• 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!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

Aberration said:
How is contraception the answer when it has been so ineffective?

Do you HONESTLY think everyone will use it? Don't people need to be responsible then? Its a nice idea, buy far from reasonable.

It is not YOUR answer. It is not logical to YOU. It seems plenty logical to me, considering how much effort has been put in to push the notion of safe sex and how ineffective it has been.
Click to expand...

Then they would only be paying for contraceptives for those who want to use it.

And there are a couple of forms of birth control that are very effective, vasectomies and tubal ligations. Don't work all the time, but over 99% of the time they do, particularly if the people actually obey the doctor's advice about recovery.
 
j-mac said:
Joe, you have embarrassingly pointed out that you have a fundamental non understanding of how employment, and HR work within a free non union business. And until you start posting like you have the slightest clue of how these functions work, we are done here, and I stand by my last post to you, further, I don't think you are debating here in good faith anymore, and frankly I grow tired of your laughable parsing, and denial of what is in black and white for everyone to see here. You clearly can not discuss anymore without this subterfuge entrenched within your sentence structure. Frankly, I find it boring.

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, once agian, this is your excuse not to address the point being made. You rely on vague "you don't understand" instead of addressing the point. I took rather concernted pains to explain the position to you. Insurance is compensation. If you are to maintain that it isn't, you have to make some effort to show it isn't as opposed to just saying it isn't and you don't understand. Nor have you shown anythign concerning hr, as if they had nothing at all to with compensation. The person hiring you sets up the parameters, and HR puts the details together. That doesn't change at all that compensation is compensation. Perhaps if you don't think insurance is compensation, you can explain what you think it is. Someone else suggested it was given out of the goodness of the companies heart. I showed a few sites showing insurance as related to payment for employment, part of a compensatin package, for work rendered. Why do you nor others tackle that point?

I know, easier to say some doesn't understand and your bored and they are trying subterfuge. Now that I do understand.
 
Allow me to do this for you again j:

Compensation isn't just the cash, it's also the benefits. The most important benefits are health and dental insurance.

Benefits are part of the compensation package

You pay for your insurance now. You deserve to control it.

Here is the central point and main confusion of the healthcare debate.

Easy Opinions: Company Paid Health Insurance is Part of Your Salary

What is Salary Packaging?

Packaging allows employees to change the structure of their remuneration package and take non-cash benefits in lieu of salary.

Guidelines - Human Resources - The University of Melbourne

Beyond Compensation

Compensation is more than just base pay. It is a total package that should address your overall well-being - financial, physical, emotional, even spiritual. As companies compete for talent in tight labor markets, many are rolling out better benefits to attract and retain the best workers.

Salary | Benefits | An Employee Benefit Plan Beyond Health Insurance. Benefits for Education

Health insurance is considered compensation in areas where health insurance is not nationally funded. This insurance may be paid for by employers or employees. Not all health insurance is the same, and better companies often have better plans, which may include dental and vision insurance.

What Is a Compensation Package?

I'm sure you will miss the point and think anyone who isn't in lock step with you just doesn't understand and is trying to be overly tricky. But I point out, I'm the one offering support j.
 
Boo Radley said:
Allow me to do this for you again j:

Compensation isn't just the cash, it's also the benefits. The most important benefits are health and dental insurance.

Benefits are part of the compensation package

You pay for your insurance now. You deserve to control it.

Here is the central point and main confusion of the healthcare debate.

Easy Opinions: Company Paid Health Insurance is Part of Your Salary

What is Salary Packaging?

Packaging allows employees to change the structure of their remuneration package and take non-cash benefits in lieu of salary.

Guidelines - Human Resources - The University of Melbourne

Beyond Compensation

Compensation is more than just base pay. It is a total package that should address your overall well-being - financial, physical, emotional, even spiritual. As companies compete for talent in tight labor markets, many are rolling out better benefits to attract and retain the best workers.

Salary | Benefits | An Employee Benefit Plan Beyond Health Insurance. Benefits for Education

Health insurance is considered compensation in areas where health insurance is not nationally funded. This insurance may be paid for by employers or employees. Not all health insurance is the same, and better companies often have better plans, which may include dental and vision insurance.

What Is a Compensation Package?

I'm sure you will miss the point and think anyone who isn't in lock step with you just doesn't understand and is trying to be overly tricky. But I point out, I'm the one offering support j.
Click to expand...


This is all well and good Joe, and I do understand that for tax purposes businesses claim things like health, and dental coverage as an employer provided benefit, even though you may contribute as little as 10% of the cost, or as much as 70% of the cost. There are a couple of factors though that make it so that the average working person out there does NOT control what they are offered in this part of their 'compensation package'...

1. The employee has NO say in what insurance plans will be offered through the company.

2. In many cases, I would venture to say most cases a workers salary doesn't rise if they decide not to participate in the company health plan.

3. An employee can not go into HR at their particular company and demand that their health plan cover something not currently covered.

To place on these benefits what you seem to be proposing here is to tell employers to drop their benefit packages all together, which btw, they are NOT required to offer.

To relate this to the thread topic, is at this point straying. This debate is, and should be in how the government is telling the Church who they can and can not treat, or who they can or can not hire, if they want to stay true to their religious doctrine.

The government should NOT be in the business of determining which entity within the Catholic Church is or is not a part of the Church.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
This is all well and good Joe, and I do understand that for tax purposes businesses claim things like health, and dental coverage as an employer provided benefit, even though you may contribute as little as 10% of the cost, or as much as 70% of the cost. There are a couple of factors though that make it so that the average working person out there does NOT control what they are offered in this part of their 'compensation package'...

1. The employee has NO say in what insurance plans will be offered through the company.

2. In many cases, I would venture to say most cases a workers salary doesn't rise if they decide not to participate in the company health plan.

3. An employee can not go into HR at their particular company and demand that their health plan cover something not currently covered.

To place on these benefits what you seem to be proposing here is to tell employers to drop their benefit packages all together, which btw, they are NOT required to offer.

To relate this to the thread topic, is at this point straying. This debate is, and should be in how the government is telling the Church who they can and can not treat, or who they can or can not hire, if they want to stay true to their religious doctrine.

The government should NOT be in the business of determining which entity within the Catholic Church is or is not a part of the Church.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Actually, they do. As part of the employee group that just negotiated our packet, we had a say. However, that isn't even the point. A employer offers both salary and benefits for the employee. to attract them. They don't use either the salary or the benefits themselves. The employee does. As compensation, both salary and insurance belong to the employee.

And over time, salaries do rise and compensation does change, both for the better and worse. As I said, during negotiations increase in insurance counted as increase in our compesation (salary). It was ours, part of what we got for working there.

Also, you skew it a bit. AN employee really can't go in and demand he be paid more or in potato chips either. Both can be renegotiated, most often as a collective. In some cases, especially at the higher level postions, one can renogitiate individual compensation. Those mostly likely to be able to demand increased pay can demand increased coverage as well.

Just as the government can demand minimum wage, they can demand minimal coverage, and defind what that means. However, that is not really what we're dicussing here. We're discussing who this insurance belongs to. As compensation, I say it belongs to the employee, and have offered support for that. You were arguing it didn't, but made a slight change in you claim here now.
 
j-mac said:
The government should NOT be in the business of determining which entity within the Catholic Church is or is not a part of the Church.

j-mac
Click to expand...

The government should not be creating exceptions for the church and this doesn't become a problem. As long as every other group in this country is expected to offer something, then it should be universal. No special rights.
 
muciti said:
The government should not be creating exceptions for the church and this doesn't become a problem. As long as every other group in this country is expected to offer something, then it should be universal. No special rights.
Click to expand...

No "special rights"?

How about ordinary rights then, where people can participate or not?
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they do. As part of the employee group that just negotiated our packet, we had a say. However, that isn't even the point. A employer offers both salary and benefits for the employee. to attract them. They don't use either the salary or the benefits themselves. The employee does. As compensation, both salary and insurance belong to the employee.

And over time, salaries do rise and compensation does change, both for the better and worse. As I said, during negotiations increase in insurance counted as increase in our compesation (salary). It was ours, part of what we got for working there.

Also, you skew it a bit. AN employee really can't go in and demand he be paid more or in potato chips either. Both can be renegotiated, most often as a collective. In some cases, especially at the higher level postions, one can renogitiate individual compensation. Those mostly likely to be able to demand increased pay can demand increased coverage as well.

Just as the government can demand minimum wage, they can demand minimal coverage, and defind what that means. However, that is not really what we're dicussing here. We're discussing who this insurance belongs to. As compensation, I say it belongs to the employee, and have offered support for that. You were arguing it didn't, but made a slight change in you claim here now.
Click to expand...



Union membership in the US is somewhere around 7% so your anecdotes of how your group, collective, or any other euphemism for union negotiation, matters not. That isn't the real world.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they do. As part of the employee group that just negotiated our packet, we had a say. However, that isn't even the point. A employer offers both salary and benefits for the employee. to attract them. They don't use either the salary or the benefits themselves. The employee does. As compensation, both salary and insurance belong to the employee.

And over time, salaries do rise and compensation does change, both for the better and worse. As I said, during negotiations increase in insurance counted as increase in our compesation (salary). It was ours, part of what we got for working there.

Also, you skew it a bit. AN employee really can't go in and demand he be paid more or in potato chips either. Both can be renegotiated, most often as a collective. In some cases, especially at the higher level postions, one can renogitiate individual compensation. Those mostly likely to be able to demand increased pay can demand increased coverage as well.

Just as the government can demand minimum wage, they can demand minimal coverage, and defind what that means. However, that is not really what we're dicussing here. We're discussing who this insurance belongs to. As compensation, I say it belongs to the employee, and have offered support for that. You were arguing it didn't, but made a slight change in you claim here now.
Click to expand...

Oh, and the only "change" I made is in that I agree that employers count it as compensation. It is still not yours in the respect of you don't pay for the lion share of the premium in many cases, and you don't negotiate the policy coverages. The plan is offered to you and you either take it or you don't simple as that.

j-mac
 
muciti said:
The government should not be creating exceptions for the church and this doesn't become a problem. As long as every other group in this country is expected to offer something, then it should be universal. No special rights.
Click to expand...

What if for discussions sake, we were talking about Muslims in this country being forced to eat pork? Would your view be the same?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh, and the only "change" I made is in that I agree that employers count it as compensation. It is still not yours in the respect of you don't pay for the lion share of the premium in many cases, and you don't negotiate the policy coverages. The plan is offered to you and you either take it or you don't simple as that.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't pay the lions share of my cash either. Again, it is compensation. You agree it is compensation. As such, it belongs to the empolyee. And yes, a good number do negotiate. But, we don't negotiate minimum wage, so again, that wouldn't matter. So, it is not as simple as you present.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't pay the lions share of my cash either. Again, it is compensation. You agree it is compensation. As such, it belongs to the empolyee. And yes, a good number do negotiate. But, we don't negotiate minimum wage, so again, that wouldn't matter. So, it is not as simple as you present.
Click to expand...

Well, good for you. The fact of the matter is that like I said in the beginning of our to and fro, is true...other than union negotiation scenarios, Health Ins. is purchased by the employer, coverage limits, and what is or isn't covered is set up by the employer, and the only say you have as an employee is whether or not you'd like to enroll in the plan. Now if you continue to make yourself look foolish by insisting that you own that policy, then tell me what happens to it when you leave that employment?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, good for you. The fact of the matter is that like I said in the beginning of our to and fro, is true...other than union negotiation scenarios, Health Ins. is purchased by the employer, coverage limits, and what is or isn't covered is set up by the employer, and the only say you have as an employee is whether or not you'd like to enroll in the plan. Now if you continue to make yourself look foolish by insisting that you own that policy, then tell me what happens to it when you leave that employment?


j-mac
Click to expand...

We don't have a union. Sorry.

But as you're missing the point, let me ask, does the employer set minimum wage, which is also compensation?
 
Boo Radley said:
We don't have a union. Sorry.

But as you're missing the point, let me ask, does the employer set minimum wage, which is also compensation?
Click to expand...

No, but the employer at this time is not bound by law to offer health insurance either. So, answer the question to you Joe...What happens to that insurance when you leave the job?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No, but the employer at this time is not bound by law to offer health insurance either. So, answer the question to you Joe...What happens to that insurance when you leave the job?

j-mac
Click to expand...

They are bound to pay me at least minimum wage with a few exceptions. And I don't take their pay check with me when I leave either. Now, you can do the whole you're silly thing, or consider what is being said.
 
Boo Radley said:
They are bound to pay me at least minimum wage with a few exceptions. And I don't take their pay check with me when I leave either. Now, you can do the whole you're silly thing, or consider what is being said.
Click to expand...

Can the employer terminate your job?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh absolutely they can, now humor me if you will...Can a company discontinue offering health insurance?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Sure can. Again, not the issue.
 
j-mac said:
What if for discussions sake, we were talking about Muslims in this country being forced to eat pork? Would your view be the same?


j-mac
Click to expand...

No one at all is forcing anyone to use the contraceptives so your question is not equal. A better question would be if there was a law forcing all restaraunts to offer pork on the menu and every restaurant was required to offer it, should muslims be excempt? I'd say no. Again no one is forcing any one to use contraceptives.

For the record I don't support contraceptives being a forced part of health care, however, currently it is. So since it is, everyone should have the same standard.
 
j-mac said:
Great. So the employer can fire you, and or do away with your health insurance....You don't own either.....Thanks for playin'.



j-mac
Click to expand...

You make a huge mistake in reasoning (as we all knew your long winded game was going this way). The pay is the employers until he gives it to me. As is the insurance. He cannot tell me what to spend my money on. Nor should he tell me what I should use insurance for. You admit that it is compensation, and not anything else. And as pointed out above, no one makes anyone use contraceptions or anything else. The choice for use is with the individual, the one compsensated.

Do you see this yet?
 
Boo Radley said:
You make a huge mistake in reasoning (as we all knew your long winded game was going this way). The pay is the employers until he gives it to me. As is the insurance. He cannot tell me what to spend my money on. Nor should he tell me what I should use insurance for. You admit that it is compensation, and not anything else. And as pointed out above, no one makes anyone use contraceptions or anything else. The choice for use is with the individual, the one compsensated.

Do you see this yet?
Click to expand...

And if he gives you insurance that does not cover BC, you can do what you wish with it.
 
Aberration said:
And if he gives you insurance that does not cover BC, you can do what you wish with it.
Click to expand...

Which would be like paying less than minimum wage. If all others have to have this minimal provision, so should everyone. Again, no one is forced to use this, and if it is against YOUR beliefs, don't use it. But those who don;t share your belief can. The issue here is if anyone is foring anyone against their beliefs. No one is. Clergy still don't have to use contraceptions or anything else.
 
muciti said:
if there was a law forcing all restaraunts to offer pork on the menu and every restaurant was required to offer it, should muslims be excempt? I'd say no.
Click to expand...
I'd say 'yes'. Restricting religious freedom isn't always wrong, but there should be a compelling reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom