Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, HL invests money for 401k plans in pharmaceutical companies.    I think that's a little different than what you're submitting as fact.

Not really. They are providing money to companies to develop and manufacture the very thing they are "so" against.

Not what I've read.   I can provide a link for it.   Can you provide one showing what you claim?

Yup. I'll link it when I get home. I guess they don't do business with a country that forces abortions on their populace either.

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
He's a dumbass?

Glad you feel that corporations can tell people what they should believe in, especially when they are also paying for their own health care. The Supreme Court sides with you, so you obviously must be right.

Who's saying that "corporations can tell people what they should believe in"?

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

The rights of the person who is also paying into their own health care package?

They have a right to take birth control or have an abortion.

They don't have a "right" to force their employer to subsidize such items if the employer objects on religious grounds.

At least, that's what SCOTUS decided last week.

The corporation should have no right to know anything about any of their employees medical business.

Agreed.  But that's not relevant to this discussion.

If Acme Health Insurance's health plan covers birth control and abortion, it's reasonable to assume that some of their insureds are using those benefits to obtain and use birth control, or get abortions.

If HL objects to abortion on religious grounds, then they shouldn't be forced to offer Acme Health Insurance's health plan to it's employees.  It doesn't matter if their own employees are getting abortions or not.  What does matter is that HL doesn't want to pay premiums to AHI, knowing that some of that money is being used to fund abortions for somebody.

But they will put money into 401(k) plans that support the development of said product. Very sincere.

Anyway, it will just be another circular argument on these boards, for another 90 pages. There's really no use in continuing it.

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, HL invests money for 401k plans in pharmaceutical companies.    I think that's a little different than what you're submitting as fact.

Not really. They are providing money to companies to develop and manufacture the very thing they are "so" against.

Not what I've read.   I can provide a link for it.   Can you provide one showing what you claim?

Yup. I'll link it when I get home. I guess they don't do business with a country that forces abortions on their populace either.

Here's mine.   http://aattp.org/hobby-lobby-401k-hypocrisy-they-were-for-birth-control-even-after-they-were-against-it/

I figured I couldn't find anything less objective on the ruling than something coming from "Americans Against the Tea Party".     So, if you have something else, I'd like to see it.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/9/2014 1:59:00 AM (view original):
They cover LOTS of contraceptives. They have a personal belief that a very small handful of contraceptives are MORE than simply contraceptives. They DO NOT want to be complicit in providing those particular types of contraceptives.

Why should they be forced to?

Why in my example was scenario A the obvious answer, but when the topic is contraceptives there is no complicity involved?

If you believe what you just typed then your answer to my question should have been "neither, because there is no difference".

Two different scenarios. Legally complicit in something is different than something that violates your religious freedom.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/9/2014 1:59:00 AM (view original):
Another question would be:

If they are fine with covering MOST contraceptives, why would they cause such a fuss over these few that they do not want to be complicit in providing? 

Just to **** off the left? An obvious attempt to simply violate the imagined rights of others? 

Do you suppose that they really do NOT have a personal belief that these few contraceptives are different and are uncomfortable with the idea that they are being forced to provide easier access to them?

Hobby Lobby covered all contraceptives prior to Obamacare, kept covering them after Obamacare passed, and then, in 2014, decided to stop and file suit.

So, yes, it seems politically motivated.

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/9/2014 1:59:00 AM (view original):
They cover LOTS of contraceptives. They have a personal belief that a very small handful of contraceptives are MORE than simply contraceptives. They DO NOT want to be complicit in providing those particular types of contraceptives.

Why should they be forced to?

Why in my example was scenario A the obvious answer, but when the topic is contraceptives there is no complicity involved?

If you believe what you just typed then your answer to my question should have been "neither, because there is no difference".

Two different scenarios. Legally complicit in something is different than something that violates your religious freedom.

Another bad faith argument on your part.

Good job.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

The rights of the person who is also paying into their own health care package?

They have a right to take birth control or have an abortion.

They don't have a "right" to force their employer to subsidize such items if the employer objects on religious grounds.

At least, that's what SCOTUS decided last week.

The corporation should have no right to know anything about any of their employees medical business.

Agreed.  But that's not relevant to this discussion.

If Acme Health Insurance's health plan covers birth control and abortion, it's reasonable to assume that some of their insureds are using those benefits to obtain and use birth control, or get abortions.

If HL objects to abortion on religious grounds, then they shouldn't be forced to offer Acme Health Insurance's health plan to it's employees.  It doesn't matter if their own employees are getting abortions or not.  What does matter is that HL doesn't want to pay premiums to AHI, knowing that some of that money is being used to fund abortions for somebody.

All health insurance covers contraceptives, not just Acme.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because that would cause problems. If enough people opt out of a certain coverage, for example if all women opted out of coverage for testicular and prostate cancer, there might not be enough premium collected to cover the losses from people who do elect the coverage. Also, what is causing a health problem isn't always immediately apparent. How do you sort out what's covered and what isn't? It's more effective from both a rate setting perspective and a claim adjusting perspective to just cover all health issues with one policy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, HL invests money for 401k plans in pharmaceutical companies.    I think that's a little different than what you're submitting as fact.

Not really. They are providing money to companies to develop and manufacture the very thing they are "so" against.

Not what I've read.   I can provide a link for it.   Can you provide one showing what you claim?

Yup. I'll link it when I get home. I guess they don't do business with a country that forces abortions on their populace either.

Here's mine.   http://aattp.org/hobby-lobby-401k-hypocrisy-they-were-for-birth-control-even-after-they-were-against-it/

I figured I couldn't find anything less objective on the ruling than something coming from "Americans Against the Tea Party".     So, if you have something else, I'd like to see it.

Did you rely read that article?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/9/2014 1:59:00 AM (view original):
They cover LOTS of contraceptives. They have a personal belief that a very small handful of contraceptives are MORE than simply contraceptives. They DO NOT want to be complicit in providing those particular types of contraceptives.

Why should they be forced to?

Why in my example was scenario A the obvious answer, but when the topic is contraceptives there is no complicity involved?

If you believe what you just typed then your answer to my question should have been "neither, because there is no difference".

Two different scenarios. Legally complicit in something is different than something that violates your religious freedom.

Another bad faith argument on your part.

Good job.

Nothing bad faith about it. He came up with a make believe, could-never-be-reality-scenario, and then tried to say it is the same as this. It isn't.