The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[champu 1]

turtlespeed

******If we went to a boogie, and I offered to buy some jumps, should you then demand that I buy you balloon and chopper jumps all day?

Your false equivalency is . . . false.

If I pay you to mow my lawn, do I have the right to prevent you from buying a gun with the money?

Irrelevant.

More along the lines that even though you are mandated to supply me with guns, your beliefs are that you won't provide the bullets, rather if I want bullets I can go get them on my own.

I have an idea...

because we are having trouble understanding each other in a discussion regarding medical insurance and contraceptives, we can draw parallels in the less controversial gun ownership discussion to help find a common ground.

/eta: alternative response...

I think it's more akin to him telling you to buy your own clips.

[quade 3]

Oh no. It's a 100% policy against retroactive abortion or nothing. If I pay you, you can not use the money to buy any product that might cause a retroactive abortion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

quade

Oh no. It's a 100% policy against retroactive abortion or nothing. If I pay you, you can not use the money to buy any product that might cause a retroactive abortion.

How are you equating wages earned with insurance offered?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[seedy 0]

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[devildog 0]

seedy

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

Nope. We can't have responsibility in the USA. That died a long time ago.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

Hobby Lobby can certainly do that. They can also offer insurance that doesn't cover contraceptives or the morning after pill.

What they can't do is then claim that they are meeting the ACA minimum requirements.

- Dan G

[devildog 0]

DanG

Quote

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

Hobby Lobby can certainly do that. They can also offer insurance that doesn't cover contraceptives or the morning after pill.

What they can't do is then claim that they are meeting the ACA minimum requirements.

And end up paying the tax. Which I guess is still less than a decent benefits package if you simply drop them altogether.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[DanG 1]

Quote

And end up paying the tax.

Yeah, sure. If you don't meet a government requirement, there is usually some penalty.

Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with religion. It's purely political.

- Dan G

[quade 3]

turtlespeed

***Oh no. It's a 100% policy against retroactive abortion or nothing. If I pay you, you can not use the money to buy any product that might cause a retroactive abortion.

How are you equating wages earned with insurance offered?

Compensation is compensation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

seedy

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

Cant do this
At this point quade and his minions loose control

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

Hobby Lobby can certainly do that. They can also offer insurance that doesn't cover contraceptives or the morning after pill.

What they can't do is then claim that they are meeting the ACA minimum requirements.

So, there are required to break the law

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[devildog 0]

rushmc

***Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

Cant do this
At this point quade and his minions loose control

People are too dumb to make their own decisions

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[quade 3]

rushmc

So, there are required to break the law

Only if you think bank robbers are "required" to break the law.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

seedy

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

They could not give the money to them tax free, or rather pre tax.

I'm all in favor of them doing that. It would artificially inflate their salaries though. Which would increase their tax bracket and they would end up getting less.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DrewEckhardt 0]

seedy

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

That's not a good idea in America.

The government has rigged the game to make private policies more expensive, where the obvious motivation is keeping people in more expensive group plans which make for higher insurance company profits.

For a middle class Californian subject to 25% Federal, 9.3% California, 6.2% FICA, 1.45% Medicare, and 1% California SDI taxes who'd cost $500 to insure his company can buy him $500 worth of insurance or increase his salary by $875, pay the matching 6.2% FICA and 1.45% Medicare taxes, and spend $942 to let him buy his own at the same price which is 88% more.

Of course, he may be unable able to buy the same coverage for $500 on his own due to adverse selection in the private market. Jobs which pay well where employees don't need every last time to scrape by tend to come with employer provided coverage because it's a more affordable way to increase pay and compete with other companies. Jobs which don't pay well tend not to provide insurance. People working those low paying jobs have tighter budgets and fewer assets to protect which makes them more likely to not purchase health insurance, except when they're guaranteed to come out ahead due to a history of sickness and/or injury.

When I looked at the California ACA plans, I found they either offered much less coverage or cost much more than my small group plan with the same 80% minimum medical loss ratio with adverse selection being the logical explanation.

[DanG 1]

Quote

They could not give the money to them tax free, or rather pre tax.

Actually, they could. They could give them money as a contribution to an HSA, which is pre-tax.

- Dan G

[DrewEckhardt 0]

DanG

Quote

They could not give the money to them tax free, or rather pre tax.

Actually, they could. They could give them money as a contribution to an HSA, which is pre-tax.

HSA money can't be used for health insurance premiums except for COBRA (and long term care insurance which doesn't cover peoples' immediate needs).

HSAs are also only available to people who have qualifying High Deductible Health Plans.

[DanG 1]

Quote

HSA money can't be used for health insurance premiums except for COBRA (and long term care insurance which doesn't cover peoples' immediate needs).

I didn't mean that they could give them money to cover premiums. They can give their employees HSA money to supplement the non-copliant insurance that they think offends their religion.

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

Doesn't matter that I had that procedure years ago.
Where's my free rubbers?

Apparently the ACA is force feeding women birth control when their personal religious choice forbids it.

I want my free rubbers.

Mammograms. Those too.

[davjohns 1]

champu

*********If we went to a boogie, and I offered to buy some jumps, should you then demand that I buy you balloon and chopper jumps all day?

Your false equivalency is . . . false.

If I pay you to mow my lawn, do I have the right to prevent you from buying a gun with the money?

Irrelevant.

More along the lines that even though you are mandated to supply me with guns, your beliefs are that you won't provide the bullets, rather if I want bullets I can go get them on my own.

I have an idea...

because we are having trouble understanding each other in a discussion regarding medical insurance and contraceptives, we can draw parallels in the less controversial gun ownership discussion to help find a common ground.

/eta: alternative response...

I think it's more akin to him telling you to buy your own clips.

Ah, hell yeah! I think my company will provide employees with firearms and ammunition as part of their compensation package! One long arm and one handgun after the probationary period. Then, a monthly allocation of ammunition for each to stay proficient. A group range membership in place of a gym membership.

I love it!

ETA: Low capacity mags violate my beliefs. They are not covered.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 18]

quade

***So, there are required to break the law

Only if you think bank robbers are "required" to break the law.

Hmm
This is a strange angle

But not what you posted

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

quade

***So, there are required to break the law

Only if you think bank robbers are "required" to break the law.

Well, duh! If you don't break the law, how can you be a bank robber? It's pretty much axiomatic, isn't it?

Then, there are those union rules...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[futuredivot 0]

Just an observation-not directed at anyone-this just happened to be to post in front of me...
Two reasons to bang, Procreation or recreation. If you're going for procreation, birth control is kind of counterproductive . If it's recreation, buy your own jump tickets. There are other medical reasons for birth control, those should be covered under medical insurance. Come on-if I could pass the bill down the line I'd have much nicer motorcycles.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[chutem 0]

funjumper101

***

Quote

Picking and choosing what medical treatment is covered or not is a very slippery slope.
Birth control presciptions are not always for birth control, as has been written here before. You must be uneducated as to female physiology and medical issues.

As Americans, and skydivers, I would hope that we would be on the side of freedom of choice, not massive restrictions on choice.

By this statement we can assume you support ACA covering Boob jobs, tummy tucks, and liposuction?

When the proposed treatment is for a medical issue, the answer would be a great big YES!!!

There are documented cases where each of the medical procedures you write about is required for a medical condition.

I the case of the procedure being for strictly cosmetic reasons, that would be where the patient should pay 100% of the cost themselves.

So you would then agree that "abortion pills/birthcontrol" need not be covered as Hobby Lobby desires when they are not medically required?

[rehmwa 2]

seedy

Maybe the answer is for the corporation to give the money to the employee and let them be responsible for their own insurance.

Al Gore called that 'reckless spending'

remember, this isn't the employee's money - it's just government money that hasn't been taxed yet

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants