Page 61 of 66 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 656

Thread: Corporations Aren't People

  1. #601
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    to make it easier ill repeat all the questions:

    A.) are you claiming that hobby lobby is buying everything and anything under the coverage then?
    Yes. They are paying for everything that is covered. As items are added to the coverage, their premium increase (they are paying for it) as things are removed from coverage, their premiums decrease (they are not paying for it). Despite your protestations, the price is not meaningless. That the premiums are higher, is evidence (proof actually) that they are paying for the BC for their employees.

    B.) should Hobby lobby get to decided if vasectomy and Tubal Ligation are covered in anyway either?
    Answered above - but yes. They do get to choose. They can choose this based on whatever reasoning they want to use. Don't want to cover it because of religious conflicts? Fine. Don't want to cover it just due to cost. Fine. It makes no difference why they choose not to cover them, they clearly have the option.

    C.) if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?
    They have to provide coverage for all things defined as medically necessary. They have options on things that are not medically necessary. They can make choices on those for whatever reason they want (including religious)

    D.) what gives me the right to choose whats in your coverage? (not the packages i buy, what is in your coverage)
    The fact that they are paying and contracting for the coverage means they have the right to make choices on things not medically necessary.

    E.) my religion doesn't allow me to condone that though? i cant condone unwed mothers, premarital sex and bastard children so why should i have to buy coverage that covers anything to do with that? i mean they can just buy coverage else where right?
    No matter how hard you try, the two situations are not related. One is coverage for something not medically necessary and not a violation of another's rights. The other is clearly a violation of their rights and discriminatory.

    F.) me religion doesn't allow me to condone other gods, why should i have to buy coverage that covers people of another religion, im condoning their sins? i mean they can just buy coverage else where right?
    Same answer as prior.

    Again, decisions on what a policy will cover can only be made on items not medically necessary to correct abnormalities. For example, a Jehovah's Witness can not forgo blood transfusion coverage, as they are medically necessary. But a Christian can forgo vasectomies for whatever the heck reason they want - including religious.

    Anyway, I am done but am curious...Who is it that you think is paying for the BC, if not the employer that is contracting with the insurance company and paying a bulk of the premiums?

  2. #602
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)Yes. They are paying for everything that is covered. As items are added to the coverage, their premium increase (they are paying for it) as things are removed from coverage, their premiums decrease (they are not paying for it). Despite your protestations, the price is not meaningless. That the premiums are higher, is evidence (proof actually) that they are paying for the BC for their employees.


    2.)Answered above - but yes. They do get to choose. They can choose this based on whatever reasoning they want to use. Don't want to cover it because of religious conflicts? Fine. Don't want to cover it just due to cost. Fine. It makes no difference why they choose not to cover them, they clearly have the option.



    3.)They have to provide coverage for all things defined as medically necessary. They have options on things that are not medically necessary. They can make choices on those for whatever reason they want (including religious)


    4.)The fact that they are paying and contracting for the coverage means they have the right to make choices on things not medically necessary.


    5.)No matter how hard you try, the two situations are not related. One is coverage for something not medically necessary and not a violation of another's rights. The other is clearly a violation of their rights and discriminatory.



    6.)Same answer as prior.

    Again, decisions on what a policy will cover can only be made on items not medically necessary to correct abnormalities. For example, a Jehovah's Witness can not forgo blood transfusion coverage, as they are medically necessary. But a Christian can forgo vasectomies for whatever the heck reason they want - including religious.

    7.)Anyway, I am done but am curious...Who is it that you think is paying for the BC, if not the employer that is contracting with the insurance company and paying a bulk of the premiums?
    1.) the price will always be meaningless to THIS discussion of rights.
    but my point was i only wanted to see if you would make this claim because the easy and factual counter is what about the millions of other things one could "claim" that violates religion which would be just as stupid
    2.) and what will they will be based on?
    3.) why? whats medical have to do with religion? why do they HAVE to cover anything, god decided who lives and dies why should i cover any of it
    4.) who determines what is medically needed? why do they get to decided, what about religion?
    5.) of course they are unless i want to be a complete dishonest hypocrite

    why does religion count in ONE regard but doesn't in another
    why do my rights only count for religion when you say so?
    again god decides who lives and dies ill leave it up to him not you or anybody else

    what makes it a clear rights violation? i mean RELIGION RELIGION RELIGION is what the claim is about and now you say its meaningless???? hmmmmm

    6.) so you got nothing just picking and choosing when religion matters based on your subjective opinion and nothing else, got it

    so in one case screw my religion but in another my religion rains supreme even when it effect others

    sorry but again you are hugely failing, my religion can not be used in this debate to deny coverage thats complete BS and you still havent shown one logcial or factual thing supporting it

    the religion angle is a complete failure

    HL should have lied and said they cant afford a top plan as soon as the mentioned the BS religion angle it became a complete loser

    the religion angle is a failure, its absurd to ever think it would work

    theres nothing to support it not to mention the complete hypocrisies that can be pointed out

    7.) it doesnt matter what i think im just going buy facts and the fact is HL is paying for COVERAGE, not BC

    like i said HL should have just said they cant afford top coverage but using the religion angle is complete crap and thats coming from a christian.

    As a christian I would have to be a complete mentally retarded idiot to think i get special rules made for me in the public realm and public access businesses.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #603
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    4.) who determines what is medically needed? why do they get to decided, what about religion?
    Doctors in conjunction with an insurance company representative (what I used to do). They get to decide if the BC is medically needed. They get to decide if the plastic surgery is medically needed. Religion does not decide on things that are medically necessary and effects the rights of other individuals.

    One person's rights do not trump another's. But free or covered BC, plastic surgery, tubal ligation or vasectomies is not a right and lack of free treatments for those items is not a violation of another's rights. On the other hand, forcing another individual to pay for them (despite what you claim, they are paying) is a violation of their rights.

    It all comes down to medical necessity. Insurance covers things that are medically necessary. It is optional if the insurance will cover things not medically necessary. Always has been that way.

    Which of an employee's constitutionally guaranteed rights is an employer violating by not providing free BC, vasectomies or plastic surgery?
    Last edited by buck; 12-07-13 at 01:23 AM.

  4. #604
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)Doctors in conjunction with an insurance company representative (what I used to do). They get to decide if the BC is medically needed. They get to decide if the plastic surgery is medically needed.
    2.)Religion does not decide on things that are medically necessary and effects the rights of other individuals.
    3.) One persons rights do not trump another.
    4.) But free or covered BC (or plastic surgery) is not a right and lack of free BC is not a violation of another's rights..
    5.)It all comes down to medical necessity. Insurance covers things that are medically necessary. It is optional if the insurance will cover things not medically necessary. Always has been that way.
    1.) so religion doesnt matter? im confused
    2.) 100% correct but I thought religion was what matters here
    3.) BOOM!!!!!!! and there oyu have it and this is exactly why HL'c claim of religion will be a complete and utter failure
    4.) never maid the claim it was but changing coverage based on personal religion is subjecting me to YOUR RELIGIONS and ignoring my own which is a violation, BAM you nailed it

    like i said HL should have NEVER used religion in this fight because its a failure and complete BS

    5.) again meaningless to thei debate and this isnt even true some things are regulated to be covered and just an fyi by 2014 about 90+% of insurance will cover BC or at least partially cover and in time it will be 100%, then what?


    HL's goose is cooked with the religious argument
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #605
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) so religion doesnt matter? im confused
    Religion should matter on items that are not medically necessary. In those cases, no ones else's rights are being violated. In cases where medically necessary treatments are needed or some people might not be covered (unwed mothers for example) rights are being violated.

    4.) never maid the claim it was but changing coverage based on personal religion is subjecting me to YOUR RELIGIONS and ignoring my own which is a violation, BAM you nailed it
    It is not even close. There are many other ways for an employee to obtain BC which does not include forcing the employee to provide it. By not forcing the employer to cover (pay for) BC, the employer is free to practice their religion by offering insurance not including BC and the employee is free to practice their religion by obtaining BC elsewhere in whatever manner they prefer.

    5.) again meaningless to thei debate and this isnt even true some things are regulated to be covered and just an fyi by 2014 about 90+% of insurance will cover BC or at least partially cover and in time it will be 100%, then what?
    We know that is not true, as churches and other religious organizations are currently exempt.

  6. #606
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)Religion should matter on items that are not medically necessary.
    2.)In those cases, no ones else's rights are being violated.
    3.) In cases where medically necessary treatments are needed or some people might not be covered (unwed mothers for example) rights are being violated.
    4.) It is not even close.
    5.) There are many other ways for an employee to obtain BC which does not include forcing the employee to provide it.
    6.) By not forcing the employer to cover (pay for) BC, the employer is free to practice their religion by offering insurance
    7.) not including BC and the employee is free to practice their religion by obtaining BC elsewhere in whatever manner they prefer.
    8.) We know that is not true, as churches and other religious organizations are currently exempt.
    1.) why? why should they, what if my religion requires some medical procedure? what if my religion requires a circumcision? but yours doesnt you should be able to deny me that?
    2.) 100% false the employee is forced to use coverage dictated based on another religion
    3.) rights are already being violated in 2 and 1
    4.) lol not only is it close its spot on
    5.) true and meaningless why am i subject to those ways based on another religion, BAM you nailed it again
    6.) again the employer is not being forced
    7.) having coverage for your employees has ZERO impact on their religion is BS, there is no force of this
    8.) correct buy now their personal coverage was deiced by another religion hence violating their rights. again you are spot on

    the employer is effected at all its complete bunk, dishonest and stupidity on HLs part and like i said i say that as a christian.

    9.) actually check your facts it is true 90% of INSURANCES will have this in 2014 and then it will be all in the futer, this will not effect the churches being exempt they still will be because churches CAN use the religion excuse as they are protected, HL can not but there will be not choice for all others.

    the religious angle is a complete loses and you haven't changed that one bit im still waiting for one piece of logic or facts that support it,. so far you got nothing.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #607
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) why? why should they, what if my religion requires some medical procedure? what if my religion requires a circumcision? but yours doesnt you should be able to deny me that?
    Not all insurances cover circumcisions. So, an employer is not required to provide this and can deny that coverage based on a religious reason if they so choose. A Jewish employee whose company's insurance doesn't cover circumcision is not having their rights violated. Just like the case of BC, there is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to free circumcisions.

    2.) 100% false the employee is forced to use coverage dictated based on another religion
    No, they are not forced to use coverage... They are free to obtain the medically optional treatment in any other number of ways.

    4.) lol not only is it close its spot on
    Not really. Just because something is not covered by an employer's insurance plan, does not deny any rights to the employee. The employee just has to obtain it in a different manner - in which there are many options. The employee's rights are still protected.

    5.) true and meaningless why am i subject to those ways based on another religion, BAM you nailed it again
    Because the employer not providing it to you is not a violation of the rights of the employee. By not being required to provide it, both the rights of the individual and the employer are protected. Again, and I don't get why you don't understand this... There is zero constitutional guarantee that other people pay for things for you... whether the reason they don't want to pay for it is religious or not is immaterial.


    9.) actually check your facts it is true 90% of INSURANCES will have this in 2014 and then it will be all in the futer, this will not effect the churches being exempt they still will be because churches CAN use the religion excuse as they are protected, HL can not but there will be not choice for all others.
    So, your claim that 100% of policies will eventually cover BC was false and your claim that all insurances in the future will cover BC is also false. Despite you telling me to check my facts.
    Last edited by buck; 12-07-13 at 02:30 AM.

  8. #608
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Just to point out.. When I state:
    Not all insurances cover circumcisions.

    I mean unless it is medically necessary - a mail having medical issues that require the circumcision- In those cases, all insurance will cover circumcision - just like BC.

  9. #609
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)Not all insurances cover circumcisions.
    2.) So, an employer is not required to provide this and can deny that coverage based on a religious reason if they so choose. A Jewish employee whose company's insurance doesn't cover circumcision is not having their rights violated.
    3.) Just like the case of BC, there is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to free circumcisions.
    4.)No, they are not forced to use coverage... They are free to obtain the medically optional treatment in any other number of ways.
    5.) Not really. Just because something is not covered by an employer's insurance plan, does not deny any rights to the employee. The employee just has to obtain it in a different manner - in which there are many options. The employee's rights are still protected.
    6.)Because the employer not providing it to you is not a violation of the rights of the employee. By not being required to provide it, both the rights of the individual and the employer are protected.
    7.) Again, and I don't get why you don't understand this... There is zero constitutional guarantee that other people pay for things for you... whether the reason they don't want to pay for it is religious or not is immaterial.
    8.) So, your claim that 100% of policies will eventually cover BC was false and your claim that all insurances in the future will cover BC is also false. Despite you telling me to check my facts.
    1.) doesnt matter and odesnt answer the questions, deflection will not work
    2.) answer the question directly instead double talk its not workign and its never going to it just further exposes the failed position of using religion
    3.) good thing nobody made this claim, but repeat it again maybe after you say it 5 times it will have a barring
    4.) uhm exactly forced they will have to obtain it other ways based on what????? you never answer this question just like you never answer this question:

    "if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    why do you run from this

    5,) correct and that will be forced by the employers RELIGION hence the failed position HL has

    like i said every time HL and you uses religion its a failure

    rights are infringed, this is why you wont answer the question in #4

    6.) again nobody said this, see #3 this strawman is meaningless to the reality of what would happen, the employer would be forcing it views on the employee causing them to do extra steps based on what? they would be denied coverage of this under their policy based on what?

    come one you can say it, you can answer . .
    7.) i do understand it, its meaningless to the discussion a straw man and nothing i ever said or used as an argument lol

    8.) nope its 100% true, churches will just be example but the 90% will cover it next year an din the future they will all cover it this is a FACT, churches will just have an exemption, that doesnt change the fact it will be covered lol not to mention HL is not a church so again, then what? nice try but another fail

    the religious angle is a complete loss and you haven't changed that one bit im still waiting for one piece of logic or facts that support it,. so far you got nothing. Still waiting.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #610
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2.) answer the question directly instead double talk its not workign and its never going to it just further exposes the failed position of using religion
    There was zero double talk. An employer can choose to not cover circumcision for religious purpose if they so want (or any reason at all). The Jewish employee that can not get the free/covered circumcision had zero rights infringed upon. Just like the case of BC.

    In fact, you've now tried a few times, and failed each time, to name a treatment that is not medically necessary that is required to be covered. In all cases of a non-medically required treatment, an employer can deny coverage for any reason - including religious (obvious exception for now = BC)

    The one and only argument that your side really has is whether the employer has 1st amendment rights. While I believe they should and do, the SC will decide. The only rights that can be infringed upon in this argument, are those of the employer who would have to violate their religion to provide free BC to their employees. The rights of the employee can not possibly be violated in anyway regardless of the outcome.

Page 61 of 66 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... 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
  •