OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Jenksismyhero]

The Greens have an alternative of closing up shop if they don't like the law (or at least that's they way it should be). This ruling will deprive people of access to health care they would otherwise have received. That's a hell of a lot more of a substantial burden than anything the Greens faced.

 

Closing a business and losing a livelihood is less substantial than having to obtain contraception on your own? Really? You're going to stand behind that argument?

[Jenksismyhero]

So what? It doesn't actually force them to change their religious beliefs. Quakers aren't exempt from taxation just because a substantial portion of our money goes to the DoD.

 

Also, again, they already support those things financially by providing matching funds to their 401k plan that invests in the companies that make those things. The employees choose whether or not to invest in those plans just as they choose whether or not to utilize contraceptives, so they are functionally identical scenarios.

 

Not at all. The employer still has to pay the premium on the plan that includes contraception. They still have to provide it whether or not it ever gets used.

[Jenksismyhero]

So what? It doesn't actually force them to change their religious beliefs. Quakers aren't exempt from taxation just because a substantial portion of our money goes to the DoD.

 

Also, again, they already support those things financially by providing matching funds to their 401k plan that invests in the companies that make those things. The employees choose whether or not to invest in those plans just as they choose whether or not to utilize contraceptives, so they are functionally identical scenarios.

 

It's not about changing beliefs, it's about forcing people to act in opposition to their beliefs.

 

Again with the changing of beliefs - that's completely irrelevant here.

 

[StrangeSox]

Closing a business and losing a livelihood is less substantial than having to obtain contraception on your own? Really? You're going to stand behind that argument?

1) They could have either sold the business or shut it down, but they are already very wealthy and would live quite comfortably.

2) I can see now that I wasn't clear there. No, having to close or sell a business wouldn't be less substantial. What's way, way less substantial is the "burden" they actually faced in this case, which was paying an insurance company on behalf of their employees for insurance for those employees which might include some things that they personally object to.

[StrangeSox]

Not at all. The employer still has to pay the premium on the plan that includes contraception. They still have to provide it whether or not it ever gets used.

 

But no money is spent on contraceptives unless an employee chooses to use that part of the plan. Your response just highlights how far removed from any "burden" the Greens actually were here.

[Soxbadger]

1) Once again what this means is that if a Dr prescribes something, you are okay with the person not being given medical treatment, because someone else in a company has a religious belief that is in conflict.

 

2) They can exercise their religion. They dont have to use birth control. They dont have to do anything. But the argument is failed when you try and apply it to indirect money spending. For example, my taxes may go to people who do things that are against my religion. Can I not pay taxes now? The answer is obviously no, because its a horrendous argument that is being applied by the majority religion.

 

3) Once again, no one is being forced to do anything. Their money is possibly being indirectly spent. Its not about providing birth control, its about whether or not you believe that a company has the right to overrule a dr. Simply put, your answer is yes. Its fine, but its as backwards as the Earth revolving arond the sun.

 

4) They arent being forced to believe it, but they are being forced to live under someone elses beliefs. No different than if you were not allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger because its not kosher.

 

And this has everything to do with religion over science. Otherwise there would be no argument. If a dr prescribes something for a medical purpose, someone elses religious belief should not interfere with your ability to get it.

 

The only people who will ever argue against this are going to be people in the religious majority that the law is favoring. You may never be able to see it, but they couldnt see it when they imprisoned Galileo either.

[Jenksismyhero]

1) They could have either sold the business or shut it down, but they are already very wealthy and would live quite comfortably.

2) I can see now that I wasn't clear there. No, having to close or sell a business wouldn't be less substantial. What's way, way less substantial is the "burden" they actually faced in this case, which was paying an insurance company on behalf of their employees for insurance for those employees which might include some things that they personally object to.

 

Giving up on your constitutionally protected and federal law protected right to religious beliefs, for any amount of money, is highly burdensome. Where, as here, the alternative is for employees to obtain relatively inexpensive care on their own, I don't think it trumps those rights.

[StrangeSox]

I thought I made it pretty explicitly clear that they don't have to give up their business here. I don't think their tenuous connection to contraceptives (paying for a health care plan that belongs to the employees, which contains contraceptive coverage, which the employee may or may not use) is any sort of burden at all in the first place.

[Soxbadger]

Giving up on your constitutionally protected and federal law protected right to religious beliefs, for any amount of money, is highly burdensome. Where, as here, the alternative is for employees to obtain relatively inexpensive care on their own, I don't think it trumps those rights.

 

You dont have a right to not pay for things because your money may incidentally go to something that is against your religion.

 

The employer is not paying directly. They are paying a premium to an insurance company. It is the insurance company who then pays for the procedure. There is no direct link. This is entirely to bolster Christianity in the govt.

 

Otherwise I could validly not pay a portion of my taxes and claim "War is against my religion."

Edited July 2, 2014 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Otherwise I could validly not pay a portion of my taxes and claim "War is against my religion."

At least in that scenario, your taxes directly pay for tanks and bombs. It's not another step or two removed like employee health insurance benefits.

[Jenksismyhero]

1) Once again what this means is that if a Dr prescribes something, you are okay with the person not being given medical treatment, because someone else in a company has a religious belief that is in conflict.

 

2) They can exercise their religion. They dont have to use birth control. They dont have to do anything. But the argument is failed when you try and apply it to indirect money spending. For example, my taxes may go to people who do things that are against my religion. Can I not pay taxes now? The answer is obviously no, because its a horrendous argument that is being applied by the majority religion.

 

3) Once again, no one is being forced to do anything. Their money is possibly being indirectly spent. Its not about providing birth control, its about whether or not you believe that a company has the right to overrule a dr. Simply put, your answer is yes. Its fine, but its as backwards as the Earth revolving arond the sun.

 

4) They arent being forced to believe it, but they are being forced to live under someone elses beliefs. No different than if you were not allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger because its not kosher.

 

And this has everything to do with religion over science. Otherwise there would be no argument. If a dr prescribes something for a medical purpose, someone elses religious belief should not interfere with your ability to get it.

 

The only people who will ever argue against this are going to be people in the religious majority that the law is favoring. You may never be able to see it, but they couldnt see it when they imprisoned Galileo either.

 

1) Yep, when there's a relatively inexpensive alternative for them.

 

2) Paying for taxes =/= paying an employee benefit via insurance coverage

 

3) How is being mandated to provide (pay for) an insurance plan that covers contraception not being forced to pay for something they don't want to pay for? You guys are seriously being ridiculous on that point. If federal law was passed that said you had to offer pork products along with beef products and a Muslim said no that's against my religion, you're telling me that's not him being forced to act against his beliefs because, hey, people might not buy pork even though he has to offer it? GMAB.

 

4) An employer-employee relationship isn't an equal relationship though, so who gives a s***? The employee can go somewhere else if they don't like it. I can eat a non-kosher bacon cheeseburger somewhere else if someone won't serve it to me because of their religious beliefs. You guys act like these employees are prison inmates with no alternatives.

 

The science/religion argument is nonsense. Just because a doctor prescribes something doesn't make it law that trumps all other laws and rights. You completely devalue religious thought or exercise, so of course you see it that way. Freedom of religion in this country is not only freedom FROM religion, it's freedom to practice your religion. It's freedom, in many cases, from the government introducing on your exercise of religion. That's what's happening here, whether you think that's silly or scientifically dumb or whatever.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You dont have a right to not pay for things because your money may incidentally go to something that is against your religion.

 

The employer is not paying directly. They are paying a premium to an insurance company. It is the insurance company who then pays for the procedure. There is no direct link. This is entirely to bolster Christianity in the govt.

 

Otherwise I could validly not pay a portion of my taxes and claim "War is against my religion."

 

Actually, you now do!

 

The 2nd bolded is laughable. how is this bringing more Christianity INTO government? It's removing government from Christianity if anything.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think Muslims and Jews have an issue with paying for a meal plan that includes pork or shellfish as an option. Probably because they realize that it doesn't actually require them to personally consume those things, something that has alluded the Greens.

[Balta1701]

Closing a business and losing a livelihood is less substantial than having to obtain contraception on your own? Really? You're going to stand behind that argument?

U guys are the ones who have said that the people who lose their coverage should just quit.

[Balta1701]

Actually, you now do!

 

The 2nd bolded is laughable. how is this bringing more Christianity INTO government? It's removing government from Christianity if anything.

Which is why today the Obama admin received a request citing this decision from privately-held military contractors requesting that they be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring. Because less christianity if all the gays are unemployed.

[Jenksismyhero]

U guys are the ones who have said that the people who lose their coverage should just quit.

 

I said that's an option, yes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is why today the Obama admin received a request citing this decision from privately-held military contractors requesting that they be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring. Because less christianity if all the gays are unemployed.

 

Again, how is that bringing it INTO government? You think the government's position will be the same?

[StrangeSox]

Again, how is that bringing it INTO government? You think the government's position will be the same?

It's allowing Christian religious beliefs to be used to circumvent laws the rest of us have to follow.

[Balta1701]

I said that's an option, yes.

Then it's an option for these people to give up their business

[Jenksismyhero]

It's allowing Christian religious beliefs to be used to circumvent laws the rest of us have to follow.

 

But that's still not the "government" holding that position. The government isn't undertaking the same practice and mandating that everyone else follow it.

[Soxbadger]

Actually, you now do!

 

The 2nd bolded is laughable. how is this bringing more Christianity INTO government? It's removing government from Christianity if anything.

 

Because this rule isnt going to be evenly applied. So it will be a defacto promoting of Christianity.

 

Unless of course my new religion "Soxbadgerism" is allowed to not do things just the same. But we all know that isnt the case.

[StrangeSox]

But that's still not the "government" holding that position. The government isn't undertaking the same practice and mandating that everyone else follow it.

Allowing special exemptions for one religion's beliefs is a pretty damn clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

[Jenksismyhero]

Allowing special exemptions for one religion's beliefs is a pretty damn clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

Not if it's doing so to promote the Free Exercise Clause.

 

Nor does the RFRA really favor one religion over another. It's been applied to a lot of religions other than Christianity.

[Soxbadger]

Not if it's doing so to promote the Free Exercise Clause.

 

Nor does the RFRA really favor one religion over another. It's been applied to a lot of religions other than Christianity.

 

This is the problem. Somehow you think that another person taking contraception has anything to do with their religion. Its like saying that no one in my office can use their paycheck to buy bacon cheeseburgers because its not kosher.

 

Its extreme nonsense. But since it fits your worldview, youll support it to the bitter end. Nothing like a good earth is the center of the universe debate.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is the problem. Somehow you think that another person taking contraception has anything to do with their religion. Its like saying that no one in my office can use their paycheck to buy bacon cheeseburgers because its not kosher.

 

Its extreme nonsense. But since it fits your worldview, youll support it to the bitter end. Nothing like a good earth is the center of the universe debate.

 

You're dong the exact same thing on the opposite end of the argument, yet because it's your view, it's right. Welcome to the world of opinion.

 

I hate when you argue like this. You're better/smarter than that.