Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
No, it doesn't.

It does, actually. I mean, not if you go back to the 18th century, but that'd be kind of insane. Instead you look at the 20th century and the key role played by the US in advancing all manner of sexual health policies and practices and there's a lot there to be proud of.

The US today is also home to the strongest anti-contraception lobby in the developed world (excepting maybe Ireland), but that doesn't deny it's history.

Huh?

"anti-contraception lobby"... who's that?

A girl can easily get perscription for a 9$ BC in either Target or Walmart.

It's really, REALLY easy/cheap to get BC pills... condoms... whathaveyous.

So, if this "anti-contraception lobby" is all that powerful... then, they're sucking hard at this.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No. No one is freaking out. People with religious beliefs are just concerned that they are being forced by law to act in a manner that is incompatible with their faith. I shouldn't have to restate this but the religious employer is not "freaking out" about providing contraception. The employer does not care if the employee uses it or not. The employee suffers no penalty from the employer for using it. The employee is at liberty to obtain the contraception elsewhere (like Planned Parenthood, free of charge). All the employer wants is to have their religious beliefs respected per the First Amendment - the law of the land as you so succinctly noted.

Insisting that having to pay for medical coverage that would grant an employee the option of accessing free or subsidised contraception is a constitutional breach of religious freedom is just about the classic example of a freak out.

But thank you for further supporting my comparison with the Pilgrims

So your response is... nothing. I just remembered why I gave up on this thread last time. People just stopped thinking about ACA and it's various issues a long time ago, and now think stuff like your effort there, responding with just nothing, is acceptable.

A long and glorious history? Really??

Yes, througout the 20th century the US was at the forefront of sexual health, in both technology and policy.

I'm still waiting to hear why you think that nuns and priests should be obliged to have coverage that includes contraceptives.

I didn't respond because I figured having another point in which I was telling you you're wrong would have set an aggressive tone that I didn't want to give. But if you insist, go look up the religious exemption clause. The idea that nuns and priests will have to be covered for contraception is simply wrong.

 sebster wrote:
You do know that being a vegetarian is not a religion, right?

Who gives a gak? The vegan in that story isn't a dill weed because there isn't a religious backign for their grandstanding hissyfit, the vegan is a dill weed because grandstanding hissyfits of any type is behaviour of dickheads.

Whether it's a person saying they're happy to pay as a group but not for the meals they personally don't morally approve of, or an employer saying he's happy to provide healthcare but not for the treatment they personally don't morally approve of, it is grandstanding silliness.

And that faith based employers do not offer contraceptives (unless for medical necessity), and this is something that people are aware of in advance, not when they attempt to get payment for their contraceptives, so you are offering a false comparison that bears little resemblance to the factual position.

It makes no difference. Change the restaraunt scenario to everyone discussing how they'll pay before the meal, and one vegan saying they are happy to group pay, but want to be exempted from contributing to any meat dishes ordered. It changes nothing about how much a dick that person is being.

That last sentence was the sound of you throwing away your credibility for the sake of petty, nasty name calling because you do not agree with someone else's beliefs.

Act in a dickish way, get called on it. To the extent that I or any other anonymous person on the internet can ever have credibilty or reputation or anything beyond what the substance of what they posting at that very instance, mine would be built around the idea that when I think someone is acting like a dick, I'll call it such.

And yes, claiming religious persecution because you have to cover a healthcare option that you personally don't approve is acting like a dill weed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Huh?

"anti-contraception lobby"... who's that?

There is a large and reasonably organised collection of groups who work to discourage the acceptance of contraception, instead arguing for abstinence. I didn't state, nor mean to imply, this group had had any real success in getting forms of contraception banned.

And now, somehow, I've been challenged first on my suggestion that the US has a proud history of accepting new methods of contraception, and also on my statement that in the US there remains a group that resists that progress. Strange place, this internet of ours.

 sebster wrote:
It does, actually. I mean, not if you go back to the 18th century, but that'd be kind of insane. Instead you look at the 20th century and the key role played by the US in advancing all manner of sexual health policies and practices and there's a lot there to be proud of.

You appear to be conflating US industry and the US government when it suits your argument, and not doing so when it doesn't.

The federal government has had very little role in providing contraception, ever.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"anti-contraception lobby"... who's that?

There is a large and reasonably organised collection of groups who work to discourage the acceptance of contraception, instead arguing for abstinence. I didn't state, nor mean to imply, this group had had any real success in getting forms of contraception banned.

Citation needed.

 sebster wrote:
Insisting that having to pay for medical coverage that would grant an employee the option of accessing free or subsidised contraception is a constitutional breach of religious freedom is just about the classic example of a freak out.

No. A freak out is generally an emotion/irrational response caused by over stimulation. Objecting on religious grounds which are clearly stated and part of genuinely held religious beliefs do not fit that definition. These court cases have happened as the result of yet more lies by this Administration over healthcare reform.
Unless you're looking to define belief in religion as an emotional/irrational pattern of behaviour. In which case that is a different discussion.

Funny how you seem to be ignoring the point about the law of the land now that it does not suit your argument.

 sebster wrote:
So your response is... nothing. I just remembered why I gave up on this thread last time. People just stopped thinking about ACA and it's various issues a long time ago, and now think stuff like your effort there, responding with just nothing, is acceptable.

You mean that pointing out that your attempts to hijack my comparison were factually incorrect, patently false, and actually supported my statements is nothing now?
I am thinking of the ACA. I am thinking about it's impact on forcing people to forgo their faith and religious belief contrary to their conscience and contrary the law of the land.

 sebster wrote:
Yes, througout the 20th century the US was at the forefront of sexual health, in both technology and policy.

No Sebster. Corporations based in the US provided products for profit. The US as a monolithic entity did nothing of the sort that you are attempting to describe

 sebster wrote:
I didn't respond because I figured having another point in which I was telling you you're wrong would have set an aggressive tone that I didn't want to give. But if you insist, go look up the religious exemption clause. The idea that nuns and priests will have to be covered for contraception is simply wrong.

So you do in fact recognise that those employers with a religious faith are entitled to act in accordance with it. Yet you keep objecting when they do so. Interesting.

 sebster wrote:
Who gives a gak? The vegan in that story isn't a dill weed because there isn't a religious backign for their grandstanding hissyfit, the vegan is a dill weed because grandstanding hissyfits of any type is behaviour of dickheads.

Whether it's a person saying they're happy to pay as a group but not for the meals they personally don't morally approve of, or an employer saying he's happy to provide healthcare but not for the treatment they personally don't morally approve of, it is grandstanding silliness.

I do. And I do because again you are stooping to using false comparisons that bear little similarity to the stated factual position to try and make your point.
So it is pointed out that you are wrong, that you are using false comparisons to make your point, and you resort to profanity. But you're worried that trying to tell me that I'm wrong "would have set an aggressive tone that I didn't want to give"

It is not grandstanding silliness. It is someone asking that their religious beliefs be respected. That is a point that I and others have made multiple times, and that you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge, and a point that forms the crux of this conflict between religious groups and the Administration. Just because you want to discount it out of hand does not render it invalid. The government has a Constitutional bar from impeding the free practice of religion, yet this is exactly what the ACA has done.

 sebster wrote:
It makes no difference. Change the restaraunt scenario to everyone discussing how they'll pay before the meal, and one vegan saying they are happy to group pay, but want to be exempted from contributing to any meat dishes ordered. It changes nothing about how much a dick that person is being.

Act in a dickish way, get called on it. To the extent that I or any other anonymous person on the internet can ever have credibilty or reputation or anything beyond what the substance of what they posting at that very instance, mine would be built around the idea that when I think someone is acting like a dick, I'll call it such.

And yes, claiming religious persecution because you have to cover a healthcare option that you personally don't approve is acting like a dill weed.

More petty spiteful name calling Sebster just because you don't agree with someone exercising their religious beliefs? It is telling that you think that the person asking for their religious rights to be respected is at fault here, whereas you have no problem with the Administration that is forcing them to act against their conscience. Is your scorn reserved just for those who have the audacity to practice their religion, or does it also include those who want to act in a manner incompatible with the Constitution?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So, if this "anti-contraception lobby" is all that powerful... then, they're sucking hard at this.

Well in fairness between the;
- military industrial complex
- big oil
- big pharma
- tobacco
- NRA
- alcohol
- prison industrial complex

There is only so much lobbying that anyone can take in

 Seaward wrote:
You appear to be conflating US industry and the US government when it suits your argument, and not doing so when it doesn't.

The federal government has had very little role in providing contraception, ever.

How do you think medical research works? Any idea about the co-relationship between tertiary education and medical providers? Do you have any clue about how new medical products and procedures are regulated?

Are you honestly sitting there insisting that new medical advancements are achieved without any kind of government framework?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Citation needed.

American Family Association.
Family Research Council.
Focus on the Family.

Pretty much any group with family in their name somewhere has, as part of a broader lobbying effort for social conservativism, argued for abstinence only.

And if it's the scale of the issue that you're doubting, fully one third of schools in the US report that their sex education is absinence only.

 sebster wrote:
How do you think medical research works? Any idea about the co-relationship between tertiary education and medical providers? Do you have any clue about how new medical products and procedures are regulated?

Are you honestly sitting there insisting that new medical advancements are achieved without any kind of government framework?

A lot of them in the US are, yes.

But that's irrelevant, because we're not discussing funding for contraceptives research. Or anything else, really. You're trying to assert that there's a long history in this country of the government providing contraception. There isn't. There is a long history of access to contraception, but that's not the same thing. Nor is access to contraception denied if a religious employer doesn't include it with an insurance plan.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No. A freak out is generally an emotion/irrational response caused by over stimulation.

Now you're getting it.

Objecting on religious grounds which are clearly stated and part of genuinely held religious beliefs do not fit that definition.

Only if we place all genuinely held religious convictions on the same pedestal, and do not any point spend any time considering if any particular breach of a religious conviction might in fact be completely trivial.

Unless you're looking to define belief in religion as an emotional/irrational pattern of behaviour. In which case that is a different discussion.

I am not doing that at all. Merely asking people to recognise the difference between actual religious oppression, ie I was threatened with jail for

Funny how you seem to be ignoring the point about the law of the land now that it does not suit your argument.

I used the expression once, was puzzled at your strong reaction to it, which was then resolved when you pointed out that it was a term used by Obama in the same context. And then I set about explaining to you why I think so little of this apparent breach of religious freedom.

Which you somehow took as a sign that it no longer suited my argument, or something.

You mean that pointing out that your attempts to hijack my comparison were factually incorrect, patently false, and actually supported my statements is nothing now?

You gave a comparison, and that comparison relied on a simplistic narrative. Giving the full context to that narrative ended up with a comparison that was a lot less like your claim, and a lot more like mine. In response to this you said 'nuh uh', and when I expanded it and explained more of the history to you, you just claimed you were right all along. At no point did you attempt to challenge my summary of hte history, or point out ways in which that summary didn't line up with actual events... or do any of the thing that actual debate requires. Instead you just claimed you were right all along.

No Sebster. Corporations based in the US provided products for profit. The US as a monolithic entity did nothing of the sort that you are attempting to describe

Yeah, no. This idea that medical products are just made and sold over the counter no different to i-pods is ridiculous. Are you really completely oblivious of the powers held by every single government on Earth to deny the sale of medical products on health or moral reasons?

Go and read about abortifacients like Mifepristone, which was made legal in the US in the mid-90s, while it remained illegal in many other parts of the world (including here in Australia until just recently).

So you do in fact recognise that those employers with a religious faith are entitled to act in accordance with it. Yet you keep objecting when they do so. Interesting.

I don't have any problem with a group using an exemption that suits their morality. I simply object to the claim that lacking the ability to restrict medical coverage to morally acceptable procedures is a breach of religious freedom.

But I also know what the actual law states, something you were entirely ignorant of. And I find it very interesting that when that law was explained to you, you didn't accept the correction or make any effort to revise your view, you just made some pissy comment that didn't make any sense.

I do. And I do because again you are stooping to using false comparisons that bear little similarity to the stated factual position to try and make your point.
So it is pointed out that you are wrong, that you are using false comparisons to make your point, and you resort to profanity. But you're worried that trying to tell me that I'm wrong "would have set an aggressive tone that I didn't want to give"

I don't think understand how conversation works. You don't just have to say 'you're wrong'... you actually have to make, or at least attempt, to make some kind of fact or reason based claim that in some way substantiates that a person is wrong. So, for instance, when you complained about nuns having to be covered for abortions, I didn't just say you're wrong and start complaining about how you've failed to properly react to the fact that you're wrong, I actually explained what the law is and why that meant you were wrong.

So now, maybe, instead of just saying 'wrong'... perhaps you could substantiate in some way exactly how this case of constitutional abuse of religious freedom isn't actually quite similar to a a vegan saying they're happy to group pay for dinner but want to be excepted from paying for the meat dishes.

It is not grandstanding silliness. It is someone asking that their religious beliefs be respected.

You are working under the assumption that a person can say 'it is my religious beliefs' and it then becomes unquestionable and absolute. Your inability to never even consider that there is a massive fething difference betwen actual religious oppression and mild religious inconvenience is quite telling.

More petty spiteful name calling Sebster just because you don't agree with someone exercising their religious beliefs?

You're getting lazier, and this getting even more clearly to be a waste of time. Claiming that I am calling someone a name just because I don't agree with their religious beliefs might help you to dismiss me and therefore save you the challenge of actually thinking about what I'm saying, but it doesn't make it true.

Because I'm actually making an effort here, I'll type out something that you should have just been able to assume, but anyway... if a person says they won't use contraception because they believe in abstinence before marriage, and after marriage believed per their religious teaching that sex should have some chance of procreation, that's their religious belief and I respect that. In terms of their conviction and self-sacrifice I admire it, even. And if someone was to pass a law that prevented them from doing that, that would be very, very wrong.

But if the above person ran a company, and become outraged that a fraction of 1% of their medical insurance costs were going to employees to give them free or subsidised contraception, then I have no respect for that. It's a false outrage. A pretend issue, assumed either for political reasons or because false outrage is fun, or more likely both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
You're trying to assert that there's a long history in this country of the government providing contraception.

No, I'm not. You're inventing stupid gak for no good reason.

 sebster wrote:
Only if we place all genuinely held religious convictions on the same pedestal, and do not any point spend any time considering if any particular breach of a religious conviction might in fact be completely trivial.

Trivial to whom? The notion that the act of union within a heterosexual marriage be open to the possibility of conceiving a child is not trivial in many faiths. It is something that is well known in these religions, is explicitly mentioned in their doctrines, and even forms part of marriage preparation. It is not like eating meat on a Friday. Furthermore, the ACA is, on it's face, in conflict with the Constitution and that is no small deal.

 sebster wrote:
I am not doing that at all. Merely asking people to recognise the difference between actual religious oppression, ie I was threatened with jail for

That would be a worthwhile line of argument, if I had claimed that there was religious oppression happening. What I have been saying is that employers of a religious persuasion are being compelled by law to act in a manner incompatible with their beliefs

 sebster wrote:
I used the expression once, was puzzled at your strong reaction to it, which was then resolved when you pointed out that it was a term used by Obama in the same context. And then I set about explaining to you why I think so little of this apparent breach of religious freedom.

Which you somehow took as a sign that it no longer suited my argument, or something.

Was that were you decided to use profanity to describe anyone acting in good faith in line with their religious beliefs?
The Obama comment is just a red herring on your part, and shows significant bad faith. In fact knowing that someone was bound to pursue the avenue of attack that you have I ceased using the phrase Obamacare some time ago, and instead switched it to the ACA. I believe what I have said throughout our conversation has been "the Administration". I took it to no longer suit your argument when you ceased using the phrase after I, and others, mentioned that the Constitution is the law of the land also.

 sebster wrote:
You gave a comparison, and that comparison relied on a simplistic narrative. Giving the full context to that narrative ended up with a comparison that was a lot less like your claim, and a lot more like mine. In response to this you said 'nuh uh', and when I expanded it and explained more of the history to you, you just claimed you were right all along. At no point did you attempt to challenge my summary of hte history, or point out ways in which that summary didn't line up with actual events... or do any of the thing that actual debate requires. Instead you just claimed you were right all along.

The comparison was that the Pilgrim left their land seeking religious freedom. You attempted to compare it to those people who would not have contraception provided by religious employers (but, as mentioned numerous times before the employees would suffer no sanction). In stark contrast religious employers under the ACA are being forced by government to act in a manner incompatible with their faith upon pain of legal sanction.
So while your history lesson was a nice distraction it did in fact undermine your attempts to subvert my comparison, and it did strengthen it for the reasons above. The fact that you have to resort to ascribing further bad faith or childish demeanor to my arguments is, again, telling.

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, no. This idea that medical products are just made and sold over the counter no different to i-pods is ridiculous. Are you really completely oblivious of the powers held by every single government on Earth to deny the sale of medical products on health or moral reasons?

Go and read about abortifacients like Mifepristone, which was made legal in the US in the mid-90s, while it remained illegal in many other parts of the world (including here in Australia until just recently).

But they are Sebster. They are products made by private companies for profit that comply with government regulations for their sale/manufacture/etc. The fact that the US did not ban an item on moral grounds is not evidence that the US has a "long and glorious history" for not forcing contraception. To claim such a thing is going to Rumsfeld-esque level of unknown unknowns.

 sebster wrote:
I don't have any problem with a group using an exemption that suits their morality. I simply object to the claim that lacking the ability to restrict medical coverage to morally acceptable procedures is a breach of religious freedom.

But I also know what the actual law states, something you were entirely ignorant of. And I find it very interesting that when that law was explained to you, you didn't accept the correction or make any effort to revise your view, you just made some pissy comment that didn't make any sense.

More insults and attempts to show bad faith where none exist Sebster? When you dropped your law of the land comment I had more respect for you than this, I would appreciate the same in return.

 sebster wrote:
I do. And I do because again you are stooping to using false comparisons that bear little similarity to the stated factual position to try and make your point.

So it is pointed out that you are wrong, that you are using false comparisons to make your point, and you resort to profanity. But you're worried that trying to tell me that I'm wrong "would have set an aggressive tone that I didn't want to give"

 sebster wrote:
I don't think understand how conversation works. You don't just have to say 'you're wrong'... you actually have to make, or at least attempt, to make some kind of fact or reason based claim that in some way substantiates that a person is wrong. So, for instance, when you complained about nuns having to be covered for abortions, I didn't just say you're wrong and start complaining about how you've failed to properly react to the fact that you're wrong, I actually explained what the law is and why that meant you were wrong.

So now, maybe, instead of just saying 'wrong'... perhaps you could substantiate in some way exactly how this case of constitutional abuse of religious freedom isn't actually quite similar to a a vegan saying they're happy to group pay for dinner but want to be excepted from paying for the meat dishes.

And you are absolutely correct... if I had not given examples, if I had not explained my position, and if I had not put forward arguments and reasons that you have discounted out of hand. The whole point of a conversation is to have a mutal, respectful dialogue with a flow of ideas, arguments and counterpoints. Ignoring the crux of the matter, being abusive, using profanity, and attempting to infer bad faith to distract, obfuscate and derail is not a conversation.

As to the vegan/religion comparison I believe that I have already described how this was not an apt comparison. "You do know that being a vegetarian is not a religion, right? And that faith based employers do not offer contraceptives (unless for medical necessity), and this is something that people are aware of in advance, not when they attempt to get payment for their contraceptives, so you are offering a false comparison that bears little resemblance to the factual position. "
I believe that when I attempted to point out that vegetarianism was not a religion the response was "Who gives a gak". So it would appear that perhaps by your own definition you may be unaware as to how a conversation works.

 sebster wrote:
You are working under the assumption that a person can say 'it is my religious beliefs' and it then becomes unquestionable and absolute. Your inability to never even consider that there is a massive fething difference betwen actual religious oppression and mild religious inconvenience is quite telling.

And more profanity.
The only person using the religious oppression argument here is you Sebster. I have been saying that religious freedoms are being infringed upon, not that anyone with a religious view is being oppressed. But please keep titling at that strawman

 sebster wrote:
You're getting lazier, and this getting even more clearly to be a waste of time. Claiming that I am calling someone a name just because I don't agree with their religious beliefs might help you to dismiss me and therefore save you the challenge of actually thinking about what I'm saying, but it doesn't make it true.

Because I'm actually making an effort here, I'll type out something that you should have just been able to assume, but anyway... if a person says they won't use contraception because they believe in abstinence before marriage, and after marriage believed per their religious teaching that sex should have some chance of procreation, that's their religious belief and I respect that. In terms of their conviction and self-sacrifice I admire it, even. And if someone was to pass a law that prevented them from doing that, that would be very, very wrong.

But if the above person ran a company, and become outraged that a fraction of 1% of their medical insurance costs were going to employees to give them free or subsidised contraception, then I have no respect for that. It's a false outrage. A pretend issue, assumed either for political reasons or because false outrage is fun, or more likely both.

Should I be surprised at this stage that you've escalated from false comparisons, strawmen, profanity, accusations of bad faith, to now ad hominem? I did not dismiss you, I said that because generally you are a lot more eloquent and thoughtful in your replies. The aforementioned conduct is ordinarily atypical for you but you seem to be making an exception to your usual posting habits. Had I wanted to dismiss you I would not have responded further, especially with the other roughly two lines of the rest of that quote which you appear to have omitted in order to take it out of context and make it look as though I was trying to dismiss your argument.

Again Sebster it is not a false outrage. these workplaces were founded on religious values. It is part of their core belief system, and part of what gives the character of the institution. It is not a Wal-Mart or a McDonalds which has suddenly decided to try and reduce overheads. These are Catholic schools and universities and other religious employers who have always had these beliefs and it should be no surprise to anyone that they are founded on religious principals. To ask that these employers then clearly go against their principals and religious beliefs is unconscionable. This is not some cost cutting exercise for these groups, not some false outrage, this is not some political battle being fought. These are groups asking that their religious beliefs not be infringed upon, especially after assurances before the ACA came into being that their faith would be respected.
That is the crux of the matter Sebster, and the issue which you do not seem to want to grasp.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Trivial to whom? The notion that the act of union within a heterosexual marriage be open to the possibility of conceiving a child is not trivial in many faiths. It is something that is well known in these religions, is explicitly mentioned in their doctrines, and even forms part of marriage preparation. It is not like eating meat on a Friday.

Please just read what I'm saying. Forcing a person to breach their own religious belief about contraception, such by making them take the pill or installing and IUD would be an incredible breach of religious freedom. But that isn't what's happening here - we are instead talking about nothing more than requiring companies to passively pay for a health benefit for their employees, which their employees may choose to use or not. The difference in those two things is the difference between a breach of religious liberty and a trivial piece of nothing.

And if you can't get that, consider that Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept blood transfusions as it against their faith. Now, to force a Witness to take a transfusion is a gross breach of their religious liberty. There have been court cases when child Witnesses and unconscious adults have needed transfusions and that's all gotten very messy, but no-one has tried to force a transfusion on to a conscious, adult Witness, because it is within his religious liberty to say no.

And yet for decades any Witness who starts a company and gives his employees health coverage will be paying for any of those employees to access blood transfusions should they need one. And no-one has ever made a peep about this, because claiming that having to cover other people's choice to have a blood transfusion or not is moaning about a really minor inconvenience.

And that's just life, mate. A person may be morally opposed to war, but they've still got to pay their taxes to fund the army.

Do you get the distinction now, or are you going to expand your belief that this is a breach of religious liberty to also include the outrage that Jehovah's Witnesses have to cover blood transfusions for their staff? And then start claiming that it's a breach of a pacifists freedom of religion that their taxes go to the armed forces?

Was that were you decided to use profanity to describe anyone acting in good faith in line with their religious beliefs?

Once again, there's a difference between acting in line with your religious beliefs, and crying about a breach of religious freedom whenever you suffer the slightest inconvenience. To return to the vegan example, this is the difference between being forced to eat meat, and objecting that group pay means some of your contribution is going towards meat dishes.

The Obama comment is just a red herring on your part, and shows significant bad faith. In fact knowing that someone was bound to pursue the avenue of attack that you have I ceased using the phrase Obamacare some time ago, and instead switched it to the ACA. I believe what I have said throughout our conversation has been "the Administration". I took it to no longer suit your argument when you ceased using the phrase after I, and others, mentioned that the Constitution is the law of the land also.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. What does using the word 'Obama' or Obama-linked words like Obamacare change about anything?

The comparison was that the Pilgrim left their land seeking religious freedom.

You're not reading what I'm saying and this is turning this in to a really tiresome chore. The idea that the pilgrims left simply for religious freedom is hopelessly naive. The pilgrims were in fact on the winning side in England (protestants), their opposition was to the olive branches offered by James I to the catholics. How James I reacted to their continued opposition was awful (but such were the times), but there's getting around the fact that the 'religious freedom' they wanted was to continue to hate on the Catholics.

But they are Sebster. They are products made by private companies for profit that comply with government regulations for their sale/manufacture/etc. The fact that the US did not ban an item on moral grounds is not evidence that the US has a "long and glorious history" for not forcing contraception.

When a person has some clue about how these products are routinely banned elsewhere in the world for generations, then seeing a country that accepts that a person should be able to choose if a method of contraception offends their own morality or not is something to admire. And something people in that country should be proud of.

You aren't, and I'm guessing this is because you have no idea how long basic methods of contraception like the pill have been banned in many places around the world.

More insults and attempts to show bad faith where none exist Sebster? When you dropped your law of the land comment I had more respect for you than this, I would appreciate the same in return.

I didn't drop my 'law of the land' comment. And I'm starting to get a little worried how easily you've taken 'I think there's a constitutional problem' and turned it into 'this is a clear constitutional breach, so much so that despite this currently being a lawfully passed bill I'm just going to declare it isn't really the law of the land'.

And you still haven't said 'ah, I didn't know the law actually contained a religious exception'...

So it is pointed out that you are wrong, that you are using false comparisons to make your point, and you resort to profanity. But you're worried that trying to tell me that I'm wrong "would have set an aggressive tone that I didn't want to give"

Yes, because calling the almost entirely imagined breach of religious freedom dickish behaviour is exactly the aggressive tone I wanted to set at the target I wanted to aim for. Picking you up on your errors would have been aiming for a target I didn't want to hit.

See the difference?

"You do know that being a vegetarian is not a religion, right?

Actually, veganism and vegetarianism are important beliefs to several religions. Jainists, for example. Not that it matters, the point of an analogy is to demonstrate a principle, not to line up each and every fact identically.

I mean, if you're really that baffled by the vegan diner example, will go with one that's a lot closer to the original point. Consider a small town, who all agree that they want to pave the roads of their small town. They all agree that if they pitched in evenly then they could cover the two main roads of their town and it would be money well spent. And then the atheist stands up, and he says "I think this is a great idea, and I'm happy to pay my share, but I won't pay for the piece of road in front of the church, because I don't believe in your God."

Another person stands up and says "well I don't drink, so I'm not benefitting from the bit of road in front of the pub, but I'll pay anyway because I understand everyone is paying for all pay for things we don't necessarily use."

A bald guy stands up and says, "That's right, I'm paying for the stretch of road in front of the barber's."

To which the atheist responds, "Yes, but this about faith, and so making me pay for that one bit of road is breaching my religious freedom!"

That atheist is being a dick. He's getting very precious about an issue that has an almost minimal effect on him, and doing it for no real reason beyond his desire for grandstanding. Do you get point of the analogy now?

The only person using the religious oppression argument here is you Sebster. I have been saying that religious freedoms are being infringed upon, not that anyone with a religious view is being oppressed.

Pedantry. You can change 'religious oppression' to 'religious freedoms are being infringed upon' and all that's meaningfully changed is that it takes longer to type out.

Again Sebster it is not a false outrage. these workplaces were founded on religious values. It is part of their core belief system, and part of what gives the character of the institution. It is not a Wal-Mart or a McDonalds which has suddenly decided to try and reduce overheads. These are Catholic schools and universities and other religious employers who have always had these beliefs and it should be no surprise to anyone that they are founded on religious principals. To ask that these employers then clearly go against their principals and religious beliefs is unconscionable. This is not some cost cutting exercise for these groups, not some false outrage, this is not some political battle being fought. These are groups asking that their religious beliefs not be infringed upon, especially after assurances before the ACA came into being that their faith would be respected.
That is the crux of the matter Sebster, and the issue which you do not seem to want to grasp.

No, the crux of the matter is that paying in to a pool for health benefits, some of which your organisation does not personally approve of, is not unconscionable. It is not unconscionable when Jehovah's Witnesses pay for medical benefits that include blood transfusion. It is not unconscionable when pacifists pay taxes that in fund the military. It is not unconscionable when you group pay a bill and part of your payment goes to meat dishes that the vegan would not eat. It is not unconscionable when you part fund a road paving project and it goes past a church you don't attend.

That's just life. That's how it is, part of being in a society that accepts diversity means that quite frequently you will end up being passively part of something that you personally would never be directly part of.

 sebster wrote:
Please just read what I'm saying. Forcing a person to breach their own religious belief about contraception, such by making them take the pill or installing and IUD would be an incredible breach of religious freedom. But that isn't what's happening here - we are instead talking about nothing more than requiring companies to passively pay for a health benefit for their employees, which their employees may choose to use or not. The difference in those two things is the difference between a breach of religious liberty and a trivial piece of nothing.

And if you can't get that, consider that Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept blood transfusions as it against their faith. Now, to force a Witness to take a transfusion is a gross breach of their religious liberty. There have been court cases when child Witnesses and unconscious adults have needed transfusions and that's all gotten very messy, but no-one has tried to force a transfusion on to a conscious, adult Witness, because it is within his religious liberty to say no.

And yet for decades any Witness who starts a company and gives his employees health coverage will be paying for any of those employees to access blood transfusions should they need one. And no-one has ever made a peep about this, because claiming that having to cover other people's choice to have a blood transfusion or not is moaning about a really minor inconvenience.

And that's just life, mate. A person may be morally opposed to war, but they've still got to pay their taxes to fund the army.

Do you get the distinction now, or are you going to expand your belief that this is a breach of religious liberty to also include the outrage that Jehovah's Witnesses have to cover blood transfusions for their staff? And then start claiming that it's a breach of a pacifists freedom of religion that their taxes go to the armed forces?

I was not aware that pacifism was a religion.
Again, you have not answered the question - trivial to whom? You keep attempting to minimize this, whenever to the groups involved this is evidently a more serious matter concerning their faith. Which leads me back to my point that you are unwilling to look at the crux of this. What one faith chooses to do does not impact another. If a Jehovah's witness based employer chooses to not take legal action then that does not prevent others from taking legal action.

Your example of taxes is another example of a false comparison. Taxes are gathered and distributed to various projects by the government, those being taxed have no say in what their taxes go on, and have no input after the taxes have been collected. As you can see that, again, does not match the facts here.
I'm glad you stopped your gross mischaracterisation that this was religious oppression though.

 sebster wrote:
Once again, there's a difference between acting in line with your religious beliefs, and crying about a breach of religious freedom whenever you suffer the slightest inconvenience. To return to the vegan example, this is the difference between being forced to eat meat, and objecting that group pay means some of your contribution is going towards meat dishes.

And that has what to do with your spewing of invectives precisely? But it is nice to see that you are still unwilling to engage with the crux of the matter, but still continue to minimize another's religious beliefs.

 sebster wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about here. What does using the word 'Obama' or Obama-linked words like Obamacare change about anything?

Because in a lot of these discussions it can lead to the topic being diverted, and that was something that I was seeking to avoid. No more, no less.

 sebster wrote:
You're not reading what I'm saying and this is turning this in to a really tiresome chore. The idea that the pilgrims left simply for religious freedom is hopelessly naive. The pilgrims were in fact on the winning side in England (protestants), their opposition was to the olive branches offered by James I to the catholics. How James I reacted to their continued opposition was awful (but such were the times), but there's getting around the fact that the 'religious freedom' they wanted was to continue to hate on the Catholics.

Yes you're right, hopelessly naive. They were not seeking religious freedom at all, and were on the winning side;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)
The core of the group that would come to be known as the Pilgrims were brought together by a common belief in the ideas promoted by Richard Clyfton, a Brownist parson at All Saints' Parish Church in Babworth, near East Retford, Nottinghamshire, between 1586 and 1605. This congregation held Separatist beliefs comparable to nonconforming movements (i.e., groups not in communion with the Church of England) led by Robert Browne, John Greenwood and Henry Barrowe. Unlike the Puritan group who maintained their membership in and allegiance to the Church of England, Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable and that their worship should be organized independently of the trappings, traditions and organization of a central church.[1] William Brewster, a former diplomatic assistant to the Netherlands, was living in the Scrooby manor house, serving as postmaster for the village and bailiff to the Archbishop of York. Having been favorably impressed by Clyfton's services, he had begun participating in Separatist services led by John Smyth in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire.[2]
The Separatists had long been controversial. Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services, with a fine of one shilling (£0.05; about £16 today[3]) for each missed Sunday and holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood were executed for sedition in 1593.

 sebster wrote:
When a person has some clue about how these products are routinely banned elsewhere in the world for generations, then seeing a country that accepts that a person should be able to choose if a method of contraception offends their own morality or not is something to admire. And something people in that country should be proud of.

You aren't, and I'm guessing this is because you have no idea how long basic methods of contraception like the pill have been banned in many places around the world.

More insults and pithy comments?
So because the government does not ruthlessly proscribe what products may be sold then we have a leap of logic to that country having a long and glorious history of not forcing the use of contraception? I don't think I should really have to point out the inconsistency in your logic that you think it great that the government allows someone to choose whether the use of contraception offends his/her morality, while defending a government that at the same time compels religious groups to do something which offends their morality.

 sebster wrote:
I didn't drop my 'law of the land' comment. And I'm starting to get a little worried how easily you've taken 'I think there's a constitutional problem' and turned it into 'this is a clear constitutional breach, so much so that despite this currently being a lawfully passed bill I'm just going to declare it isn't really the law of the land'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 sebster wrote:
Yes, because calling the almost entirely imagined breach of religious freedom dickish behaviour is exactly the aggressive tone I wanted to set at the target I wanted to aim for. Picking you up on your errors would have been aiming for a target I didn't want to hit.

See the difference?

Strawmen, personal abuse, invective, minimizing. Not exactly hallmarks of someone seeking an honest conversation. Until you accept that those holding religious faith are entitled to their beliefs, and to act in a manner compatible with said beliefs then you are willfully missing the crux of this matter.

 sebster wrote:
Actually, veganism and vegetarianism are important beliefs to several religions. Jainists, for example. Not that it matters, the point of an analogy is to demonstrate a principle, not to line up each and every fact identically.

I mean, if you're really that baffled by the vegan diner example, will go with one that's a lot closer to the original point. Consider a small town, who all agree that they want to pave the roads of their small town. They all agree that if they pitched in evenly then they could cover the two main roads of their town and it would be money well spent. And then the atheist stands up, and he says "I think this is a great idea, and I'm happy to pay my share, but I won't pay for the piece of road in front of the church, because I don't believe in your God."

Another person stands up and says "well I don't drink, so I'm not benefitting from the bit of road in front of the pub, but I'll pay anyway because I understand everyone is paying for all pay for things we don't necessarily use."

A bald guy stands up and says, "That's right, I'm paying for the stretch of road in front of the barber's."

To which the atheist responds, "Yes, but this about faith, and so making me pay for that one bit of road is breaching my religious freedom!"

That atheist is being a dick. He's getting very precious about an issue that has an almost minimal effect on him, and doing it for no real reason beyond his desire for grandstanding. Do you get point of the analogy now?

So you do know that it is not actually a religion. Good.
You're trying to have an atheist use a faith based argument. Do you want me to give you a serious response to that preposterous, and again false, comparison? Roads are public land Sebster, are you claiming that the parts of the body on which contraception are used are also public property?

 sebster wrote:
Pedantry. You can change 'religious oppression' to 'religious freedoms are being infringed upon' and all that's meaningfully changed is that it takes longer to type out.

No Sebster, it is me refusing to allow you to distort my arguments to give you ammunition. There is a difference between religious oppression, and infringing on someone's religious beliefs.

 sebster wrote:
No, the crux of the matter is that paying in to a pool for health benefits, some of which your organisation does not personally approve of, is not unconscionable. It is not unconscionable when Jehovah's Witnesses pay for medical benefits that include blood transfusion. It is not unconscionable when pacifists pay taxes that in fund the military. It is not unconscionable when you group pay a bill and part of your payment goes to meat dishes that the vegan would not eat. It is not unconscionable when you part fund a road paving project and it goes past a church you don't attend.

It is the crux Sebster. No matter how much you seek to deflect from it with your false comparisons that I have rebutted above, with your gross distortions that this is cost driven, or some false outrage, and your repeated attempts to minimize the deeply held beliefs of others.

 sebster wrote:
That's just life. That's how it is, part of being in a society that accepts diversity means that quite frequently you will end up being passively part of something that you personally would never be directly part of.

Part of life Sebster is realizing that some people have other views than you, that some people have religious beliefs, that people do not want to act against their religious beliefs, and that the First Amendment offers protection against laws infringing upon the exercise of religion. That's just life - as you so succinctly put it

Yeesh...
http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2014/01/09/udalls-office-pushed-back-hard-on-number-of-health-care-cancellations/

“At the height of controversy surrounding President Obama’s promises on the federal health care overhaul, U.S. Senator Mark Udall’s office worked assiduously to revise press accounts that 249,000 Coloradans received health care cancellation notices. Because the 249,000 figure was produced inside the Colorado Division of Insurance, Udall’s office lobbied that agency to revise the figure, or revise their definition of what qualified as a cancellation.”

 whembly wrote:
Yeesh...
http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2014/01/09/udalls-office-pushed-back-hard-on-number-of-health-care-cancellations/

Because the 249,000 figure was produced inside the Colorado Division of Insurance, Udall’s office lobbied that agency to revise the figure, or revise their definition of what qualified as a cancellation.”

Oh god I can predict the argument. "It's not a cancellation if Obamacare offers a different plan."

 whembly wrote:
Yeesh...
http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2014/01/09/udalls-office-pushed-back-hard-on-number-of-health-care-cancellations/

“At the height of controversy surrounding President Obama’s promises on the federal health care overhaul, U.S. Senator Mark Udall’s office worked assiduously to revise press accounts that 249,000 Coloradans received health care cancellation notices. Because the 249,000 figure was produced inside the Colorado Division of Insurance, Udall’s office lobbied that agency to revise the figure, or revise their definition of what qualified as a cancellation.”

You know it's bad when you have to fudge the numbers and the definition

its not a cancellation of the plan you lost was the wrong kind of plan....

one of those "junk"plans...

Those plans that you could keep, but couldn't?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Those plans that you could keep, but couldn't?

Well it depends on your definition of "couldn't"

According to this survey... it shows that 48 percent of Americans would choose to repeal the Affordable Care Act, compared to 46 percent in September. Currently, only 36 percent would choose to keep it.

In addition, nearly half of Americans say cost of employer-based plans increasing... and the employer mandate hasn't even kicked in yet.

Nearly half of all Americans with employer-based health insurance plans say more money is being taken out of their paychecks for health insurance compared to a year ago, and 44 percent are facing higher out-of-pocket expenses, including deductibles and co-payment, according to a report by the Princeton Survey Research Assocs. International and Bankrate.com.

Americans with annual household incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 with employer-based health insurance have been impacted most: 47% of respondents in this demographic report a negative effect on their health insurance, a much higher percentage than any other income level…

So, what do you call Obama's promise of this?

“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

Bueller?

Don't you know, Whembly? All those employers are just using Obamacare as a scapegoat! They would have totally raised prices even if it wasn't around! Totally!

Also as someone who is getting free insurance through my employer but that will change soon, Thanks Obama

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"anti-contraception lobby"... who's that?

There is a large and reasonably organised collection of groups who work to discourage the acceptance of contraception, instead arguing for abstinence. I didn't state, nor mean to imply, this group had had any real success in getting forms of contraception banned.

Citation needed.

where have I heard this kind of talk before?

oh right, sebster reminds me of all those people who talk about the "gay agenda" "gay conspiracy" ect... you know, groups of people, well organized, and so on...



I think you all are spoiled...

back in my day, we didnt have these fancy pants forms of birth control like fake names, or pulling out.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeesh...
http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2014/01/09/udalls-office-pushed-back-hard-on-number-of-health-care-cancellations/

“At the height of controversy surrounding President Obama’s promises on the federal health care overhaul, U.S. Senator Mark Udall’s office worked assiduously to revise press accounts that 249,000 Coloradans received health care cancellation notices. Because the 249,000 figure was produced inside the Colorado Division of Insurance, Udall’s office lobbied that agency to revise the figure, or revise their definition of what qualified as a cancellation.”

You know it's bad when you have to fudge the numbers and the definition

Next thing, they'll be pulling a Clinton about the word "is".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

It seems to me like they already have with the whole "We never said you'd keep your plan" argument.

 easysauce wrote:
where have I heard this kind of talk before?

oh right, sebster reminds me of all those people who talk about the "gay agenda" "gay conspiracy" ect... you know, groups of people, well organized, and so on...

That makes no sense at all. There is a large and reasonably organised movement dedicated to gay rights. You know all those states that have now allowed gay marriage? Well that took large and reasonably well organised lobby groups.

The bs in 'gay agenda' and 'gay conspiracy' is the implication there's something sinister in what they want, as if they want to trick straight people in to becoming gay or some other nonsense, instead of just wanting the same rights everyone else has.


Anyhow, it just fething blows my mind that people are doubting the existance of a large and reasonably well organised collection of groups working to discourage use of contraception, and instead preach abstinence only. These groups are not operating in secret, nor are they ignored by the mainstream. To repeat my post to Breotan earlier;

"American Family Association.
Family Research Council.
Focus on the Family.

Pretty much any group with family in their name somewhere has, as part of a broader lobbying effort for social conservativism, argued for abstinence only.

And if it's the scale of the issue that you're doubting, fully one third of schools in the US report that their sex education is absinence only. "

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I was not aware that pacifism was a religion.

Nor is 'no contraception' a religion. But both 'no contraception' and pacificism are beliefs held by certain religious groups.

This is not something I should be explaining to you. Stop playing dumb.

Again, you have not answered the question - trivial to whom?

Trivial to the people suffering this. Which can be witnessed by looking at a case example - Saddleback Church, who's Pastor Rick Warren was one of the earliest and loudest voices decrying the contraception mandate. He even claimed that he'd rather go to jail than pay for other people's contraception. Which was fairly hilarious, because his minstry is in California, which by state law had been covering contraception for employees for years. The idiot was outraged and wanting to risk jail to fight something he'd been happily doing for years.

That's what I mean by trivial. The matter was so minor that he either didn't know or didn't care that he was paying it for years, but then the political winds meant people wanted to make a big deal out of it. And so people starting pretending that it was a big deal.

If a Jehovah's witness based employer chooses to not take legal action then that does not prevent others from taking legal action.

You're missing the point entirely. If it is a great religious outrage that a person might be forced to pay in to a pool of funds of which some small portion goes to a practice they don't personally approve of, then you should feel that same outrage when a Jehovah's Witnesses have to pay to cover an employee's potential blood transfusion.

But you don't, because at your core you and everyone else understands that in society people contribute funds to stuff they personally don't like. But here, for reasons of politics, people have chosen to believe that it's a great and awful breach of their religious freedom.

Your example of taxes is another example of a false comparison. Taxes are gathered and distributed to various projects by the government, those being taxed have no say in what their taxes go on, and have no input after the taxes have been collected. As you can see that, again, does not match the facts here.

Umm, funds gathered and distributed to various projects with those paying in having little say in how those funds are directly spent is how insurance works, as well as taxes. I mean come on, think about what you're typing here.

And that has what to do with your spewing of invectives precisely? But it is nice to see that you are still unwilling to engage with the crux of the matter, but still continue to minimize another's religious beliefs.

At this point basically you're just claiming, over and over again, that I am minimising another's religious beliefs. This is despite me explaining, quite clearly that I have respect for religious beliefs and believe they should be protected, but that protection simply cannot be sensibly extended to every single possible claim, no matter how trivial.

And I have then gone on to explain the difference between a real and substantial breach of religious freedom and a trivial one.

You simply ignore this, or possibly are incapable of understanding it. Whichever it is, it makes discussion a waste of time. Either understand the point I have made and find some means to rebutt it or accept it, don't just repeat your same original claim over and over again.

Yes you're right, hopelessly naive. They were not seeking religious freedom at all, and were on the winning side;

Oh come on, I give you a summary and in response you go read wikipedia, and then just cut and paste that without even bothering to realise how my summary lines up with that wiki quote, while also giving additional information to provide context.

See how your wiki quote says 'Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable'? Those differences were the olive branches given by James I to the Catholics of England - he allowed them to keep multiple rituals in their services, and was entirely tolerant of crypto-Catholics, even having them in his own court. Those things were unacceptable to the people who would become Pilgrims, and while there is nothing to justify James I attempts to crush their protests (other than such was the standards of the time), there's no doubting what set the Pilgrims apart from other protestants was that they were not willing to compromise to re-absorb the Catholics in to society.

More insults and pithy comments?
So because the government does not ruthlessly proscribe what products may be sold then we have a leap of logic to that country having a long and glorious history of not forcing the use of contraception?

Here's what I actually said;
"It's got a long and proud history of offering contraception to people who want it, but not forcing it's use on anyone."

Not forcing it's use on anyone basically makes it 'not China', but in allowing new contraception methods and not banning them or making them unnecessarily difficult to access, the US has a proud history. It is not something many other countries have managed.

I don't think I should really have to point out the inconsistency in your logic that you think it great that the government allows someone to choose whether the use of contraception offends his/her morality, while defending a government that at the same time compels religious groups to do something which offends their morality.

It is only inconsistent if you remain oblivious of the difference between making an individual directly do something, or simply requiring them to passively pay in to a pool of funds, some of which gets used for that purpose by people who choose that service.

This is a distinction I have made to you dozens of times now, and while you are free to reject it and argue against it, instead you seem even now to be entirely ignorant of it, which is more than a little disappointing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Posting an internet cliche isn't debate. If you'd like to explain properly why you believe you haven't assumed the unconstitutionality of this requirement, without the case being decided or having any constitutional law training that might allow you to make a reasonable conclusion on the matter, please do so.

So you do know that it is not actually a religion. Good.
You're trying to have an atheist use a faith based argument.

First up, you don't understand how religious freedom works. It is not just a freedom to practice religion, but a freedom to not be forced to practice someone else's religion. So whether a person is atheist, agnostic, christian, hindhu, muslim or whatever else, the government can't require them to attend or participate in church based activities.

Second up, you still don't understand anecdotes. The point is a demonstration of a principle, not a direct correlation in all facts. In this instance you can change the protestor to a Hindhu, who doesn't want to pay for the road to be paved in front of a Christian church, and it doesn't change the principle - that it is a dickish fixation on a trivial matter to complain that some small portion of public funds that a person paid in to is being used on a service they personally won't use or don't approve of.

Roads are public land Sebster, are you claiming that the parts of the body on which contraception are used are also public property?

The body is private, but no-one is telling anyone what they have to accept in to their body, merely what must be done with money paid in to a third party organisation. The money paid in to the road fund is the same as money paid in to the employee health fund.

Part of life Sebster is realizing that some people have other views than you, that some people have religious beliefs, that people do not want to act against their religious beliefs, and that the First Amendment offers protection against laws infringing upon the exercise of religion. That's just life - as you so succinctly put it

Once again... the protection for free exercise of religion doesn't extend to all matters, no matter how trivial. It's never been used to exempt religiously motivated pacifists from not having that share of their taxes that would go to the military. That is life - you pay in to group funds, and sometimes some of that money gets used for stuff you personally don't approve of.

If this bothers you, I look forward to you personally taking up an action on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere to make sure they get exempted from having to pay whatever part of their employee's insurance covers blood transfusions.

Obama administration to end contract with CGI Federal, company behind HealthCare.gov

The Obama administration has decided to jettison CGI Federal, the main IT contractor that was responsible for building the defect-ridden online health insurance marketplace and has been immersed in the work of repairing it, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Federal health officials are preparing to sign a 12-month contract worth roughly $90 million, probably early next week, with a different company, Accenture, after concluding that CGI has not been effective enough in fixing the intricate computer system underpinning the federal Web site, HealthCare.gov, the individual said. …

At the start of December, administration officials announced that the Web site was largely working for consumers who wanted to enroll in health plans. But the site continues to malfunction in other ways. For instance, it is not yet able to automatically enroll people eligible for Medicaid in states’ programs, compute exact amounts to be sent to insurers for their customers’ federal subsidies, and tabulate precisely how many consumers have paid for their insurance premiums and are therefore actually covered.

According to officials familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision is not yet public, leaders of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — which oversees the online marketplace — became frustrated with the pace and quality of CGI’s work on the repairs. As federal officials and contractors have been trying to fix various aspects of the Web site in the past few months, about half of the new software code the company has written has failed on the first try, according to internal federal information.

Wow... the administration will hire Accenture, a firm that has not done any work on a federal health-care system, to fix CGI Federal’s mess. And they will get paid $90 million to do so, which will boost the overall cost of the failing portal even more....

Being in the IT industry... and really, basic project management... this will be an utter disaster UNLESS the whole thing is scratched and rebuilt from the ground up.

 sebster wrote:
Nor is 'no contraception' a religion. But both 'no contraception' and pacificism are beliefs held by certain religious groups.

This is not something I should be explaining to you. Stop playing dumb.

You are trying to make false comparisons, and engaging in yet more strawmen, I have made it abundantly clear that I am talking about someone expressing their religious beliefs, of which contraception forms a component.

 sebster wrote:
Trivial to the people suffering this. Which can be witnessed by looking at a case example - Saddleback Church, who's Pastor Rick Warren was one of the earliest and loudest voices decrying the contraception mandate. He even claimed that he'd rather go to jail than pay for other people's contraception. Which was fairly hilarious, because his minstry is in California, which by state law had been covering contraception for employees for years. The idiot was outraged and wanting to risk jail to fight something he'd been happily doing for years.

That's what I mean by trivial. The matter was so minor that he either didn't know or didn't care that he was paying it for years, but then the political winds meant people wanted to make a big deal out of it. And so people starting pretending that it was a big deal.

So your argument that it is trivial is based on one religion not taking legal action somehow excluding all other religions, and an example of someone you yourself have described as an "idiot" concerning State law, and not the Federal law. I note that you again refuse to consider that this is not a trivial matter for those bringing these cases - including employers like the University of Notre Dame who have not covered contraception as part of their health benefits, yet are now being forced to.

 sebster wrote:
You're missing the point entirely. If it is a great religious outrage that a person might be forced to pay in to a pool of funds of which some small portion goes to a practice they don't personally approve of, then you should feel that same outrage when a Jehovah's Witnesses have to pay to cover an employee's potential blood transfusion.

But you don't, because at your core you and everyone else understands that in society people contribute funds to stuff they personally don't like. But here, for reasons of politics, people have chosen to believe that it's a great and awful breach of their religious freedom.

Yeah, that argument is a complete non sequitur. It does not follow that because one religious group chooses not to take action that others that do cannot be supported.

 sebster wrote:
Umm, funds gathered and distributed to various projects with those paying in having little say in how those funds are directly spent is how insurance works, as well as taxes. I mean come on, think about what you're typing here.

Taxes - money collected by the government that goes to a central source. The money collected from a particular individual may not be used for some thing(s)he personally disagrees with.
ACA healthcare - money paid by the employer which does to certain defined items, such as contraception which the religious employer is objecting to
No, I think I'll stand by statement

 sebster wrote:
At this point basically you're just claiming, over and over again, that I am minimising another's religious beliefs. This is despite me explaining, quite clearly that I have respect for religious beliefs and believe they should be protected, but that protection simply cannot be sensibly extended to every single possible claim, no matter how trivial.

You again keep claiming that this is trivial, and you have not been able to support your claim. Let us be clear - multiple lawsuits have been filed on this at a Federal level, across many states, by a multitude of employers. Looking objectively at that alone should give you an indication that it is not trivial. Especially when it concerns Federal legislation coming into direct conflict with the Constitution.

 sebster wrote:
And I have then gone on to explain the difference between a real and substantial breach of religious freedom and a trivial one.

You simply ignore this, or possibly are incapable of understanding it. Whichever it is, it makes discussion a waste of time. Either understand the point I have made and find some means to rebutt it or accept it, don't just repeat your same original claim over and over again.

Going against important religious beliefs is now trivial Sebster?
What actually makes discussion a waste of time is the following;
- ignoring the crux of the matter because you deem it trivial
- use ad hominem
- use invictive
- strawmanning
- false comparisons
- acting in bad faith

 sebster wrote:
Oh come on, I give you a summary and in response you go read wikipedia, and then just cut and paste that without even bothering to realise how my summary lines up with that wiki quote, while also giving additional information to provide context.

See how your wiki quote says 'Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable'? Those differences were the olive branches given by James I to the Catholics of England - he allowed them to keep multiple rituals in their services, and was entirely tolerant of crypto-Catholics, even having them in his own court. Those things were unacceptable to the people who would become Pilgrims, and while there is nothing to justify James I attempts to crush their protests (other than such was the standards of the time), there's no doubting what set the Pilgrims apart from other protestants was that they were not willing to compromise to re-absorb the Catholics in to society.

So you're objecting to Wikipedia, and all it's sources now?
I have read it, and any animosity with Catholics is not mentioned. However the targetting of the group that would then go on to become the Pilgrims is;
- it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services, with a fine of one shilling
- The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines.
-Members were executed for sedition in 1593
- one of James' chief supporters at the 1604 conference,[5] promptly began a campaign to purge the archdiocese of nonconforming influences, both Separatists and those wishing to return to the Catholic faith.
- the group was subjected to ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of their neighbors

 sebster wrote:
Here's what I actually said;
"It's got a long and proud history of offering contraception to people who want it, but not forcing it's use on anyone."

Not forcing it's use on anyone basically makes it 'not China', but in allowing new contraception methods and not banning them or making them unnecessarily difficult to access, the US has a proud history. It is not something many other countries have managed.

So by not proscribing nor enforcing the use of contraceptives, rather it is left to the individual's choice and the free market, that somehow shows that the US has a long and glorious history? Again, that does not logically follow. Nor does your comparison of a democratic republic with a one party system.

 sebster wrote:
It is only inconsistent if you remain oblivious of the difference between making an individual directly do something, or simply requiring them to passively pay in to a pool of funds, some of which gets used for that purpose by people who choose that service.

This is a distinction I have made to you dozens of times now, and while you are free to reject it and argue against it, instead you seem even now to be entirely ignorant of it, which is more than a little disappointing.

I have rejected it, and set out the reasons for doing so. The religious employer is being compelled to provide something that is at odds with their religious beliefs. That is not a passive role.

 sebster wrote:
Posting an internet cliche isn't debate. If you'd like to explain properly why you believe you haven't assumed the unconstitutionality of this requirement, without the case being decided or having any constitutional law training that might allow you to make a reasonable conclusion on the matter, please do so.

Except that it is not an internet cliche, it is a logical fallacy that you employed to misrepresent my argument and then argue against that misrepresentation. As I have clearly said on it's face, i.e. prima facie, there is a conflict between the ACA and the Constitution. However if you need to know my qualifications I do possess a law degree.

 sebster wrote:
First up, you don't understand how religious freedom works. It is not just a freedom to practice religion, but a freedom to not be forced to practice someone else's religion. So whether a person is atheist, agnostic, christian, hindhu, muslim or whatever else, the government can't require them to attend or participate in church based activities.

Second up, you still don't understand anecdotes. The point is a demonstration of a principle, not a direct correlation in all facts. In this instance you can change the protestor to a Hindhu, who doesn't want to pay for the road to be paved in front of a Christian church, and it doesn't change the principle - that it is a dickish fixation on a trivial matter to complain that some small portion of public funds that a person paid in to is being used on a service they personally won't use or don't approve of.

And yet more invective
So the government cannot compel people to participate in things that go against their conscience? Yet you're arguing that under the ACA the government do just that. Can you see the contradiction there?
I do understand them, and that they must be close enough to be relevant. Something which you are demonstrably incapable of doing

 sebster wrote:
The body is private, but no-one is telling anyone what they have to accept in to their body, merely what must be done with money paid in to a third party organisation. The money paid in to the road fund is the same as money paid in to the employee health fund.

So you acknowledge that your comparison was incorrect then in trying to compare something that is built and used for the common good by all, and that which is only used in a private and intimate settings

 sebster wrote:
Once again... the protection for free exercise of religion doesn't extend to all matters, no matter how trivial. It's never been used to exempt religiously motivated pacifists from not having that share of their taxes that would go to the military. That is life - you pay in to group funds, and sometimes some of that money gets used for stuff you personally don't approve of.

If this bothers you, I look forward to you personally taking up an action on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere to make sure they get exempted from having to pay whatever part of their employee's insurance covers blood transfusions.

I have no legal standing to bring an action on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I am neither a member of the faith nor am I affected by their healthcare, but thank you for that spurious attempt at an argument grounded in fallacy. I have already rebutted your point about pacifists above, although it is interesting to note that those with a religious underpinning to their pacifism are exempted from military service.


Unless you actually want to address the crux of the matter - that religious groups are entitled to object to acting against their honestly held religious beliefs, and that the legislation is on it's face in conflict with the First Amendment - and stop dancing around the peripheral issues then don't expect any further response.

And. Here. We. GO!
Top insurer warns that Obamacare enrollment mix worse than expected

[I]n a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Humana disclosed to investors, "as a result of the December 2013 federal and state regulatory changes allowing certain individuals to remain in their previously existing off-exchange health plans, the Company now expects the risk mix of members enrolling through the health insurance exchanges to be more adverse than previously expected."

The regulatory change Humana is referring to is the "administrative fix" announced by the Obama administration aimed at allowing individuals to remain enrolled in their current plans, which had been cancelled as a result of requirements imposed by the law. Obama announced the "fix" after a storm of criticism over his broken promise that anybody who liked their plan could keep it. Insurers had been depending on those with cancelled plans (who tend to be healthier) to end up obtaining insurance through exchanges.

If the Republicans succeed in ending the "risk corridors" bailout to these participating insurance companies...

Watch out!

Words that Work

On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi corrected a reporter who asked a question about ObamaCare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, R – CA, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: First of all, it's called the Affordable Care Act. That's what you're referencing. They are going after the Affordable Care Act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But President Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other Democrats -- including Pelosi herself -- used to have no problem with that term.

(SHOW VIDEO CLIPS)

The Washington Free Beacon notes that leading Democrats abruptly stopped calling the law ObamaCare this fall when the healthcare.gov website failed to work.

President Obama has referred to his signature law as ObamaCare since. We'll note that.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/2014/01/10/grapevine-pelosi-contests-term-obamacare

I recall the President saying he was proud of the name, in the debates with Romney. So what is Pelosi's beef with it?

I suspect her beef is that SHE pushed this through the congress , it was her crowning achievement as the Speaker. She dislikes his name being what people use because it diminishes her role. She has been pretty consistent in calling it the ACA and not calling it Obama Care for the most part.

 djones520 wrote:

Words that Work

On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi corrected a reporter who asked a question about ObamaCare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, R – CA, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: First of all, it's called the Affordable Care Act. That's what you're referencing. They are going after the Affordable Care Act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But President Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other Democrats -- including Pelosi herself -- used to have no problem with that term.

(SHOW VIDEO CLIPS)

The Washington Free Beacon notes that leading Democrats abruptly stopped calling the law ObamaCare this fall when the healthcare.gov website failed to work.

President Obama has referred to his signature law as ObamaCare since. We'll note that.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/2014/01/10/grapevine-pelosi-contests-term-obamacare

I recall the President saying he was proud of the name, in the debates with Romney. So what is Pelosi's beef with it?

The fact that the POTUS's signature healthcare bill is a massive failure, and millstone around his neck with elections looming in a few months?

It does not matter how much distance the Democrats attempt to put between them and this legislation, or how they choose to re-brand it, this is their baby whether they like it or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
White House awards Accenture HealthCare.gov contract

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/11/white-house-awards-accenture-healthcare-gov-contract/?hpt=hp_t2

Washington (CNN) - The Obama administration has tapped the world's largest consulting firm to take over its beleaguered Obamacare website.

Accenture, a consulting and technology services company with 281,000 employees and $28.6 billion in revenue, won the one-year contract to continue fixing HealthCare.gov, the online health insurance marketplace set up by the Affordable Care Act. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services made the announcement Saturday.


"As CMS moves forward in our efforts to help consumers access quality, affordable health coverage, we have selected Accenture to become the lead contractor for the HealthCare.gov portal and to prepare for next year’s open enrollment period. We are pleased that more than 1.1 million consumers already have enrolled in a private plan in the federal Marketplace thanks to existing efforts and look forward to working with all of our contract partners to ensure a smooth transition of this work," the agency said in a statement.

As lead contractor, the company will be in charge of not only improving the current site, but also preparing it for open enrollment next fall. The task includes 24/7 customer support, eligibility and enrollment functions, and transmitting the personal data in enrollment forms.

“We are honored to be part of the team of technology and healthcare companies and government professionals helping the federal government meet the healthcare coverage needs of its citizens,” said David Moskovitz, the chief executive of Accenture's federal services. “Accenture will bring deep healthcare industry insight as well as proven experience building large-scale, public-facing websites to continue improving HealthCare.gov."

CMS will pay Accenture $45 million for the initial phase of the contract. The two sides are still defining the extent of Accenture's work, and a final value for the contract will be decided then.

Obamacare's site launched on October 1, 2013, to disastrous reviews, as users experienced major problems accessing the site, creating profiles and selecting insurance plans.

The White House later fired the original contractor, CGI Federal, and it cut ties with the company Friday, choosing not to renew its contract.

CGI's original contract for HealthCare.gov was for two years and valued at nearly $100 million.

During testimony before Congress in October, CGI Senior Vice President Cheryl Campbell denied any wrongdoing by her company, telling legislators that it was not "unusual to discover problems" in a system with so many concurrent users that would need to be addressed after going live.

Fixes since have resulted in improved performance of HealthCare.gov. At the end of 2013, more than 2 million people had signed up for coverage, with about half enrolling through the federal marketplace, officials said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture

Accenture plc is a multinational management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. Incorporated headquarters are in Dublin, Republic of Ireland while operations headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois. It is the world's largest consulting firm as measured by revenues[2] and is a constituent of the Fortune Global 500 list.[3] As of 31 August 2013, the company reported revenues of $30.39 billion with approximately 275,000 employees, serving clients in more than 200 cities in 56 countries.[1][4] Accenture has more employees in India than any other country, with approximately 80,000 employees projected by August 2012. In the US, it has about 40,000 employees and 35,000 located in the Philippines.[5] Accenture's current clients include 89 of the Fortune Global 100 and more than three-quarters of the Fortune Global 500.[6] Since September 1, 2009 the company has been incorporated in Ireland.[7]
Accenture common equity is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and is a member of the S&P 500 index