The Sky is Falling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Quote:If it's really unimportant to you than why not accept the proposed solution of having the insurance companies foot the bill just as they do for employees of Catholic Universities, for example?

You've said this at least twice here.
Insurance companies work to make a profit, they generally don't pay for things out of their own pockets without a fuss. They pay because someone is paying premiums for coverage. Since the Hobby Lobbyists aren't paying, and the insurance companies not going to eat it, (without hiking premiums) that leaves the government to pick up the tab.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 01:49 PM)avalon Wrote:  If it's really unimportant to you than why not accept the proposed solution of having the insurance companies foot the bill just as they do for employees of Catholic Universities, for example?

It's the mechanism through which the solution came about. As I said, the outcome in this case is not the thing I take issue with (and being male, I cannot fully connect with the sexism of the issue, which is a whole separate topic). Had Hobby Lobby said "these contraceptives cause XYZ, which science has shown to cause XYZ, and here's our supporting evidence," then the case would stand on legitimate ground.

Instead, they claim that their beliefs derived from a 2000 year old collection of myths don't allow them to support those forms of birth control. No scientific evidence. No agreed-upon definition of contraception. Most importantly, no verification of the bible, it's source material, etc. It is literally no different than a CEO saying "Zeus does not allow XYZ, therefore I want to be exempt from having to pay the healthcare costs of these four items." I find the quality of evidence and the legal process around it unacceptable. We have now opened the door for fiction to determine legal policy. Not for individuals but for corporations.

(02-07-2014 01:49 PM)avalon Wrote:  As for not asking the owner to personally pay for it, that's not as clear. The man makes his living with his business, so it does seem personal. And as I said, in this case there seems to be no incongruity between the man's actions and the corporations. If he claimed to be religious while running a business called Hooker Lobby, I don't think he'd have a case.

The business and the man are two different things. The man is not the business. If the man dies, the business will continue. You cannot throw the business in jail. You cannot sue the man for the sliver you received while handling a picture frame. The government affords you a barrier between your personal life and your business, both to protect individuals and to encourage the risk of starting a business. He has reached across that barrier and affected the insurance companies, government, and employees with his beliefs.

The business is expected to conform to a set of secular laws while operating in our country. That is the cost of running a business in this country, and all business owners are subject to it. Except for this business owner, who's personal life now affords him immunity from laws he does not personally agree with. While his personal life does not affect others, his religious-based legal battles do. Don't get hung up on the outcome. Regardless of the result, he imposed his religious will upon the government and his employees... and succeeded.

(02-07-2014 01:49 PM)avalon Wrote:  I did. Thanks again for the links. If I understand their beliefs correctly (BTW, JSYK I'm pro-abortion) they believe life starts at fertilization. So the following quotes from the link would apply since they affect a fertilized egg:

"within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse"
"within 5 days of unprotected intercourse"
"prevention of implantation may be a secondary mechanism of action"

So their belief now trumps science and agreed-upon medical definitions, and holds legal standing. The link is clear in stating that the contraceptives do not abort an existing pregnancy.

Religion went to the supreme court and won. That should scare you.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
02-07-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 02:04 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
Quote:If it's really unimportant to you than why not accept the proposed solution of having the insurance companies foot the bill just as they do for employees of Catholic Universities, for example?

You've said this at least twice here.
Insurance companies work to make a profit, they generally don't pay for things out of their own pockets without a fuss. They pay because someone is paying premiums for coverage. Since the Hobby Lobbyists aren't paying, and the insurance companies not going to eat it, (without hiking premiums) that leaves the government to pick up the tab.

Hi pablo,

The equation for the insurance companies bottom line is this:
By paying for the birth control the insurance companies customers have fewer babies born to them. Fewer babies means fewer costs associated with births (prenatal, birth, etc.).
The money saved in birthing cost (with birth control) is greater than the cost of providing the pills. Basically, birth prevention is cheaper than paying for the costs of pregnant women to have babies.
That's why insurance companies agreed to provide preventative care for free. The prevention of disease is cheaper than curing it later. That's the theory anyway. Well have to wait and see if it really pans out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 02:34 PM)avalon Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 02:04 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  You've said this at least twice here.
Insurance companies work to make a profit, they generally don't pay for things out of their own pockets without a fuss. They pay because someone is paying premiums for coverage. Since the Hobby Lobbyists aren't paying, and the insurance companies not going to eat it, (without hiking premiums) that leaves the government to pick up the tab.

Hi pablo,

The equation for the insurance companies bottom line is this:
By paying for the birth control the insurance companies customers have fewer babies born to them. Fewer babies means fewer costs associated with births (prenatal, birth, etc.).
The money saved in birthing cost (with birth control) is greater than the cost of providing the pills. Basically, birth prevention is cheaper than paying for the costs of pregnant women to have babies.
That's why insurance companies agreed to provide preventative care for free. The prevention of disease is cheaper than curing it later. That's the theory anyway. Well have to wait and see if it really pans out.

I see a price increase in premiums coming soon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Quote:Instead, they claim that their beliefs derived from a 2000 year old collection of myths don't allow them to support those forms of birth control. No scientific evidence.
So you're angry because religious belief isn't supported by scientific evidence? Seriously? You really think that will ever happen?

Quote:I find the quality of evidence and the legal process around it unacceptable. We have now opened the door for fiction to determine legal policy. Not for individuals but for corporations.
I don't see that as anything new. My personal opinion is scientology is a big corporation pretending to be a religion. How they ever got religious status is beyond me. But in a free country some people are gonna do (and believe) some crazy shit. Personally, I'm ok with that if it's the price we pay for freedom.

Quote:You cannot throw the business in jail.
In the case of the 6 deaths because of GM, perhaps the court should revisit this. If a corporation causes death, doesn't that go beyond mere business practice?

Quote:Religion went to the supreme court and won. That should scare you.
Not at all. It's those same religious liberties that allow me to have no belief in god at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 02:56 PM)avalon Wrote:  So you're angry because religious belief isn't supported by scientific evidence? Seriously? You really think that will ever happen?

You missed the two critical words that supply context for my anger: Supreme Court. Which do you prefer: laws determined by science and measurable evidence, or laws determined by personal religious beliefs? There are countries that support the latter, although I wouldn't recommend visiting all of them.

(02-07-2014 02:56 PM)avalon Wrote:  I don't see that as anything new. My personal opinion is scientology is a big corporation pretending to be a religion. How they ever got religious status is beyond me. But in a free country some people are gonna do (and believe) some crazy shit. Personally, I'm ok with that if it's the price we pay for freedom.

Those crazy people can now use their beliefs to affect business law. No facts required.

(02-07-2014 02:56 PM)avalon Wrote:  In the case of the 6 deaths because of GM, perhaps the court should revisit this. If a corporation causes death, doesn't that go beyond mere business practice?

Off-topic; that's corporate liability and is a separate discussion.

(02-07-2014 02:56 PM)avalon Wrote:  Not at all. It's those same religious liberties that allow me to have no belief in god at all.

Can you take your non-belief in god and create new, special laws for your own business? Or is that a special privilege for the religious?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 06:29 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
<sigh>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...gbt-peopl/

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
03-07-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(03-07-2014 06:29 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  <sigh>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...gbt-peopl/

The can is open and the worms are crawling out. No
I'm surprised it took them this long.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 07:14 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Quote:You missed the two critical words that supply context for my anger: Supreme Court. Which do you prefer: laws determined by science and measurable evidence, or laws determined by personal religious beliefs? There are countries that support the latter, although I wouldn't recommend visiting all of them.

Last time I checked the purpose of the Supreme Court was to decide cases based on constitutional grounds; not to wade into the science vs. religion debate.

Like you, I prefer the logic of science over the uninformed, emotion-based reactions of religion. That's why I entered this conversation. I find it troubling when thinking atheists abandon logic and reason and start using the same faulty reasoning I hear from fundies without getting their facts straight.

Here's my easy-to-predict outcome of the case:
Obama will play politics with it until it's no longer newsworthy. Then he'll expand the E.O. to cover companies like HL. The insurance companies will pick up the costs of the contraceptives. So, the employees of those companies will have the same access as everyone else.
I came to this conclusion after learning about the law, and learning about the executive order, and learning about how the case was decided. In contrast to this logical process I read the following in this thread:

Quote:Denying healthcare to women
Not at all factual. Huge exaggeration.

Quote:Thank goodness they can still get it privately.
Not the logical outcome. No ones going to need to get it privately.

Quote:will just result in more back-alley coat hanger abortions
Slippery slope argument. Same faulty argument fundies use to oppose gay marriage.

Quote:"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?] (Ginsburg)
Same old slippery slope. Would she accept that argument in regard to gay marriage?

Quote:Supposedly, under the Taliban,...
More hysterics. 'We're headed for a theocracy!'

Quote:Employers can just claim they are Jehovah's Witnesses and get a free pass out of providing any health insurance at all.
Not factual about JW beliefs. More slippery slopes leading to our doom.

Quote:Exactly what business does an employer have in dictating what goes on between an employee and their doctor?
1. Not what's really happening in this case. 2. Assuming you support the ACA, 'Exactly what business does the government have in dictating what goes on between an employee and their doctor?'

Quote:I don't give a rip about who did what when as far as Republicans/Democrats/POTUS.
Fundies don't want to be bothered with facts either.

Quote:This decision forces a family's religious beliefs on its women employees, and that is just wrong.
Moral outrage trumps informed facts? Fundie thinking.

Quote:How does this violate their rights? It may violate their religious views, or their sense of morality, but it doesn't violate their rights.
As an atheist do you consider your religious view and sense of morality to be your right?

Quote: I know nothing of Obama and his pen strokes, so I'm not even going there. I find the decision appalling on its own merits.
And fundies know nothing of evolution. They don't want to learn the facts, they're just appalled by the idea.


I am an atheist because of logic and reason. I reject religious thinking which bases it's 'facts' on their emotional content. I apply the same standards of logic, reason, and informed decision-making to politics. I encourage you to do the same. Get the facts, understand the topic, listen to both sides, then make a logical, informed decision.
It was not my intention to offend anyone here. My intention was to inform you about the facts, present both sides of the argument, to try to eliminate the emotional content, and hopefully get you to think logically about the issue rather than be swayed by emotion, exaggeration, and faulty arguments. In short, to be a consistent proponent of logic and reason.

Take care,
avalon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 07:23 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
When you open a business that is open to the public use you give up certain rights. You are not allowed, for example, to discriminate against black people. It might be against your religious preference to serve black people but we as a society say tough shit.

Why is this any different? They can still believe whatever the hell they want but as a business they should not be allowed to discriminate due to their religion.

And barring a woman from getting an IUD because of religious preference is misogynistic. A persons religion does not give them the right to act like a sexist prick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: