|
So how many stores do you have to own before you abdicate your morals to corporate sterility? Should corporations then be banned from donating to causes they morally agree with like gay rights?Donation is the only thing I'm comfortable with, and even then only up to a point. No shell organizations or puppet groups fully funded by a company in private so that one can distance themselves from their beliefs.
So they can only let morality choose where they spend when it effects to the right things? Your compensation as a worker is a choice, they tell you this is what we give. If that is not good enough why work there?
So they can only let morality choose where they spend when it effects to the right things? Your compensation as a worker is a choice, they tell you this is what we give. If that is not good enough why work there?So how many stores do you have to own before you abdicate your morals to corporate sterility? Should corporations then be banned from donating to causes they morally agree with like gay rights?Donation is the only thing I'm comfortable with, and even then only up to a point. No shell organizations or puppet groups fully funded by a company in private so that one can distance themselves from their beliefs.
The company can spend its money anywhere it wants. I don't care who they give it to. They can't tell me how to spend my money, and that includes telling me what services my medical insurance will cover. Medical insurance is compensation, and the company should have no power to decide what is covered. It isn't the company's money being spent on insurance, it is the employee's collective money being spent to pool risk. The company handles the transaction because it is (now) required to do so by law.
|
|
The company can spend its money anywhere it wants. I don't care who they give it to. They can't tell me how to spend my money, and that includes telling me what services my medical insurance will cover. Medical insurance is compensation, and the company shod have no power to decide what us covered. It isn't the company's money being spent on insurance, it is the employee's collective money being spent to pool risk. The company handles the transaction because it is (now) required to do so by law.So they can only let morality choose where they spend when it effects to the right things? Your compensation as a worker is a choice, they tell you this is what we give. If that is not good enough why work there?So how many stores do you have to own before you abdicate your morals to corporate sterility? Should corporations then be banned from donating to causes they morally agree with like gay rights?Donation is the only thing I'm comfortable with, and even then only up to a point. No shell organizations or puppet groups fully funded by a company in private so that one can distance themselves from their beliefs.
That medical coverage is a perk they offer, it is where they spend their money. you can still buy them all with your wages.
OK, for those of us who are not American, just a question. My understanding from reading between the lines is that the issue here is that in the normal course a company's employers would be covered for contraceptives under the medical cover offered by the company. Is that right??
The Australian medical payment system is very different. So I am just making sure I understand.
Makes me happy to be Australian.
Makes me happy to be Australian.OK, for those of us who are not American, just a question. My understanding from reading between the lines is that the issue here is that in the normal course a company's employers would be covered for contraceptives under the medical cover offered by the company. Is that right??
The Australian medical payment system is very different. So I am just making sure I understand.
We'd corrupt you, but your nation is inhospitable to all life :P
And that is the self-entitled, self-important attitude which is why we have this issue going on currently. A company can operate under any reasoning that they want. Sure there are guidelines laid down by the government (which apparently it...The only thing they didn't want to cover was "morning-after pills", "week-after pills", and 2 forms of IUDs that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus lining. Their basic stance is that they will cover you to not get pregnant but once you fertilize an egg, you pay for it yourself.
People want to vilify them and say that it opens the door for companies to opt out of coverage and all that crap....who is forcing people to work for these companies? An employee has a choice. You take the options that a company offers you when you work for them or you find a company that has a better offer. If you don't like the benefits and pay that a company provides then don't work for them. It really is that simple. Some companies will certainly take advantage and strip down their benefits for a quick profit but in the long-term when the employee pool is getting less-experienced, less desirable employees and the company starts taking a hit, then they will either realize that they need to offer better benefits or they will fall to other companies that do.
Hobby Lobby has a very nice benefits package for it's employees.Sure, employees could look for work else where. By that same logic, I can just point out that Hobby Lobby's owners aren't required to employ workers. If they find the concept of NOT imposing their religious beliefs on others to be too onerous, they can just choose not to run their business.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the rules the rest of us have made, they can just close up shop and find another way to make a living.
That's the EXACT same logic as saying that employees can just go elsewhere for employment. Since it cuts both way, it's a moot point and doesn't actually help your argument.
Yes, it's the self-entitled attitude of Hobby Lobby that they can treat their employees differently based on RELIGIOUS ideas. If they don't like respecting the religion of their employees, they can do something else.
No one is forcing Hobby Lobby to exist as a company. No one is forcing them to employ people. These are choices that Hobby Lobby is making. Why should the rules be different for Hobby Lobby, based purely on their religion?
If my religion says I can employ 8 y/o's to do manual labor, does that mean I'm exempt from child labor laws? The children (and their parents) get to choose whether or not they come and work at my business. It's an infringement on my religious freedom to say I can't employ small children.
|
|
...And that is the self-entitled, self-important attitude which is why we have this issue going on currently. A company can operate under any reasoning that they want. Sure there are guidelines laid down by theThe only thing they didn't want to cover was "morning-after pills", "week-after pills", and 2 forms of IUDs that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus lining. Their basic stance is that they will cover you to not get pregnant but once you fertilize an egg, you pay for it yourself.
People want to vilify them and say that it opens the door for companies to opt out of coverage and all that crap....who is forcing people to work for these companies? An employee has a choice. You take the options that a company offers you when you work for them or you find a company that has a better offer. If you don't like the benefits and pay that a company provides then don't work for them. It really is that simple. Some companies will certainly take advantage and strip down their benefits for a quick profit but in the long-term when the employee pool is getting less-experienced, less desirable employees and the company starts taking a hit, then they will either realize that they need to offer better benefits or they will fall to other companies that do.
Hobby Lobby has a very nice benefits package for it's employees.Sure, employees could look for work else where. By that same logic, I can just point out that Hobby Lobby's owners aren't required to employ workers. If they find the concept of NOT imposing their religious beliefs on others to be too onerous, they can just choose not to run their business.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the rules the rest of us have made, they can just close up shop and find another way to make a living.
That's the EXACT same logic as saying that employees can just go elsewhere for employment. Since it cuts both way, it's a moot point and doesn't actually help your argument.
False analogy. if your religion said 8 year olds could not be allowed to work but the law says they could but you refuse to hire them would be more accurate or if your religion says your 8 year old can work and you want to force someone else to employ them.
The employees religious convictions are in no way effected. This is a "don't force us" not a "we force you". they are not the same, don't pretend they are
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't even follow the Hobby Lobby decision, I was too busy pouting over Harris v. Quinn.
Actually, when it comes to female reproductive rights cases, I was a bit more touched by the striking down of Massachusetts' buffer zone law. Not that I ever really particularly cared for that law--No Reliance on the Capitalist State! For Mass Mobilizations to Defend the Clinics!--but one of the first things I did as a young goblin militant was attend a picket line demonstrating against an Operation Rescue confab at Harvard. A couple of months later, John Salvi, who, IIRC, was in attendance at the confab, walked into a couple of clinics in Brookline and murdered Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols. I did a lot of clinic defense that year.
In the meantime, if you add up the perks to your job and find them lacking you need to move to a different job and not cry to the government to make them pay more, offer more benefits, give mandatory vacations, etc....nobody is forcing anyone to stay in their job. If you don't like it then find someone offering better.
You mean apart from putting food on the table, paying rent etc.?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the meantime, if you add up the perks to your job and find them lacking you need to move to a different job and not cry to the government to make them pay more, offer more benefits, give mandatory vacations, etc....nobody is forcing anyone to stay in their job. If you don't like it then find someone offering better.You mean apart from putting food on the table, paying rent etc.?
The irony is that folks saying you can always quit your job are also the ones that want you to starve on the street if you do.
Its really getting to the point where its like ancient serfdom. you either own land (or in this case a large amount of capital) or you're owned by someone that does.
To hell with that, and to hell with the astroturfed brain washing that raises that bit of dross to a moral virtue.
...And that is the self-entitled, self-important attitude which is why we have this issue going on currently. A company can operate under any reasoning that they want. Sure there areThe only thing they didn't want to cover was "morning-after pills", "week-after pills", and 2 forms of IUDs that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus lining. Their basic stance is that they will cover you to not get pregnant but once you fertilize an egg, you pay for it yourself.
People want to vilify them and say that it opens the door for companies to opt out of coverage and all that crap....who is forcing people to work for these companies? An employee has a choice. You take the options that a company offers you when you work for them or you find a company that has a better offer. If you don't like the benefits and pay that a company provides then don't work for them. It really is that simple. Some companies will certainly take advantage and strip down their benefits for a quick profit but in the long-term when the employee pool is getting less-experienced, less desirable employees and the company starts taking a hit, then they will either realize that they need to offer better benefits or they will fall to other companies that do.
Hobby Lobby has a very nice benefits package for it's employees.Sure, employees could look for work else where. By that same logic, I can just point out that Hobby Lobby's owners aren't required to employ workers. If they find the concept of NOT imposing their religious beliefs on others to be too onerous, they can just choose not to run their business.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the rules the rest of us have made, they can just close up shop and find another way to make a living.
That's the EXACT same logic as saying that employees can just go elsewhere for employment. Since it cuts both way, it's a moot point and doesn't actually help your argument.
You aren't actually addressing the issue.
Why does an employer get to use their religion to exempt them from the law when dealing with employees? Why is the employer's religious beliefs more important than the employees?
|
|
...And that is the self-entitled, self-important attitude which is why we have this issue going on currently. A company can operate under any reasoning thatThe only thing they didn't want to cover was "morning-after pills", "week-after pills", and 2 forms of IUDs that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus lining. Their basic stance is that they will cover you to not get pregnant but once you fertilize an egg, you pay for it yourself.
People want to vilify them and say that it opens the door for companies to opt out of coverage and all that crap....who is forcing people to work for these companies? An employee has a choice. You take the options that a company offers you when you work for them or you find a company that has a better offer. If you don't like the benefits and pay that a company provides then don't work for them. It really is that simple. Some companies will certainly take advantage and strip down their benefits for a quick profit but in the long-term when the employee pool is getting less-experienced, less desirable employees and the company starts taking a hit, then they will either realize that they need to offer better benefits or they will fall to other companies that do.
Hobby Lobby has a very nice benefits package for it's employees.Sure, employees could look for work else where. By that same logic, I can just point out that Hobby Lobby's owners aren't required to employ workers. If they find the concept of NOT imposing their religious beliefs on others to be too onerous, they can just choose not to run their business.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the rules the rest of us have made, they can just close up shop and find another way to make a living.
That's the EXACT same logic as saying that employees can just go elsewhere for employment. Since it cuts both way, it's a moot point and doesn't actually help your argument.
In no way is the employees religion impacted unless getting free stuff by government force is in their religion
Just for fun, Scotus amended their decision to now include all 20 forms of birth control instead of just the 4 hobby lobby objected to.
In no way is the employees religion impacted unless getting free stuff by government force is in their religion
Well, it wasn't part of mine before I read this comment. But it is now!
So, by your argument, a company should be giving me free stuff by government force because of my religious beliefs. Not doing so is infringing upon them, after all. Or are you going to argue that the religious beliefs of the company are more important than my religious beliefs?
And that's the essential problem with your argument: End it the day, it is still coming down to conflicts between religious beliefs and somehow holding the company's religious beliefs as more important.
Except that is not true - the committee that wrote the ACA consisted of both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, in order to even get it before Congress both parties had to make concessions. Oh, and it did have GOP support - otherwise it would have never been passed into law as the Democrats did not have control of both the House and the Senate and would have required GOP support in order to get it passed. It was the conservative, not the moderate, members of the GOP that were opposed to it from the start.Except the ACA was written and passed with 0 GOP input or anything. It was purely from differing factions in the Democratic party. The ACA was a highly unpopular train wreck from the start.
(Note that I am a Libertarian Conservative or a Conservative Libertarian, so I am opposed to the whole thing.)
Not quite. The committees did have both Democrats and Republicans and the GOP certainly had input, but you're incorrect about passage of the law.
Not a single Rapublican voted for it, despite much effort at peeling off a couple of votes. At the time the Democrats did control both Houses and even had a brief filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Check again - the Republicans controlled the House and the Democrats controlled the Senate - the last time that one party controlled both the House and Senate was when the Republicans controlled both under George W. Bush. There were Republicans and Democrats that voted No, Republicans and Democrats that abstained, and Republicans and Democrats that voted Yes. It was the conservative members of the Republican party that were most likely to vote No - the moderates were more likely to abstain or vote Yes. Unfortunately, it has been my observation that many people think that Republican = Conservative so they think that whatever the Conservatives say or do the entire GOP says or does - again this is just my observation.
Edit - Oops, my mistake - please forgive me - I triple-checked - the Democrats were controlling the House when the law was passed. I can never keep the two parties separate anymore. George Washington was right about the evils of political parties.
Not quite. The committees did have both Democrats and Republicans and the GOP certainly had input, but you're incorrect about passage of the law.
Not a single Rapublican voted for it, despite much effort at peeling off a couple of votes. At the time the Democrats did control both Houses and even had a brief filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Check again - the Republicans controlled the House and the Democrats controlled the Senate - the last time that one party controlled both the House and Senate was when the Republicans controlled both under George W. Bush. There were Republicans and Democrats that voted No, Republicans and Democrats that abstained, and Republicans and Democrats that voted Yes. It was the conservative members of the Republican party that were most likely to vote No - the moderates were more likely to abstain or vote Yes. Unfortunately, it has been my observation that many people think that Republican = Conservative so they think that whatever the Conservatives say or do the entire GOP says or does - again this is just my observation.
You might want to check again, both branches of the 111th Congress from 2009 through 2010 were controlled by Democrats. In fact, so was the 210th, in the second half of GWB's last term.
Who are these "moderate Republican" Congressmen who voted for the ACA? Can you name any? Trick question. There weren't any. In either House.
(Almost true. Joseph Cao voted for the House's version of the bill, after its passage was assured. He was the only one. He joined the rest of the House Republicans in voting against the final version).
The final bill passed 60 to 39 in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 Independents voting yes and 39 Republicans voting no, with one not voting.
It passed the House with 219 Democrats voting yes, 34 voting no and 178 Republicans voting no.There is no "most likely" and almost no division...
My mistake - I had to triple-check my facts after I had a moment to think about your response.
Oh, and FYI - there are moderate Republicans, even if none of them voted for the ACA.
And people wonder why I think the concept of political parties is a bad idea.
Scotus also agreed that filling out paperwork could violate religious rights.
The final bill passed 60 to 39 in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 Independents voting yes and 39 Republicans voting no, with one not voting.
Just to point out a little fact: That "one not voting" wasn't seated. Scott Brown had won the special election for the Senate, but wasn't sworn in yet.
Oh, and FYI - there are moderate Republicans, even if none of them voted for the ACA.There are Republicans who are less conservative than other Republicans. If that qualifies as moderate in your book, well, it's a relative term.
I'd say Democrats cover from liberal to conservative and Republicans cover from conservative to crazy, but that's my personal perspective.
The more moderate (and even some pretty extreme conservative) Republicans seem to do a good job of losing primaries to even more extreme candidates. There really hasn't been a similar pattern on the Democratic side.
There isn't much the democrats are in favor of that I would consider liberal. Really the democrats cover moderate to conservative and the republicans cover very conservative to WTF?
It's just that they are the only major political parties. If you are a liberal and want to run for office you affiliate with the Dems because you have to.
Scotus also agreed that filling out paperwork could violate religious rights.
What.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
It is a common misconception that health benefits amount to "somebody else paying for your stuff." They don't. They are part of your salary. Part of your compensation for your work.
Hobby Lobby is basically telling their workers what they can or cannot do with their wages. And the Supreme Court handed them the right to do so.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of wrongness that this fiasco represents. But it's as good a place as any to start down the road of understanding what a mistake has been made here.
Forcing them to add "free"* birth control to the compensation package IS forcing the company to pay for someone's stuff. It is ALSO forcing the other employees who choose to have insurance part of their package to pay for someone's stuff with the money deducted from their paychecks.
*"free" in quotes because, really, nothing is truly free of cost.
EDITED: in quotes, not is quotes.
I love how you say it is "free" and then go on to openly admit "with the money deducted from their pay checks."
Yes, the government is requiring that the employer facilitate the transaction on behalf of it's employees.
Scotus also agreed that filling out paperwork could violate religious rights.What.
There was already an exemption for religious non-profit organizations that did not want to cover contraceptives. All they had to do was fill out a form for their insurance providers and then the insurance provides would cover the cost themselves. Some organizations felt that was tantamount to a "permission slip for abortion" and did not want to do it. Scotus has now sided with them even though they used that provision to justify their decision in the hobby lobby case. So now neither the employer nor the insurer is required to cover any of the 20 forms of contraceptives listed in the ACA. Because "women's health" is not considered more important than filing paperwork.
Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
It is a common misconception that health benefits amount to "somebody else paying for your stuff." They don't. They are part of your salary. Part of your compensation for your work.
Hobby Lobby is basically telling their workers what they can or cannot do with their wages. And the Supreme Court handed them the right to do so.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of wrongness that this fiasco represents. But it's as good a place as any to start down the road of understanding what a mistake has been made here.
Forcing them to add "free"* birth control to the compensation package IS forcing the company to pay for someone's stuff. It is ALSO forcing the other employees who choose to have insurance part of their package to pay for someone's stuff with the money deducted from their paychecks.
*"free" in quotes because, really, nothing is truly free of cost.
EDITED: in quotes, not is quotes.
I love how you say it is "free" and then go on to openly admit "with the money deducted from their pay checks."
Yes, the government is requiring that the employer facilitate the transaction on behalf of it's employees.
Yes, a tiny fraction of the cost is covered by the deduction from their paychecks (depending on the number of other people in the pool, it is likely a fraction of a percent), while the rest is paid for by other people.
Here is another way to view it, if you see benefits packages as part of one's salary. The government is forcing companies to give raises to people who use birth control (sans the tiny fraction paid for in their paycheck) AND give employees who don't use it pay cuts (any increase in the cost of their plans).
I'm not sure you understand how insurance works. Or are you upset by those "big raises" cancer patients or people with heart attacks get?
Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
It is a common misconception that health benefits amount to "somebody else paying for your stuff." They don't. They are part of your salary. Part of your compensation for your work.
Hobby Lobby is basically telling their workers what they can or cannot do with their wages. And the Supreme Court handed them the right to do so.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of wrongness that this fiasco represents. But it's as good a place as any to start down the road of understanding what a mistake has been made here.
Forcing them to add "free"* birth control to the compensation package IS forcing the company to pay for someone's stuff. It is ALSO forcing the other employees who choose to have insurance part of their package to pay for someone's stuff with the money deducted from their paychecks.
*"free" in quotes because, really, nothing is truly free of cost.
EDITED: in quotes, not is quotes.
I love how you say it is "free" and then go on to openly admit "with the money deducted from their pay checks."
Yes, the government is requiring that the employer facilitate the transaction on behalf of it's employees.
Yes, a tiny fraction of the cost is covered by the deduction from their paychecks (depending on the number of other people in the pool, it is likely a fraction of a percent), while the rest is paid for by other people.
Here is another way to view it, if you see benefits packages as part of one's salary. The government is forcing companies to give raises to people who use birth control (sans the tiny fraction paid for in their paycheck) AND give employees who don't use it pay cuts (any increase in the cost of their plans).
HA! Hahahahahahahahahaha ROTFFLOL. OMFingG. Please, get into comedy or politics. Either way be on TV.
Yes, a tiny fraction of the cost is covered by the deduction from their paychecks (depending on the number of other people in the pool, it is likely a fraction of a percent), while the rest is paid for by other people.
Here is another way to view it, if you see benefits packages as part of one's salary. The government is forcing companies to give raises to people who use birth control (sans the tiny fraction paid for in their paycheck) AND give employees who don't use it pay cuts (any increase in the cost of their plans).
And, given the number of people who use birth control, or benefit from it second hand, such as by having their wife on birth control, the cost is shared pretty widely. Each pays a tiny fraction of their cost and a tiny fraction of the cost for each of the others in the pool who use it and get a tiny sliver from those few who don't. Then most of the money they pay goes to the one person this year who had open heart surgery.
All of that of course is assuming there is a net cost to birth control as I discussed before.
Most of the money goes to the insurance company executives. Insurance companies make money by allowing customers to pool risk and pay collectively for the services of all users, with a comfortable margin for administration (front end) and they make A BUNCH FREEKING MORE by paying suppliers and providers about 30% of the fee they use in their actuarial tables when determining premiums. (Back end)
It is almost as bad as the college text book racket.
There was already an exemption for religious non-profit organizations that did not want to cover contraceptives. All they had to do was fill out a form for their insurance providers and then the insurance provides would cover the cost themselves. Some organizations felt that was tantamount to a "permission slip for abortion" and did not want to do it. Scotus has now sided with them even though they used that provision to justify their decision in the hobby lobby case. So now neither the employer nor the insurer is required to cover any of the 20 forms of contraceptives listed in the ACA. Because "women's health" is not considered more important than filing paperwork.Scotus also agreed that filling out paperwork could violate religious rights.What.
... what.
... what.There was already an exemption for religious non-profit organizations that did not want to cover contraceptives. All they had to do was fill out a form for their insurance providers and then the insurance provides would cover the cost themselves. Some organizations felt that was tantamount to a "permission slip for abortion" and did not want to do it. Scotus has now sided with them even though they used that provision to justify their decision in the hobby lobby case. So now neither the employer nor the insurer is required to cover any of the 20 forms of contraceptives listed in the ACA. Because "women's health" is not considered more important than filing paperwork.Scotus also agreed that filling out paperwork could violate religious rights.What.
|
Most of the money goes to the insurance company executives. Insurance companies make money by allowing customers to pool risk and pay collectively for the services of all users, with a comfortable margin for administration (front end) and they make A BUNCH FREEKING MORE by paying suppliers and providers about 30% of the fee they use in their actuarial tables when determining premiums. (Back end)It is almost as bad as the college text book racket.
That's not actually true. Even before the ACA, the insurance company I'm most familiar with already had an admin overhead (everything that's not a check to a provider) of less than 15%. I've heard rumors that some were as high as 30%, but "most" is not true even for them.
Not keeping up to date?... what.There was already an exemption for religious non-profit organizations that did not want to cover contraceptives. All they had to do was fill out a form for their insurance providers and then the insurance provides would cover the cost themselves. Some organizations felt that was tantamount to a "permission slip for abortion" and did not want to do it. Scotus has now sided with them even though they used that provision to justify their decision in the hobby lobby case. So now neither the employer nor the insurer is required to cover any of the 20 forms of contraceptives listed in the ACA. Because "women's health" is not considered more important than filing paperwork.Scotus also agreed that filling out paperwork could violate religious rights.What.
I try not to on a lot of things anymore. For good reasons.
Sad part is, I saw things like this coming three years ago. Just didn't think they'd come so fast.
...Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
It is a common misconception that health benefits amount to "somebody else paying for your stuff." They don't. They are part of your salary. Part of your compensation for your work.
Hobby Lobby is basically telling their workers what they can or cannot do with their wages. And the Supreme Court handed them the right to do so.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of wrongness that this fiasco represents. But it's as good a place as any to start down the road of understanding what a mistake has been made here.
Forcing them to add "free"* birth control to the compensation package IS forcing the company to pay for someone's stuff. It is ALSO forcing the other employees who choose to have insurance part of their package to pay for someone's stuff with the money deducted from their paychecks.
*"free" in quotes because, really, nothing is truly free of cost.
EDITED: in quotes, not is quotes.
I love how you say it is "free" and then go on to openly admit "with the money deducted from their pay checks."
Yes, the government is requiring that the employer facilitate the transaction on behalf of it's employees.
Yes, a tiny fraction of the cost is covered by the deduction from their paychecks (depending on the number of other people in the pool, it is likely a fraction of a percent), while the rest is paid for by other people.
Here is another way to view it, if you see benefits packages as part of one's salary. The government is forcing companies to give raises to people who use birth control (sans the tiny fraction paid for in their paycheck) AND give employees who don't use it pay
Well expect those treatments to be more costly when they don't discover the cancer during a wellness checkup but instead have to wait for it to progress enough to affect their day to day routines. Is there a particular reason you want the most expensive and least effective healthcare?
This country was founded as a representative Republic. We are now a Democracy in the sense that Plato warned us about and it shows.
It's too bad we can't live in a world ruled by enlightened aristocratic slaveowners like Plato--and a good portion of the Founding Fathers, come to think of it--wanted.
[quark blast]This country was founded as a representative Republic. We are now a Democracy in the sense that Plato warned us about and it shows.
He warned us about it because its what was happening in his present. Not like "back in my day! When things were perfect!"
The ironic thing is that the Founding Fathers viewed Democracy as a bad thing and as a great way for a nation to die... And look at what we ended up with.
It all went to shiznit when you couldn't own people anymore...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ironic thing is that the Founding Fathers viewed Democracy as a bad thing and as a great way for a nation to die... And look at what we ended up with.
Yes, vaccines, almost no one starving to death in bad winters, non hippo ivory teeth, you don't need to be rich to vote, and you're not allowed to own people anymore.
This horsepucky that things were somehow better under the "real america" back in the day needs to stop. Its factually incorrect, harmful, and deliberately engineered as a tool of those with obscene amounts of power and wealth to keep it that way.