accidental pregnancies.

I had this same conversation with someone else several pages ago.

[Midtowner]

How about if I'm gonna help pay for it, then I get to have a say in it...

Because many employers would simply join the Christian Scientists and state that ObamaCare in total violates their religion and they should be completely exempt.

Also, we've had regulation almost as long as we've had medical insurance. Mandates in coverage are nothing new. Most states, for example, mandate coverage for treatment for autistic children. Oklahoma Republicans prevented such mandates here, but we're in the minority. According to some random website, here are the mandates already on the books in Oklahoma:


Oklahoma health insurance policies cover chiropractors*, dentists+, nurse midwives, optometrists*, osteopaths, podiatrists, psychologists*, speech or hearing therapists, coverage for adopted children, continuation coverage for dependents, continuation coverage for employees and coverage for newborns*.

[diverdog]

How about if I'm gonna help pay for it, then I get to have a say in it...

How are you paying for it?

[pphilfran]

Daym, I go out to get my nose suctioned out and have to read this thread later. lol, By the way it was covered by my health insurance that I pay about %40 percent of. lol I remember when my insurance was covered 100% by my employer, and out of pocket costs were low... Oh, those were the days....

I think I had the same thing done about 15 years ago...terrible sinus infection...draining about a quart of snot an hour...they ran a tube up my nose and cleaned out all of the "ports"...instantaneous relief...took 15 minutes, tops...

I had insurance also...when they handed me the bill it was for 750 bucks...I about choked....I asked them why it was so expensive...they said...

"We used to have to put you to sleep to do this procedure. Now we don't."

I asked "Since it is a much simpler a procedure shouldn't you lower the price?"

They just looked at me with a strange look on their face....

[Turd_Ferguson]

How are you paying for it?

Tell me, who is paying for it?

[pphilfran]

Birth control is mandated by the plan so employers must offer it...like it or not...

My problem is that we are mandating a mostly inexpensive drug to be covered by insurance...I would imagine the cost of the drug itself will double due to paperwork and many organizational layers needed to pay the stinking bill...

People did not go bankrupt due to birth control not being covered...

The Affordable Heathcare Act screwed the pooch when it tried to be an all encompassing plan instead of a catastrophic plan...

[pphilfran]

They also screwed up with the token fine in you don't supply insurance...

And using a 30 hour work week was too high...should have been a max of 25 hours...

[Turd_Ferguson]

They also screwed up with the token fine in you don't supply insurance...

And using a 30 hour work week was too high...should have been a max of 25 hours...

Elaborate please...

[Midtowner]

The only thing that will reduce the increasing rate of single mother births is for the government to stop subsidizing single mother births.

Do you have a CDC study which lays out the number of women who chose not to have babies because they wouldn't receive government subsidies?

[Midtowner]

They also screwed up with the token fine in you don't supply insurance...

And using a 30 hour work week was too high...should have been a max of 25 hours...

I'm still unconvinced ObamaCare was something which was designed to work for the long-term. Just build up the expectation for the American people that they will be able to access quality healthcare, then when it costs too much, your friendly neighborhood Democrats will offer a plan which actually does address the cost side of things.

And as far as policy goes, lobbyists and the Chamber of Commerce may have really angled for some poison pills. In fact, I think that's a lot more likely than poor draftsmanship.

[pphilfran]

Elaborate please...

They should have made the fines larger...they are token compared to the cost of the insurance they are mandated to supply...some companies will choose to pay the fine instead of supplying healthcare...

If an employee averages 30 hours a week (I think that is the number) a company does not need to provide insurance to that employee..this is a no brainer...you keep you staff under the mandated hours and don't owe a fine or need to provide insurance...30 full time employees you supply all benefits or 40 part timers are a much lower rate...many companies already do this and I expect more to move in this direction...mandate 20 hours and it now become cost effective to have full time help...

[pphilfran]

I'm still unconvinced ObamaCare was something which was designed to work for the long-term. Just build up the expectation for the American people that they will be able to access quality healthcare, then when it costs too much, your friendly neighborhood Democrats will offer a plan which actually does address the cost side of things.

And as far as policy goes, lobbyists and the Chamber of Commerce may have really angled for some poison pills. In fact, I think that's a lot more likely than poor draftsmanship.

Damn good theory...

[SCOUT]

They should have made the fines larger...they are token compared to the cost of the insurance they are mandated to supply...some companies will choose to pay the fine instead of supplying healthcare...

If an employee averages 30 hours a week (I think that is the number) a company does not need to provide insurance to that employee..this is a no brainer...you keep you staff under the mandated hours and don't owe a fine or need to provide insurance...30 full time employees you supply all benefits or 40 part timers are a much lower rate...many companies already do this and I expect more to move in this direction...mandate 20 hours and it now become cost effective to have full time help...
I know several employers that are already shifting their workforce in this direction.

[LiveLaughLove]

I haven't read all of this thread, got in on it too late to want to try and muddle through it all. I read enough to get the gist of what's being said though. So now here's my take on it all.

It should be abhorrent to any American to have the government meddling in the affairs of the private world (private individuals and businesses) UNLESS it is absolutely necessary. Those necessary cases should be reserved for the very extreme, like sweat shop type stuff, locking employees in, making them pay to work for you, etc. Anything else the government should completely butt out. Of course, they have the right to enforce tax laws also.

The reason I despise the liberal philosophy of life is because they believe they are smarter than all of us, and should be allowed to "engineer" the way life in this country is ran, both public and private. That is anathema to everything this country was founded on, and what it should be.

I despise liberals because they see no problem in forcing their social engineering on the rest of us in the name of the common good. They can't see the liberty they steal every time they do something big or small to disrupt the freedom of just living life the way the individual sees fit to do so.

Is BC a huge issue? Not to me in the grand scheme of life. But is it a huge issue in the freedom it is taking from this company by forcing it to go against it's God given rights? You better believe it.

I noticed a wedding catering shop closed somewhere this week, because they refused to do gay weddings, and were ordered to do so by the state. How dare a state or government force someone to go against their beliefs. How dare they force these people out of business, because the state dictates what is right over the individuals freedom to decide.

If gays didn't like this shop, DON'T USE THEM! If you want BC, DON'T WORK FOR HOBBY LOBBY! That's your FREE right.

But no, we can't have that, can we. We must FORCE our liberal idea of what is right or wrong on to the private sector.

These business owners privately make their businesses it seems merely for the liberal's to come in and basically take over or run you out of business if you don't allow it.

This should be intolerable to all of us.

[yermom]

you want the government to stay out of your affairs, but an employer should be able to without impunity?

[soonercruiser]

you want the government to stay out of your affairs, but an employer should be able to without impunity?

EXACTLY, yermon!
If the employee wants to purchase BC or get an abortion, the employer should not be able to interfere....
....OR BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT!

And, if you don't agree with your employer's belief system, then go get a job elsewhere.
After all, The Messiah has fixed the economy, hasn't he?? The voters have said so....:torn:

[Midtowner]

It should be abhorrent to any American to have the government meddling in the affairs of the private world (private individuals and businesses) UNLESS it is absolutely necessary.

Who gets to determine when it is absolutely necessary? Should workers have no rights? This is the sort of "freedom to contract" concept which brought us child labor and unsafe and even unsanitary working conditions. During that era, the worker was a slave and the employer was the Lord. Workers had no rights. During this same era, when those workers fought back, a guy named Eugene Debs, an avowed Socialist won a Senate seat and even mounted a credible Presidential campaign. It really looked like the U.S. could experience a communist revolution at that point.

Not wanting to become a Communist state, we came up with the NLRB, union protection laws and the like. Over the years, we have decided it isn't okay for employers to not hire you because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, we have carved out what you can and cannot do with respect to your work being interfered with by your practice of religion. We have decided it's not okay for bosses to require subordinates to perform sexual favors in order to continue to be employed or to be promoted. It is not your God given right to treat your employees like dog****. And everyone who isn't a libertarian wonk widely agrees on this notion.


The reason I despise the liberal philosophy of life is because they believe they are smarter than all of us, and should be allowed to "engineer" the way life in this country is ran, both public and private. That is anathema to everything this country was founded on, and what it should be.

And you believe you are smarter than liberals and that we should just be free to do to our neighbor whatever we damn well please so long as (I'm hoping this isn't okay) we're not directly murdering him. Of course, building a coal burning plant and burning unfiltered coal and letting the soot and ash settle on your neighbor's property? We don't need no stinking EPA!


I despise liberals because they see no problem in forcing their social engineering on the rest of us in the name of the common good. They can't see the liberty they steal every time they do something big or small to disrupt the freedom of just living life the way the individual sees fit to do so.

Some liberties which are taken are taken because folks who exercise those liberties harm others. You can't sexually harass employees, you cannot discriminate against them for race, sex, national origin or religion. We have removed your liberty to lock your workers into their factory floors and to die if there's a fire. We've removed your ability to injure your workers and not have to pay for their care. How Gawd awful.


Is BC a huge issue? Not to me in the grand scheme of life. But is it a huge issue in the freedom it is taking from this company by forcing it to go against it's God given rights? You better believe it.

Not a big issue except Green wants to violate the law. The law is the law and he doesn't have a God given right not to pay for insurance which includes BC as part of a government mandate. That's just too stupid a point to even really have to respond to.


I noticed a wedding catering shop closed somewhere this week, because they refused to do gay weddings, and were ordered to do so by the state. How dare a state or government force someone to go against their beliefs. How dare they force these people out of business, because the state dictates what is right over the individuals freedom to decide.

They did not close and the government didn't get involved. They received a lot of Yelp complaints and now have a 1* rating. I suppose that's exactly what you'd want to happen in a free market. You treat your potential customer whose money is green like everyone else differently because she's gay? You make lots of gay people mad and they exercise their first amendment rights to express their displeasure at your stupid decision.


If gays didn't like this shop, DON'T USE THEM! If you want BC, DON'T WORK FOR HOBBY LOBBY! That's your FREE right.

But no, we can't have that, can we. We must FORCE our liberal idea of what is right or wrong on to the private sector.

That's absolutely right. If you want to have a for-profit business or exist in this economy at all, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else or choose something else to do with your time.


These business owners privately make their businesses it seems merely for the liberal's to come in and basically take over or run you out of business if you don't allow it.

This should be intolerable to all of us.

You take each regulation or law as it comes. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't get enforced. If it's Constitutional, follow the law and hope to make money.

[Midtowner]

EXACTLY, yermon!
If the employee wants to purchase BC or get an abortion, the employer should not be able to interfere....
....OR BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT!

And, if you don't agree with your employer's belief system, then go get a job elsewhere.
After all, The Messiah has fixed the economy, hasn't he?? The voters have said so....:torn:

Or how 'bout, if that employer thinks the war on terror violates their religious interests, because they happen to be a radical Muslim, they just stop paying taxes. I'm certain the IRS would understand that's their God given right!

You righties are just OUT THERE today.

[soonercruiser]

Or how 'bout, if that employer thinks the war on terror violates their religious interests, because they happen to be a radical Muslim, they just stop paying taxes. I'm certain the IRS would understand that's their God given right!

You righties are just OUT THERE today.

Red Herring! Nobody is talking not paying taxes!
Just like a lawyer...come back to the argument!

Who should have more freedom? The employer, or the employee!
Should they have different levels of freedoms?
If you don't like to pay license fees, buying insurance, or speed limits, then don't drive a car.
If you don''t like you employer's views, you have THE FREEDOM to work elsewhere.
Only in communist countries, like China, are you forced to work a certain job or place!
Duh!

OH! WAIT!
The labor unions can tell you where to work and what to do!
:02.47-tranquillity:

[Midtowner]

Red Herring! Nobody is talking not paying taxes!
Just like a lawyer...come back to the argument!

Actually, the SCOTUS has held it is a tax, so this is about paying taxes. Learn the basic subject matter before making such uneducated comments.


Who should have more freedom? The employer, or the employee!
Should they have different levels of freedoms?

Well of course the employer. We have things like at will employment, but employees have rights as well. If you're going to be an employer, you must respect your workers' rights. This isn't China, after all.


If you don't like to pay license fees, buying insurance, or speed limits, then don't drive a car.

If you don't like respecting workers' rights, don't own a business.

[olevetonahill]

Who gets to determine when it is absolutely necessary? Should workers have no rights? This is the sort of "freedom to contract" concept which brought us child labor and unsafe and even unsanitary working conditions. During that era, the worker was a slave and the employer was the Lord. Workers had no rights. During this same era, when those workers fought back, a guy named Eugene Debs, an avowed Socialist won a Senate seat and even mounted a credible Presidential campaign. It really looked like the U.S. could experience a communist revolution at that point.

Not wanting to become a Communist state, we came up with the NLRB, union protection laws and the like. Over the years, we have decided it isn't okay for employers to not hire you because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, we have carved out what you can and cannot do with respect to your work being interfered with by your practice of religion. We have decided it's not okay for bosses to require subordinates to perform sexual favors in order to continue to be employed or to be promoted. It is not your God given right to treat your employees like dog****. And everyone who isn't a libertarian wonk widely agrees on this notion.



And you believe you are smarter than liberals and that we should just be free to do to our neighbor whatever we damn well please so long as (I'm hoping this isn't okay) we're not directly murdering him. Of course, building a coal burning plant and burning unfiltered coal and letting the soot and ash settle on your neighbor's property? We don't need no stinking EPA!



Some liberties which are taken are taken because folks who exercise those liberties harm others. You can't sexually harass employees, you cannot discriminate against them for race, sex, national origin or religion. We have removed your liberty to lock your workers into their factory floors and to die if there's a fire. We've removed your ability to injure your workers and not have to pay for their care. How Gawd awful.



Not a big issue except Green wants to violate the law. The law is the law and he doesn't have a God given right not to pay for insurance which includes BC as part of a government mandate. That's just too stupid a point to even really have to respond to.



They did not close and the government didn't get involved. They received a lot of Yelp complaints and now have a 1* rating. I suppose that's exactly what you'd want to happen in a free market. You treat your potential customer whose money is green like everyone else differently because she's gay? You make lots of gay people mad and they exercise their first amendment rights to express their displeasure at your stupid decision.



That's absolutely right. If you want to have a for-profit business or exist in this economy at all, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else or choose something else to do with your time.



You take each regulation or law as it comes. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't get enforced. If it's Constitutional, follow the law and hope to make money.


Or how 'bout, if that employer thinks the war on terror violates their religious interests, because they happen to be a radical Muslim, they just stop paying taxes. I'm certain the IRS would understand that's their God given right!

You righties are just OUT THERE today.


Actually, the SCOTUS has held it is a tax, so this is about paying taxes. Learn the basic subject matter before making such uneducated comments.



Well of course the employer. We have things like at will employment, but employees have rights as well. If you're going to be an employer, you must respect your workers' rights. This isn't China, after all.



If you don't like respecting workers' rights, don't own a business.

Holy **** Matlock is some one Paying you by the word to post?

[Midtowner]

Holy **** Matlock is some one Paying you by the word to post?

The person with 53,000 posts might want to take a step back before he criticizes someone else's overly prolific nature.

It's Saturday, I'm at the office and I don't want to work on what I'm supposed to be working on. Unfortunately, I don't get to argue with folks who don't know what the hell they're talking about in real life, so this is kind of cathartic.

[olevetonahill]

The person with 53,000 posts might want to take a step back before he criticizes someone else's overly prolific nature.

It's Saturday, I'm at the office and I don't want to work on what I'm supposed to be working on. Unfortunately, I don't get to argue with folks who don't know what the hell they're talking about in real life, so this is kind of cathartic.

Heh, There ya go again comparing Apples to Lemons
My 53K posts are over a 9 year period all those words of yours are over a 9 Minute period
So who you billing all this to today?

You almost make me miss Lid.

[LiveLaughLove]

Who gets to determine when it is absolutely necessary? Should workers have no rights? This is the sort of "freedom to contract" concept which brought us child labor and unsafe and even unsanitary working conditions. During that era, the worker was a slave and the employer was the Lord. Workers had no rights. During this same era, when those workers fought back, a guy named Eugene Debs, an avowed Socialist won a Senate seat and even mounted a credible Presidential campaign. It really looked like the U.S. could experience a communist revolution at that point.

Not wanting to become a Communist state, we came up with the NLRB, union protection laws and the like. Over the years, we have decided it isn't okay for employers to not hire you because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, we have carved out what you can and cannot do with respect to your work being interfered with by your practice of religion. We have decided it's not okay for bosses to require subordinates to perform sexual favors in order to continue to be employed or to be promoted. It is not your God given right to treat your employees like dog****. And everyone who isn't a libertarian wonk widely agrees on this notion.

Are you really this dense, or are you just trying to impress us? I addressed the extreme cases. You are just throwing in hyperbole and obfuscation. The NLRB is a completely useless joke, btw (as are most government agencies).




And you believe you are smarter than liberals and that we should just be free to do to our neighbor whatever we damn well please so long as (I'm hoping this isn't okay) we're not directly murdering him. Of course, building a coal burning plant and burning unfiltered coal and letting the soot and ash settle on your neighbor's property? We don't need no stinking EPA!

Again you have nothing so you throw in hysteria to go with your obfuscation and hyperbole. I believe I am smart enough to decide what's best for my life. I don't need or want the government dictating it to me. If I don't like an employers rules or ways, I can find a different employer that I do. We are such lemmings now, that we simply cry to the government (see Sandra Fluck) when things don't go our way.




Some liberties which are taken are taken because folks who exercise those liberties harm others. You can't sexually harass employees, you cannot discriminate against them for race, sex, national origin or religion. We have removed your liberty to lock your workers into their factory floors and to die if there's a fire. We've removed your ability to injure your workers and not have to pay for their care. How Gawd awful.

Once more, demagoguery. I even sighted the locking workers in myself there counselor as a case of the extremes that should be regulated. I guess you were too busy formulating a response to actually read what I wrote.




Not a big issue except Green wants to violate the law. The law is the law and he doesn't have a God given right not to pay for insurance which includes BC as part of a government mandate. That's just too stupid a point to even really have to respond to.

Ah, the law. Now we get to it. Might makes right with you guys. You think because you can pass a law that that makes it right. Well, that's just flat out wrong. He does have that right, you're just too blind with your bias to see it. You take no consideration to the freedoms we are eroding because they are freedoms (of religion) that you dislike anyway. So it matters not to you one little bit. The simple truth is, he shouldn't have to pay for it, simply because he doesn't want to pay for it. It times past, that would have been enough. But not in today's world of liberal group think. No, today we are going to force you to live as a liberal even if we can't make you think as a liberal....yet. We give no credence or indeed, thought to the freedoms we are destroying along the way. In all of the debate about ObamaCare I never once heard anyone talk about the erosion of freedom it was causing. It was all about the dollars and cents and the poor and downtrodden it would be helping. Freedom today is passe.



That's absolutely right. If you want to have a for-profit business or exist in this economy at all, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else or choose something else to do with your time.
You take each regulation or law as it comes. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't get enforced. If it's Constitutional, follow the law and hope to make money.

What a laugh. Your side doesn't care one whit about the Constitutionality of anything beyond the right to privacy. You bend and distort that document, you file lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit until you get a liberal judge to finally rule in your favor and then you scream "precedent" from that point forward. The hypocrisy is palpable.

Our freedoms should be limited in any form after GREAT debate and reservation. Obama and his ilk throw it away like so much chaff. Regulations grow each year without debate. They are done in the halls of the EPA, FDA, and other non answerable agencies. They are voted away by vote hungry politicians, and unfortunately they are frittered away by the masses for a few baubles and beads that couldn't even buy Manhattan.

[Soonerjeepman]

Here is the deal. How about the men butt out of this subject and let women decide a course of action. Gawd only knows they pay for an awful lot of stupid **** we men do. It is about time they get to decide the best way to take care of their bodies and how it is covered.

I'm assuming you mean let the women decide whether BC is covered or not? because after the preg happens it's both people's issue.

I love the phrase "accidental pregnancies"...lol...oops, your penis is in my vagina and you have some liquid ...what is that..

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It should be abhorrent to any American to have the government meddling in the affairs of the private world (private individuals and businesses) UNLESS it is absolutely necessary. Those necessary cases should be reserved for the very extreme, like sweat shop type stuff, locking employees in, making them pay to work for you, etc. Anything else the government should completely butt out. Of course, they have the right to enforce tax laws also.


Right on, LLL. Next thing you know the government bureaucrats will be telling employers who they can hire and who they can't - regardless of who is most qualified!

[Midtowner]

Again you have nothing so you throw in hysteria to go with your obfuscation and hyperbole.

I'm just telling you how the world works, nothing more. You are living in some sort of insane thought bubble where you have all of these "rights" (which don't exist anywhere but your imagination), but again, made-up rights don't mean anything to me or anyone who matters.


Once more, demagoguery. I even sighted the locking workers in myself there counselor as a case of the extremes that should be regulated. I guess you were too busy formulating a response to actually read what I wrote.

Cited not sighted.

But of course, who gets to decide what is too extreme? If you look at workplace safety regulations, sure they cost a lot, but they translate directly into saved lives. While locked doors on a factory floor are pretty obvious, it's not so obvious, for example, to require employees to wear protective safety equipment when working with fly ash, but we do have a law covering that. It's not nearly as obvious to require a shovel operator to build a platform of a certain size before operating on it to prevent it from falling over, but we have regs covering that.

I don't know too many areas where the rules are "too extreme" as you say. Again, made up hogwash.


Ah, the law. Now we get to it. Might makes right with you guys. You think because you can pass a law that that makes it right.

No dummy, it makes it the law.


Well, that's just flat out wrong. He does have that right, you're just too blind with your bias to see it. You take no consideration to the freedoms we are eroding because they are freedoms (of religion) that you dislike anyway. So it matters not to you one little bit. The simple truth is, he shouldn't have to pay for it, simply because he doesn't want to pay for it. It times past, that would have been enough. But not in today's world of liberal group think. No, today we are going to force you to live as a liberal even if we can't make you think as a liberal....yet. We give no credence or indeed, thought to the freedoms we are destroying along the way. In all of the debate about ObamaCare I never once heard anyone talk about the erosion of freedom it was causing. It was all about the dollars and cents and the poor and downtrodden it would be helping. Freedom today is passe.

Ah yes, the Constitutional freedom to not pay for insurance coverage which has a certain mandates you don't like attached to it. That's gotta be somewhere in the Constitution right? Nope. We've had this discussion on those pages you glossed over. Laws with a secular purpose and of general applicability which incidentally effect religious practice are constitutional.


What a laugh. Your side doesn't care one whit about the Constitutionality of anything beyond the right to privacy. You bend and distort that document, you file lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit until you get a liberal judge to finally rule in your favor and then you scream "precedent" from that point forward. The hypocrisy is palpable.

And exactly what is Mr. Green's lawsuit intended to do praytell?


Our freedoms should be limited in any form after GREAT debate and reservation. Obama and his ilk throw it away like so much chaff. Regulations grow each year without debate. They are done in the halls of the EPA, FDA, and other non answerable agencies. They are voted away by vote hungry politicians, and unfortunately they are frittered away by the masses for a few baubles and beads that couldn't even buy Manhattan.

Regulations happen after a very extensive notice and comment period. Those effected have a great deal of input into the creation of regulations. Can they stop them? No, because regulations are meant to keep us from hurting each other. Coal plants gotta have something to capture the noxious gasses they expel. Building codes have to exist to keep builders from cutting corners. Financial regulation exists because the finance industry can't function if it's in the wild west. Only an idiot would make a statement as this. You clearly have a very limited grasp on how administrative law works and is created. Before the EPA, we literally had rivers catching on fire because there was no financial incentive not to pollute. Hooray for capitalism, right?

[bluedogok]

I'm still unconvinced ObamaCare was something which was designed to work for the long-term. Just build up the expectation for the American people that they will be able to access quality healthcare, then when it costs too much, your friendly neighborhood Democrats will offer a plan which actually does address the cost side of things.

And as far as policy goes, lobbyists and the Chamber of Commerce may have really angled for some poison pills. In fact, I think that's a lot more likely than poor draftsmanship.
I agree that Obamacare was just a step towards their ultimate goal of European style single payer healthcare. It was written to satisfy all of the lobbyists and set up to ultimately fail to the point of government takeover of the healthcare system.

[StoopTroup]

The only thing that will reduce the increasing rate of single mother births is for the government to stop subsidizing single mother births.

So we can count on the States to pay for the abortions? It will be cheaper if they get an illegal abortion that leads to complications where a Woman just gets dumped at the ER and saved from bleeding to death of an infection like MRSA or needs to have a complete hysterectomy due to massive problems? Or they are broke and have a breech delivery and absolutely no Pre-natal Care which leads to a sickly child which ends up with very expensive subsidizing of his or her problems for the rest of their life?

With every cut you make....you will find a morally and ethically messed up problem that will result in proving that the system we have right now (although expensive) is the best idea. To completely stop subsidizing Single Mother's Births will only lead us back down the road we are at and possibly even in a worse situation. We didn't get here because of Communism or Socialism. We got here do to need and the idea that basic human dignity is at stake in our Country. We are here because we were doing a lousy job of helping not only single mothers but the children of single, divorced and married Mothers. If you could go back to the time when we didn't subsidize it and come up with a Private solution to it all....maybe you could win a Nobel Peace Prize.

[StoopTroup]

The person with 53,000 posts might want to take a step back before he criticizes someone else's overly prolific nature.

It's Saturday, I'm at the office and I don't want to work on what I'm supposed to be working on. Unfortunately, I don't get to argue with folks who don't know what the hell they're talking about in real life, so this is kind of cathartic.

If he can't hang with you....the insults and personal attacks will begin. SSDD

[Turd_Ferguson]

If he can't hang with you....the insults and personal attacks will begin. SSDD

That's pretty ****'n rich coming from you...

[Midtowner]

That's pretty ****'n rich coming from you...

That's actually pretty ****'n rich coming from you.

[pphilfran]

lol

Still working?

[Midtowner]

If he can't hang with you....the insults and personal attacks will begin. SSDD

Yep. The whining "too many words" has begun.

[Midtowner]

lol

Still working?

Nope. Sittin' at home sipping some hot apple cider.

[pphilfran]

Get your *** to work...you screwed around all day yesterday and didn't accomplish chit...

[Midtowner]

Got a little done.

Got an awful first couple of weeks in January to get ready for. Not thrilled in the least.

[diverdog]

Got a little done.

Got an awful first couple of weeks in January to get ready for. Not thrilled in the least.

At least your boss lets you post from work. :)

[sappstuf]

Here is the deal. How about the men butt out of this subject and let women decide a course of action. Gawd only knows they pay for an awful lot of stupid **** we men do. It is about time they get to decide the best way to take care of their bodies and how it is covered.

I'd love to. But when a grown woman, Sandra Fluke, is demanding free stuff because she can't manage her vag, that changes the conversation.

[sappstuf]

I had this same conversation with someone else several pages ago.

No you didn't. I gave you the stats and this was your(non) response.


You're not even arguing the same thing Green is. No one is suggesting that women absent insurance coverage won't have access to BC, that's an issue nowhere. The question is who pays and why BC should be treated any differently than diabetes meds.

If it is not an issue then why make it mandatory? Access to BC isn't a problem that needed solving because it isn't a problem.

[kevpks]

I'd love to. But when Sandra Fluke is demanding free stuff because she can't manage her vag, then that changes the conversation.

Bad example. That wasn't the context of Fluke's comments at all. In fact, one of her primary examples was a friend that needed birth control for polycystic ovary syndrome. Contraceptive hormones are used to treat this disease. Sometimes a woman needs medical care, including contraception to "manage her vag" so she can, you know, live and stuff. It's fallacious to argue that the primary issue here is that lazy sluts just want to whore around on the dime of the hard working tax payer. If you want to argue that women should not receive free birth control for purely contraceptive purposes, fine. However, the issue is more complex than that.

[sappstuf]

Bad example. That wasn't the context of Fluke's comments at all. In fact, one of her primary examples was a friend that needed birth control for polycystic ovary syndrome. Contraceptive hormones are used to treat this disease. Sometimes a woman needs medical care, including contraception to "manage her vag" so she can, you know, live and stuff. It's fallacious to argue that the primary issue here is that lazy sluts just want to whore around on the dime of the hard working tax payer. If you want to argue that women should not receive free birth control for purely contraceptive purposes, fine. However, the issue is more complex than that.

I didn't make it a "primary issue" about lazy sluts... But it is interesting to see that is where you went. I need soap to clean my uncircumcised penis... Where is my government handout?

It isn't that complex because it isn't that expensive. If they need it, they can go out and buy it. Do you think adding BC into this matrix is going to make it cheaper or easily available?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bBlNFyLU7Ik/TFlY_PphIjI/AAAAAAAABAw/Nd0-uYlghOI/s1600/obamacare_chart_LG.jpg.jpg

[sappstuf]

Bad example. That wasn't the context of Fluke's comments at all. In fact, one of her primary examples was a friend that needed birth control for polycystic ovary syndrome. Contraceptive hormones are used to treat this disease. Sometimes a woman needs medical care, including contraception to "manage her vag" so she can, you know, live and stuff. It's fallacious to argue that the primary issue here is that lazy sluts just want to whore around on the dime of the hard working tax payer. If you want to argue that women should not receive free birth control for purely contraceptive purposes, fine. However, the issue is more complex than that.

You don't know much about Fluke or her testimony by the way... Both of these examples were given before what you call her "primary example".


“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.


“Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

And then when she does get to her friend with the ovarian cyst..


“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

Her friend was "technically covered".. I'm going to go with she was just plain covered.

[kevpks]

You don't know much about Fluke or her testimony by the way... Both of these examples were given before what you call her "primary example".





And then when she does get to her friend with the ovarian cyst..



Her friend was "technically covered".. I'm going to go with she was just plain covered.

"Manage her vag" implies that these women are just looking to be promiscuous on someone else's dime. Her friend was denied because the insurance company suspected that the birth control was used for contraception. That does happen and it doesn't matter if she is technically covered if she is going to get denied based on that. Also, nice one equating washing your penis with a woman managing a complex medical issue. Those are exactly the same thing.

[kevpks]

The misogyny on this site gets pretty ugly. I thought the Obama hate was bad. Sheesh. I'm out. It was nice posting with some of you.

[sappstuf]

"Manage her vag" implies that these women are just looking to be promiscuous on someone else's dime.Her friend was denied because the insurance company suspected that the birth control was used for contraception. That does happen and it doesn't matter if she is technically covered if she is going to get denied based on that. Also, nice one equating washing your penis with a woman managing a complex medical issue. Those are exactly the same thing.

No it doesn't. That is your preconceived notion. Managing my uncircumcised penis has nothing to do with sex... It takes some managing no matter what.

[olevetonahill]

The misogyny on this site gets pretty ugly. I thought the Obama hate was bad. Sheesh. I'm out. It was nice posting with some of you.

Get in the dayum kitchen and make some sammichs

[sappstuf]

The misogyny on this site gets pretty ugly. I thought the Obama hate was bad. Sheesh. I'm out. It was nice posting with some of you.

And without answering if Obamacare would make access to birth control easier and cheaper... I'm saddened. I"m sure if you would have only stuck around you could have explained the exact mechanism in this chart that would help in the BC area.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bBlNFyLU7Ik/TFlY_PphIjI/AAAAAAAABAw/Nd0-uYlghOI/s1600/obamacare_chart_LG.jpg.jpg

[olevetonahill]

Yep. The whining "too many words" has begun.

Aint it cute , You 2 make a lovely couple
http://mexiconuevo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/tweedle-dee-and-tweedle-dum1.jpg

[LiveLaughLove]

Its not about the BC. Its about the control. Especially the control of Christian businesses.

[sappstuf]

Get in the dayum kitchen and make some sammichs

The hilarious part of the "misogyny" charge is I got the term "managing the vag" and another, "V-piece" from a female Army SGT in Afghanistan. She used it all the time as in:

"You better get that V-piece straightened out because I don't have time for this sh!t..."

Or

Even in Afghanistan you better manage the vag or that sh!t will haunt you.

She was rude, crude and straight forward....

You would have loved her Vet.

[olevetonahill]

The hilarious part of the "misogyny" charge is I got the term "managing the vag" and another, "V-piece" from a female Army SGT in Afghanistan. She used it all the time as in:

"You better get that V-piece straightened out because I don't have time for this sh!t..."

Or

Even in Afghanistan you better manage the vag or that sh!t will haunt you.

She was rude, crude and straight forward....

You would have loved her Vet.

:very_drunk:

[okie52]

The misogyny on this site gets pretty ugly. I thought the Obama hate was bad. Sheesh. I'm out. It was nice posting with some of you.

Oh gawd...

Is trashing illegals okay?

[olevetonahill]

Oh gawd...

Is trashing illegals okay?

Long is they aint the ones who make the Tortillas

[Turd_Ferguson]

The misogyny on this site gets pretty ugly. I thought the Obama hate was bad. Sheesh. I'm out. It was nice posting with some of you.

Don't let the door hit ya in your big ***...

[olevetonahill]

Don't let the door hit ya in your big ***...

You are so insensitive, Dont ya know tellin a broad she has a Big *** hurts their feelers and you wont get a Beer with yer sammich?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Its not about the BC. Its about the control. Especially the control of Christian businesses.Business who they believe are anti-socialism, and will stand up to it, as futile as that may be.

[LiveLaughLove]

Is misogyny the new racist?

Always have to have some kind of name calling to silence the dissent.

[olevetonahill]

Is misogyny the new racist?

Always have to have some kind of name calling to silence the dissent.

I dont understand her calling me a misogynist, I dont hate the Wimmens I love em all, well cept fer the fat, Ugly ones. I love it when I can make love to em, I love it when they Clean the shack I love it when they Make me a sammich. I love it when the keep they mouths shut when MEN are talkin
Nope dont hate em at all.

[Curly Bill]

The misogyny on this site gets pretty ugly. I thought the Obama hate was bad. Sheesh. I'm out. It was nice posting with some of you.

Don't let the door hit you in the a**!

[LiveLaughLove]

I dont understand her calling me a misogynist, I dont hate the Wimmens I love em all, well cept fer the fat, Ugly ones. I love it when I can make love to em, I love it when they Clean the shack I love it when they Make me a sammich. I love it when the keep they mouths shut when MEN are talkin
Nope dont hate em at all.

I thought she was a he. The whole kev thing threw me off I guess.

[Curly Bill]

I thought she was a he. The whole kev thing threw me off I guess.

Maybe it's a she that would rather be a he?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That's hot.

[olevetonahill]

Maybe it's a she that would rather be a he?

Or a HE that would rather be a SHE.

[Curly Bill]

Or a HE that would rather be a SHE.

We do have a handful of those types around here don't we?

[olevetonahill]

We do have a handful of those types around here don't we?

:welcoming:

[cleller]

From what I went back to read, that looks like a flimsy case for any misogyny labels. Much more pointed remarks are made about men and their travails day in and day out around here.

Just mention Barney Frank's name and see.

Does that just make the whole thing worse?

[olevetonahill]

From what I went back to read, that looks like a flimsy case for any misogyny labels. Much more pointed remarks are made about men and their travails day in and day out around here.

Just mention Barney Frank's name and see.

Does that just make the whole thing worse?

Bitches Man Bitches.

[StoopTroup]

I feel the love...

[Turd_Ferguson]

I feel the love...

You finally come to?

[StoopTroup]

You finally come to?

Just busy. Wife and kids are all at Home this week. It's our vacation. We decided to stay at Home and have the neighbor friends and Kids over and just cook blackeyed peas and cornbread and good ole bread puddin' and eat all the chocolate the kids got in their stockings.

[KantoSooner]

Hog jowls, man. Black eyed peas, cornbread and HOG JOWLS. Makes your whole new year lucky.

[olevetonahill]

Hog jowls, man. Black eyed peas, cornbread and HOG JOWLS. Makes your whole new year lucky.

Ima have to go with ya on this. Got mine all ready fer the Big day

[StoopTroup]

Hog jowls, man. Black eyed peas, cornbread and HOG JOWLS. Makes your whole new year lucky.

We had a Bone in Ham at Christmas and saved it for the peas. So...no Jowls but I did get some bone marrow in the mix. :D