Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Do Corporations 'Believe'?Follow

#127 Mar 27 2014 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji said we shouldn't always follow the law of the land in this case, since the law of the land says we have to have health insurance. In most states, the law says you can't smoke weed or get SSM. We should ignore those laws too! Yay!
#128 Mar 27 2014 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't like the way the law is always requiring me to allow health inspectors into the holy inner sanctum of my meat processing plant. No more, I say! The law is done requiring me to do stuff I don't want to do!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Mar 27 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I don't understand what the original issue is. Just because ACA requires that contraceptives be covered, doesn't demand that anyone actually receive them. Now, I'll admit I may be rather simple-minded, so am I missing something here?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#130 Mar 27 2014 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
LIBERTY. FREEDOM.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Mar 27 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I don't like the way the law is always requiring me to allow health inspectors into the holy inner sanctum of my meat processing plant.

I know the idioms differ in the Midwest, so I'm going to assume this has something to do with Flea's ******. You're welcome, google.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#132 Mar 27 2014 at 7:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You are only allowed to buy the $5 Starbucks coffee *or* pay a $2 fine..
You can still buy the McD coffee and save $2, but I forgot that while you like to accuse people of "all or nothing" arguments you also enjoy using them as often as possible.


Except that to follow the analogy, you can't. The ACA actually makes it illegal for any insurance company to offer health insurance that does not provide a specific set of minimum requirements. Period. They can't sell them. Ergo, you can't buy them.

Do people just not understand why this is a really bad idea?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Mar 27 2014 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The ACA actually makes it illegal for any insurance company to offer health insurance that does not provide a specific set of minimum requirements.
Oh, trying to change the argument to fit your narrative. There's a new tactic for you. It never ceases to make me chuckle when you think you're smart enough to actually pull that off.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#134 Mar 27 2014 at 8:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can't have freedom if someone else is paying for it. Period. The person who pays controls what you get every single time.

Your mortgage tax break must make you feel super-oppressed then, right?


If the government were paying the mortgage, yes. I'd recognize that this put me in the position of being dependent on the government for my housing. Good thing that's not how the mortgage tax deduction works though.

You're like fixated on this, aren't you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Mar 27 2014 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ACA actually makes it illegal for any insurance company to offer health insurance that does not provide a specific set of minimum requirements.
Oh, trying to change the argument to fit your narrative.


And yet, we got here by following the argument one step at a time. Trying to argue that people can still buy the health care equivalent of a $1 cup of cheap coffee is wrong because the law prohibits it. That's the whole reason we're having this discussion. If it were legal to purchase health insurance that didn't provide contraceptive coverage (among many other things) no one would have a reason to sue that the law violated any rights at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Mar 27 2014 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can't have freedom if someone else is paying for it. Period. The person who pays controls what you get every single time.

Your mortgage tax break must make you feel super-oppressed then, right?


If the government were paying the mortgage, yes. I'd recognize that this put me in the position of being dependent on the government for my housing. Good thing that's not how the mortgage tax deduction works though.

You're like fixated on this, aren't you?
So long as you continue to rake in what I imagine is several thousand extra dollars is tax breaks every year while decrying the "handouts" of food stamps etc then, yes. It points out what a massive hypocritical douche you are.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#137 Mar 27 2014 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
And yet, we got here by following the argument one step at a time.
You seem to have gotten lost on the trail, Hansel.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Mar 27 2014 at 8:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
I don't understand what the original issue is. Just because ACA requires that contraceptives be covered, doesn't demand that anyone actually receive them. Now, I'll admit I may be rather simple-minded, so am I missing something here?


You're missing that the entire point of requiring coverage for things you don't need or want is to subsidize those costs for those who do. Which means that the government is effectively forcing people to pay for contraceptive use by others. Aside from the basic unfairness of that sort of scheme, it's also problematic for people who have moral objections to contraceptive use. If you believe that certain forms of contraceptives (like say morning after pills) are equivalent to murder, then the government is forcing you to participate in committing murder.

Whether you or I agree with that opinion about contraceptives, we ought to respect that many people do. This is why the mandates are so problematic, doubly so when those writing the law insisted on including mandates for things that everyone knew directly violated the religious positions of a fair percentage of the population. And the "solution" to this is to grant exemptions, but only to organizations which are non-profit religious organizations. But the problem with that is that you're basically saying that individuals don't actually have the freedom to exercise their religion anymore, only 501c religious organizations do. That's a dangerous precedent to set.


And frankly, as I've alluded to a couple times, when you start following the legal logic you have to apply to try to wrangle your way through this without just eliminating the mandates entirely, you end out constantly bumping into more and more absurd constitutional problems. This all would have been nicely avoided had the court simply ruled the mandates unconstitutional. But they didn't. So now we're stuck with this bizarre cherry picking of cases and the potential for some really strange and illogical outcomes. There's no end to challenges that will occur as long as the mandates stand. And that's the problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Mar 27 2014 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which means that the government is effectively forcing people to pay for contraceptive use by others.
You don't seem to have too much problem with the government forcing people to pay for ***** health, but yeah. White male Christian etc etc.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#140 Mar 27 2014 at 8:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're like fixated on this, aren't you?
So long as you continue to rake in what I imagine is several thousand extra dollars is tax breaks every year while decrying the "handouts" of food stamps etc then, yes. It points out what a massive hypocritical douche you are.


That's because you're looking at the issue solely from the point of view of what someone gets, and not from the point of view of what someone does. What did I *do* to get that several thousand dollars of tax deduction? I performed labor for my employer valued by that employer in a free market sufficient to allow me to pay for a mortgage on my home. I did not take anything from anyone to do that, but provided equal to or greater value than what I received. I could choose to use that money to rent, but for whatever reason the government has decided that it wants to encourage people to own homes rather than rent. Thus, I receive a deduction for the money I spend paying the interest on my mortgage (not on the mortgage itself).

You're making this about me being hypocritical, but it's not about me. If you want to argue that the government shouldn't offer a mortgage interest tax deduction, then make the damn argument. Sniping at me because I pay for a home and thus qualify for that deduction (just like a ton of other people) isn't terribly productive.

I'll also point out that there's a vast difference between an actual tax deduction (which is, just as it sounds, a reduction in the amount you pay) and an entitlement (which means you receive something you didn't pay for). I'm still paying vastly more taxes than the person receiving food stamps, so I'm not sure how the hell you think it's hypocritical of me at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Mar 27 2014 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're making this about me being hypocritical, but it's not about me.
I notice you didn't actually say you're not a hypocrite.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#142 Mar 27 2014 at 8:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which means that the government is effectively forcing people to pay for contraceptive use by others.
You don't seem to have too much problem with the government forcing people to pay for ***** health, but yeah. White male Christian etc etc.


Um... Of course I have a problem with it. It's why I keep saying that we shouldn't be mandating coverage at all. I've only said like 15 times that this really shouldn't even be about religious exemptions. We should all be exempt because the government should not have the power to force us to purchase something we don't want to buy. Period. It should not matter what my reasons are for not wanting to pay for something, I should always have the freedom to make that choice for myself.

Sadly, the court ruled differently, so we're left with the even more absurd cases involving religious objections. But, again, this should not be required. I should be able to just say "I don't want to pay for that", and that should be the end of it. Requiring some special reason is absurd, and puts the government even more in the position of choosing which reasons are good and which are not. Which is itself wrong. So if I'm a religious person I can decide to not pay for X, or Y, or Z, but if I'm not, I can't? Who gets to decide this? Who decides if I'm really religious, or just pretending so I can pay for less stuff?

This is what I've been talking about when I keep saying that the longer we continue trying to keep the mandates legal, the more ridiculous the arguments for and against will become. There's no way for the government to actually arbitrate this. Unfortunately, we have some who think it can, and thus we have to travel down this stupid rabbit hole until hopefully they come to their senses. And yeah, I've been saying this all along. It's why I keep coming back to the "they shouldn't have allowed the mandates in the first place".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Mar 27 2014 at 8:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're making this about me being hypocritical, but it's not about me.
I notice you didn't actually say you're not a hypocrite.


I also didn't say you weren't a moron.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Mar 27 2014 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So if I'm a religious person I can decide to not pay for X, or Y, or Z, but if I'm not, I can't?
Interesting shift in your argument. Your original argument was much worse, so congratulations for realizing that. Kind of retarded you'd think no one would notice, though. Half marks.
gbaji wrote:
I also didn't say you weren't a moron.
It'd be the first time you'd have ever been right about anything. I notice you still haven't said you're not a hypocrite.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145 Mar 27 2014 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Forcing people to pay for contraceptives > forcing people to have unwanted pregnancies.

Unless gbaji is a devout Catholic, there is no reason at all for there to be debate over this. So Hobby Lobby does not want its employees to use contraceptives... Why not? I know it looks obvious that they are using it as an excuse to drag their feet on employee benefits, but let's assume for a moment that they really believe contraceptives are evil or something. Why single out contraceptives of all things? What "religious belief" does this fall under, exactly, and why does it matter to anyone?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#146 Mar 27 2014 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Unless gbaji is a devout Catholic,

Nope; he's a slavishy devoted minion of Ayn Rand.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#147 Mar 27 2014 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Forcing people to pay for contraceptives > forcing people to have unwanted pregnancies.

Unless gbaji is a devout Catholic, there is no reason at all for there to be debate over this. So Hobby Lobby does not want its employees to use contraceptives... Why not? I know it looks obvious that they are using it as an excuse to drag their feet on employee benefits, but let's assume for a moment that they really believe contraceptives are evil or something. Why single out contraceptives of all things? What "religious belief" does this fall under, exactly, and why does it matter to anyone?

Not a Monty Python fan are we?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#148 Mar 27 2014 at 10:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
I don't understand what the original issue is. Just because ACA requires that contraceptives be covered, doesn't demand that anyone actually receive them. Now, I'll admit I may be rather simple-minded, so am I missing something here?


You're missing that the entire point of requiring coverage for things you don't need or want is to subsidize those costs for those who do. Which means that the government is effectively forcing people to pay for contraceptive use by others. Aside from the basic unfairness of that sort of scheme, it's also problematic for people who have moral objections to contraceptive use. If you believe that certain forms of contraceptives (like say morning after pills) are equivalent to murder, then the government is forcing you to participate in committing murder.

Whether you or I agree with that opinion about contraceptives, we ought to respect that many people do. This is why the mandates are so problematic, doubly so when those writing the law insisted on including mandates for things that everyone knew directly violated the religious positions of a fair percentage of the population. And the "solution" to this is to grant exemptions, but only to organizations which are non-profit religious organizations. But the problem with that is that you're basically saying that individuals don't actually have the freedom to exercise their religion anymore, only 501c religious organizations do. That's a dangerous precedent to set.


And frankly, as I've alluded to a couple times, when you start following the legal logic you have to apply to try to wrangle your way through this without just eliminating the mandates entirely, you end out constantly bumping into more and more absurd constitutional problems. This all would have been nicely avoided had the court simply ruled the mandates unconstitutional. But they didn't. So now we're stuck with this bizarre cherry picking of cases and the potential for some really strange and illogical outcomes. There's no end to challenges that will occur as long as the mandates stand. And that's the problem.

I have moral objections to religious people receiving any benefits I pay into, so should I sue the government?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#149 Mar 28 2014 at 5:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Nope; he's a slavishy devoted minion of Ayn Rand.

Don't be silly, he hasn't read Rand. You need to think of what an 11 year old may have read that would be similar. Terry Goodkind, maybe, or Heinlien. He could be a devoted minion of one of them.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#150 Mar 28 2014 at 6:41 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:

And the "solution" to this is to grant exemptions, but only to organizations which are non-profit religious organizations. But the problem with that is that you're basically saying that individuals don't actually have the freedom to exercise their religion anymore, only 501c religious organizations do. That's a dangerous precedent to set.


Wait, who is telling David and Barbara Green they can't practice their religion? I thought this was about health insurance?

gbaji wrote:

Um... Of course I have a problem with it. It's why I keep saying that we shouldn't be mandating coverage at all


And they really aren't. 2k a person per year is a drop in the bucket and Kagan framed it as a "tax" more than anything. Corporations already get so many breaks from the government they can stand to put a little back into the pot if they seriously object to women having access to healthcare medicines.
#151 Mar 28 2014 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
David and Barbara Green can't practice their religion.

That's a rule just for them, though. The rest of you are cool.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 257 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (257)