login
Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-03-27 3:46 PM in reply to: switch |
Elite  4564    Boise |  Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACAOriginally posted by switch Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by switch Ours was a lot more than $8800. That's why I'm getting snipped in a few weeks. That should be free under the ACA too right? Originally posted by mehaner Quick little search shows that the average US prenatal visits and hospital delivery stay total $8800 on average--that's just to get baby and mom out of the hospital. If a woman needs 30 years of birth control at $15/month or $180/year, that's $5400 for all of her childbearing years. Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by mehaner Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by mehaner
like LB said - maybe men should stick out of it. hormonal birth control is prescribed for MANY MANY reasons besides "sluttiness" which is insulting to every woman out there that has ever taken a pill. Then by all means take care of it. Get together and start a fund. I have zero problems with contraceptives or hormonal therapy. I have zero problems with it being a medical issue, or a responsibility issue, or it being covered under plans. ZERO. All I'm curious of is why is that it is the only thing mandated at NO COST? I mean seriously.... antibiotics for children, pediatric care, emergency surgeries... why is it that out of all things health care... that has to be mandated at ZERO cost? Male contraceptives are not included. Why? LOTS of things are mandated at no cost to the consumer under ACA - particularly if they are preventative things. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-preventive-care-benefits/ Thanks, I have been looking, but have not been able to find a list. And those would seem reasonable. All screenings, and immunizations.... oh ya, and contraceptives.... oh ya, and any contraceptives... not just hormonal therapy to to help medical issues. I find that odd. If there is more stuff on the list, I would be interested to see one. I'm sure this is only getting all the press. But this in particular breaches social issues... of which I have zero problems... but to tuck this into health care law... it's suspect for other reasons besides health.... unless they can show they take the same stance on all the other "health issues" that are important to everyone not just women and contraception. insurance is all about assigning a $-value to risk, and someone much smarter than you or i did the math and decided that birth control is cheaper than pregnancy, birth, and unwanted children burdening an already loaded system. there are no values taken into consideration, it is truly a massive math game. I'm not an actuary, but it doesn't seem like it takes a ton of math to figure out that contraception is always going to be cheaper. All three of mine were too. My most expensive one was over $30K (10 days in the NICU). If I had any control of the ACA, vasectomies would be covered. Good call, btw I think if I went and totaled it all up the charges billed to the insurance would be around $12k. That's for no issues whatsoever. Perfectly normal pregnancy and delivery. |
| 2014-03-27 3:51 PM in reply to: switch |
Elite 6387   | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by switch Originally posted by powerman The back of the envelope calculation was simplified to show that just the pregnancy and delivery are more expensive than BC for a long period of time. I don't care what the co-pay is, BC is CHEAP by drug standards. It costs those companies virtually nothing. Originally posted by switch Quick little search shows that the average US prenatal visits and hospital delivery stay total $8800 on average--that's just to get baby and mom out of the hospital. If a woman needs 30 years of birth control at $15/month or $180/year, that's $5400 for all of her childbearing years. I'm not an actuary, but it doesn't seem like it takes a ton of math to figure out that contraception is always going to be cheaper. Those are co-pay amounts, not the actual cost of contraceptives. Just think how cheap healthcare would be if we sterilized everyone. It is a poor argument. If people want babies, they want babies. You are telling me that those that are on contraception never will have kids... no, they are going to be on contraceptives for 30 years, and have a couple babies in between. And you can do a risk assessment of unwanted kids, and the burdens unwanted pregnancies place on society... but you are completely ignoring the benefits of productive people entering the work force to pay for them and the productivity they provide.... not to mention not every unwanted pregnancy grows up to be a train wreck and a burden. Not by a long shot. You have to look at all of it, not just the parts that make a particular point. Of course not every woman is going to stay on birth control for 30 years, but making it free and easily available is one of MANY steps to decrease unwanted pregnancy. There is no way to look at all of it--just because somebody is a "burden" to society that doesn't make their life any more or less valuable. We should, however, make BC free and available to every woman who wants it as HER life and HER choices are impacted by unwanted pregnancy. I don't understand what we have to lose in that equation, and it is absolutely cheaper than not doing it.
Well then maybe SHE can make sure SHE makes the right choices for HER life. What I don't understand is why is this one thing so special... why isn't all reproductive health free for both sexes? Why isn't all health care free? What is so special about a woman or her reproductive tract over all others? ... well, besides the obvious.... Fact is this isn't an either or proposition. Just about every woman I know that has ever had kids used BC too. So it isn't about which one is cheaper over the other... and there is no way you can actually quantify that to a dollar. And.... why is hormone therapy... contraceptives... so important to postmenopausal women. Why isn't hormone therapy covered at no cost for men? If this is a birth issue, then why is it at no cost to women past childbearing years? All I'm asking is equal application. What's the standard here? |
| 2014-03-27 3:54 PM in reply to: JoshR |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by JoshR I think if I went and totaled it all up the charges billed to the insurance would be around $12k. That's for no issues whatsoever. Perfectly normal pregnancy and delivery. My kids didn't cost a single penny, and nobody ever paid for a box of rubbers for me. I know... crazy right? |
| 2014-03-27 3:57 PM in reply to: powerman |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by JoshR I think if I went and totaled it all up the charges billed to the insurance would be around $12k. That's for no issues whatsoever. Perfectly normal pregnancy and delivery. My kids didn't cost a single penny, and nobody ever paid for a box of rubbers for me. I know... crazy right? I am glad that you have settled this argument. Alright, we heard one anecdotal story. Everyone shall now have worry free homebirths! |
| 2014-03-27 3:58 PM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by switch Originally posted by powerman The back of the envelope calculation was simplified to show that just the pregnancy and delivery are more expensive than BC for a long period of time. I don't care what the co-pay is, BC is CHEAP by drug standards. It costs those companies virtually nothing. Originally posted by switch Quick little search shows that the average US prenatal visits and hospital delivery stay total $8800 on average--that's just to get baby and mom out of the hospital. If a woman needs 30 years of birth control at $15/month or $180/year, that's $5400 for all of her childbearing years. I'm not an actuary, but it doesn't seem like it takes a ton of math to figure out that contraception is always going to be cheaper. Those are co-pay amounts, not the actual cost of contraceptives. Just think how cheap healthcare would be if we sterilized everyone. It is a poor argument. If people want babies, they want babies. You are telling me that those that are on contraception never will have kids... no, they are going to be on contraceptives for 30 years, and have a couple babies in between. And you can do a risk assessment of unwanted kids, and the burdens unwanted pregnancies place on society... but you are completely ignoring the benefits of productive people entering the work force to pay for them and the productivity they provide.... not to mention not every unwanted pregnancy grows up to be a train wreck and a burden. Not by a long shot. You have to look at all of it, not just the parts that make a particular point. Of course not every woman is going to stay on birth control for 30 years, but making it free and easily available is one of MANY steps to decrease unwanted pregnancy. There is no way to look at all of it--just because somebody is a "burden" to society that doesn't make their life any more or less valuable. We should, however, make BC free and available to every woman who wants it as HER life and HER choices are impacted by unwanted pregnancy. I don't understand what we have to lose in that equation, and it is absolutely cheaper than not doing it.
Well then maybe SHE can make sure SHE makes the right choices for HER life. What I don't understand is why is this one thing so special... why isn't all reproductive health free for both sexes? Why isn't all health care free? What is so special about a woman or her reproductive tract over all others? ... well, besides the obvious.... Fact is this isn't an either or proposition. Just about every woman I know that has ever had kids used BC too. So it isn't about which one is cheaper over the other... and there is no way you can actually quantify that to a dollar. And.... why is hormone therapy... contraceptives... so important to postmenopausal women. Why isn't hormone therapy covered at no cost for men? If this is a birth issue, then why is it at no cost to women past childbearing years? All I'm asking is equal application. What's the standard here? Because nobody could stand living with them without it? |
| 2014-03-27 4:05 PM in reply to: powerman |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by powerman No, it's not an either or proposition. That's not what I said. It is about making it less likely that there are unwanted pregnancies. That really is in everyone's best interests. I don't care what after-school special you tell me about.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by powerman The back of the envelope calculation was simplified to show that just the pregnancy and delivery are more expensive than BC for a long period of time. I don't care what the co-pay is, BC is CHEAP by drug standards. It costs those companies virtually nothing. Originally posted by switch Quick little search shows that the average US prenatal visits and hospital delivery stay total $8800 on average--that's just to get baby and mom out of the hospital. If a woman needs 30 years of birth control at $15/month or $180/year, that's $5400 for all of her childbearing years. I'm not an actuary, but it doesn't seem like it takes a ton of math to figure out that contraception is always going to be cheaper. Those are co-pay amounts, not the actual cost of contraceptives. Just think how cheap healthcare would be if we sterilized everyone. It is a poor argument. If people want babies, they want babies. You are telling me that those that are on contraception never will have kids... no, they are going to be on contraceptives for 30 years, and have a couple babies in between. And you can do a risk assessment of unwanted kids, and the burdens unwanted pregnancies place on society... but you are completely ignoring the benefits of productive people entering the work force to pay for them and the productivity they provide.... not to mention not every unwanted pregnancy grows up to be a train wreck and a burden. Not by a long shot. You have to look at all of it, not just the parts that make a particular point. Of course not every woman is going to stay on birth control for 30 years, but making it free and easily available is one of MANY steps to decrease unwanted pregnancy. There is no way to look at all of it--just because somebody is a "burden" to society that doesn't make their life any more or less valuable. We should, however, make BC free and available to every woman who wants it as HER life and HER choices are impacted by unwanted pregnancy. I don't understand what we have to lose in that equation, and it is absolutely cheaper than not doing it.
Well then maybe SHE can make sure SHE makes the right choices for HER life. What I don't understand is why is this one thing so special... why isn't all reproductive health free for both sexes? Why isn't all health care free? What is so special about a woman or her reproductive tract over all others? ... well, besides the obvious.... Fact is this isn't an either or proposition. Just about every woman I know that has ever had kids used BC too. So it isn't about which one is cheaper over the other... and there is no way you can actually quantify that to a dollar. And.... why is hormone therapy... contraceptives... so important to postmenopausal women. Why isn't hormone therapy covered at no cost for men? If this is a birth issue, then why is it at no cost to women past childbearing years? All I'm asking is equal application. What's the standard here? I can't answer the equal application part of your question, but I just can't fathom why anyone doesn't think this is a good idea. Of all of the places where this country spends money, I would be hard-pressed to come up with one that I think would provide more benefit than this.
|
| 2014-03-27 4:37 PM in reply to: switch |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by switch No, it's not an either or proposition. That's not what I said. It is about making it less likely that there are unwanted pregnancies. That really is in everyone's best interests. I don't care what after-school special you tell me about. I can't answer the equal application part of your question, but I just can't fathom why anyone doesn't think this is a good idea. Of all of the places where this country spends money, I would be hard-pressed to come up with one that I think would provide more benefit than this.
Really... curing cancer... diabetes... cardiovascular.... a woman reproductive tract trumps all that.... no better place to spend money?
That is all I'm stuck on. Equal application. We are not doctors, and we are not talking about womens health... we are talking about reproductive social issues... and that is a different ball of wax. It is indeed a health issue, no matter how much women want to claim it as a freedom and women's rights issue.... regardless of how much others want to make it a religious freedom issue. The ACA should stick to health issues for American's, but a few lobbied to make it about other things... there is no reason to not cover womens health issues any different than mens... or childbearing women over non... pick a standard, apply it to all... move on. both sides make it a social issue... because both sides want it to be a social issue. |
| 2014-03-27 4:54 PM in reply to: powerman |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA And just FYI... reading up on the case... Hobby Lobby already covered 16 out of the 20 mandated contraceptives. It was the 4 they had a problem with. Morning after, those that interfere with implantation.... And no, I don't agree. I don't agree with their reasoning, or their classification of the 4. I'm not in any way against any of it. It's just that looking at it... it begs the question... well why did they do it like that anyway? No, I do not support ACA. So yes, I have a problem with it and it's mandates. But that does not mean I agree with Hobby Lobby, or the Greens. And as far as a corporation having individual right... they are out of their mind. No way the "corporate veil" is that convenient. Get special protections and benefits, and all the perks of people too. BS on that. As if Citizen's United isn't enough. |
| 2014-03-27 5:19 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Left Brain I've always felt that when it comes to abortion and contraception for women we'd probably all be better served if men stayed out of it. Figuratively and literally. |
| 2014-03-27 5:22 PM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA lol, you guys are funny. What's this thread about again? So, back to the OP there are a few things at play and I could honestly argue it a couple different ways. The ACA has a provision that mandates insurance coverage to provide free contraceptives and you guys have been haggling over that, which is fine. However, there are many different takes on contraceptives from various religious organizations because they have differing views. For example one religion may feel that all contraceptives are bad and promote abstinence, rhythm, or whatever "natural" method they choose. I'm sure that all of you agree that religions have the right to promote those things as do us as individuals. Fast forward and you now have Hobby Lobby and Conestoga which are companies owned and operated by deeply spiritual folks. They requested a waiver similar to religious organizations based on the same reasoning. Their argument is that the owner of a company should not be forced by the government to do something that violates their individual religious right/belief. You guys have made many great points about how a "company" doesn't have religious rights, and you are correct, but the owners of those companies do have religious rights. Nothing like this, to my knowledge, has been brought before the legal system so the Supreme Court has to decide to what extent a company owners religious individual rights are also applied to his company which is a valid thing for them to do. I'm a God loving person and I own a business. I have people of all walks working for me and I respect their rights as a business owner. I don't have a problem providing people with insurance that pays for contraceptives other than the additional premium costs, but I suspect overall that would be minor. |
| 2014-03-27 6:29 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by tuwood lol, you guys are funny. What's this thread about again? So, back to the OP there are a few things at play and I could honestly argue it a couple different ways. The ACA has a provision that mandates insurance coverage to provide free contraceptives and you guys have been haggling over that, which is fine. However, there are many different takes on contraceptives from various religious organizations because they have differing views. For example one religion may feel that all contraceptives are bad and promote abstinence, rhythm, or whatever "natural" method they choose. I'm sure that all of you agree that religions have the right to promote those things as do us as individuals. Fast forward and you now have Hobby Lobby and Conestoga which are companies owned and operated by deeply spiritual folks. They requested a waiver similar to religious organizations based on the same reasoning. Their argument is that the owner of a company should not be forced by the government to do something that violates their individual religious right/belief. You guys have made many great points about how a "company" doesn't have religious rights, and you are correct, but the owners of those companies do have religious rights. Nothing like this, to my knowledge, has been brought before the legal system so the Supreme Court has to decide to what extent a company owners religious individual rights are also applied to his company which is a valid thing for them to do. I'm a God loving person and I own a business. I have people of all walks working for me and I respect their rights as a business owner. I don't have a problem providing people with insurance that pays for contraceptives other than the additional premium costs, but I suspect overall that would be minor. The Greens have demonstrated for a long time they run their corporation in accordance with their faith. And if the Greens want to claim religious freedom to do that, then they can unincorporate and file as a non-profit. It's really easy. They chose to take the protections of incorporation... now they get to live with that decision. Because now a single person gets to decide what 13000 employees can and can't have. It does not work that way. |
| 2014-03-27 11:28 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by tuwood lol, you guys are funny. What's this thread about again? So, back to the OP there are a few things at play and I could honestly argue it a couple different ways. The ACA has a provision that mandates insurance coverage to provide free contraceptives and you guys have been haggling over that, which is fine. However, there are many different takes on contraceptives from various religious organizations because they have differing views. For example one religion may feel that all contraceptives are bad and promote abstinence, rhythm, or whatever "natural" method they choose. I'm sure that all of you agree that religions have the right to promote those things as do us as individuals. Fast forward and you now have Hobby Lobby and Conestoga which are companies owned and operated by deeply spiritual folks. They requested a waiver similar to religious organizations based on the same reasoning. Their argument is that the owner of a company should not be forced by the government to do something that violates their individual religious right/belief. You guys have made many great points about how a "company" doesn't have religious rights, and you are correct, but the owners of those companies do have religious rights. Nothing like this, to my knowledge, has been brought before the legal system so the Supreme Court has to decide to what extent a company owners religious individual rights are also applied to his company which is a valid thing for them to do. I'm a God loving person and I own a business. I have people of all walks working for me and I respect their rights as a business owner. I don't have a problem providing people with insurance that pays for contraceptives other than the additional premium costs, but I suspect overall that would be minor. The Greens have demonstrated for a long time they run their corporation in accordance with their faith. And if the Greens want to claim religious freedom to do that, then they can unincorporate and file as a non-profit. It's really easy. They chose to take the protections of incorporation... now they get to live with that decision. Because now a single person gets to decide what 13000 employees can and can't have. It does not work that way. You know, no matter what, the older I get, the more I realize it's all about the Greens. Edited by Left Brain 2014-03-27 11:41 PM |
| 2014-03-28 7:50 AM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by tuwood lol, you guys are funny. What's this thread about again? So, back to the OP there are a few things at play and I could honestly argue it a couple different ways. The ACA has a provision that mandates insurance coverage to provide free contraceptives and you guys have been haggling over that, which is fine. However, there are many different takes on contraceptives from various religious organizations because they have differing views. For example one religion may feel that all contraceptives are bad and promote abstinence, rhythm, or whatever "natural" method they choose. I'm sure that all of you agree that religions have the right to promote those things as do us as individuals. Fast forward and you now have Hobby Lobby and Conestoga which are companies owned and operated by deeply spiritual folks. They requested a waiver similar to religious organizations based on the same reasoning. Their argument is that the owner of a company should not be forced by the government to do something that violates their individual religious right/belief. You guys have made many great points about how a "company" doesn't have religious rights, and you are correct, but the owners of those companies do have religious rights. Nothing like this, to my knowledge, has been brought before the legal system so the Supreme Court has to decide to what extent a company owners religious individual rights are also applied to his company which is a valid thing for them to do. I'm a God loving person and I own a business. I have people of all walks working for me and I respect their rights as a business owner. I don't have a problem providing people with insurance that pays for contraceptives other than the additional premium costs, but I suspect overall that would be minor. The Greens have demonstrated for a long time they run their corporation in accordance with their faith. And if the Greens want to claim religious freedom to do that, then they can unincorporate and file as a non-profit. It's really easy. They chose to take the protections of incorporation... now they get to live with that decision. Because now a single person gets to decide what 13000 employees can and can't have. It does not work that way. What difference does it make if they're a for-profit, or a non-profit? They still have 13000 employees that are effected by their decision. If anything going non-profit would be far worse because they would just get gabillion dollar salaries and have zero taxable profit versus paying themselves via dividends now. non-profit doesn't mean nobody makes money, it just means you can't have any "profit" on the books by the end of the year. The other issue is that a retail establishment doesn't qualify as a non-profit under any of our laws, so it's not really applicable. This case really boils down to whether the government has a legal right to force a privately owned business to do things that are counter to the owners religious beliefs. The government has already established that religious entities do not have to follow that aspect of the law due to religious freedoms, so they've conceded it as a valid reason to be waived. It is absolutely a valid legal question that the supreme court has to answer no matter which side of the issue you are on. Personally, I don't have any problem at all with contraception so I am somewhat indifferent about the case. I don't like the government mandating what kind of healthcare I provide period, but that's a whole different story. |
| 2014-03-28 10:27 AM in reply to: 0 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by mehaner i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? Edited by Jackemy1 2014-03-28 10:31 AM |
| 2014-03-28 10:45 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation |
| 2014-03-28 11:20 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation In the context of this discussion I don't think there really is. I own a corporation and at the end of the year when I finish buying out my partner I will be the only shareholder with 100% of the stock/ownership even though it's a corporation.
|
| 2014-03-28 11:23 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation In the context of this discussion I don't think there really is. I own a corporation and at the end of the year when I finish buying out my partner I will be the only shareholder with 100% of the stock/ownership even though it's a corporation.
You have made my point. Incorporating creates a legal barrier between yourself and your corporation. If the corporation has problems, it is considered a separate entity from you. It should go both ways. Your corporation does not have religious beliefs; it is separate from you. No one is making you do anything against your religion, the corporation must simply abide by the laws that say it must provide a certain type of healthcare for its full time employees if it is above a certain size. |
| 2014-03-28 11:51 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation So people who assemble together for a common business interest must do so with the understanding that they leave their religious freedoms at the door? I just don't think an individual loses their rights if they join a group even if that group is a business....or a union...or a protest. Just to throw this out there....most corporations, including mine, are privately held with only one or a couple of owners.. Back to my questioning of the dangers of religion in business. There is a distinct hypocrisy to the moral relativism of the argument to suppress ones personal convictions. "I am tolerant of your beliefs as long as they are the same beliefs as mine" |
| 2014-03-28 11:58 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 So people who assemble together for a common business interest must do so with the understanding that they leave their religious freedoms at the door? I just don't think an individual loses their rights if they join a group even if that group is a business....or a union...or a protest. Just to throw this out there....most corporations, including mine, are privately held with only one or a couple of owners.. Back to my questioning of the dangers of religion in business. There is a distinct hypocrisy to the moral relativism of the argument to suppress ones personal convictions. "I am tolerant of your beliefs as long as they are the same beliefs as mine" Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation I knew it couldn't be long before "the good people" were brought up. And don't forget those who want to dictate HOW you express your tolerance because, you know, it has to look like thier tolerance. |
| 2014-03-28 12:04 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation In the context of this discussion I don't think there really is. I own a corporation and at the end of the year when I finish buying out my partner I will be the only shareholder with 100% of the stock/ownership even though it's a corporation.
You have made my point. Incorporating creates a legal barrier between yourself and your corporation. If the corporation has problems, it is considered a separate entity from you. It should go both ways. Your corporation does not have religious beliefs; it is separate from you. No one is making you do anything against your religion, the corporation must simply abide by the laws that say it must provide a certain type of healthcare for its full time employees if it is above a certain size. Can you tell my bank that gave me a corporate loan to not take my house if I default? Because my bank certainly reminded me that the "Inc." at the end of my company's name doesn't absolve me personally from my company's debt. |
| 2014-03-28 12:06 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 So people who assemble together for a common business interest must do so with the understanding that they leave their religious freedoms at the door? I just don't think an individual loses their rights if they join a group even if that group is a business....or a union...or a protest. Just to throw this out there....most corporations, including mine, are privately held with only one or a couple of owners.. Back to my questioning of the dangers of religion in business. There is a distinct hypocrisy to the moral relativism of the argument to suppress ones personal convictions. "I am tolerant of your beliefs as long as they are the same beliefs as mine" Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation I knew it couldn't be long before "the good people" were brought up. And don't forget those who want to dictate HOW you express your tolerance because, you know, it has to look like thier tolerance. Who are the good people?.... not being snaky, I just don't know. |
| 2014-03-28 12:10 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Left Brain Who are the good people?.... not being snaky, I just don't know. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 So people who assemble together for a common business interest must do so with the understanding that they leave their religious freedoms at the door? I just don't think an individual loses their rights if they join a group even if that group is a business....or a union...or a protest. Just to throw this out there....most corporations, including mine, are privately held with only one or a couple of owners.. Back to my questioning of the dangers of religion in business. There is a distinct hypocrisy to the moral relativism of the argument to suppress ones personal convictions. "I am tolerant of your beliefs as long as they are the same beliefs as mine" Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation I knew it couldn't be long before "the good people" were brought up. And don't forget those who want to dictate HOW you express your tolerance because, you know, it has to look like thier tolerance. Eh....we had a talk show host here for many years who would categorize those folks who fit the bolded statement. He used to say, "God, save me from the good people." |
| 2014-03-28 12:12 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Jackemy1 Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? If it was something like WWII and that was our only option for tank parts then yes probably. Though really government should probably national the plant first. I think we would have to be in serious trouble before that happen. I am sure we will find a company willing to do it normally. Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Nope and Nope. If you asked should a Muslim worker that works in a restaurant that prepares food have to prepare pork dishes that are on the menu? Yep I would say so. If it only going to be for 1 weekend like a special then maybe you can find a work around but its a normal thing then he should be expected to do it or find a job that he agrees with more his beliefs more. |
| 2014-03-28 12:13 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Left Brain Who are the good people?.... not being snaky, I just don't know. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 So people who assemble together for a common business interest must do so with the understanding that they leave their religious freedoms at the door? I just don't think an individual loses their rights if they join a group even if that group is a business....or a union...or a protest. Just to throw this out there....most corporations, including mine, are privately held with only one or a couple of owners.. Back to my questioning of the dangers of religion in business. There is a distinct hypocrisy to the moral relativism of the argument to suppress ones personal convictions. "I am tolerant of your beliefs as long as they are the same beliefs as mine" Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation I knew it couldn't be long before "the good people" were brought up. And don't forget those who want to dictate HOW you express your tolerance because, you know, it has to look like thier tolerance. Eh....we had a talk show host here for many years who would categorize those folks who fit the bolded statement. He used to say, "God, save me from the good people." Ah...got it. |
| 2014-03-28 12:19 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 Can you tell my bank that gave me a corporate loan to not take my house if I default? Because my bank certainly reminded me that the "Inc." at the end of my company's name doesn't absolve me personally from my company's debt. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by mehaner Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them? i think possibly an individual having a religious exemption makes sense. but i think it is dangerous territory to allow an employer/provider to have religious exemptions. there are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention at all. be careful with your examples. there is a difference between a sole proprietorship and a corporation In the context of this discussion I don't think there really is. I own a corporation and at the end of the year when I finish buying out my partner I will be the only shareholder with 100% of the stock/ownership even though it's a corporation.
You have made my point. Incorporating creates a legal barrier between yourself and your corporation. If the corporation has problems, it is considered a separate entity from you. It should go both ways. Your corporation does not have religious beliefs; it is separate from you. No one is making you do anything against your religion, the corporation must simply abide by the laws that say it must provide a certain type of healthcare for its full time employees if it is above a certain size. Maybe you should have formed a limited liability corporation with more than one owner.
|
|
|
|
|
| ACA Calculator Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| |||
| ACA fun begins on Oct 1 (mines beginning already) Pages: 1 2 3 4 | ||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK