Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Do Corporations 'Believe'?Follow

#102 Mar 27 2014 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
well that took a long time to degenerate according to Godwin's law.

ITT: Employers being asked to follow a law which provides basic healthcare for all employees = holocaust.


Not at all. I'm saying that "the law must be followed no matter what" is a terrible argument. My counter has nothing at all to do with health care mandates, but with Smash's stupidity.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103 Mar 27 2014 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
That makes no sense.
Well, when it comes to figuring things out you do kind of have the batting average of the Marlins.

I like Florida less.

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 5:03pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 Mar 27 2014 at 3:03 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:

You think that establishing precedence only works for progressive causes? It only works to change the law when things like gay marriage are on the line, but not things like property rights of employers? That's... naive as hell.


Property rights? We aren't talking about a strip of land here that people are trespassing on. We are talking about womens' reproductive health. Human beings. Believe it or not, slavery actually was abolished (by your party, incidentally) and employees are no longer considered 'property'. Neither are women. Welcome to the new age.

Hobby Lobby's owners have just decided to take a stance against something they don't like (ACA) and they believe that attacking women is the way to get what they want. A hundred years ago that approach might have worked, but today the majority of thinking human beings see it for what it is: the last ditch efforts of a dying breed of cowardly men trying desperately to control other people. It's pathetic, but immensely entertaining to watch you stamp about.
#105 Mar 27 2014 at 3:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smash's stupidity.


LOL.

Yeah, okay buddy. Well unlike your proposed "Jews must wear gold stars" law - the affordable care act has already been ruled constitutional by your country's supreme court. So, terrible comparison is terrible.

No one is violating anyone's religious beliefs here. Folks who don't want to use contraception don't have to. Denying contraception to other people is not a religious right. Don't like paying for health insurance that provides contraceptives? Don't own a business. Simple.

Don't believe in paying minimum wage? Don't own a business. Simple. Employment laws are not optional.
#106 Mar 27 2014 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I like Florida less.
Don't worry you aren't alone.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#107 Mar 27 2014 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:

Read above. They're not telling their employees what they can do with their own money. They're saying that they shouldn't have to buy it for them.


It's part of the benefits package they are offering. If they want to offer health insurance as a part of the benefits package, then that's the price they pay to be competitive. They can always just offer higher salary, pay the 2k per employee penalty and move on. They choose to offer insurance - they shouldn't get to decide what that insurance does and does not cover. It's still a benefit paid to the employee as a part of a package to employ that person. It's not something the company is just giving away. I don't think you really know much about how businesses run.

The whole thing is just so ridiculous. I don't understand this obsession with forcing everyone in the world to have babies. Why are you so obsessed with making people have babies? Have we not, as a people, demonstrated that we are mostly completely irresponsible with children? For *****' sake give it a rest.
#108 Mar 27 2014 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Torrence wrote:
gbaji wrote:

You think that establishing precedence only works for progressive causes? It only works to change the law when things like gay marriage are on the line, but not things like property rights of employers? That's... naive as hell.


Property rights? We aren't talking about a strip of land here that people are trespassing on.


Property is not just land.

Quote:
We are talking about womens' reproductive health.


Which is the property of the woman. Do you even understand what property rights are? You get that Roe v. Wade ultimately comes down to property rights, right? The right to control one's body is the right to control one's property because your body is your property. When the government starts passing laws mandating what people must do with their property, it weakens property rights for everyone. And yeah, that includes women and their bodies.

You're talking "about" women's reproductive health, but I really don't think you know what's being said.

Quote:
Human beings. Believe it or not, slavery actually was abolished (by your party, incidentally) and employees are no longer considered 'property'. Neither are women. Welcome to the new age.


Sigh... Can't get past labels to see the truth. Is this really the argument you want to make?

Quote:
Hobby Lobby's owners have just decided to take a stance against something they don't like (ACA) and they believe that attacking women is the way to get what they want. A hundred years ago that approach might have worked, but today the majority of thinking human beings see it for what it is: the last ditch efforts of a dying breed of cowardly men trying desperately to control other people. It's pathetic, but immensely entertaining to watch you stamp about.


How the hell does "not involving ourselves in any way with regards to a woman's contraceptive choices" equate to "attacking women"?

Let me clue you in on something: Best intentions aside, whoever pays for a thing controls that thing. The women aren't the ones who will control their contraceptive/reproductive choices in this model. The government, and whomever lobbies the government will. Cause they're the ones who will decide what contraceptives will be covered and which wont. They'll decide how much it'll cost and who will pay. Can you grasp that this does not give the end user more power, but less?

And it's not really just about contraception. Yes, this one case is. But the larger issue is that this applies to everything that's mandated (or not) by the ACA. By creating the mandate, the government is now in the position to tell every single person what form their health care must take. You no longer have a choice. It's a massive loss of liberty, not just for employers, not just for the rich, and not just for women, but for everyone. The sad part is that most people have been trained to react to the surface layers of the specific issues so they fail to see the bigger picture. They demand their right to have their freedom be taken away from them. It's really insane.


You can't have freedom if someone else is paying for it. Period. The person who pays controls what you get every single time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Mar 27 2014 at 3:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Torrence wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Read above. They're not telling their employees what they can do with their own money. They're saying that they shouldn't have to buy it for them.


It's part of the benefits package they are offering. If they want to offer health insurance as a part of the benefits package, then that's the price they pay to be competitive.


Except they're not given a choice. The whole point here is that the government is forcing them to do this. If it were just about free market forces, we wouldn't be having the discussion.

Quote:
They choose to offer insurance - they shouldn't get to decide what that insurance does and does not cover.


You're kidding, right? Seriously. Read that sentence back and ask if that's reflective of a free society.

Quote:
The whole thing is just so ridiculous.


Yes, it is.

Quote:
I don't understand this obsession with forcing everyone in the world to have babies. Why are you so obsessed with making people have babies? Have we not, as a people, demonstrated that we are mostly completely irresponsible with children? For @#%^s' sake give it a rest.


What. The. Hell.


So not paying for someone's contraception is "forcing them to have babies", and that's bad. But actually forcing people to do things they don't want (like paying for someone's contraception) is fine? That makes zero sense. Do you believe that people should be free to make their own choices at all? I'm honestly curious what the hell you think liberty is.

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 2:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Mar 27 2014 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
It's funny when you start repeating the same word over and over again, like it's some kind of magic utterance that makes the nonsense suddenly shift from bias opinion to fact.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111 Mar 27 2014 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
And it's not really just about contraception. Yes, this one case is. But the larger issue is that this applies to everything that's mandated (or not) by the ACA. By creating the mandate, the government is now in the position to tell every single person what form their health care must take. You no longer have a choice.
I'm pretty sure everyone knew this already. Some people just don't have a problem with it, for better or for worse.

gbaji wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I don't understand this obsession with forcing everyone in the world to have babies. Why are you so obsessed with making people have babies? Have we not, as a people, demonstrated that we are mostly completely irresponsible with children? For @#%^s' sake give it a rest.


What. The. Hell.


So not paying for someone's contraception if "forcing them to have babies", and that's ok. But actually forcing people to do things they don't want (like paying for someone's contraception) is fine? That makes zero sense. Do you believe that people should be free to make their own choices at all?
TBH I think we'd be better off addressing the ~10% of women who suffer from reproductive coercion, rather than than messing with the whole religious freedom thing. Free birth control doesn't do you any good if your boyfriend flushes it down the toilet. Bigger fish to fry and such.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#112 Mar 27 2014 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
Except they're not given a choice. The whole point here is that the government is forcing them to do this. If it were just about free market forces, we wouldn't be having the discussion.


Actually, they DO have a choice and I outlined it in my post. Kagan flat out asked Hobby Lobby why they don't just drop the whole insurance thing and pay the penalty which would end up being a lot less than providing the coverage in the first place.

They don't want to do that. They want to stamp their feet and hold their breath until they get their way. It's ******* childish.
#113 Mar 27 2014 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
In this specific case? Yes. However, our legal system doesn't use a "one ruling, one time" process.

You're the one desperately trying to change the topic off the actual case in court (which is based entirely on freedom of religion trumping the law) and make it about "freedom!!" or some lame shit. The thing you're actively crying about it settled law. Or we could talk about the case actually in court. I'm less interested in Gbaji's Private Wish Debate about random crap.

gbaji wrote:
So when do we pass the law requiring all Jews to wear gold stars? Cause that was a hoot last time we did it!

We did?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Mar 27 2014 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Torrence wrote:
Quote:
Except they're not given a choice. The whole point here is that the government is forcing them to do this. If it were just about free market forces, we wouldn't be having the discussion.


Actually, they DO have a choice and I outlined it in my post.


It's an all or nothing choice though. That's like saying that requiring that all cars purchased must be BMWs doesn't limit choice because you could just choose not to buy a car. That's not really in keeping with the principles of a free society.

Quote:
Kagan flat out asked Hobby Lobby why they don't just drop the whole insurance thing and pay the penalty which would end up being a lot less than providing the coverage in the first place.


Because they want to provide health benefits for their employees, and also believe that they, not the government, should have the freedom to choose what those benefits consist of.

Quote:
They don't want to do that.


Of course they don't. Why should they? I'm serious here.

Quote:
They want to stamp their feet and hold their breath until they get their way. It's @#%^ing childish.


What's childish is stamping your feet and saying "You can't provide health benefits to your employees unless it includes contraceptives". I mean, that's kinda silly, isn't it? Out of all the things we might argue health insurance should provide, is contraceptives really even remotely near the top of the list? Why is it so important to include contraception that it's apparently a complete deal breaker here. You must pay for rubbers, or you can't buy any health care at all? That's ridiculous!

Is there anyone who doesn't see that said requirement exists solely to **** off religious groups? I mean, it's not like we're talking about huge amounts of cost here.

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 3:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Mar 27 2014 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
In this specific case? Yes. However, our legal system doesn't use a "one ruling, one time" process.

You're the one desperately trying to change the topic off the actual case in court (which is based entirely on freedom of religion trumping the law) and make it about "freedom!!" or some lame shit.


Because I keep encountering arguments like "Since they already established that the mandate is the law of the land, religious groups shouldn't get an exception!". You honestly don't see how "I don't agree with the prior ruling either" is a legitimate response to that? You're basically arguing that since something I didn't like already happened, I shouldn't complain when the next step in the slippery slope of things I don't like is being proposed.

Sorry. Not rolling over for that.

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 3:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Mar 27 2014 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Is there anyone who doesn't see that said requirement exists solely to **** off religious group?s
Just the people who think saying "Happy Holidays" is a war on religion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#117 Mar 27 2014 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
I thought this discussion was about birth control pills, not condoms, but ok.

Look, I get that you don't *like* the choices, but the point Kagan was making is that Hobby Lobby really doesn't lose anything by not providing insurance (and don't get me started on your rock ******* stupid BMW analogy). If it's on religious grounds, then they just put out a company-wide memo, adjust how they pay people, and they are heroes to all those who agree. Those who don't will move on, and everyone is happy.

You should actually be cheering for that option, because that puts more personal responsibility on the employee to select and purchase their own healthcare package. More flexibility for the employee who can select a package that will fit their family's needs, the company pays less overall and doesn't have the headache of health insurance anymore, and the Supreme Court doesn't have to be a babysitter because, because THE BIBLE!!!

It's win, win, win, win, win, beer.



Edited, Mar 27th 2014 6:45pm by Torrence
#118 Mar 27 2014 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Because I keep encountering arguments like "Since they already established that the mandate is the law of the land, religious groups shouldn't get an exception!". You honestly don't see how "I don't agree with the prior ruling either" is a legitimate response to that?

It's a pointless response since it has nil to do with the actual case at hand. It's like when you start whining about marriage being an established basic right according to the courts -- that's fine, go have your pity party but realize that all your pouting is 100% irrelevant to the actual matter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Mar 27 2014 at 4:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Torrence wrote:
Look, I get that you don't *like* the choices, but the point Kagan was making is that Hobby Lobby really doesn't lose anything by not providing insurance.


Of course they do. If there was no value to providing employees with benefits, no one would do it. Yet, most businesses did provide such things even in the absence of mandates, so we have to assume that there was (and is) value.

Quote:
If it's on religious grounds, then they just put out a company-wide memo, adjust how they pay people, and they are heroes to all those who agree. Those who don't will move on, and everyone is happy.


So the law has now created an association between religious groups and "people who don't provide for their employees". You honestly can't see how this is unfair?

Quote:
You should actually be cheering for that option, because that puts more personal responsibility on the employee to select and purchase their own healthcare package. More flexibility for the employee who can select a package that will fit their family's needs, the company pays less overall and doesn't have the headache of health insurance anymore, and the Supreme Court doesn't have to be a babysitter because, because THE BIBLE!!!


Employers are often able to obtain a better rate for their employees via bulk purchasing of care than individual employee can get. Wasn't that one of the arguments for the mandate in the first place? So you're basically saying that people losing their health insurance as a result of Obamacare is a good thing? All over the apparently absolute requirement that contraception must be covered? That seems counter to the presumed goal of the law. If removing the contraceptive requirement will prevent those people from losing their employer provided health insurance, then shouldn't the law be changed in that way?


I guess my question is whether the objective here is to help people obtain affordable heath care, or to force religious people to pay for contraceptives?



I'll also point out that you're missing the cost/reward angle here. While $2k/person (or whatever it is) may be less than they're paying for insurance per employee, they're paying that to get nothing in return. It's just lost money. Paying more to get something is more cost effective. I might not think that paying $5 for a Starbucks coffee is a good deal, but if my choice is to buy that cup of coffee or pay $2 for nothing at all, I'm probably going to buy the coffee, right? Of course, the rational response would be "why they hell are we forcing anyone to do this in the first place", but that's just me, I guess. Apparently, the rest of the world thinks that makes perfect sense somehow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Mar 27 2014 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I might not think that paying $5 for a Starbucks coffee is a good deal, but if my choice is to buy that cup of coffee or pay $2 for nothing at all, I'm probably going to buy the coffee, right?
Considering you can get a $1 coffee from McDonalds, you're technically paying $4 for nothing in this scenario. Or rather, you're paying $4 for a picture of a mermaid that you're going to throw away. So ... well thought out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#121 Mar 27 2014 at 4:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Of course, the rational response would be "why they hell are we forcing anyone to do this in the first place", but that's just me, I guess.

'Cause we needed a foot in the door towards a real national health care system Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Mar 27 2014 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I might not think that paying $5 for a Starbucks coffee is a good deal, but if my choice is to buy that cup of coffee or pay $2 for nothing at all, I'm probably going to buy the coffee, right?
Considering you can get a $1 coffee from McDonalds, you're technically paying $4 for nothing in this scenario. Or rather, you're paying $4 for a picture of a mermaid that you're going to throw away. So ... well thought out.


Except the government passed a law (ironically called the "Affordable Coffee Act") mandating that McDonald's coffee isn't good enough to meet the minimum standards for coffee, so you can no longer choose to purchase it. You are only allowed to buy the $5 Starbucks coffee *or* pay a $2 fine.

Yes, that's how silly Obamacare is.

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 4:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Mar 27 2014 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except the government passed a law (ironically called the "Affordable Coffee Act") mandating that McDonald's coffee isn't good enough to meet the minimum standards for coffee

I could accept that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124 Mar 27 2014 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You are only allowed to buy the $5 Starbucks coffee *or* pay a $2 fine..
You can still buy the McD coffee and save $2, but I forgot that while you like to accuse people of "all or nothing" arguments you also enjoy using them as often as possible.

Again, well thought out.

I'm saying you're wrong.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#125 Mar 27 2014 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:

Except the government passed a law mandating that McDonald's coffee isn't good enough to meet the minimum standards for coffee, so you can no longer choose to purchase it. You are only allowed to buy the $5 Starbucks coffee *or* pay a $2 fine.

Yes, that's how silly Obamacare is.


But the reason that the government had to pass that law is because the alternative coffee singled out a specific subset of human beings and denied them access to half and half, while the other side gets ***** pumps.
#126 Mar 27 2014 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
You can't have freedom if someone else is paying for it. Period. The person who pays controls what you get every single time.

Your mortgage tax break must make you feel super-oppressed then, right?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 263 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)