Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 219

Thread: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

  1. #161
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No I don't think I'm mixing anything up. What they offer is insurance. Nearly all business call it compensation. They rarely if ever negotiate specifics of the policy. It's usually the same across the board, often a general policy that has no political concerns.
    That is because of the market, they don't have to negotiate it because they are able to get enough employees without doing that. But, a company could be more flexible if they though it would help them get more/better employees and it was worth the cost.

    Your side has politicized it. My contention is that like salary, it is not the employers business how the employee uses the insurance. When you hand the the employee a salary, and the employee spends that money on say an abortion, it can just as easily be said the employer is paying fir the abortion. Both insurance and salary are compensation. The money for both comes from the employer. There's no logic for the employer controlling the use of either.
    I agree, the employer has no business saying how you use the plan that you agreed to by taking/continuing to work there. The use of the plan is between the health insurance company and the employee, the employer is really out of it at that point.

    Now, if an employee decides to purchase an abortion, that is completely out of the control of the employer, and they have no input whatsoever on him using the money in that way.

    It can't be said that the employer is purchasing an abortion because, as you pointed out, that is no longer the employer's money, they exchanged it for the work that was done by the employee.

    And yes, agreements are often altered after hire. There are circumstances that often bring about change to the agreement.
    Most people are employed at will, without a contract. That is what you are referring to here. That is not what I was referring to, which was a unilateral change made by one side that the other side has no choice but to accept.

    It's pretty simple, you get your benefits and pay and use them according to the plan that you agreed to.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  2. #162
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    When there's two people on an elevator, and one of them farts, everyone knows who did it, but some people deny it anyway.
    You're using it wrong. Sorry.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #163
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    That is because of the market, they don't have to negotiate it because they are able to get enough employees without doing that. But, a company could be more flexible if they though it would help them get more/better employees and it was worth the cost.



    I agree, the employer has no business saying how you use the plan that you agreed to by taking/continuing to work there. The use of the plan is between the health insurance company and the employee, the employer is really out of it at that point.

    Now, if an employee decides to purchase an abortion, that is completely out of the control of the employer, and they have no input whatsoever on him using the money in that way.

    It can't be said that the employer is purchasing an abortion because, as you pointed out, that is no longer the employer's money, they exchanged it for the work that was done by the employee.



    Most people are employed at will, without a contract. That is what you are referring to here. That is not what I was referring to, which was a unilateral change made by one side that the other side has no choice but to accept.

    It's pretty simple, you get your benefits and pay and use them according to the plan that you agreed to.
    Not so much the market as much as it doesn't come up. There's very little formal negotiation on any if it. There's more an expectation of wage and insurance coverage than it being negotiating.

    Setting a minimum standard for that coverage us not much different than setting a minimum wage. The employers beliefs have nothing to do with anything. Be it with cash or insurance, the employer is likely paying for something the employer disagrees with. Once the employee is given compensation, be it insurance or cash, it isn't the employers. How either us used isn't in the domain if the employer. I'm arguing both belong to the employee. It's their compensation for services rendered. If you argue the insurance isn't the employees, you have to argue neither us the cash. Both are given by the employer as compensation.

    And yes, things can change in which you either accept or quit.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #164
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,450

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    This is a very good article on the matter, written from the perspective of apparently right-leaning legal mind...

    Recommend:

    <snip>

    Thoughts on the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius stay

    Submitted by Simon on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 4:06pm We consider the other stay being sought before Justice Sotomayor, the Little Sisters of the Poor case.

    I had thought that the premise of the Sisters' case was (like the other cases in motion) "we're subject to the mandate." But having read the Application and Response, I no longer understand how this case works.

    The Response insists that the Sisters ARE "eligible for religious accommodations set out in the regulations," and that that the Sisters "need only self-certify that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, and then provide a copy of their self-certification to the third-party administrator of their self-insured group health plan."

    Sure, you say, but that's the government; the Application contests that, right? Alas, it does not. To the contrary, the Application claims certification precisely as the harm that they will suffer absent relief:

    "Without an emergency injunction, Mother Provincial Loraine Marie Maguire has to decide between two courses of action: (a) sign and submit a self-certification form, thereby violating her religious beliefs; or (b) refuse to sign the form and pay ruinous fines. … [T]he precise act that violates their religion … [is] 'complet[ing] a self-certification form and provid[ing] it to" the insurers.

    In other words, the harm that the Sisters are claiming isn't that they will be subject to the Mandate but that they will have to certify that they aren't. That's puzzling and weak.
    When I try to harmonize the language of the two alternatives, here's what I get: The sisters insist that they can't in good conscience “contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage.” I understand. I agree. They furthermore insist that they can't in good conscience contract with an insurance provider that arranges or pays for contraceptive coverage at no direct cost to the sisters. And that, truth to tell, I just don't understand.

    It's looking more and more like a case of "right case, wrong plaintiffs."
    Thoughts on the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius stay | Stubborn Facts

    I'm beginning to wonder if Sotomayor is using this case to bring to light the weakness inherent in the absurdity of simply filing paperwork is too onerous and sinful -- even as the plaintiffs agree they will not be forced to provide BC coverage. We shall see.

    Plenty of people are sure talking about it now - and that's a good thing.

  5. #165
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not so much the market as much as it doesn't come up. There's very little formal negotiation on any if it. There's more an expectation of wage and insurance coverage than it being negotiating.

    Setting a minimum standard for that coverage us not much different than setting a minimum wage. The employers beliefs have nothing to do with anything. Be it with cash or insurance, the employer is likely paying for something the employer disagrees with. Once the employee is given compensation, be it insurance or cash, it isn't the employers. How either us used isn't in the domain if the employer. I'm arguing both belong to the employee. It's their compensation for services rendered. If you argue the insurance isn't the employees, you have to argue neither us the cash. Both are given by the employer as compensation
    .

    In reality, they are completely dissimilar. A minimum wage is a rock bottom wage that government has set, and all paying jobs have a wage. An employer must pay you. Health coverage is completely optional, employers don't have to pay it.

    Also, minimum wage affects a very small percentage of the jobs out there. Where the government is affecting many more jobs by requiring healthcare coverage.

    And I'm not sure what your point is by saying that once you get your health plan, it belongs to the employee. So what? It's not cash, it's something you buy for cash (or financial consideration). It covers whatever it states that it covers, end of story.
    Can you buy a Chevrolet and use it as a Ferrari after you buy it? Of course not, it is what it is.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    If you argue the insurance isn't the employees, you have to argue neither us the cash.
    It isn't yours though. it is something that you are paying for if you decide to enroll. If you leave the company then you lose that coverage. you don't get to keep it.
    or you can decline to take the coverage. company insurance is an add on as terms of employment. it doesn't belong to you. you are bound to the terms that the company has set with the insurance company.

    your salary is yours do to with what you want. companies must pay you according to an agreed price between you and the company.

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    So do you have the right to tell me to do something or not?

  8. #168
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    So do you have the right to tell me to do something or not?
    Depends what it is.

    And really, all we can do is assign penalties or incentives to certain actions or inactions.

    But yes, you can be told what to do or not to do, within reason. Where exactly reason stops is a matter of opinion.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #169
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    .

    In reality, they are completely dissimilar. A minimum wage is a rock bottom wage that government has set, and all paying jobs have a wage. An employer must pay you. Health coverage is completely optional, employers don't have to pay it.

    Also, minimum wage affects a very small percentage of the jobs out there. Where the government is affecting many more jobs by requiring healthcare coverage.

    And I'm not sure what your point is by saying that once you get your health plan, it belongs to the employee. So what? It's not cash, it's something you buy for cash (or financial consideration). It covers whatever it states that it covers, end of story.
    Can you buy a Chevrolet and use it as a Ferrari after you buy it? Of course not, it is what it is.
    Right, thrust don't have to pay. But that doesn't make them that dissimilar. They are still subject to minimal standards (rock bottom standards).

    And percentage makes no difference to a concept.

    The point is the employer using being infringed upon. Once given as compensation, the insurance belongs to the employee and not the employer.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #170
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Political agenda? Other than the fact everything is political, isn't this the case if whose rights are we talking about? The employer or the employee? This seems like the crux of the issue to me.
    No, the crux of the issue is Obamacare. While you can view everything as political if you like, in my experience partisan laws are usually bad laws and bipartisan laws seem to be good laws. That's the political agenda to which I refer.

Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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