quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Like I said .. in your mind.

Of course you were the guy that said they weren't going to take the case at all.. what was it you said.
Oh yeah. Something like if the courts decided to take it up it would overturn centuries of established precedent...
Feel free to correct me with your exact quote.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regarding corporations getting to have religion...

Its quite disingenious to suggest thats what the case is about.

The court has already ruled that a religious institute can fire someone that doesn't reflect the lifestyle or values of the institution.
For example, there is no requirement for the catholic church to tolerate a teacher that preaches there is no god.

So the questions here are -
To what extent do these liberties apply to companies that are not religious in nature.
Do catholic teaching institutes get to not have contraception - obama has ruled they must.
What about companies such as hobby land - where the owners tithe, are closed on sundays.

Frankly, its going to depend on what level of interest the supremes are going to have as the burden of proof.

If it were an individual - the government would have to show a compelling interest to abridge religious liberty.
It isn't - but then the question becomes - well what if an individual had filed suit? Will the court be activist and use this as a vehicle to rule as if an individual had filed?

If not, there is still the question - what about due process rights?
The court has, over 100 years ruled that corporations do in fact have "rights', as the courts acknowledge that businesses are merely collections of individuals for the purpose of doing business.

Do individuals surrender their rights merely because they choose to engage in business?

This is just scratching the surface of the issues presented in these cases. So you to present this as hard and fast "corporations don't have rights"
in the first place is wrong -and secondly simplistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that is exempt from a law burdens their conscience, too.

Wouldn't the majority opinion of shareholders be what counts, not each individual shareholder, individually?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

"The whole thing" is not the same as "All the major parts," Ken.

I would consider the tax exemptions for money spent towards qualified medical costs as a major part, personally. That certainly isn't in Obamacare.

Your argument about Romneycare, Heritage, and Obamacare is with Phydeaux. I'm not getting into it, as I have no desire to compare and contrast them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regarding corporations getting to have religion...

Its quite disingenious to suggest thats what the case is about.

The court has already ruled that a religious institute can fire someone that doesn't reflect the lifestyle or values of the institution.
For example, there is no requirement for the catholic church to tolerate a teacher that preaches there is no god.

So the questions here are -
To what extent do these liberties apply to companies that are not religious in nature.
Do catholic teaching institutes get to not have contraception - obama has ruled they must.
What about companies such as hobby land - where the owners tithe, are closed on sundays.

Frankly, its going to depend on what level of interest the supremes are going to have as the burden of proof.

If it were an individual - the government would have to show a compelling interest to abridge religious liberty.
It isn't - but then the question becomes - well what if an individual had filed suit? Will the court be activist and use this as a vehicle to rule as if an individual had filed?

If not, there is still the question - what about due process rights?
The court has, over 100 years ruled that corporations do in fact have "rights', as the courts acknowledge that businesses are merely collections of individuals for the purpose of doing business.

Do individuals surrender their rights merely because they choose to engage in business?

This is just scratching the surface of the issues presented in these cases. So you to present this as hard and fast "corporations don't have rights"
in the first place is wrong -and secondly simplistic.

bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

I went with the Bronze plan, because it matched what I have had for the past 10 years.

My premiums are $66 a month. I have an HRA of $500.

Since 100% of preventative care is covered, the only year I have had to put out more money than my premiums is one year when I was in the hospital for 2 days with a ruptured ovarian cyst. The years I have just had to make one office visit or so for the cruds and get my regular RX's, the HRA is enough to cover it all, and any leftover carries over to the following year.

I looked at the Silver and Gold plans, and chose the Bronze one because it fits me the best. Some of my employees chose other levels because it met their needs the best.

As for getting an appointment with my doctor, that is a whole different story. They are so bogged down (or so they say) with the new computer system they have to use that they have had no appointments available for 2 months now, due to "half booking".

I do not expect this new insurance plan to be the answer, in fact it will probably lead to more problems. Purchasing a Bronze plan is not going to be the reason it fails though.

:::::::::::::::runs out of P&R:::::::::::::::::::::::

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Simply factually not true.

Its the whole reason, for example, that there are different classes of stock. The rights of each shareholder differ according to the bylaws of the corporation, class of stock etc.

For example - in many companies 10% ownership entitles you to a seat on board of directors. 9% does not....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that is exempt from a law burdens their conscience, too.
Wouldn't the majority opinion of shareholders be what counts, not each individual shareholder, individually?

So the majority can over rule someone's religious conscience? Is that really a position you want to take? That the law should favor the majority's religious beliefs over the minority?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"The whole thing" is not the same as "All the major parts," Ken.
I would consider the tax exemptions for money spent towards qualified medical costs as a major part, personally. That certainly isn't in Obamacare.
Your argument about Romneycare, Heritage, and Obamacare is with Phydeaux. I'm not getting into it, as I have no desire to compare and contrast them.

So what percentage of "The whole thing" is "all major parts", given whats left is, by definition, all minor parts ?
Got to love your convoluted spin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that is exempt from a law burdens their conscience, too.
Wouldn't the majority opinion of shareholders be what counts, not each individual shareholder, individually?

So the majority can over rule someone's religious conscience? Is that really a position you want to take? That the law should favor the majority's religious beliefs over the minority?

The law? Um, I'm talking about shareholders, where the majority certainly does rule. Please try to follow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Simply factually not true.

Its the whole reason, for example, that there are different classes of stock. The rights of each shareholder differ according to the bylaws of the corporation, class of stock etc.

For example - in many companies 10% ownership entitles you to a seat on board of directors. 9% does not....

That's the bylaws of the corp. not the actual you know law. In the law every shareholder, of the same class of stock, is equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Like I said .. in your mind.

Of course you were the guy that said they weren't going to take the case at all.. what was it you said.
Oh yeah. Something like if the courts decided to take it up it would overturn centuries of established precedent...
Feel free to correct me with your exact quote.....

You ran away after I proved your claims were lies. You had no response because there was no way to walk back the fact that every claim you had made were lies.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4590526

As to the Court, I had incorrectly assumed that no appellate court would find that a corporation had a religion. Since 1 did the case now has to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. You still have the problem that there is a mountain of precedent saying corporations do not have religion and on the other side you have a couple of W judges saying otherwise. The Court can destroy its last shreds of credibility or it can find the obvious, corporations do not have religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Simply factually not true.

Its the whole reason, for example, that there are different classes of stock. The rights of each shareholder differ according to the bylaws of the corporation, class of stock etc.

For example - in many companies 10% ownership entitles you to a seat on board of directors. 9% does not....

That's the bylaws of the corp. not the actual you know law. In the law every shareholder, of the same class of stock, is equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So your quibble is with a rhetorical flourish? Really? Maybe in the future you will stay out of an argument I already won.

It was no rhetorical flourish, Ken. Not from you.

And, you didn't win the argument.