quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

I was not including abortion as a type of birth control.
I was addressing the issue of employers being required to include birth control (used at the time of conception) in their insurance plans.
Requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion procedures is a totally different subject as an abortion would occur well after the initial time of conception.

Its the same issue sloguy. You are requiring people to take action against their religious beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I consider taxes a relatively settled issue.

However, there are myriad other issues.

1). The law as written only allows subsidies for STATE RUN exchanges. Yet the IRS is providing them to the exchanges run by the federal govt.Two cases underway.

Nope. Case will never get heard by any appellate court.

quote:

2). Requirement for Religious dissenters to pay for birth control (etc). Two cases pending at appeals court at the moment.

It requires employers to provide health insurance. what the employee does with that insurance is no business of the employer. Right of Privacy. No religious freedom involved. Another dead end.

quote:

3). Remote chance. The supreme court says the act is a tax. Tax bills must originate in the house. ACA originated in the Senate.
Case is proceeding in Washington DC.

Long settled. Will not be heard

quote:

5. Suit is filed for the feds delaying the employer mandate.

Waiver provision in the law. No case.

So in total nothing. Not even anything Roberts would dare try and use.

So you say. Fortunately the Supremes, once again disagree with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

3). Remote chance. The supreme court says the act is a tax. Tax bills must originate in the house. ACA originated in the Senate.
Case is proceeding in Washington DC.

Long settled. Will not be heard

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Where in Chief Justice Robert's opinion is it that the expansion is in pursuit of the general welfare? The Standard in SD v. Dole that really applies here is whether the funding removal is, in fact, coercive or not coercive. In SD v. Dole, it was determined that a 5% withholding of Federal Funding was not coercive. In the SCOTUS decision, it was determined that 100% withholding of all funding, new and old, was coercive. It was decided that the only funding that could be withheld was that funding that would have been granted for expansion.

Bullshit. It was coercive. The court just said it wasn't compulsion rather than coercion. The same applies to Medicaid funds. The states refusing to expand Medicaid are also the worst ones for trying to deny their citizens access to it. They would like to do without it except for the fact that the people they harm would vote them out of office.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

3). Remote chance. The supreme court says the act is a tax. Tax bills must originate in the house. ACA originated in the Senate.
Case is proceeding in Washington DC.

Long settled. Will not be heard

The problem I see with it as a tax is, unlike supposedly the 16th amendment getting around the apportionment / uniformity, the tax/fine is neither, nor is it covered under ~income.

Of course anyone can claim SCOTUS has ruled, as it has. The tax issue has not been fully vetted, and I see no desire for SCOTUS to do so. It's a social issue which SCOTUS took on in its social engineering "under color of law" capacity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do.

Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer.

quote:

Taxes and regulation make doing business less profitable,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do.

Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer.

The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance.
Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do.

Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer.

The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance.
Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable?

If the employer is paying for the insurance, then, yes, the employer is being forced to subsidize stuff.

If the employee wants to add coverage, then he or she has the option to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do.

Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer.

The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance.
Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable?

If the employer is paying for the insurance, then, yes, the employer is being forced to subsidize stuff.
If the employee wants to add coverage, then he or she has the option to do so.

You're kidding right? Let's think for a moment, a JW business provides insurance that does not cover blood transfusions but does not tell its employees it is a JW business or that the insurance has that gap. Would that be acceptable?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do.

Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer.

The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance.
Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable?

If the employer is paying for the insurance, then, yes, the employer is being forced to subsidize stuff.
If the employee wants to add coverage, then he or she has the option to do so.

You're kidding right? Let's think for a moment, a JW business provides insurance that does not cover blood transfusions but does not tell its employees it is a JW business or that the insurance has that gap. Would that be acceptable?

There is a responsibility for the employer to inform the employees, and there is a responsibility for an employee to actually read what's covered and what's not. That's sorta part of picking a plan, isn't it?

How you can't see this is beyond me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?
Do you not see how problematic this could get?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And if my religious belief is that you should be denied food? Your first amendment rights end at your nose. You cannot impose those beliefs on others which is what these organizations are trying to do.

Bullshit. Unless those organizations are preventing their employees from buying and using contraception, the employees are still free to choose to use contraception or not. Forcing the employers to subsidize contraception for the employees that choose to use it is imposing their beliefs on the employer.

The organization is not being forced to subsidize anything. They are being required to provide health insurance.

Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?

Do you not see how problematic this could get?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?
Do you not see how problematic this could get?

My plan covers everything at 100%.

So, you're complaining that things might be difficult? Well, FFS, why didn't you just come out and say that?!? Apparently, people are too stupid to be responsible enough to know what is and what isn't covered. They shouldn't be bothered with understanding their plans, options, and responsibilities, either.

As far as the insurance company not covering blood transfusions because they are a JW organization, that would be something that should come up in negotiations, shouldn't it? I guess we can't let a company negotiate it's own insurance options, either, now, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?

Do you not see how problematic this could get?

No. I don't see anything other than usual due diligence.
But thats the difference. You want a nanny state.
I want to be able to choose for myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?
Do you not see how problematic this could get?

My plan covers everything at 100%.
So, you're complaining that things might be difficult? Well, FFS, why didn't you just come out and say that?!? Apparently, people are too stupid to be responsible enough to know what is and what isn't covered. They shouldn't be bothered with understanding their plans, options, and responsibilities, either.
As far as the insurance company not covering blood transfusions because they are a JW organization, that would be something that should come up in negotiations, shouldn't it? I guess we can't let a company negotiate it's own insurance options, either, now, huh?

Really? Your plan has no exclusions? Are you really sure about that? (no plan I've ever seen did so and I used to help choose plans for a software firm that wanted to provide the best policy possible.) You might want to reread the policy small print. They all exclude "experimental" treatments and most also include wording that says they don't cover procedures not considered standard care or the like.

quote:

Why would the JW insurance company be required to explain it's preapproval policies? No law requires such. Luckily the ACA says insurance now has to provide a certain core set of things including blood transfusions and contraception.
But still the company simply provides health insurance. What the employee does with said insurance is no concern of the employer. Otherwise the employer is infringing on the employees rights to privacy, association and religion (at least). Trying to get the government to place the employers "right" over the employees actual rights is absurd.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?
Do you not see how problematic this could get?

No. I don't see anything other than usual due diligence.
But thats the difference. You want a nanny state.
I want to be able to choose for myself.

Bullshit. You already admitted to not having insurance. You even claimed you would refuse to get insured under the ACA because of your opposition to it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)