Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by blackwatermerc

It seams the president can change this law at any point and time like he has illegally done many times. Nothing about this law is affordable and more people have lost the coverage they had and have been forced to get obamacare. Wait until the employers mandate goes in effect. Millions more will loose healthcare and be forced into this crappy plan. I'm so glad the govt. is now in charge of healthcare said no one ever. It only gets worse.

Well the only decent plan someone over 30(single) could get (before Obama care) was $500+ per month. No previous health problems. Non smoker. 500 would only be a dream if you had a serious previous health problem. Before Obama care Hospitals were treating people for free in the emergency room and passing along the cost of that. The system was failing

Quote:

Originally posted by Althalus

...
Here in Sweden health care is taken care of by the goverment, insured or not (I think)... It works pretty good. So if Sweden can do it... Why can't you? Or are you just afraid that goverment run health care will give every equal treatment without crippling bills?

Do you guys pay a small premium every month or every year, or is there no extra cost at all?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Do you guys pay a small premium every month or every year, or is there no extra cost at all?

In France you get the basic healthcare for free, for everyone. This takes in charge 30 to 60% of medical costs.
Then you can have a complementary one with a private company or through you job to have almost everything taken in charge 100%. I pay mine 25€/month via my job.
I'm also pretty sure you can get a complementary healthcare at reduced price if you don't have a job or something similar.

yeah its similar in Canada, but there can be a small monthly fee depending on which provence you live in. In my provence we don't have a fee, and If I needed a kidney transplant it would be totally covered...however things like ambulance rides, private hospital room, and follow up drugs outside of the hospital stay are not covered. Things like dental and vision are not covered under our basic care. Many companies offer a secondary plan that is often cost shared between employer and employee which do include these things, but it will often cost you about $50/month.

Quote:

Originally posted by NightCruiser

...

Well the only decent plan someone over 30(single) could get (before Obama care) was $500+ per month. No previous health problems. Non smoker. 500 would only be a dream if you had a serious previous health problem. Before Obama care Hospitals were treating people for free in the emergency room and passing along the cost of that. The system was failing

The current system isn't perfect, either, obviously. But I think it's a start in the right direction. What the US needs is constructive steps towards improving the system - not bipartisan arguing just to screw up the other party.

Both sides are guilty of it. I feel like the GOP is much worse at present, especially with these ridiculous threats to sue Obama.

(Whoops, guess I posted this in the wrong thread. Haven't read it all here in the new thread,... maybe later.)


The arguments here are so inane I can't keep it up. Sorry.

A majority of the US population did not support gov't healthcare.
Obama overstepped his power.
Congress did not give Obamacare due process.
Most legislators never even read it.
It tramples the constitution.
Many are testing in court.
Some have failed.
Some have not.

Hobby Lobby's case stood firm on time tested, court upheld issues that are not new. This legislation attempted to force an employer to pay for a blood-free abortion. A person who's moral compass was against it, stood up and said "It's unconstitutional for Gov't to force me to do this", and they won through the best legal process the world has ever known.

Trying to turn this into some rogue church vs. state and the religious whackos taking over the world is ridiculous. This was solved the way civil society solves these issues.

And for those that have never been involved in forming, and maintaining a 501 (c)3 charity, you have no idea what you're talking about. The process is both rigorous, expensive, difficult, and MUST be reviewed, proven, complied with and renewed every year.

Additionally, corporations have huge limits on their ability to contribute to political campaigns.
Additionally 2, corporations can deduct no more than 10% of the YE net profit as charitable giving. A dime over 10% and they are paying full tax rate on dollars they don't have.


CYA until the next big case.


PS: SP you missed the WHOLE point of my sugar-daddy question. I suspect that I can't explain my question in manner logical enough to get past the emotional attachment to this issue. No harm no foul.... I just realize that I'm not changing the world here, so moving on. Thanks for the chat.

BMA, we all look at this through different values. Two thoughts-

You pity the taxes that corporations must pay. Yet GE does not pay any taxes. And they are hardly alone. I do work for several engineering firms that with good accounting are able to end up paying none either. It's all in the planning, accounting, and...guess what, a good tax attorney. Thus I am not impressed with any business whining about taxes because they are all standing at the door of Congress asking for an exemption.

And....your chat on tax exempt organizations. You miss that point of that entirely, which was the tax exempt status of churches which receive no scrutiny at all. The was a 60 minutes segment on this a few years ago and some retired IRS agents told of the political protection that churches get. What a surprise ? !!!

Tax ALL the corporations and churches ? Never happen. Americans believe in gaming whatever system they are presented with. Welcome to America where everyone has their hand out because they are "special". If I were a kid in Mexico I'd get my ass across that border just as soon as I could.

And start my own religion.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

(Whoops, guess I posted this in the wrong thread. Haven't read it all here in the new thread,... maybe later.)


The arguments here are so inane I can't keep it up. Sorry.

A majority of the US population did not support gov't healthcare.
Obama overstepped his power.
Congress did not give Obamacare due process.
Most legislators never even read it.
It tramples the constitution.
Many are testing in court.
Some have failed.
Some have not.

Regardless, its now law, and companies shouldn't arbitrarily be allowed to change the law because they don't agree with it. If you can rally enough support, and force a referendum then so be it, but you can't just stop doing something because you don't like it. I don't like taxes and 90 kmph speed limits in national parks, but I can't just say those laws don't apply to me because I don't believe in them.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

Hobby Lobby's case stood firm on time tested, court upheld issues that are not new. This legislation attempted to force an employer to pay for a blood-free abortion. A person who's moral compass was against it, stood up and said "It's unconstitutional for Gov't to force me to do this", and they won through the best legal process the world has ever known.

Healthcare isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose what you're going to pay for based on what your religious beliefs are. You pay for for the whole thing, and everyone pays their share so different people can benefit from different parts. If you allow companies to pick and choose, its just a mater of time before the whole thing collapses....but I imagine you and the republicans would be happy with that.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

Trying to turn this into some rogue church vs. state and the religious whackos taking over the world is ridiculous. This was solved the way civil society solves these issues.

So "wacko" religions won't get to challenge items covered by healthcare? Who is the authority to decide what religion is wacko and which one isn't? Is freedom of religion not constitutionally guaranteed by your constitution? What makes a claim by a catholic company any more valid than a claim by Jehovah's Witnesses or Temple of the True Inner Light...who by the way support government funding of marijuana, peyote and mushrooms. Why can't they challenge the law to require healthcare to pay for those drugs?

SP..... ah forget it.

F, while there are some investments and other things to reduce or eliminate taxes, when the owners take the money out of the company themselves, they pay the tax, and at a higher rate than if it had remained in the corporation. Trust me. The IRS gets "theirs" in the end. Whatever means of reducing those taxes are used, eventually the income is realized, and whether it's paid corporately, or individually, the tax does get paid. And so do all the people that work for those "evil" corporations.

The truth is that there really is no such animal as corporate tax, and corporations should be completely exempt from taxation. Every tax a company pays is built into the cost of the goods or services that they pay. The consumer pays the tax, and 99.9% of them are too stupid to comprehend it. The reason the government taxes the corporation instead of the individuals is that we'd have a revolt in this nation if you had to write the check yourself to cover the total cost of government waste. When it's hidden in payroll taxes and cost of good sold, the government can get their money, while cow-towing to the voter about the evil corporations.

Likewise, most people don't know that their employer matches the taxes taken from their pay check. If you were paid EVERY dollar that the employer actually pays on your behalf, and had to write the check to the IRS.... well, screw the Boston Tea Party, we'd make that look like a birthday party. The people in power are smarter than you think. It's the sheeple that are the dummies.

OK, SP I'm gonna waste my time with this one more time. Why do I know I'm wasting my time? Because you're a liberal, and liberals are the most intolerant people on the planet. I'm a conservative, and I'm highly tolerant.

For example, I don't care if Fred wants to fuck Freddy, Fredrika or Fred-Ricki. Have at it Fred. But I do get upset when Fred or Fredrika expect me to pay for the consequences of their actions, or when Fred wants me to pay to make him Ricki. Until then, I don't give a rats ass what they do.

Aside from believing that consequences have actions that INDIVIDUALS must be responsible to deal with, I also think that every life is precious and deserves a chance to become what it may. ie: abortion. I don't care if SuzieQ wants to screw her way through the phonebook. I really and truly don't. But I happen to believe that the same child that a drunk can do prison time for killing when he runs into a pregnant woman, or the same baby that is considered to be murdered if it's killed the moment it emerges from the vagina, deserves to have someone stand up for it if the "mother" doesn't give a shit. So I fight for the kid, while others fight for the woman. At present we have a legal system that divides that line somewhere in the middle.

But there are those that will call me radical, insensitive and intolerant because I am willing to fight for a kid I don't know, just because it'a attached to an umbilical cord. Ok. I can live with that. But there's no doubt in my mind who represents REAL love and tolerance.

Oh, and then I'm supposed to pay for it too? Yeah, "tolerance" is a highly misused word. To a liberal, tolerance is defined as "agreeing with me".

Now to your points.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
Regardless, its now law, and companies shouldn't arbitrarily be allowed to change the law because they don't agree with it. If you can rally enough support, and force a referendum then so be it, but you can't just stop doing something because you don't like it. I don't like taxes and 90 kmph speed limits in national parks, but I can't just say those laws don't apply to me because I don't believe in them.

And how did it become law? Do citizens of Canada not have a legal system to challenge law? Are you all under the thumb of the Great and Powerful OZ?

Can you not file a suit to challenge the speed limit in your National Park?

Here in the US, we have that option, and people do it every day. We do not have a king, and if we don't like laws passed, we can challenge them in court. Hobby Lobby did it. They won. The fact that you don't agree with the decision is meaningless, just as the fact that I don't agree with Roe vs Wade is meaningless. But my right to fight those laws I disagree with shall not be infringed. Nor shall the right of those that disagree with me. It's a see-saw. It may get cumbersome, but it works. Without that system, we would have all been subjects, instead of citizens, decades ago.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

......
Healthcare isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose what you're going to pay for based on what your religious beliefs are. You pay for for the whole thing, and everyone pays their share so different people can benefit from different parts. If you allow companies to pick and choose, its just a mater of time before the whole thing collapses....but I imagine you and the republicans would be happy with that.

I would be happy with that. I do not believe that healthcare is a "right". I believe that we all have a right to pursue our dreams and to seek happiness in a free market. I also believe that he who shall not work, shall not eat. I am extremely charitable to those in need, and I believe we would have a better, more prosperous and happier society if government got out of the business of taking care of people. I also believe SHIT-HAPPENS. So get ready for it. I don't expect you to pay for me, and I sure as hell don't expect me to pay for you. But if you find yourself in a world of heep, unable to help yourself, I would gladly give you a hand up.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...... So "wacko" religions won't get to challenge items covered by healthcare? Who is the authority to decide what religion is wacko and which one isn't? Is freedom of religion not constitutionally guaranteed by your constitution? What makes a claim by a catholic company any more valid than a claim by Jehovah's Witnesses or Temple of the True Inner Light...who by the way support government funding of marijuana, peyote and mushrooms. Why can't they challenge the law to require healthcare to pay for those drugs?

This is the dilemma of a free society. Religion is challenged, more and more each year. Like a charity, it is not as easy as one may think. Employees of churches also pay taxes on every dollar they make. Taking time to study the actual tax laws might be more beneficial to you that just blasting religion. Like a corporation, a church can sit on a pile of cash, but when they spend it, it will be scrutinized by the IRS, and if they send those dollars out in payroll, the taxes get paid. Also, did you know that a corporation can, in the sole judgement of the IRS, have TOO MUCH MONEY, and the IRS can levy a tax against them for no good reason. I believe it's called an "excess income" or "excess asset" tax. It's what the IRS does when they think a company is being to prosperous and stingy. The government just hates money they can't get their hands on.

I've always found it an interesting dichotomy that liberals like to think of themselves as so unique, open minded and independent, yet they look to government to solve so many problems.

And yeah, I know that's a big wide paint brush. I have a lot of respect for some. Count a precious few as dear friends. But only those that are willing to have meaningful conversation and show mutual respect toward conflicting ideas, and I find them to be very rare.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Do you guys pay a small premium every month or every year, or is there no extra cost at all?

From what I know it's all included in our taxes. If you need medical help it costs €20 for a visit to a local like general doctor. €40 for a trip to the emergency room. But the cost is capped at €120 per year. The cost only covers the food and room space you take up for emergencies. Medicine is the same thing, if you get a prescription you pay whatever the cost is... But only up to about €200-220 per year. So in reality, no matter how sick you are, you only pay up to something like €360 per year. Unlike the $320.000 medical bill you can get for a broken leg in the US.

I don't understand how people can be anti-abortion but once the kid is born not give a shit about him/her. Oh your family is poor and can't afford to have a kid? Too bad, can't be aborting fetuses with no central nervous system. Once it's born though, fuck you. You're on your own. That's not pro-life, that's pro-birth.

I agree that any corporate taxes are built into the cost of the product. But if we lower those taxes does the cost of the goods drop ? No. It doesn't because everything is priced according to the market. Prices ( and margins) are only lowered to maintain market share and sell price is always as high as conditions permit, high taxes or no taxes. At least it is with the manufacturing companies that I am most familiar with.

Easy peazy.

The great joy of our economy remains the US tax code which defies all logic and is manipulated by all political parties for their own gain.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

SP..... ah forget it.

F, while there are some investments and other things to reduce or eliminate taxes, when the owners take the money out of the company themselves, they pay the tax, and at a higher rate than if it had remained in the corporation. Trust me. The IRS gets "theirs" in the end. Whatever means of reducing those taxes are used, eventually the income is realized, and whether it's paid corporately, or individually, the tax does get paid. And so do all the people that work for those "evil" corporations.

The truth is that there really is no such animal as corporate tax, and corporations should be completely exempt from taxation. Every tax a company pays is built into the cost of the goods or services that they pay. The consumer pays the tax, and 99.9% of them are too stupid to comprehend it. The reason the government taxes the corporation instead of the individuals is that we'd have a revolt in this nation if you had to write the check yourself to cover the total cost of government waste. When it's hidden in payroll taxes and cost of good sold, the government can get their money, while cow-towing to the voter about the evil corporations.

Likewise, most people don't know that their employer matches the taxes taken from their pay check. If you were paid EVERY dollar that the employer actually pays on your behalf, and had to write the check to the IRS.... well, screw the Boston Tea Party, we'd make that look like a birthday party. The people in power are smarter than you think. It's the sheeple that are the dummies.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

I don't understand how people can be anti-abortion but once the kid is born not give a shit about him/her. Oh your family is poor and can't afford to have a kid? Too bad, can't be aborting fetuses with no central nervous system. Once it's born though, fuck you. You're on your own. That's not pro-life, that's pro-birth.

What I don't really understand is how so many people are calling the hobby lobby ruling a victory for the pro-life crowd. Even the majority opinion tacitly found that hobby lobby's beliefs were inconsistent with science, but it didn't matter since the case was about beliefs....

The case wasn't about abortion, even though the majority of people seem to think that it was. The birth control at issue serves to prevent fertilization, not abort a fetus. Even Hobby lobby defined abortion as terminating a pregnancy after a fertilized egg implants itself in the uterus. Since the BC at issue prevents fertilization, they really shouldn't have a problem with this. Although there is some dispute about at what point Plan B will continue to work, with some uncertainty as to whether it could also prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, rather than just preventing fertilization. Regardless, even under hobby lobby's definition, it still isn't abortion.

So that's one point that bugs me. Especially because if we are going to say that preventing fertilization is tantamount to abortion, masturbation is abortion, as is the use of any birth control pill, condoms, pulling out, etc.

Another is that the court tried to say that this was a narrow ruling and wouldn't apply to things like blood transfusions. There's no rational justification for saying that a catholic person's religious objection to these forms of birth control on the incorrect belief that they equal abortion, is okay, but a Jehovah witness's objection to a blood transfusion may be ignored. The attempt to narrow the ruling means the court did exactly what the first amendment was designed to prevent - favored one religion over another.

And if we allow this religious objection, there isn't any logical rationale to disallowing any other objection to any law on religious grounds. The bible says that all debts are to be forgiven every seven years. And people have used religion (wrong as they are) to argue in favor of segregation and disparate treatment of minorities. An employer could use those same rationales to ignore the civil rights act of 1964. And a slew of other possibilities. Again, unless this decision is just going to serve to favor one religious belief over others.

And I have a problem with the affordability factor. Employer provided health insurance is for many people the only affordable form of health insurance available to them. So the argument that they should just go pay for the BC on their own is problematic for me since it isn't feasible for everyone. In generalizing here, it seems the religious right is saying they are in favor of keeping much if birth control unaffordable, so these people who can't afford the BC, much less a child, are more likely to get pregnant, the have to keep it on pro-life grounds, and then are looked down upon for needing public assistance to get by, which the religious right also wants to cut. Make birth control more accessible and we likely have fewer abortions and fewer people needing the public assistance the GOP hates.

And people can say they don't want to pay for Mary to have birth control and get pregnant, etc., and that's cute and all, but to say that people just shouldn't have sex because they have a hard time affording the birth control the GOP wants to be more expensive and harder to obtain, just isn't feasible or realistic. People aren't going to just put their genitalia in lockbox because they don't have much money.

And it's a bit hypocritical to see those on the religious right whine about "activist" judges who are overturning bans on gay marriage, but then celebrate this ruling.

Bust you need a radio show good job!

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

OK, SP I'm gonna waste my time with this one more time. Why do I know I'm wasting my time? Because you're a liberal, and liberals are the most intolerant people on the planet. I'm a conservative, and I'm highly tolerant.

Why don' you lay off the name calling and assumptions and just debate the topic? Now, as for where I sit politically; in Canada we have many more choices than you do in the US, but let me try and make some comparisons. We have the Conservative party which are a right wing party and would be comparable to the Republicans, we have the Liberal party which are centre/left and would be comparable to the Democrats. We also have the New Democratic party which are social democracy/left wing, the Green party who I don't know a lot about, but are also left wing with a focus on the environment. It may surprise you, but up until recently I have been a life long Conservative, and only recently have begun to consider either the Liberal party or the ND's. I believe in an fiscally responsible and accountable government while still offering social programs, and for years thats what the Conservatives did, and they did it well. Canada, and particular Alberta (the province I live in) had some of the lowest debt in the world, and while my provence still does, Canada's debt has nearly doubled in the last 6 years while we've gained no new or extended social programs. In addition to ballooning debt, the ideology of the Conservative party seems to have shifted, they're less focused on the economics of the country and more focused on attacking people who don't support their beliefs. Abortion has been legal in Canada since 1969 and while people are still able to protest clinics that support them, and many times the law has been reviewed, the majority of people still support it. However recently the Conservative party has been bringing up the idea that the law may need to be reviewed. Same sex marriage is also legal and was actually introduced by the Conservatives, but lately members have been speaking out against it. So I've begun to have doubts in them as a party.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

For example, I don't care if Fred wants to fuck Freddy, Fredrika or Fred-Ricki. Have at it Fred. But I do get upset when Fred or Fredrika expect me to pay for the consequences of their actions.

I'm not sure what thats supposed to mean? What would Fred do that you would have to pay for his consequences? So I assume that if you got sick and needed treatment...say something like MS, and you needed tysabri treatment (similar to cancer chemo) you'd be willing to pay for the $150,000 per year treatment?

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

And how did it become law? Do citizens of Canada not have a legal system to challenge law? Are you all under the thumb of the Great and Powerful OZ?

Can you not file a suit to challenge the speed limit in your National Park?

I don't know...however laws are passed in the US I guess. Sure we have a system to challenge laws...just as you do in the US. But thats not what happened. The law didn't change for everyone, the law only changed for Hobby Lobby. Like I said, you can't just pick and choose what laws you want to follow, based on what you believe. If I don't like the law of 90 kph in national parks, and I challenge it and win, its not only me that gets to drive faster, its the whole country.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

I would be happy with that. I do not believe that healthcare is a "right". I believe that we all have a right to pursue our dreams and to seek happiness in a free market. I also believe that he who shall not work, shall not eat. I am extremely charitable to those in need, and I believe we would have a better, more prosperous and happier society if government got out of the business of taking care of people. I also believe SHIT-HAPPENS. So get ready for it. I don't expect you to pay for me, and I sure as hell don't expect me to pay for you. But if you find yourself in a world of heep, unable to help yourself, I would gladly give you a hand up.

At any given time there is going to be around a 5-8% unemployment rate, and it might be you some day...should it just be tough luck? Sorry about your bad luck, hope your house doesn't get foreclosed on and that you can still feed your family. I don't believe that the government should sign blank checks to everyone either, but there should be some responsibility to make sure the people are looked after if they can't themselves.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

This is the dilemma of a free society. Religion is challenged, more and more each year. Like a charity, it is not as easy as one may think. Employees of churches also pay taxes on every dollar they make. Taking time to study the actual tax laws might be more beneficial to you that just blasting religion. Like a corporation, a church can sit on a pile of cash, but when they spend it, it will be scrutinized by the IRS, and if they send those dollars out in payroll, the taxes get paid. Also, did you know that a corporation can, in the sole judgement of the IRS, have TOO MUCH MONEY, and the IRS can levy a tax against them for no good reason. I believe it's called an "excess income" or "excess asset" tax. It's what the IRS does when they think a company is being to prosperous and stingy. The government just hates money they can't get their hands on.

I've always found it an interesting dichotomy that liberals like to think of themselves as so unique, open minded and independent, yet they look to government to solve so many problems.

And yeah, I know that's a big wide paint brush. I have a lot of respect for some. Count a precious few as dear friends. But only those that are willing to have meaningful conversation and show mutual respect toward conflicting ideas, and I find them to be very rare.

Yeah, this didn't really answer my question. I wanted to know how and who decides what religions are valid, and if they can have a valid case against something such as the healthcare act.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

OK, SP I'm gonna waste my time with this one more time. Why do I know I'm wasting my time? Because you're a liberal, and liberals are the most intolerant people on the planet. I'm a conservative, and I'm highly tolerant.

Yeah, conservatives are really tolerant. Especially when it comes to things like women's reproductive rights, homosexuality, foreign people, minorities, the poor, animal and environmental rights, etc. They love all those things and totally don't want to live in some Randian every-white-man-for-himself utopia.

You forgot non-Christians, Dros—you godless commie hippy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

I don't understand how people can be anti-abortion but once the kid is born not give a shit about him/her. Oh your family is poor and can't afford to have a kid? Too bad, can't be aborting fetuses with no central nervous system. Once it's born though, fuck you. You're on your own. That's not pro-life, that's pro-birth.

If that's in reply to my post, you're reading something into it that I didn't say.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

The great joy of our economy remains the US tax code which defies all logic and is manipulated by all political parties for their own gain.

There's one we can agree on.