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.
What business do you own? Yeah... that's what I thought.
I have a newsflash for you. Neither health insurance nor any aspect of it is a right. It's a service. One which must be purchased, just like any other service. If you don't like the benefits (you do know what that word actually means, right?) package that a prospective employer is offering, you have the freedom to look elsewhere for work. If none of them are offering the specific benefit you want, you can purchase that service on your own.
This whole "rights" thing when it comes to health insurance - and especially birth control - is flat-out insane. It's got to be one of the most unbelievably idiotic "issues" I've ever seen.
Birth control pills can be purchased for around $10/mo. Condoms are about $0.50 each. An IUD will run you less than $200/year. WTF is the problem with paying for this stuff on your own? How the hell did THIS become the big issue that it is? Holy **** you people are insane!!!
I could flip that logic back on you very easily. Since those products and services are so affordable, why are the business owners making such a huge deal of it?
I suppose the fact that he is 99% likely to be wrong about this belief should have no bearing on whether he should comply with the law or not?
I personally think that he, an employer, doesn't have the right to impose HIS religious beliefs on his employees. I understand, though, that this is a crisis of conscience for him. He's basing his objections on what he's been told, and even if doctors tell him otherwise, he is unlikely to believe them, because he's placed his trust in his current information providers.
We all do this. The people who trust Fox news are adamant that Fox is a trustworthy news source, and that other news sources are not. The people who trust the New York Times are adamant that the NYT is a trustworthy news source.
I believe that Factcheck is objective and accurate. It boggles my mind that some conservatives think that Annenberg, a close friend of Reagan's, was a liberal, and that Factcheck has a liberal bias. But that's what they believe.
Mr Green believes that the morning-after pill can induce an abortion. He believes that because the Bush administration believed that, based on the science and medical information that the Bush administration subscribed to. We know that the Bush administration believed that because Bush issued executive orders to his executive departments saying so. We know that a Romney administration might also believe the same thing. And Mr Green, based in Oklahoma, is a conservative who thinks the basis for his opinion is sound.
While it's likely that they don't have a legal leg to stand on, does that mean they should just roll over and let the Government steamroll them? Liberals don't see a problem with going against the government, illegally if need be, to make their point and stand against what they believe to be unjust. However, when a Conservative takes they same approach it's suddenly horrible and irresponsible behavior (and probably racist or hateful somehow).
Another situation arises where a company owned by Christians is vilified and singled out by those "tolerant" Liberals because someone stands strongly to their religious beliefs. Stop using this as another excuse to further your anti-Christian bigotry, which in many cases is blatantly obvious.
I could flip that logic back on you very easily. Since those products and services are so affordable, why are the business owners making such a huge deal of it?
My understanding is that birth control without copayment is at the very least a break-even item for insurance companies. It certainly is much cheaper than covering pregnancy, delivery, and additional dependents.
What business do you own? Yeah... that's what I thought.
I have owned a clothing company and a kettle corn company. Both of which had employees and benefits. I didn't limit the benefits based on my religious beliefs at the time. Didn't think it was right.
Quote:
I have a newsflash for you. Neither health insurance nor any aspect of it is a right. It's a service. One which must be purchased, just like any other service. If you don't like the benefits (you do know what that word actually means, right?) package that a prospective employer is offering, you have the freedom to look elsewhere for work. If none of them are offering the specific benefit you want, you can purchase that service on your own.
Health insurance isn't a right. But affordable health care is. If an employer wants to offer an insurance plan because it is more cost effective for them, I am fine with that. But, when you base your decision off of personal religious beliefs, it's wrong. By doing so you are forcing people to either follow your beliefs in some way or find alternative employment. In a way it is discrimination.
Quote:
This whole "rights" thing when it comes to health insurance - and especially birth control - is flat-out insane. It's got to be one of the most unbelievably idiotic "issues" I've ever seen.
What about insurance covering Viagra and Vasectomies?
Birth control pills can be purchased for around $10/mo. Condoms are about $0.50 each. An IUD will run you less than $200/year. WTF is the problem with paying for this stuff on your own? How the hell did THIS become the big issue that it is? Holy **** you people are insane!!![/quote]
Not all birth controls are created equal. Some cost considerably more than $10 a month. Did you forget that not all people are created equal when it comes to medicine? This is why most issues or conditions have multiple choices for pills. My Wife takes a birth control that would be $50 month without insurance.
I do agree, this shouldn't be an issue. We shouldn't need health insurance. Hospitals and Doctors should not be allowed to over charge the way they do. Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to sell life saving medicine for $300 a month when it only costs $5 to make it. This is wrong. We are placing a business owners wallet before a persons health and life.
You know, I just don't care. People and businesses have a right to their opinions. They also have a right to religious beliefs. Sometimes, their opinions or religious beliefs are not in synch with mine. So what? Does that really mean that I ought to "punish" them for thinking differently than I? That's just plain ridiculous.
Sure, I would not go to a business that actively discriminates against people - refusing service because somebody is black, gay, doesn't speak English, and the like.
However, nobody is forced to work for Hobby Lobby but if they do, I would hope that they understand that they are working for a company with a strong religious background and that doing so may come with a bit of religious baggage. If you don't like it, work elsewhere.
A Christian-owned chain of hobby shops is facing a bitter backlash after suing the Obama administration over new requirements to provide insured employees with contraceptive and abortion coverage.
Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby filed the suit Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, alleging that the ObamaCare mandate violates the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The suit followed similar suits by Catholic colleges and a Denver-based company whose owners also objected to the mandate on religious grounds. While a judge has not yet ruled on Hobby Lobby's suit, a Facebook page calling for a boycott of the company, which operates 500 stores in 41 states, has appeared online, and several other forums have featured posts urging customers to steer clear of Hobby Lobby.
I have been looking for landing-gear-retract mechanisms for my E-Flite Beechcraft Staggerwing model, got the kit last Christmas and still haven't built it. E-Flite sells a pneumatic mechanism, but it's very expensive and must be pumped up before each flight, no thanks.
Several outfits make electric mechanisms, some will fit this plane with a little modification. Hobby Lobby has at least two, X-Flight RC has one, etc.
This event has allowed me to make my decision. Hobby Lobby it is. I just sent them the order.
I follow an old piece of advice: paraphrased for the situation
Render unto God that which is God's. Render unto Mammon that which is Mammon's.
In other words what the owners (all of them?) believe, God's realm, is irrelevant to how they operate Hobby Lobby, Mammon's realm.
If the law says health insurance covers reproductive issues you have to obey the LAW regardless of your personal beliefs.
you are forgetting the passage, follow the laws of man unless they go against the laws of god. and since many consider abortion to be murder, and there is a commandment that says thou shalt not commit murder, they are in fact following the laws of god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
I have been looking for landing-gear-retract mechanisms for my E-Flite Beechcraft Staggerwing model, got the kit last Christmas and still haven't built it. E-Flite sells a pneumatic mechanism, but it's very expensive and must be pumped up before each flight, no thanks.
Several outfits make electric mechanisms, some will fit this plane with a little modification. Hobby Lobby has at least two, X-Flight RC has one, etc.
[MOD CUT]
what we forget is that corporations are still owned by people, and those people do NOT lose their rights just because they incorporate their business. incorporation was established to allow people to limit their liabilities in case they get sued as a result of business activities. thus instead of a business owner losing everything in a lawsuit against their business, they only lose the amount invested in the business, they still get to keep their personal property.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-22-2012 at 06:48 PM..
Reason: response to deleted post
what we forget is that corporations are still owned by people, and those people do NOT lose their rights just because they incorporate their business. incorporation was established to allow people to limit their liabilities in case they get sued as a result of business activities. thus instead of a business owner losing everything in a lawsuit against their business, they only lose the amount invested in the business, they still get to keep their personal property.
Legally the "person" formed by the corporation is a separate person than its owner. I'm not sure how a business owner can take advantage of the protection provided by that, and then cite individual conscience reasons why this "separate person" should not not have to follow the law. Where do the personal beliefs end and following the law begin in a corporation ownership situation? There's a debate to be had here, I should talk to my friend who teaches business ethics and see what she thinks, because my opinions on this are not fully formed.
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.
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.
