Hobby hypocrisy lobby

[Polaris]

Because they think that wealthy people are only wealthy because they are smarter, work harder, and are more moral than the poors.

What I really don't get is how many poor people buy into this gratuitous insult against themselves.

Seems to sink in through osmosis along with the choir-preaching about queers, Uzis and abortion-is-murder.

The wealthy pay the conservative leaders to spread the manure and the crop grows among the grassroots (or at least the Astroturf).

Someone else in another thread posted a Steinbeck quote that I'm about to butcher:

The poor in America don't see themselves as oppressed by economic forces, but rather as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The poor people I have talked to who believe this always think that they are going to be rich someday, even if they are in their 60's and have worked hard their whole lives without becoming wealthy yet. Obviously, because they work hard, being poor is only a temporary set-back, to their way of thinking.

I call this the "temporarily impoverished millionaire".

Ninja'd by Polaris with a better quote to boot!

 

[marplots]

I don't care what their objections are. Employers should not have any say in what medical treatments their employees may or may not have. It is none of their business.

You get the principle though, right? It's the idea that if I am paying for something, I ought to have a say-so. It's kind of an artifact of how insurance in the US arose as an industry.

When employers were offering insurance as an incentive, it really was something they purchased from a shopping list of offerings and then, only secondarily, offered this benefit to employees. With an insurance mandate, the landscape has changed, but, of course, the history hasn't.

 

[Upchurch]

You get the principle though, right? It's the idea that if I am paying for something, I ought to have a say-so.

You, as an employer, are not paying for anyone's medical treatment. You are paying for the insurance policy. That money is lumped into a pool and you, your doctor, and the insurance company decide how much of it to spend on your medical treatment. (The insurance company being involved in that decision is a whole other issue.)

The point is, it is a form of payment from the the employer. Your employer has no business telling you how to spend your paycheck and they have no business being involved in what medical treatments you may or may not receive.

 

[xjx388]

You, as an employer, are not paying for anyone's medical treatment. You are paying for the insurance policy. That money is lumped into a pool and you, your doctor, and the insurance company decide how much of it to spend on your medical treatment. (The insurance company being involved in that decision is a whole other issue.)

The point is, it is a form of payment from the the employer. Your employer has no business telling you how to spend your paycheck and they have no business being involved in what medical treatments you may or may not receive.

But before, insurance companies didn't automatically include contraceptive coverage and a company could choose not to provide that coverage. Now the government is forcing the issue. The question is whether or not there is an overriding government interest in forcing the issue. I don't think there is, but I'm sure you disagree.

And to be clear, I am not blind to the hypocrisy. However, how any person practices their religion is of no concern to me. The issue in this case is clear and will be decided by SCOTUS soon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...And to be clear, I am not blind to the hypocrisy. However, how any person practices their religion is of no concern to me. The issue in this case is clear and will be decided by SCOTUS soon.

I don't believe that is how the law works and it should be of concern to your because of the potential for fraud, especially tax fraud.

An Overview of Religious Financial Fraud

United States: Trent Huddleston, former senior accountant at Oral Roberts University, alleges that more than $1 billion was money laundered annually by members of the Oral Roberts University board. 10

And if you don't care about tax evaders and money laundering due to some right wing ideology, there's also the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh cult that took over a small town church's board and stole the money, other cults that commit fraud and keep members prisoner until convincing them all to drink cyanide laced koolaid.

Claiming your motive is a religious belief when the evidence shows you are lying is relevant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-sebelius-contraceptive-for-profit-lawsuits

"Forced" is not quite accurate, though, as my colleague Stephanie Mencimer reported last week. An employer doesn't have to provide health insurance to its employees at all; in fact, it's probably cheaper for a company to instead pay the tax that would help subsidize its employees' coverage obtained through the exchanges or Medicaid. ...

A Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby's favor could have a far-reaching impact, potentially dismantling corporate laws that have long shielded CEOs and board members from lawsuits or paving the way for companies to claim religious exemptions from other federal regulations, as we reported last week.

That's not religion, that's ignoring the laws of the country you don't like.

 

[Polaris]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-sebelius-contraceptive-for-profit-lawsuits

That's not religion, that's ignoring the laws of the country you don't like.

In the US, there's not a whole lot of wiggle room between the two.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re compelling government interest:

Contraception Coverage Has Significant Economic Benefits

Guttmacher Institute: Every $1 Spent On Public Funding For Family Planning Saves Taxpayers $5.68 In Medicaid Expenditures. Providing women the contraceptive services they want and need saves taxpayer money that would otherwise go to Medicaid-funded births. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "nationally, every $1.00 invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they did not want to have saved $5.68 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would have been needed." [Guttmacher Institute, March 2014]

National Bureau Of Economic Research: Affordable Access To Contraceptives Has Long-Term Economic Benefits. In a 2013 working paper, the NBER demonstrated that providing affordable access to contraceptives and family planning services has long-term economic benefits such as higher family incomes and greater college completion rates, labor force participation, and wages. [National Bureau Of Economic Research, October 2013]

Guttmacher Institute: Access To Contraception Increases Women's Access To Education, Their Ability To Participate In The Workforce, And Their Earning Power. The Guttmacher Institute reported in 2013 that access to contraception has contributed significantly "to increasing women's earning power and to decreasing the gender gap in pay." The same report showed that "effective contraceptive use can increase the amount of time women are part of the paid workforce," as well as increasing the number of young women pursuing advanced professional degrees. [Guttmacher Institute, March 2013]

Forgive me if people have already posted these links and facts.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The only thing that will be a bigger case of politics masquerading as religious belief will be Scalia's opinion in this case.

In a way, I look forward to reading it. You know it will be a mind numbing, face palming, circuitous exercise in partisan political b.s.

 

[xjx388]

Re compelling government interest:

Contraception Coverage Has Significant Economic Benefits


Forgive me if people have already posted these links and facts.

And I'm not disputing that. That's why I support BC being delivered through Medicaid and through Title X funds. If the government already provides this to low income women and higher income women are already paying for their own BC, then why do we need the government to mandate that employers pay for it? Sorry, but the arguments for a compelling government interest are not all that compelling to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I'm not disputing that. That's why I support BC being delivered through Medicaid and through Title X funds. If the government already provides this to low income women and higher income women are already paying for their own BC, then why do we need the government to mandate that employers pay for it? Sorry, but the arguments for a compelling government interest are not all that compelling to me.

When they developed the ACA it was determined that preventative care saved everyone money including the government. Preventing unwanted pregnancy saves everyone money.

You could say the same about everything, mammograms, well baby checks, whatever, why mandate covering any of it? The answer is, it saves everyone money by lowering the cost of health care all around. Say you didn't mandate it, some covered it some didn't. Insurance is pooled costs. If one company doesn't cover birth control the other citizens in that insurance pool pay more for their insurance which is covering that unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Trakar]

I don't care what their objections are. Employers should not have any say in what medical treatments their employees may or may not have. It is none of their business.

Fully agreed, paying all, or most, of the insurance tab doesn't mean you get a say in medical diagnosis or treatment of those covered.

 

[BenBurch]

Fully agreed, paying all, or most, of the insurance tab doesn't mean you get a say in medical diagnosis or treatment of those covered.

Just like paying my salary doesn't allow you to tell me how to spend it.

 

[plague311]

Even more to the point, birth control has multiple uses outside of just protecting unwanted pregnancies. My wife can no longer have children but takes a form of birth control because it helps her during her....time. Just like all other medication, sometimes they help illnesses they are not designed for. I take bladder issue medicine but have no issues with my bladder. One of the side effects of the medication helps me not sweat all day, everyday no matter what the temp or physical activity.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Even more to the point, birth control has multiple uses outside of just protecting unwanted pregnancies. My wife can no longer have children but takes a form of birth control because it helps her during her....time.

Which is a problem for many of the religious right. Women are supposed to suffer during their menstrual period as punishment for being women.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which is a problem for many of the religious right. Women are supposed to suffer during their menstrual period as punishment for being women.

I thought it was just suffer in childbirth for something we had absolutely nothing to do with?

Which begs the questions, why aren't women who have been saved by Jesus having pain free labor, and why did I as an atheist, have the benefit of modern anesthesia during mine?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I thought it was just suffer in childbirth for something we had absolutely nothing to do with?

Which begs the questions, why aren't women who have been saved by Jesus having pain free labor, and why did I as an atheist, have the benefit of modern anesthesia during mine?

After Eve "tricked" Adam, women were supposed to be punished with the pain of childbirth as well as a monthly bleed. And no, women that worship Jesus are not supposed to have that pain alleviated by their god. It's a punishment that women are supposed to suffer forever because their god loves them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

After Eve "tricked" Adam, women were supposed to be punished with the pain of childbirth as well as a monthly bleed.

I don't think so. Here's the verse, Genesis 3:16

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." 1

But I'm open to correction if you know the verse or different translation.

And no, women that worship Jesus are not supposed to have that pain alleviated by their god. It's a punishment that women are supposed to suffer forever because their god loves them.

So being forgiven for that thing those being punished never actually did doesn't really mean they were completely forgiven.


Can you imagine the hubris of a man if there were an historical Jesus, (which I am not convinced there was), of claiming, "only I can grant you God's forgiveness"?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think so. Here's the verse, Genesis 3:16


But I'm open to correction if you know the verse or different translation.

I admit I am wrong. I thought that I read is somewhere in that bible. Oh well. Still a silly story either way.