• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

Bob Blaylock said:
Government, in this instance, is most certainly not standing with individual rights.
Click to expand...

LOL, if the employer gets to dictate what is and not covered how is that individual rights? The employee has no say.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You're the one defending a government policy which brutally and hamfistedly stomps all over individual rights, while claiming that it upholds individual rights; and you're accusing me of “living in a dreamland”?
Click to expand...

The church is not an individual.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Government, in this instance, is most certainly not standing with individual rights.
Click to expand...

No individual has the right to control other individuals rights under the law. It would be obvious to you if you were not blinded by religion.
 
winston53660 said:
LOL, if the employer gets to dictate what is and not covered how is that individual rights? The employee has no say.
Click to expand...

The employer is an individual too.

Individual rights can only be upheld by allowing the individuals involved to come to a voluntary agreement as to the terms under which one will be employed by the other. There is no justification for government sticking its nose into such a negotiation, dictating in a once-sided manner to one individual what concessions that individual must make to the other.
 
ludin said:
You don't understand how insurance works which is the problem. Until obamacare a company didn't owe you insurance. as long as they paid you and you agreed to it they didn't have to offer insurance. companies offer insurance as a way to attract employee's.

now when you sign up for work you get whatever insurance the company offers. you can't go to the insurance company and go i don't like this i want to add that. you can get a separate policy on your own if you don't have something that you want. you don't own the insurance policy though the company does.
Click to expand...

They still don't.

And I do know how insurance works. While I agree it would be better to remove it from employment all together, insurance should be adequate for the user and not the subject to the companies whims.
 
The Mark said:
Actually, they ARE telling them what cars they can buy - we just don't see the ones we're not allowed to buy because they never make it as far as the dealerships.

There are plenty of cars made overseas that are not permitted to be sold in the US.
Click to expand...

Sure. But pas there are so many options, they are not being told what to buy.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The employer is an individual too.

.
Click to expand...

No they are not. They are a business and participating in public business activities.

Individual rights can only be upheld by allowing the individuals involved to come to a voluntary agreement as to the terms under which one will be employed by the other. There is no justification for government sticking its nose into such a negotiation, dictating in a once-sided manner to one individual what concessions that individual must make to the other.
Click to expand...

And obviously you want the law to be on the side of the business organization in regards to individual rights.
 
Boo Radley said:
Controlling how the employee uses insurance is really no different than controlling how they spend their cash.
Click to expand...
There are many different insurance policies out there and employers get to choose which ones to provide to their employees. Even with the mandates, that's still true. That's much different from telling them how to spend their cash.
 
Boo Radley said:
when they government says a car must meet certain standards, are they telling them what car they can buy?
Click to expand...
Obviously they're telling the people what cars they can't buy, which narrows down the ones that they can buy.
 
winston53660 said:
Government is screwing it up by siding with the individual rights?
Click to expand...
They're siding against individual rights. What we're allowed to buy is being reduced. Giving someone insurance that doesn't cover contraception, doesn't prevent anyone from getting contraception. That's a strawman.
 
mpg said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/u...ate-in-health-law.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0
Click to expand...

I am completely against Obamacare. Not because It's a bad concept, its just run by the government. Base on the governments record of running public programs (post office, social security), I know it will ultimatly be a failure. However, I also can't stand the ignorance from the religious. We are living in a society increasingly absent of parents. Which increases the likelyhood of bad decisions by inexpirienced teens. If Obamacare is law, then birth control should be covered to give our teens a backup plan to at least mitigate their irresponsible life choices.
 
Capster78 said:
I am completely against Obamacare. Not because It's a bad concept, its just run by the government. Base on the governments record of running public programs (post office, social security), I know it will ultimatly be a failure. However, I also can't stand the ignorance from the religious. We are living in a society increasingly absent of parents. Which increases the likelyhood of bad decisions by inexpirienced teens. If Obamacare is law, then birth control should be covered to give our teens a backup plan to at least mitigate their irresponsible life choices.
Click to expand...
Will teens be more likely to buy condoms just because they can get reimbursed by their insurance, even when it raises the premiums?
 
mpg said:
They're siding against individual rights. What we're allowed to buy is being reduced. Giving someone insurance that doesn't cover contraception, doesn't prevent anyone from getting contraception. That's a strawman.
Click to expand...

Right it is just that the mandate to cover contraception is a violation of the first amendment. the government is having to file tons of exception notifications and everything else on every single person. just in that case it should be struck down as there is no way to administer the actual exceptions.

there is the flip side to this which is what hobby lobby is contesting and they have grounds to do it.

Citizens United pretty much summed up the whole hobby lobby case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, was a person under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

there was also that. in which the fed's appealed so it is going before the supreme court. however since they have given corporations protection under the first amendment see citizens united they can't just pick and choose which parts they are protected from.
 
mpg said:
Will teens be more likely to buy condoms just because they can get reimbursed by their insurance, even when it raises the premiums?
Click to expand...

Condoms should be readily available for free for teens at schools, farmacies... hell.. any store they can be found. We ID for alcohol. Why not enact a law that allows retailers to distribute a limited quantity of condoms to anyone between the ages of 13-18 years old free access to condoms. They can simply be paid for by the government health insurence.
 
Paschendale said:
An employer doing it is not unconstitutional. It's just illegal. An employer being exempt from the law by virtue of allegiance to one religious group or another is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Didn't know the 1st amendment was unconstitutional.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure. But pas there are so many options, they are not being told what to buy.
Click to expand...
Lots of options does not mean unlimited options. Sure, there are plenty of choices to choose from - but don't try to say that means we aren't told what we shouldn't buy, for various reasons, many of them good.

If I wanted to choose some car that was dangerous to drive on the roads (as determined by whichever government agency decides that), chances are I would need go jump through a ****ton of hoops to even get it shipped over here, and then only be able to drive it on a track.

I'm not saying these limitations are unreasonable, I'm just pointing out that they exist.
 
sangha said:
The Little Sisters are not required to cover contraception. Please stop lying about that
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but they are required to purchase (and provide to their employees) insurance that covers contraception.

If this is correct, how can you possibly say they are not being required to pay for contraception.
 
It is just a sad thing for individuals v. government that this is even debatable. Can you imagine telling the founders after they wrote the Constitution that the federal government would be forcing the people to buy health insurance and that they would even be involved in the cost of contraception, let alone that the government was forcing companies to provid free contraception?

They would have thought that you were crazy and that no patriot in their right mind could in any way look at our Constitution and get that much government power out of it. They would say that this is what we fought against and there would be no way it would ever be allowed to happen.
Yet here we are, with a man that has vowed to fundamentally change our country from our individual freedoms, like our fore fathers fundamentally changed our country from the tyranny of England.

Except he wants to go back to tyranny now.
 
mpg said:
There are many different insurance policies out there and employers get to choose which ones to provide to their employees. Even with the mandates, that's still true. That's much different from telling them how to spend their cash.
Click to expand...

Not really. There are many different pay scales and methods of payment, but they still have to meet minimum wage and other rules. Both have to meet government standards and none should allow the employer to dictate use of the compensation.
 
mpg said:
Obviously they're telling the people what cars they can't buy, which narrows down the ones that they can buy.
Click to expand...

Any they want to that meets the standards. We do this with all kinds if products and services. And it is right to do so in most cases. But there are plenty if choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom