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.

Prestor Jon wrote:
What non Christian religious organizations, universities or narrowly defined for profit companies were prevented from exercising their religious objection to providing specific health insurance coverages? The laws and court decisions don’t specify a limitation that they only apply to Christians. I’m interested in hearing about these other non Christian religious objections that were denied please tell me about them.

Are you telling me that if I said "it's against my religion to provide treatment for cancer" the government would be fine with me only offering insurance plans that exclude all cancer-related treatments (including testing for cancer)?

What insurance reforms? The ACA? The purpose of the ACA was to lower the cost of health insurance by mandating that everyone buy it and have government run exchanges provide subsidized health insurance plans for the tens of millions of people who didn’t have coverage through employment. The ACA didn’t require all employers to provide health insurance to all employees and it didn’t require all labs to be the same. Unions were exempt from having health insurance plans that matches the government requirements.

The purpose of the ACA was also to clean up coverage gaps. That's why the rules on covering pre-existing conditions are changed, preventative care is treated more favorably, etc. The whole point of that is that insurers and employers can't single out specific things to not cover, whether it's for ideological reasons or simply maximizing profitability. Unless of course you yell "JESUS" loudly enough, in which case you can exempt yourself from following the rules.

The exemption granted to Hobby Lobby only applies to a very specific narrowly defined type of corporation it does not apply to all or even most corporations. You’re using hyperbole and exaggeration to obscure the actual facts of the matter.

The fact that it applies to Hobby Lobby at all is utterly absurd, and almost certainly because the company is owned by right-wing Christians and not a less popular religion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
What non Christian religious organizations, universities or narrowly defined for profit companies were prevented from exercising their religious objection to providing specific health insurance coverages? The laws and court decisions don’t specify a limitation that they only apply to Christians. I’m interested in hearing about these other non Christian religious objections that were denied please tell me about them.

Are you telling me that if I said "it's against my religion to provide treatment for cancer" the government would be fine with me only offering insurance plans that exclude all cancer-related treatments (including testing for cancer)?

What insurance reforms? The ACA? The purpose of the ACA was to lower the cost of health insurance by mandating that everyone buy it and have government run exchanges provide subsidized health insurance plans for the tens of millions of people who didn’t have coverage through employment. The ACA didn’t require all employers to provide health insurance to all employees and it didn’t require all labs to be the same. Unions were exempt from having health insurance plans that matches the government requirements.

The purpose of the ACA was also to clean up coverage gaps. That's why the rules on covering pre-existing conditions are changed, preventative care is treated more favorably, etc. The whole point of that is that insurers and employers can't single out specific things to not cover, whether it's for ideological reasons or simply maximizing profitability. Unless of course you yell "JESUS" loudly enough, in which case you can exempt yourself from following the rules.

The exemption granted to Hobby Lobby only applies to a very specific narrowly defined type of corporation it does not apply to all or even most corporations. You’re using hyperbole and exaggeration to obscure the actual facts of the matter.

The fact that it applies to Hobby Lobby at all is utterly absurd, and almost certainly because the company is owned by right-wing Christians and not a less popular religion.

Here’s the SCOTUS opinion for the Hobby Lobby case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Here’s the text of the Resoration of Religious Freedom Act (which was introduced in the House by Congressman Chuck Schumer D-NY and in the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy D-MA and passed the House unanimously and only had 3 nay votes in the Senate and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton so it’s clearly not some right-wing Christian legislative effort)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B

Please read them and let me know what parts lead you to believe that any corporation can remove any health care coverage they want from any plan offered to their employees because Jesus.

Only specific types of employers, closely held private corporations and religious organizations such as churches and church run schools are eligible for claiming exemptions on religious grounds. The vast majority of employers cannot claim religious exemptions of any kind. Your persistent use of deliberately misleading hyperbole doesn’t change that. If you don’t like the religious exemptions you should communicate that to your representatives in Congress and encourage them to stop passing legislation that creates such exemptions and protections.

Again, can you provide any examples of non Christian religious organizations or closely held private corporations being denied the same religious protections and exemptions or are you just trying to bolster your argument by presenting an unsupported hypothetical situation as fact?

I think part of the issue is that "closely held private corporations" appears as a really flimsy and fickle standard, and that doesn't offer any meaningful distinction for employees or employers from company's that don't fit it except that it is convenient for certain parties.

That the end of the day the issue is that some people don't think an employer should be dictating how employee healthcare, and certainly not along the lines of the employer's religious convictions. It ultimately has nothing to really do with the case specifically outside of it serving as the standing example of something that people think is wrong. D-USA I think provides a firm example of the hypocrisy of the situation, in which private owners remove themselves from liability in their companies, yet complain about "spiritual" liability falling back on them because someone might want to buy some pills? It's kind of cheesy. Either the owners aren't liable for their company business or they are, but in the Hobby Lobby case they wanted it both ways. The law currently allows for that, but it's kind of a stupid law.

And that's just the specific example. More broadly why should my employer, who really has no business even knowing what my medical choices are unless they effect my work, have any right to dictate my healthcare? The conflict is born of the scheme in which employers end up paying a lot of the costs of healthcare premiums for their workforce but I don't think that's sufficient reason for a Hobby company to decide care options on the opinion of its non-Healthcare professional and non-liable owners. It's kind of grossly unfair to the workforce of that company.

At the same time I do find the idea of contraceptives being covered by health insurance to be kind of silly... but what if a company run by some Christian Scientists (or whoever it was) decides they don't want to cover vaccinations? That might not ever happen, but the precedent has been set and that's kind of a scary prospect.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think part of the issue is that "closely held private corporations" appears as a really flimsy and fickle standard, and that doesn't offer any meaningful distinction for employees or employers from company's that don't fit it except that it is convenient for certain parties.

Exactly. I know what the law says, the whole point is that it's a bad law. Hobby Lobby is a large retail chain just like Walmart or whatever. It is not a religious group, it does not focus on selling religious items or providing religious services, it simply has right-wing Christian ownership. Nor is it a small local business such as one person running a wedding cake shop, where the owner is intimately involved in every aspect of the business. It is a large chain with countless anonymous employees that takes advantage of every other part of being a corporation independent of its owners (such as eliminating personal liability). The sole reason to grant the exception is that Christianity, especially right-wing Christianity, gets special privileges and they found a way to make it work.

At the same time I do find the idea of contraceptives being covered by health insurance to be kind of silly...

It's not really silly. Prescription medication is covered by default, whatever the reasons. The real question is why a special exception for one specific product should be made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Please read them and let me know what parts lead you to believe that any corporation can remove any health care coverage they want from any plan offered to their employees because Jesus.

I never said they could. In fact, my whole point is that they can't remove whatever they want for whatever reasons. There's a specific exception for certain ideological issues that right-wing Christianity cares about, allowing a standard that would be unacceptable in other contexts. And there is no compelling reason to allow that different standard, other than right-wing Christianity having excessive influence.

..so


-- hold onto your hats

https://gizmodo.com/google-calls-bs-on-trumps-claim-it-blacklisted-his-2018-1828701483

Trump lied about Google blacklisting his state of the Union speeches.

Of course this hasn't stopped him from pinning the tweet containing the lie to the top of his feed.




meanwhile



... .....err... are you all alright over there ?

Passports being taken from US citizens:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/ar-BBMCBPS

I do not say this lightly: the Trump adminstration is the scum of humanity. I cannot put my disgust into words. Not because of the above specifically, but just... Everything.

But I still believe we deserve it. We as a country made it happen, we own the consequences.

 reds8n wrote:



..so


-- hold onto your hats

https://gizmodo.com/google-calls-bs-on-trumps-claim-it-blacklisted-his-2018-1828701483

Trump lied about Google blacklisting his state of the Union speeches.

Of course this hasn't stopped him from pinning the tweet containing the lie to the top of his feed.


... ...

Gizmodo wrote:Gizmodo has asked Google for a screenshot of the homepage featuring the link.

However, in response to requests from other media organizations, the search giant directed reporters to a post from the subreddit for Trump’s supporters, r/The_Donald, dated from the evening of the January 30th speech.

That post clearly shows the Google homepage featuring a link reading: “Live! Watch President Trump’s State of the Union Address on YouTube.”

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Passports being taken from US citizens:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/ar-BBMCBPS

I do not say this lightly: the Trump adminstration is the scum of humanity. I cannot put my disgust into words. Not because of the above specifically, but just... Everything.

But I still believe we deserve it. We as a country made it happen, we own the consequences.

And the dehumanization continues - so now the regime can declare someone to be a non-citzen, lock them up, hold their kids hostage...

Not looking like a good direction to be heading in

 ScarletRose wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Passports being taken from US citizens:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/ar-BBMCBPS

I do not say this lightly: the Trump adminstration is the scum of humanity. I cannot put my disgust into words. Not because of the above specifically, but just... Everything.

But I still believe we deserve it. We as a country made it happen, we own the consequences.

And the dehumanization continues - so now the regime can declare someone to be a non-citzen, lock them up, hold their kids hostage...

Not looking like a good direction to be heading in

So there was actual fraud decades ago but now that it's pretty much impossible to decide is person one of those frauds or not they use that as excuse to start deciding on "fraud" just like that? So much for innocent until proven guilty idea. Better 100 innocents suffer rather than even guilty escape eh?

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens, and these people are not citizens.

Well Trump is trying to wash his hands of his NK debacle, in essence its all China's fault. Its less creative I guess, but it should work for his base. China is such a convenient scapegoat, stealing jobs, unfair trading, hacking Clinton, global warming etc. what can't China do! Oh and those war games with South Korea, they are and aren't back on depending on which member of Trump's staff you listen too, they have become Schrödinger's cat

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45351356

Also according to a Vox article Trump promised Kim to sign a peace deal and North Korea feels Trump reneged on that promise by moving goalposts.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17795452/trump-north-korea-war-summit-singapore-promise

 Peregrine wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens, and these people are not citizens.

That's not correct.

Non-citizens have most of the same rights as citizens. This is well established in law.

They are citizens until proven guilty, so it is moot.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well Trump is trying to wash his hands of his NK debacle, in essence its all China's fault. Its less creative I guess, but it should work for his base. China is such a convenient scapegoat, stealing jobs, unfair trading, hacking Clinton, global warming etc. what can't China do! Oh and those war games with South Korea, they are and aren't back on depending on which member of Trump's staff you listen too, they have become Schrödinger's cat

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45351356

Also according to a Vox article Trump promised Kim to sign a peace deal and North Korea feels Trump reneged on that promise by moving goalposts.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17795452/trump-north-korea-war-summit-singapore-promise

It's come to something when you feel NK is on the right side of an argument.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens, and these people are not citizens.

That's not correct.

Non-citizens have most of the same rights as citizens. This is well established in law.

Even if it wasn't, how is law supposed to function in the US when you could be arbitrarily arrested and accused of not being a citizen by virtue of the only documents you have proving your citizenship being called into question.

Funny enough this one could screw me over personally as a few 'fun' decisions by my family left me with a Texas social security number and a birth certificate in New York.

How long should I expect to remain in custody before someone tries to deport me to NY next time I cross the border? Though I suppose not being Hispanic will work in my favor here, since it's all just a racist charade that pretends border security is about anything remotely resembling the border.

I think Peregrine was being sarcastic about how the Trump admin operates?

The fundamentals of the US constitution were laid down in the concept of the inalienable rights of man, such as freedom of speech and religion and a fair trial. These were thought to apply to everone, citizen or not.

On top of these are some special rights for citizens, such as voting, being a member of congress and that sort of thing.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Passports being taken from US citizens:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/ar-BBMCBPS

I do not say this lightly: the Trump adminstration is the scum of humanity. I cannot put my disgust into words. Not because of the above specifically, but just... Everything.

But I still believe we deserve it. We as a country made it happen, we own the consequences.

That's horrific. You'd think any sane or compassionate government (I know, not happening here) would just offer an amnesty on the certificates in question and just crack down on the process going forwards. How many people are illegally here by getting a fake birth certificate do you reckon? A few thousand? These people have grown up as Americans, got SS numbers, paid tax, and so on. Who gives a stuff if some of them were born over the border?

Do your immigration officers really have nothing better to do?

Herzlos wrote:


Do your immigration officers really have nothing better to do?

Yes, they do, but management sets the priorities.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.

I'll take that as your concession of defeat on the subject, that you know you don't have a convincing argument.

I know we spent several pages discussing the Honby Lobby case when it happened and the circumstances under which closely held corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the merits of the State needing a compelling reason to require people to violate their religious convictions and the standard upheld by SCOTUS. Do you really not remember any of that? We can go around with it again but it does t seem worthwhile when you seem primarily interested in this thread for the purpose of ego stroking far more than actual political discourse but that’s just US politics in a nutshell isn’t it?

For me it should be a simple case of: sole proprietorship = religious protections, corporations = no protections.

In the case of Hobby Lobby: if I slip and fall in their store, I can’t sue the Green’s because they filed the paperwork separating themselves legally from their business. I can sue Hobby Lobby, but I can’t sue them. If they don’t pay their bills, their creditors can go after Hobby Lobby, but they can’t go after the family. If you take advantage of the laws letting you create a legal barrier between yourself and your business, then that barrier should extend both way. If you can’t be sued because I fell in your business, then your business should also not be able to refuse something because it goes against your religion. You and your business are either one and the same, or you aren’t.

That’s my simple approach to Hobby Lobby, bakers, photographers, etc.

Brilliant! Problem solved. Now to deal with the evil cat conspiracy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:


Do your immigration officers really have nothing better to do?

Yes, they do, but management sets the priorities.

There's also the issue of a certain type of person deciding to get into immigration enforcement for their own reasons.

Herzlos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Passports being taken from US citizens:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/ar-BBMCBPS

I do not say this lightly: the Trump adminstration is the scum of humanity. I cannot put my disgust into words. Not because of the above specifically, but just... Everything.

But I still believe we deserve it. We as a country made it happen, we own the consequences.

That's horrific. You'd think any sane or compassionate government (I know, not happening here) would just offer an amnesty on the certificates in question and just crack down on the process going forwards. How many people are illegally here by getting a fake birth certificate do you reckon? A few thousand? These people have grown up as Americans, got SS numbers, paid tax, and so on. Who gives a stuff if some of them were born over the border?

Do your immigration officers really have nothing better to do?

Okay, now take this precedent/principle that you're pushing for, and then apply it to any other crime where someone takes possession of something that isn't theirs. Why is it so hard to understand why the precedent of amnesty for crimes is a bad thing? Do you think it would end with just immigration?

 Just Tony wrote:

Okay, now take this precedent/principle that you're pushing for, and then apply it to any other crime where someone takes possession of something that isn't theirs. Why is it so hard to understand why the precedent of amnesty for crimes is a bad thing? Do you think it would end with just immigration?

Do you understand why the argument you're making is a bad one?

Hell, do you even care that you're making a bad argument?

The problem is that there is zero proof that they are here illegitimately. They are simply told that their passports are now invalid because their previously accepted verification now isn’t good enough anymore.

 Ouze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Personally - contraception is not health related in the sense that it is an optional life style.

Nope. Not only is it often prescribed for health reasons (even to people who are not having sex at all) it's no more of an "optional life style" than other things that are routinely covered. This is 100% about religious employers wanting to decide what their employees do with their insurance benefits.

"Women who have endometriosis are usually prescribed birth control. I don't think it's very optional."

 Just Tony wrote:

Okay, now take this precedent/principle that you're pushing for, and then apply it to any other crime where someone takes possession of something that isn't theirs. Why is it so hard to understand why the precedent of amnesty for crimes is a bad thing? Do you think it would end with just immigration?

Can you come up with an equivalent "crime" to having been born too close to the border where fraud may or may not have happened?

Something that's legal for the past 20-60 years, where everyone is being branded illegal unless they convince themselves otherwise?

I'm not clear about the principle that being in a country without a visa is the same crime as stealing a car.

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, now take this precedent/principle that you're pushing for, and then apply it to any other crime where someone takes possession of something that isn't theirs. Why is it so hard to understand why the precedent of amnesty for crimes is a bad thing? Do you think it would end with just immigration?

The problem is that the authorities have no idea which - or how many - of these people might actually have become citizens due to falsified paperwork. Hell, the guy born on the wrong side of the border might not even know it himself! Is it legally defensible to punish the lot of them for something a few are guilty of? Civilized countries generally frown on this sort of collective punishment.

It would be like, say, someone with a specific car model being seen speeding but the cops didn't get the plate so they just mail a traffic fine to everyone in the county who owns that sort of car. One of them has to be guilty, right?

 Just Tony wrote:

That's horrific. You'd think any sane or compassionate government (I know, not happening here) would just offer an amnesty on the certificates in question and just crack down on the process going forwards. How many people are illegally here by getting a fake birth certificate do you reckon? A few thousand? These people have grown up as Americans, got SS numbers, paid tax, and so on. Who gives a stuff if some of them were born over the border?

Do your immigration officers really have nothing better to do?

Okay, now take this precedent/principle that you're pushing for, and then apply it to any other crime where someone takes possession of something that isn't theirs. Why is it so hard to understand why the precedent of amnesty for crimes is a bad thing? Do you think it would end with just immigration?

This is hardly comparable. As an adult you have a level of responsibility for your actions (though it doesn't appear to apply to people like *anal gas*.. ). If someone offers you a TV at the back of a bar at price that seems stupidly low then some responsibility lies with yourself to validate that what you are buying is legal. This prevents people quickly passing stolen goods etc and people accept these stolen goods, no questions asked.

This is not reasonable to ask of a baby. Now I know babies are more intelligent than Trump, but they have no facility to query what is happening or to otherwise make a decision if the actions could be illegal. Dealing with the perpetrators of the crime is fine, however treating people as not citizens because of actions they could never have had any control over is inhumane. Having to evidence information that might be 40 years old simply because they don't have a rednecked american name, it sounds mexican (or whatever) doesn't appear to be a very balanced approach.

Peregrine wrote:

It's not really silly. Prescription medication is covered by default, whatever the reasons. The real question is why a special exception for one specific product should be made.

For me it’s that health insurance should be focused on quality of life, prevention, and life saving care. Contraception occupies this awkward place where it can be a quality of life thing but at the same time it’s kind of like no one ‘needs’ contraception. That’s disclosing the reality the some drugs have multiple uses. I don’t really think insurance should cover viagra for disfunction but if your taking it for a blood pressure issue that’s obviously different.

Another part is that contraceptives aren’t expensive. PP lists the cost of birth control pills without insurance at $50 without insurance which hat isn’t that much. Especially in the US where drugs always seem to cost more than they should which is another problem healthcare reform should focus on. For the chronically poor that might be too much but there are other ways to provide help there than building coverage into insurance especially since the chronic poor probably don’t have insurance anyway.

Even in a well funded single player system money will be tight and we should prioritize distinctions between wants and needs. To me contraceptives occupies this odd grey area there but it’s cheap enough to leave it out of the need category to focus funds on other things.