Corporations Aren't People

buck · Dec 6, 2013

AGENT J said:
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?

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
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.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
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?

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
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

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
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.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
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.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
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.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

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.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
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.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
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.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
1.)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.

2.)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. The only one? BC. And that may not be for long... at least in the case of employees that have a religious objection.

3.)The one and only argument that your side really has is whether the employer has 1st amendment rights.

4.) While I believe they should and do, the SC will decide.

5.) 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.

6.)The rights of the employee can not possibly be violated in anyway regardless of the outcome.

1.) no they can not :shrug: this is why the religion argument complete fails and i said they would have been better lying. If religion is used and in this case very stupidly admitted its infringment

just like i can hire, fire, promote not promote you based on CLAIMED or REAL performance but if i use religion im screwed

it seems the owners of HL are morons in this regard.

2.) this is a lie ive never tried that lmao, ive never made that claim ever its the straw man you kept bring up and failed, should i qoute myself pointing that out each time, jeez now youve gone from strawman and deflections to straight lies

if you disagree please please qoute me one time saying that I provided an example of that

3.) no that not an argument at all the employer has those and they remain intact the whole time, them providing coverage for thier employees does NOT violated that in any way its BS

4.) see #3 its a none issue to me, i believe the do also

5.) false this does not happen at all and has a christian i laugh at something so stupid and such a mentally retarded claim (by HL not saying you)

6.) false they will have the owners religion forced on them in a way they infringes they liberties

question you keep dodging because they destroy HL

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

they (employees) would be denied coverage of BC under their policy based on what?

will you ever answer these?

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.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
1.) no they can not :shrug: this is why the religion argument complete fails and i said they would have been better lying. If religion is used and in this case very stupidly admitted its infringment

Yes, they can. I have been in insurance nearly 20 years, including a long stint in claims and quite a few industry designations. An employer can choose not to purchase coverage for any number of non-medically necessary things. He can make that determination for any reason he wants.

just like i can hire, fire, promote not promote you based on CLAIMED or REAL performance but if i use religion im screwed

Again, not the same. No matter how much you try to shoe-horn it in. It is discriminatory and a violation of rights to fire someone for religious beliefs. It is not discriminatory to not offer circumcision insurance to all of your employers even if you make that decision based on religious beliefs. If it were, this would have been settled in courts a long time ago.. As many religious employers did not provide BC coverage specifically for religious reasons..

5.) false this does not happen at all and has a christian i laugh at something so stupid and such a mentally retarded claim (by HL not saying you)

Disagree, if an employer believes that their religion is against BC, forcing them to provide BC to their employees is an infringement. It's not that far off from forcing a Jewish employer from providing pork to their employees or a Muslim employer from providing Alcohol to their employees.

6.) false they will have the owners religion forced on them in a way they infringes they liberties

False, a company not purchasing circumcision, birth control, or any of the other examples you've tried providing, is not an infringement of any right. The liberty of the employee to do as they will (prurchase their own circ, BC, etc) still exists. The only missing piece is that the employer is not paying for it.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
1.)Yes, they can. I have been in insurance nearly 20 years, including a long stint in claims and quite a few industry designations. An employer can choose not to purchase coverage for any number of non-medically necessary things. He can make that determination for any reason he wants.

2.)Again, not the same. No matter how much you try to shoe-horn it in. It is discriminatory and a violation of rights to fire someone for religious beliefs. It is not discriminatory to not offer circumcision insurance to all of your employers even if you make that decision based on religious beliefs. If it were, this would have been settled in courts a long time ago.. As many religious employers did not provide BC coverage specifically for religious reasons..

3.)Disagree, if an employer believes that their religion is against BC, forcing them to provide BC to their employees is an infringement. It's not that far off from forcing a Jewish employer from providing pork to their employees or a Muslim employer from providing Alcohol to their employees.

4.) False, a company not purchasing circumcision, birth control, or any of the other examples you've tried providing, is not an infringement of any right. The liberty of the employee to do as they will (prurchase their own circ, BC, etc) still exists. The only missing piece is that the employer is not paying for it.

1.) nope laws and rights disagree, once its said to be religion theres court cases that can be had, you working in the field has no impact to that

2.) the only thing show horned in is how you try and fail to reshape my actual statement lol the debate is religion being forced on others coverage

3.) you can disagree but you are factually wrong, they can believe what ever they want they have to be able to defend it they just cant "say it" HL is complete idiots for trying to sell this, nothing in the bible makes this true they are morons.

why not just make up anything

4.) as already shown thats false it does infringe hence your continue dodging of my questions which is VERY TELLING and quite hilarious but i wont stop asking them

question you keep dodging because they destroy HL

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

they (employees) would be denied coverage of BC under their policy based on what?

will you ever answer these?

good move backing off the other lies too

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.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
1.) nope laws and rights disagree, once its said to be religion theres court cases that can be had, you working in the field has no impact to that

Nope, court cases and reality disagree with you.
First a court has already upheld HL.
Second, even the decisions against (such as Conestoga Wood Specialties V Seelius) do not make such a claim - that when they don't offer a coverage due to religious reason they are violating rights of employees.
Third, you have already acknowledged that religious organizations - even if they employ some non-Christians - are not required to offer BC coverage.
Last, I only point out my experience, to let you know I have real world experience with this, and it has gone on for a very long time with no successful challenges.

2.) the only thing show horned in is how you try and fail to reshape my actual statement lol the debate is religion being forced on others coverage

While firing an employee due to religious differences is forcing, choosing to not offer covered BC, circumcision or vasectomy due to religious reasons is not. There has not been a single successful challenge showing that it is.

3.) you can disagree but you are factually wrong, they can believe what ever they want they have to be able to defend it they just cant "say it" HL is complete idiots for trying to sell this, nothing in the bible makes this true they are morons.

Not understanding what you are attempting to get across, as the bible is clearly against abortificants and the interference with life. I can only imagine you are trying to say something different... very unclearly.

question you keep dodging because they destroy HL

I haven't dodged anything. There are questions I might skip because the replies become way too large and the conversation has become tiring.

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

You keep asking this question which has already been answered. That you do not like the answer is your own issue. HL are providing the coverage, signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.

good move backing off the other lies too

Really didn't back off, just gets too long and boring.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
1.)Nope, court cases and reality disagree with you. First a court has already upheld HL. Second, even the decisions against (such as Conestoga Wood Specialties V Seelius) do not make such a claim - that when they don't offer a coverage due to religious reason they are violating rights of employees.
2.) Third, you have already acknowledged that religious organizations - even if they employ some non-Christians - are not required to offer BC coverage.
3.) Last, I only point out my experience, to let you know I have real world experience with this, and it has gone on for a very long time with no successful challenges.

4.)While firing an employee due to religious differences is forcing, choosing to not offer covered BC, circumcision or vasectomy due to religious reasons is not. There has not been a single successful challenge showing that it is.

5.)Not understanding what you are attempting to get across, as the bible is clearly against abortificants and the interference with life. I can only imagine you are trying to say something different... very unclearly.

6.)I haven't dodged anything. There are questions I might skip because the replies become way too large and the conversation has become tiring.

7.)You keep asking this question which has already been answered. That you do not like the answer is your own issue. HL are providing the coverage, signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.

8.)Really didn't back off, just gets too long and boring.

1.) nope this is in court now and they will lose in the end ill take bets on that if you are interested
2.) you keep repeating this like it means something, it doesnt
3.) which again doesnt affect anythign
4.) weird so you dodge the reshape and just make a random statement
5.) really factually prove this LMAO factually prove that it will be a sin for HL to provided coverage, please stop, that claim is absurd when has a christian it has no effect on me
6.) you factually dodged them and you keep doing it i have repeated them probably 10 times and asked why you dont answer, thats a dodge

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

7.) thank you for factually proving you are not answering the question, what is in number 7 is not an answer at all an nobody honest buys the lie. Nobody asked you HOW decesions are made or what they COULD be based on according to your OPINION the question is very specific and you dodging it is VERY telling

Ill repeat the question again just for fun but you will dodge it and run from it AGAIN
"""if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

8.) yes you did unless of course you can provide the proof i asked for of the lie you posted?

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
1.) nope this is in court now and they will lose in the end ill take bets on that if you are interested

They may lose. They will not lose due to the reason you cite - an employer not providing free BC is infringement of any rights of the employee.

5.) really factually prove this LMAO factually prove that it will be a sin for HL to provided coverage, please stop, that claim is absurd when has a christian it has no effect on me

If the bible calls termination of a pregnancy (abortion) a sin, and I would allege that it does, and HL is being asked to provide free pills that can cause the abortion of the unborn, then HL is involved in the sin also.

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

7.) thank you for factually proving you are not answering the question, what is in number 7 is not an answer at all an nobody honest buys the lie. Nobody asked you HOW decesions are made or what they COULD be based on according to your OPINION the question is very specific and you dodging it is VERY telling

Ill repeat the question again just for fun but you will dodge it and run from it AGAIN
"""if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

As stated numerous times the basis for HL deciding on what is in the coverage is that they are signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.

I'm still waiting for you to provide just a single court case after all these years that cites religious freedom of the employee for forcing the employer to provide coverage for any non-medically necessary treatments. Of course, you'll just dodge and ignore the cases that have already cone down that made zero such claim.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
1.)They may lose.
2.)They will not lose due to the reason you cite - them not providing free BC is infringement of any form of rights.

3.)If the bible calls termination of a pregnancy (abortion) a sin, and I would allege that it does, and HL is being asked to provide free pills that can cause the abortion of the unborn, then HL is involved in the sin also.

4.)As stated numerous times the basis for HL deciding on what is in the coverage is that they are signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.

1.) so no bet?
2.) never said it was but keep posting this lie you might get somebody to believe it
3.) so you do or do not have FACTUAL prove that owning a businesses and providing healthcare coverage is a sin?
4.) BOOM! dodged again

ill repeat the question since you never answer it directly

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

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
2.) never said it was but keep posting this lie you might get somebody to believe it

You get boring, but you have. Multiple times. One such example:

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

What is the specific reason you believe that HL will ose the court case?

3.) so you do or do not have FACTUAL prove that owning a businesses and providing healthcare coverage is a sin?

Do I have factual proof that a Christian providing abortion causing medications to a pregnant woman so that her unborn can die is a sin? No. Guess you'll just have to use the old common sense.

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

And i'll answer again. It will be based on them contracting for the coverage, paying the coverage and getting to make decision on what medically non-necessary treatments are covered. They can make that decision for any number of reasons, including religious.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
2.)You get boring, but you have. Multiple times. One such example:

2.)What is the specific reason you believe that HL will ose the court case?

3.)Do I have factual proof that a Christian providing abortion causing medications to a pregnant woman so that her unborn can die is a sin? No. Guess you'll just have to use the old common sense.

And i'll answer again. It will be based on them contracting for the coverage, paying the coverage and getting to make decision on what medically non-necessary treatments are covered. They can make that decision for any number of reasons, including religious.

1.) nope thisis a bold face lie and a strawman you made up that was never claimed by me once, if you disagree simply quote me, you will fail

and your quote of me doesnt mention BC anywhere thanks for proving me right again but please keep trying your failed strawman

2.) Because of the use of their religion which is a complete failure in this regard. Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others

3.) so the answer is no because there isnt any its a failed straw man by HL

4.) BAM ANOTHER dodge so i will ask again

every time you dodge it your failed position is further exposed nobody honest is falling for your dodge

ill repeat the question since you never answer it directly

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

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?

tell me their exact reason they are using?

Objective Voice · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
Not agreeing, but a personal choice.. like if one wants to take BC or not?

That's right...a personal choice, not a part of doing business or following local, state or federal regulations. Just because the owners/majority shareholders of Hobby Lobby objects to the idea that health care plans contain a birth control provision (which is no different than said plan containing an abortion provision) and that they must adhere to the law and provide said health care policies to their employees does not mean that the corporate owners bare any harm here. They still have a choice to absolve themselves of this moral dilemma: not offer insurance to their employees and pay the fine.

You see, either way the corporation would've been out of money. But what's being argued here isn't that they'd have to pay any more towards health care cost than they already do. The argument is are Hobby Lobby's religious rights being violated? The answer is NO! because Hobby Lobby isn't a religious entity. Moreover, they aren't being forced to participate in the administration of health insurance to their employees; they can opt out by simply paying the fine.

For the sake of argument, if employee chooses not to participate, you may be right..

but, as already stated, both hiring and retention are improved when a company offers benefits. Not being able to offer the benefit (otherwise contradicting religious beliefs) is harming the company. paying the fine, does not make up for the harm to the employer's retention and hiring abilities. reduced retention and hiring is... is that not harm?

Considering that employers have been arguing for quite some time that their two biggest operating expenses have been: 1) taxes and, 2) insurance, I don't see them as being harmed here as much as I see it as a business choice. Now, if they're having problems remaining competitive because they don't offer such a benefit, that's on them. Moreover, you're arguing the theoretical, not the actual. But even if employees discover that a company doesn't offer certain benefits such as insurance, the employer could easily compensate for not having that lure by increasing hourly wages. Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water.

The only harm the employer faces in this case is that which he imposes on himself by not creating an incentive package that peeks the potential employee's interest OR doing enough (salary wise) to retain his employees (because he took a benefit from them OR increased that portion which the employee now has to pay). And before you say that the PPACA is fostering such retentive behavior, I'd argue that employers are only doing what they always do - use the tax laws to benefit themselves. As such, some companies are artificially keeping their employment numbers low because they made the decision to reduce operating costs, i.e., cutting employee hours down to part-time so as not to pay health insurance cost. You could argue that employers are doing that in some industries because of the law, but there are corporations in other industries that have passed on the cost to their employees to make up the difference (while also weeding out low performing employees).

You can't have it both ways here.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
1.) nope thisis a bold face lie and a strawman you made up that was never claimed by me once, if you disagree simply quote me, you will fail

and your quote of me doesnt mention BC anywhere thanks for proving me right again but please keep trying your failed strawman

my comment:

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..

Your response:

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

So, if you aren't stating that an employer not providing coverage for birth control due to the religion of the employer is a violation, then you obviously have problems communicating your thoughts. Because I see no other way to take what you said.

2.) Because of the use of their religion which is a complete failure in this regard. Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others

and you did it again. There is no infringement on the liberty of the employee by the employer not providing coverage for unnecessary medical treatments to the employee. The employer can choose any reason - including the reason that has existed for ever, religion. There has been no such judicial challenge to this decision not to offer a specific coverage and none of the judges of the challenges to the current BC mandate have put forth this opinion. If I am wrong, please find the actual decisions - I have already read a couple - and find it for me. You should have zero problem quoting directly from the decision if what you say is true. I'll wait.

3.) so the answer is no because there isnt any its a failed straw man by HL

No, the answer is not "no". Providing something to someone with the knowledge that they will use that something to kill someone is abetting. It is not only a crime, but it would also be a sin against God. Examples: Someone purchasing a prostitute for another individual is just as guilty of sin as the individual that makes use of the prostitute. An employer purchasing something for an employee when that something will be used to kill the unborn will also be guilty of sin. I find it baffling that you don't understand this.

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

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?

tell me their exact reason they are using?

It's only a dodge in your mind. So I'll repeat: It makes zero difference. HL is paying and contracting. They can choose any reason - including religion - to not want to cover a certain non-necessary medical treatment. Choosing a religious reason is not an infringement and, while someone can sue for anything, they have no chance of winning.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

Objective Voice said:
Considering that employers have been arguing for quite some time that their two biggest operating expenses have been: 1) taxes and, 2) insurance, I don't see them as being harmed here as much as I see it as a business choice.

Not only do that not have the benefit of offering insurance to their employees, they still have to pay the fine.

Now, if they're having problems remaining competitive because they don't offer such a benefit, that's on them.

It's not really a choice. It's coercion. Either violate your religious beliefs or lose the benefits of offering insurance.

But even if employees discover that a company doesn't offer certain benefits such as insurance, the employer could easily compensate for not having that lure by increasing hourly wages. Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water.

Increased compensation, as you suggest, is not as useful in retention as offering beenfits are. Many people work, take and stay at jobs specifically because insurance is part of the equation. Many will take or stay in a lower paying job specifically because insurance is available and may not be in the other.

AGENT J · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
my comment:

Your response:

1.)So, if you aren't stating that an employer not providing coverage for birth control due to the religion of the employer is a violation, then you obviously have problems communicating your thoughts. Because I see no other way to take what you said.

2.)and you did it again. There is no infringement on the liberty of the employee by the employer not providing coverage for unnecessary medical treatments to the employee. The employer can choose any reason - including the reason that has existed for ever, religion. There has been no such judicial challenge to this decision not to offer a specific coverage and none of the judges of the challenges to the current BC mandate have put forth this opinion. If I am wrong, please find the actual decisions - I have already read a couple - and find it for me. You should have zero problem quoting directly from the decision if what you say is true. I'll wait.

3.)No, the answer is not "no". Providing something to someone with the knowledge that they will use that something to kill someone is abetting. It is not only a crime, but it would also be a sin against God. Examples: Someone purchasing a prostitute for another individual is just as guilty of sin as the individual that makes use of the prostitute. An employer purchasing something for an employee when that something will be used to kill the unborn will also be guilty of sin. I find it baffling that you don't understand this.

4.) It's only a dodge in your mind.

5.) So I'll repeat: It makes zero difference.
6.)HL is paying and contracting.
7.) They can choose any reason - including religion - to not want to cover a certain non-necessary medical treatment.
8.) Choosing a religious reason is not an infringement and, while someone can sue for anything, they have no chance of winning.

1.) thank you for going way out of the way to further prove i never made that claim its a strawman you made up and you lack of understanding facts is not my issue. Once again i never made the claim and facts prove that. :shrug: notice how my first words of the sentences say "never made that claim" lol thank you for completely owning youw own post

2.) more lies and strawman i love how you just make up an argument that has nothing to do with what i say, pleease continue this its funny, why do you think strawman and lies will work?

3.) yes it was and still is, nothing you said changed that
you have no facts to support your claim this hasn't changed, you are free to keep your OPINIONS though but the fact remains the answer is no

4.) nope its a factual dodge and you dodging it destroys your own post every time, it my favorite part. Its like I ask for your favorite color and you answer people can like colors for any reason they like.

sorry you are factually dodging the questions and nobody is fooled by the lie that you are not. . . . nobody honest anyway lol

tell me their exact reason they are using?

5.) didnt ask this hence you arr factually dodging
6.) didnt ask this hence you are factually dodging
7.) didnt ask this hence you are factually dodging
8.) didnt ask this hence you are factually dodging

Ill ask AGAIN and i bet anythign you DODGE it again because you know the answer defeats HLs failed stance.

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

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?

Objective Voice · Dec 7, 2013

buck said:
Not only do that not have the benefit of offering insurance to their employees, they still have to pay the fine.

So, we agree HL has an option in this matter; it's not all or nothing. Good. That's progress.

It's not really a choice. It's coercion. Either violate your religious beliefs or lose the benefits of offering insurance.

Not coercion; nobody's forcing HL to provide insurance. They have a choice to do it or not, and within those boundaries they do have "wiggle room", i.e., to adjust business practices by taking advantage of the "tax code" as many large corporation have done. (Re: part-time employment OR deny coverage and pay a fine OR (doing the sensible thing) deny coverage and raise salaries so that employees can buy insurance coverage themselves).

Increased compensation, as you suggest, is not as useful in retention as offering benefits are. Many people work, take and stay at jobs specifically because insurance is part of the equation. Many will take or stay in a lower paying job specifically because insurance is available and may not be in the other.

Again, corporations sought this fringe benefit as a way to make themselves more marketable for employees. They can't get pissed when they've made the insurance marketplace so unpalatable that the average middle-class wage earner can't afford it. Seems to me corporate owners have a choice: pay their share of health insurance which they sought out to do OR increase wages so employees can buy it themselves. Otherwise, the only alternative is socialized medicine.

buck · Dec 7, 2013

AGENT J said:
1.) thank you for going way out of the way to further prove i never made that claim its a strawman you made up and you lack of understanding facts is not my issue. Once again i never made the claim and facts prove that. :shrug: notice how my first words of the sentences say "never made that claim" lol thank you for completely owning youw own post

Oh, but you did:

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

2.) more lies and strawman i love how you just make up an argument that has nothing to do with what i say, pleease continue this its funny, why do you think strawman and lies will work?

Oh, but you did:

Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others

Corporations Aren't People

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Objective Voice

buck

buck

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Objective Voice

buck