Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-01-2012, 08:38 PM
 
Location: On Top
12,373 posts, read 13,190,023 times
Reputation: 4027

Advertisements

I'm sure little nut will start a new thread if and when it goes back to court....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-01-2012, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,879,874 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
I am a liberal and Hobby Lobby has a good legal argument, but it is a very narrow issue concerning the morning after drug and the owner's of Hobby lobbies religious objections of having to pay for it. It is not about overturning Obamacare.

Fox's article is misleading. Surprised.
I agree with you, worst case scenario (for Obamacare supporters) is an exemption allowed for a small group of businesses on providing certain birth control devices and abortificants..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 09:22 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,442,152 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
I agree with you, worst case scenario (for Obamacare supporters) is an exemption allowed for a small group of businesses on providing certain birth control devices and abortificants..
It is not the job of the courts to enact revisions to laws. It is the job of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the provision in the law. If it had a severability clause, which the Affordable Health Care Act does not, then if that one provision is held to be unconstitutional the rest of the law would still be in effect. However, since the Affordable Health Care Act does not have a severability clause, then the entire law's fate can be determined by the constitutionality of just one minor provision within the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,879,874 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
It is not the job of the courts to enact revisions to laws. It is the job of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the provision in the law. If it had a severability clause, which the Affordable Health Care Act does not, then if that one provision is held to be unconstitutional the rest of the law would still be in effect. However, since the Affordable Health Care Act does not have a severability clause, then the entire law's fate can be determined by the constitutionality of just one minor provision within the law.
It won't be. This court does not do big things when little things suffice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Limbo
6,512 posts, read 7,544,447 times
Reputation: 6319
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Roman Catholic opposition to birth control is a historical fact.
What if I don't subscribe to church beliefs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,879,874 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared View Post
What if I don't subscribe to church beliefs?
Then go ahead and include birth control in your employees' health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 09:58 PM
 
Location: Limbo
6,512 posts, read 7,544,447 times
Reputation: 6319
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Then go ahead and include birth control in your employees' health insurance.
My employer limits my hours, therefore they don't have to provide me health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,442,152 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared View Post
My employer limits my hours, therefore they don't have to provide me health insurance.
There are two ways of looking at that.
  1. Your employer is not reducing your salary in order to pay for your health insurance; and
  2. Your employer is allowing you to decide who you want to be your health care provider.
Health care insurance is overhead to business, which means that it comes out of your billable rate, a.k.a. "weighted rate." Any non-cash benefit you receive as an employee from your employer comes out of what your true value is worth to your employer.

In my business I let each employee know exactly what their billable hourly rate is the minute they begin work. If they want as much as possible, then I collect $5/hour overhead and they get the rest when I get paid by my client. If they want a guaranteed paycheck, whether I get paid or not, I collect $7.50/hour overhead. If they want health insurance, regardless of how many hours they work, I can offer Blue Cross and Blue Shield to them for $450/month through the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE), and I collect nothing in overhead. The billable hourly rates range from $75 to $120 per hour, depending upon experience and specialty.

They can work as little (within reason) or as long as they like, but I only pay them for billable hours worked. So I have no time sheets, or leave slips, and there is no overtime or "holiday" pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,879,874 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared View Post
My employer limits my hours, therefore they don't have to provide me health insurance.
Your hours may get limited more under Obamacare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 10:23 PM
 
27,119 posts, read 15,300,057 times
Reputation: 12055
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
I agree with you, worst case scenario (for Obamacare supporters) is an exemption allowed for a small group of businesses on providing certain birth control devices and abortificants..



No one should have to "opt out".
Those that want to contribute to this should have to "opt in".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top