Problems with the Hobby Lobby Decision

The problem can be summed up thusly:

"The rich people aren't spending money on things i want them to spend it on so I have to throw a temper tantrum and hold my breath until I pass out until they give me what I want. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH."

Which is what it really is.

Intelligent people can see right through that craptastic tactic.

 

Yes, it does since it involves mere lucre.

 

False analogies are simply that, as a subjective moral value.

There is a perception of those with the most "gold" making the most "rules" for others when they could be merely practicing what they preach.

 

Why should an insurance company have to pay for medical bills related for heart by-pass surgery if the person has enough money in the bank to pay for it? They can easily pay for it themselves.

Insurance was meant to cover both large and small medical bills; it's the little costs that add up in the big picture over time.

 

Those who dismiss accurate fallacies demonstrate their inherent distrust of other people's rights to own their own property.

And there wouldn't be any difference in these people who whine about the rich for if they were rich too they would be doing the exact same thing. They're just whining because they can't do it.

 

Yes, it is pretty funny that you still don't understand what 401k's are.

 

It depends on the fixed Standard. Health care used to be more arbitrary depending on the employer health care package for any given set of labor.

 

It all depends upon whether a person has health insurance and if the insurance covers the benefit.

It would be really stupid for a multi-millionaire to pay for heart by-pass surgery if they have insurance to pay for it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether they can afford it or not.

It would also be reasonable for insurance to cover medical services that a person can't afford. Some people can't even afford to go to the doctor for an annual physical so if they have insurance it should cover that service.

 

I have no problem with the SC decision on Hobby Lobby. Anyone that does, does not respect the Constitution.

 

It is not about rights in private property since the owners are willing to socialize the costs. It is that cognitive dissonce of the right that fails to substantiate their usually unsubstantiated opinions.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of the Constitution are you referring to? We have a Commerce Clause.

 

I can't say that is true. Historically employers offered a lower cost lower benefit plan and a higher cost premium plan and the employee was left to choose between the two. Under Obamacare there are like five plan levels and each has subordinate levels inside of them. I haven't been on the websites (because Obamacare doesn't affect me) but as I understand it there are really about 15 levels of insurance under Obamacare. That's a lot more than what we ever had before from employers.

 

In other words, leftists are the authority and conservatives have to justify their lifestyle to them.

I get it.

In other words, not real difference between the righties they whine aboot.

You're not fooling me.


The right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as the tenth amendment.

You see, any whining about the rich is just jealousy and the need to take their stuff away from them.

The Bible also calls that coveting. And it's morally repugnant to just take people's stuff away out of jealousy and greed. Well, at least to me. I seem to be the few and far between in America who believe this.

Otherwise, why whine about them at all?

Personally, I'd much rather pass laws that would reduce their monetary influence on government rather than take their stuff away just to punish them for being prosperous.

 

I think your motto should be, 'not making sense, one day at a time.' Do you even know what socialized costs are? Can you explain how Hobby Lobby is socializing costs? Yes, substantiate your unsubstantiated claim.

 

At first I was offended by it but after reading it a little bit more I don't have an objection so long as two conditions are met.

No enterprise should benefit from it financially. It's about "religion" and not "money" so keep the premiums for all of the different employer insurance policies the same regardless of whether contraception is covered. Next we still have to furnish the insurance benefits to the female employees so have the insurance companies provide this insurance to them directly. The insurance companies can simply include this as an overhead cost offset by the fact that no enterprised gets a price break on their insurance just because the insurance doesn't contain the benefits they object to.

The problem was solved for me based upon these two conditions. It also prevents a company from filing a lawsuit based upon "religious" beliefs when their real purposes is to not spend the money. It provides legitimacy to those that actually have religious beliefs as opposed to those that feign a religious belief just to save a buck.

 

I meant discretionary costs to be covered by the employer health plan.

- - - Updated - - -

Our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to fix Standards for the Union along with providing for the general welfare.

 

Only the right is cognitively dissonant to complain about the cost of an ounce of prevention and the cost of a pound of cure.

 

I think it's kind of funny that the same people that whine about "the gays" getting "special rights" (that are not actually "special rights") want to be granted actual special rights because they believe in a sky god.

 

The problem is that the ACA has imposed mandates that shouldn't exist in the first place. The way this ruling was justified does make it seem as though religious business owners are being singled out for special treatment so you do make a fair point. What if a business simply has a rational economic reason for modifying coverage and does so to lower costs? That reason will be dismissed.

 

Fixing Standards for the Union is the job of our federal Congress, not employers.

 

What?? Fixing what standards? Insurance mandates are standards now? Philosophically, a business person has property rights over the business. Running that business is.. no pun intended.. his or her business. So long as rights are not violated, the employer establishes the rate of pay and the type of benefits, not the state.

 

Well, Ms.Elizabeth I can't believe we live in a world where Post-Feminism, men must still shoulder the economic burden. So was your fantasy of "independence' just that? Equally, where's the equality? On what justification can you use a man's income for your own selfish desires?

Do Females pay for men contraceptives? Not at all

Given that, do women have even the tiniest bit of legitimacy in their claims? They have none. Any such legitimacy comes from an argument of "dependence" that indeed largely has no place in the world, after all men haven't been groomed for it and our overall tolerance wears thin.

So Women indeed can't "have it all", because it shifts the entire axis of responsibility unto men. Women must make a decision between Being cooperative or being dependent. Women cannot realistically expect to compete against men's earning potential, while at the same time look at men like a piggy bank.

Or at least, we men will be led like sheep to the slaughter if we accept a selfish, ignorant and biased outlook by women. The irony is, they said they can be just like men but when it comes to treatment they want to be treated like princesses. Pure greed is what it is.

To be 'fair' to a woman is to bankrupt men. Literally

 

Which left wing hack from MSNBC are you mimicking now?

 

Dude, if it weren't for the public sector, what Standards would we have now.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I may be more "progressive" than them on some issues.

 

If that's the case, you are one extreme leftist.

 

Hobby Lobby should just give everyone the amount that it pays for their insurance and tell the employees to go get their own.