Page 16 of 169 FirstFirst ... 611121314151617181920212666116 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 3367

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #301
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by CHDeac View Post
    The issue, IMHO, wasn't that contraception was a essential health benefit per most state regs. I think what caused the issue to explode was to mandate it be covered at no charge. And make no mistake about it...Covering it at 100% increases premiums and underlying costs. Not a lot. But it certianly doesnt decrease it.
    The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.
    Are you saying Hobby Lobby saved millions by not covering it? Not sure if I follow.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquid Karma View Post
    So sayers the ginger.
    RJ call your office. Your typist is moonlighting.

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by CHDeac View Post
    Are you saying Hobby Lobby saved millions by not covering it? Not sure if I follow.
    RJ, what the fuck are you talking about?
    Draxx them sklounst

  5. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    RJ call your office. Your typist is moonlighting.
    LOL....got me.

  6. #306
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by CHDeac View Post
    Are you saying Hobby Lobby saved millions by not covering it? Not sure if I follow.
    They will save money by not covering these expenses. Or are you saying that insurance don't those millions in costs into the premiums they are charged?

    Clearly they had no moral problem profiting from contraceptives.

  7. #307
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by myDeaconmyhand View Post
    RJ, what the fuck are you talking about?
    HL made multiple large investments in a range of companies that make and distribute contraceptives.

    How can the company take a "moral" and "religious" stance against providing contraceptives as a benefit but find it not morally offensive to make off of selling them to others?

  8. #308
    Older than Dirt WFU71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The 'Noke
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    They will save money by not covering these expenses. Or are you saying that insurance don't those millions in costs into the premiums they are charged?

    Clearly they had no moral problem profiting from contraceptives.
    Have you lost sight of the fact that only IUD's and the morning pill are affected, that only 8% of women use IUD's and IUD's last up to 12 years?

  9. #309
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Let's say only 8% of their women use it. That would be about 800-1000 women. At your stated prices of $1000-1500, we're likely talking about saving the insurance company over $1M/year. It would not be good business to leave that kind of money on the table.

  10. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by WFU71 View Post
    Have you lost sight of the fact that only IUD's and the morning pill are affected, that only 8% of women use IUD's and IUD's last up to 12 years?
    Yeah, I don't find much to be upset about in the specificities of how Hobby Lobby applies this ruling, what I am worried about is the slippery slope of private companies using RFRA to pick holes in the ACA, specifically in regards to conception and birth related medical coverage.
    Draxx them sklounst

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    They will save money by not covering these expenses. Or are you saying that insurance don't those millions in costs into the premiums they are charged?

    Clearly they had no moral problem profiting from contraceptives.
    Wait. Im still confused. You aid contraception saves millions to insurers. Yet, HL will save millions by carving it out? Not sure I follow.

  12. #312
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    "he justice goes on to criticize the opinion's interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that "until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'"

    The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight."

    "Ginsburg opens with a bang, immediately describing the decision as one that will have sweeping consequences:

    In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

    She frames the decision as one that denies women access to healthcare, rather than as one that upholds religious liberty:

    The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.

    In a similar vein, she rejects that the birth control mandate should be seen as an act of government coercion, describing it instead as one that provides women with the ability to make their own choice:

    Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults. "

    "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. … The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight."

  13. #313
    Older than Dirt WFU71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The 'Noke
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Let's say only 8% of their women use it. That would be about 800-1000 women. At your stated prices of $1000-1500, we're likely talking about saving the insurance company over $1M/year. It would not be good business to leave that kind of money on the table.
    For the third time - IUD's last up to 12 years. It isn't an annual expense

  14. #314
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    OK. my bad, but still why leave money on the table.

    Plus they have no more repugnance to making more money from the products. You cant' get much clearer transactional morals than HL is showing here.

  15. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.
    The same Justice Ginsburg you've used as the arbiter of truth and light for every single other point you've made on this thread said in her opinion, "I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families' religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held."

    Does "But I guess [you] know more than she and three other Justices" ring a bell?

  16. #316
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGoldBeard View Post
    The same Justice Ginsburg you've used as the arbiter of truth and light for every single other point you've made on this thread said in her opinion, "I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families' religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held."

    Does "But I guess [you] know more than she and three other Justices" ring a bell?
    They could have deep beliefs and be total hypocrites.They aren't mutually exclusive.

  17. #317
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159

  18. #318
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighDevil View Post
    There was a revolution somewhere in 1917. Maybe you were out of school that week they covered it in World History.

    I wouldn't worry too much if I were a progressive. Obama will just issue a royal decree. He is good at that stuff.
    You're making a comparison between the ACA and the Bolshevik Revolution...interesting.

    "Homosexuals Destroy Israeli Messianic Business" is the title of your link..."The Jerusalem District Court has ordered Moshav Yad Hashmonah, a community of Messianic Jews and Evangelical Christians, to pay compensation to two lesbians after it refused to host a same-sex wedding reception. "We knew we were breaking the law. Somebody needed to do it." says Ayelet Ronen, general secretary for the village.


    That translates to homosexuals are abusing a law to destroy businesses in your world?

    You really are a condescending, misleading piece of work.
    Last edited by ONW; 07-01-2014 at 05:51 AM.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  19. #319
    Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,301
    RJ seems somewhat frustrated in this thread.

  20. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighDevil View Post
    There was a revolution somewhere in 1917. Maybe you were out of school that week they covered it in World History.

    I wouldn't worry too much if I were a progressive. Obama will just issue a royal decree. He is good at that stuff.

    Along these lines, an interesting story from Israel. Seems like the homosexuals over there are using the law to drive certain Christian and Orthodox businesses into financial ruin. It's all of a piece. I have a right, and you have a right to pay for it or take part in it..

    http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsIte...=popular_posts
    So this is pretty much bullshit. Take a look at the number of executive orders issued by previous presidents.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ders-guns.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •