• 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

sangha said:
And making Ponzi schemes illegal decreased our freedom (the freedom to be scammed by criminals) :roll:
Click to expand...
I'm not an anarchist. I want laws that protect freedom, but this isn't an example of that. This mandate makes something illegal without protecting anyone's rights.
 
Boo Radley said:
When it's mine to use. When they pay me a salary, the money is mine and not theirs. When they provide insurance as part if MY compensation it is mine and not THEIRS. It is my right to use want us mine as I see fit.
Click to expand...

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. They offer you compensation; you either negotiate and accept, or decline. It's not yours yet. You can only ask for certain compensation, they are not obliged to give you what you are asking for. It is only yours after both parties have agreed. Before that, you have nothing, no rights, no compensation... nothing. You can't unilaterally alter the agreement after the fact.

But if that can be done, let us know, I'd like to change the terms of my mortgage. I mean, if healthcare is a "right", then of course housing is too.

You skipped right over the entire concept of a free market. We still have that, don't we? I know Obama is working hard to get rid of it, but it is still clinging to life.
 
mpg said:
Decreased insurance choices =/= increased protection of rights.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that either. Look up strawman yet?

Read it again and see if you understand it better.
 
Anthony60 said:
You seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. They offer you compensation; you either negotiate and accept, or decline. It's not yours yet. You can only ask for certain compensation, they are not obliged to give you what you are asking for. It is only yours after both parties have agreed. Before that, you have nothing, no rights, no compensation... nothing. You can't unilaterally alter the agreement after the fact.

But if that can be done, let us know, I'd like to change the terms of my mortgage. I mean, if healthcare is a "right", then of course housing is too.

You skipped right over the entire concept of a free market. We still have that, don't we? I know Obama is working hard to get rid of it, but it is still clinging to life.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

And yes, agreements are often altered after hire. There are circumstances that often bring about change to the agreement.
 
Boo Radley said:
You might want to look up the definition of that. I'm not sure you understand it.
Click to expand...
When there's two people on an elevator, and one of them farts, everyone knows who did it, but some people deny it anyway.
 
mpg said:
I'm not an anarchist. I want laws that protect freedom, but this isn't an example of that. This mandate makes something illegal without protecting anyone's rights.
Click to expand...

It protects everyone's rights
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mpg said:
When there's two people on an elevator, and one of them farts, everyone knows who did it, but some people deny it anyway.
Click to expand...

You're using it wrong. Sorry.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
Boo Radley said:
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
Click to expand...
.

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.
 
If you argue the insurance isn't the employees, you have to argue neither us the cash.
Click to expand...

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.
 
So do you have the right to tell me to do something or not?
 
winston53660 said:
So do you have the right to tell me to do something or not?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Anthony60 said:
.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paschendale said:
And offering a few religious denominations special privileges under the law isn't a political agenda? Religious groups need to pay their damn taxes like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so. But to me it isn't as severe a poltical agenda as those of exempting thousands of organizations from Obamacare altogether.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

No point in me reposting what I already have. Though I don't know what the point is about the employee owning the insurance once he receives it. All he can do is use it, he can't change it. If he receives $1000 in pay, he can't change the paycheck to $10k if he wants.
 
:lamo Requiring nuns to pay for contraceptive insurance. Thats funny. Whats next...requiring gay men to get insurance covering pregnancy?
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo Requiring nuns to pay for contraceptive insurance. Thats funny. Whats next...requiring gay men to get insurance covering pregnancy?
Click to expand...

Gay men already are. obamacare mandates that all insurance plans contain pediactric and maternity care coverages. the reason quite a few people lost their insurance coverage they had was because of those provisions.

they were single men or possibly gay or they were couples that were in their 50's or 60's and not needing kids. they lost their insurance because it didn't meet the minimum standards.

this is why government mandates are idiotic. the government doesn't know what everyone needs. between the manditory expanded coverage any lifetime caps removed and reduction in deductables and out of pockets set this has caused insurance rates to skyrocket across the nation.
 
ludin said:
Gay men already are. obamacare mandates that all insurance plans contain pediactric and maternity care coverages. the reason quite a few people lost their insurance coverage they had was because of those provisions.

they were single men or possibly gay or they were couples that were in their 50's or 60's and not needing kids. they lost their insurance because it didn't meet the minimum standards.

this is why government mandates are idiotic. the government doesn't know what everyone needs. between the manditory expanded coverage any lifetime caps removed and reduction in deductables and out of pockets set this has caused insurance rates to skyrocket across the nation.
Click to expand...
Oh stop it. I suppose geriatrics are also being forced to pay for contraception and pregnancy coverage too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom