07-18-2014 04:07 PM
484 ... 1617181920
tools
  1. SteveISU's Avatar
    Because someone mentioned that privatized healthcare is superior to a single payer system.
    In many ways it is. It puts you in control of your health decisions, mainly what type of insurance you want.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-14-2014 12:30 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    In many ways it is. It puts you in control of your health decisions, mainly what type of insurance you want.
    But we saw what private healthcare does, it kicks people off with pre-existing conditions, it cancels your insurance if you have cancer, it kicks your college aged children off of your insurance, it cancels your policy if they insist that you filled out form B incorrectly by signing your name in blue ink. Our healthcare system shouldn't be a for-profit endeavor. The obvious conflict of interest is why we have one of the most expensive and least efficient systems in the developed world.
    07-14-2014 06:45 PM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    I worship with a few owners of closely held corporations.
    And those owners are allowed to worship however they want, just like their employees. Or are you insisting that only the owners' religion matters?
    07-14-2014 06:49 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    Hair splitting aside, my original contention still stands, what if the religion in question was a more hard line religion, say one that doesn't believe in modern medicine?
    I believe that according to the Affordable Care Act, the government would fine the company $2000 per employee each year for not providing health care coverage.
    07-14-2014 07:40 PM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    I believe that according to the Affordable Care Act, the government would fine the company $2000 per employee each year for not providing health care coverage.
    That sounds kind of low, are you sure that's the correct amount? Isn't healthcare more expensive than that per year to provide?
    07-14-2014 07:54 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    That sounds kind of low, are you sure that's the correct amount? Isn't healthcare more expensive than that per year to provide?
    The relevant information is located here:

    Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act -- IRS (website link here)

    Excerpt:

    "If an applicable large employer does not offer coverage or offers coverage to fewer than 95% of its full-time employees (and their dependents), it owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment equal to the number of full-time employees the employer employed for the year (minus up to 30) multiplied by $2,000, as long as at least one full-time employee receives the premium tax credit."

    For a company about the size of Hobby Lobby (13,000 employees), the fine would be around $26 million per year.

    Now, you do make a valid point about health care being more expensive than $2000 per year to provide. However, companies like Hobby Lobby justify the expense because it keeps its employees healthier, which makes the company more competitive.
    07-14-2014 08:39 PM
  7. Live2ride883's Avatar
    And those owners are allowed to worship however they want, just like their employees. Or are you insisting that only the owners' religion matters?
    Those owners can run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. As can those employees.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-15-2014 12:37 AM
  8. Live2ride883's Avatar
    HL pays for 16 of the 20 methods of birth control in the aca.

    Which leaves 4 that now thanks to the US Supreme Court they do not have to pay for. No one is taking away any woman's ability to use one of these 4 if she chooses. Its just that if her employer happens to be HL or another closely held corp. With strong and longstanding religious beliefs. They no longer have to pay for it.

    I still don't know what the additional health benefits of these 4 are?

    Or

    Is there another medication that can perform the same function?
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-15-2014 12:48 AM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    But we saw what private healthcare does, it kicks people off with pre-existing conditions, it cancels your insurance if you have cancer, it kicks your college aged children off of your insurance, it cancels your policy if they insist that you filled out form B incorrectly by signing your name in blue ink. Our healthcare system shouldn't be a for-profit endeavor. The obvious conflict of interest is why we have one of the most expensive and least efficient systems in the developed world.

    What makes you think we have to undo the pre-existing conditions clause, or that anyone would get kicked off if they get cancer? It's not an either or predicament. All of healthcare is "for profit" to some extent, how do you expect someone to get paid? Innovation? Research? Ect? Privatizing it taking the government and the employer out of the decision making process and putting it in the hands of the patient. This is not without some minimum standards or mandatory minimum coverage that all must be mandated to have as citizens of this country.

    The reason the system costs what it does is not merely due to those people working in the system. Over utilization and a lack of understanding by the patients about how much things cost contributes big time. Everybody wants anything they want or can get as long as "My insurance covers it". I'm sure msunderstood can attest to that. No one knows the real cost of anything because it's not directly coming out of their pocket. Defensive medicine drives up the cost big time. When a patient asks me if X test is necessary, there are times I will answer him/her with "If there were no lawyers in the world, we could probably watch and wait". But there are and no one wants to get nailed with a delay of diagnosis lawsuit. Being efficient is relative. Efficient in what? Cost? Time in which treatment alleviates the persons symptoms? Efficient like Canada? Where drug resistance is a huge problem because instead of going straight to the antibiotic that will work, their formulary requires you to use drug A and B before C, driving up resistance massively. Or as efficient as the VA? That's a grand example of single payer.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-15-2014 09:21 AM
  10. GadgetGator's Avatar
    What makes you think we have to undo the pre-existing conditions clause, or that anyone would get kicked off if they get cancer? It's not an either or predicament. All of healthcare is "for profit" to some extent, how do you expect someone to get paid? Innovation? Research? Ect? Privatizing it taking the government and the employer out of the decision making process and putting it in the hands of the patient. This is not without some minimum standards or mandatory minimum coverage that all must be mandated to have as citizens of this country.

    The reason the system costs what it does is not merely due to those people working in the system. Over utilization and a lack of understanding by the patients about how much things cost contributes big time. Everybody wants anything they want or can get as long as "My insurance covers it". I'm sure msunderstood can attest to that. No one knows the real cost of anything because it's not directly coming out of their pocket. Defensive medicine drives up the cost big time. When a patient asks me if X test is necessary, there are times I will answer him/her with "If there were no lawyers in the world, we could probably watch and wait". But there are and no one wants to get nailed with a delay of diagnosis lawsuit. Being efficient is relative. Efficient in what? Cost? Time in which treatment alleviates the persons symptoms? Efficient like Canada? Where drug resistance is a huge problem because instead of going straight to the antibiotic that will work, their formulary requires you to use drug A and B before C, driving up resistance massively. Or as efficient as the VA? That's a grand example of single payer.
    How is it not either or? Either more people have to be in the system (ie forced) to spread the cost out, or we see a return to pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps and less people with coverage. I don't see another option but if you think you can have it all, I am all ears.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-15-2014 11:48 AM
  11. SteveISU's Avatar
    How is it not either or? Either more people have to be in the system (ie forced) to spread the cost out, or we see a return to pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps and less people with coverage. I don't see another option but if you think you can have it all, I am all ears.

    Posted via Android Central App

    You can have a minimum level of regulations in place that keep all of those standards. There should be a minimum "national health plan" that is offered by insurance companies that is not for profit. Everyone must purchase (there's your big pool). To stop insurance companies from only insuring healthy people, create reinsurance pools. By that, if BC/BS got lucky and insured a more healthy people than Humana did, they inevitably took in more money than they put out, that excess would be transferred to Humana to offset the loss they took by insuring sicker people. The only "For-profit" plans would be supplemental and then at that point in time it's up to the individual as far as what they want. You can let creativity and competition take over and insurers could offer you rebates/return of premiums if you take out a plan for a 5yr term and improve your health given certain metrics at the end of the plan when compared to where you were when you took out the plan. People need to get more conscious about what the actual cost vs. having next to no clue because their employer pays the bulk of their premium and when they do go to the doctor they can careless because their insurance pays.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-15-2014 01:21 PM
  12. rexxman's Avatar
    Again, all this discussion about birth control / ED meds is pointless. The HL case is, at it's core, an attack on the ACA.

    Personally, I find it offensive that corporations can be legally defined as persons, can hold religious beliefs and can use these definitions to skirt election finance laws and the provisions of health care coverage requirements.

    I remember the early opposition to what was to become the ACA. "We don't want the government to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship". Now, these same folks are saying that business can. How crazy is that?

    BTW, thanks for the ED "if it don't work, find a new hobby" followed by the "maybe you can buy a new one from Hobby Lobby" comments. Brilliant!

    Posted via Android Central App
    nolittdroid likes this.
    07-15-2014 08:01 PM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    Again, all this discussion about birth control / ED meds is pointless. The HL case is, at it's core, an attack on the ACA.
    People challenge laws all the time, and the Affordable Care Act is no different. However, we have to keep in mind that one decision, even from the Supreme Court, is not the final word on the matter. We can always amend existing laws or draft new ones to override the Hobby Lobby decision.

    Remember, this is the same Supreme Court that decided in favor of the Obama administration on the ACA itself, calling it a tax that the federal government could implement.
    07-15-2014 10:54 PM
  14. SteveISU's Avatar
    Again, all this discussion about birth control / ED meds is pointless. The HL case is, at it's core, an attack on the ACA.

    Personally, I find it offensive that corporations can be legally defined as persons, can hold religious beliefs and can use these definitions to skirt election finance laws and the provisions of health care coverage requirements.

    I remember the early opposition to what was to become the ACA. "We don't want the government to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship". Now, these same folks are saying that business can. How crazy is that?

    BTW, thanks for the ED "if it don't work, find a new hobby" followed by the "maybe you can buy a new one from Hobby Lobby" comments. Brilliant!

    Posted via Android Central App
    When you have a few thousand people in DC making law that affects 330million people, someone is bound to step up and put the government in it's place if they over reach on any given law. The SC is there to determine if they have or have not done so. It's what sets us apart from any other nation on the face of the earth. Would you rather be like China and just bend over and take whatever the almighty decide with next to no say so or possible prison time for inciting subversion of the state?
    07-16-2014 10:19 AM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    I like this approach, http://links.barbaraboxer.mkt3573.co...IzS0&mt=1&rt=0 let's take our employers out of the equation. As long as you're performing your duties effectively between the hours you're scheduled to work, I frankly don't think it's an employer's business what you do or what medications you need during your off time.

    Kind of funny that we are up in arms with the government spying in us, but we're perfectly fine with our employers all in our health care business.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-16-2014 11:57 AM
  16. anon8126715's Avatar
    Those owners can run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. As can those employees.
    So if an employer believes that single women who comingle with men can be stoned, he's well within his right to stone one of his employees?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    07-16-2014 12:00 PM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    How about we go about a simple solution that requires no new laws. If you work for a company like Hobby Lobby and want all the BC your heart desires, quit and find a new job. We aren't talking about positions that require a Masters Degree to a stock shelves and ring out purchases. Apply at Kohls or any of the other fine retailers. If you don't want to wear tight orange shorts and have your boobs hanging out, don't apply at Hooters.
    07-16-2014 12:13 PM
  18. SteveISU's Avatar
    So if an employer believes that single women who comingle with men can be stoned, he's well within his right to stone one of his employees?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

    I don't believe Catholics in this country have ever argued Canon law supersedes a nations federal or state laws. I can't say the same about other religious groups.
    07-16-2014 12:17 PM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    I can't say the same about other religious groups.
    So this decision is ok so long as we only apply it to one religion that we can speak for? If we can't speak for other religions as it applies to this decision then the decision has failed the litmus test IMO.

    I'd be tempted to convert to one of those religions that do have a more strict doctrine against Healthcare services, open up a business, and use this decision to show the supreme court justices how letting their political agendas dictate interpretation of law is a detriment to this country.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    07-16-2014 01:29 PM
  20. TOTtomdora's Avatar
    How about we go about a simple solution that requires no new laws. If you work for a company like Hobby Lobby and want all the BC your heart desires, quit and find a new job. We aren't talking about positions that require a Masters Degree to a stock shelves and ring out purchases. Apply at Kohls or any of the other fine retailers. If you don't want to wear tight orange shorts and have your boobs hanging out, don't apply at Hooters.
    Because it's so easy to just get a job.

    Sent from my Nexus 7
    msndrstood and nolittdroid like this.
    07-16-2014 02:04 PM
  21. SteveISU's Avatar
    Because it's so easy to just get a job.

    Sent from my Nexus 7
    In retail, yes it is.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-16-2014 02:13 PM
  22. SteveISU's Avatar
    So this decision is ok so long as we only apply it to one religion that we can speak for? If we can't speak for other religions as it applies to this decision then the decision has failed the litmus test IMO.

    I'd be tempted to convert to one of those religions that do have a more strict doctrine against Healthcare services, open up a business, and use this decision to show the supreme court justices how letting their political agendas dictate interpretation of law is a detriment to this country.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

    If you re-read my statement I said Catholics, or Christians for that matter, have never argued their religious laws supersede federal or state laws (in your example, criminal laws) in regards to your stoning comment. There are other groups who have argued their religious law take precedence, hence why I said I can't speak of other religions sharing that view. If you're a workaholic who wants to work 7 days a week and work for a devote Catholic who refuses to open his place of business on the Sabbath, guess what day you aren't working?
    07-16-2014 02:47 PM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    If you re-read my statement I said Catholics, or Christians for that matter, have never argued their religious laws supersede federal or state laws (in your example, criminal laws) in regards to your stoning comment. There are other groups who have argued their religious law take precedence, hence why I said I can't speak of other religions sharing that view. If you're a workaholic who wants to work 7 days a week and work for a devote Catholic who refuses to open his place of business on the Sabbath, guess what day you aren't working?
    I saw your statement. My point is that if you have to put an asterisk next to a decision then that decision isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    07-16-2014 03:23 PM
  24. SteveISU's Avatar
    I saw your statement. My point is that if you have to put an asterisk next to a decision then that decision isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    You don't, the contraceptive waiver applies to all businesses family owned regardless of religion.
    07-16-2014 04:01 PM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    I like this approach, PAC for a Change | Fight back against Hobby Lobby let's take our employers out of the equation. As long as you're performing your duties effectively between the hours you're scheduled to work, I frankly don't think it's an employer's business what you do or what medications you need during your off time.
    Here is more information about the upcoming bill:

    Dems Strike Back on Hobby Lobby Case With ‘Not My Boss’s Business Act’ -- ABC News (article link here)

    Excerpt: "The bill, the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act, mandates that employers cannot disrupt coverage for contraception or other health services that are guaranteed under federal law. It comes a week after the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling that closely held for-profit companies can deny contraceptive coverage under their company health plans if it goes against a sincerely held religious belief."

    As far as I can tell, this bill will help counter the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that allowed the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. If the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act becomes law, cases similar to Hobby Lobby would need to invoke the First Amendment, and the courts would need to base their judgment on that.
    07-16-2014 06:10 PM
484 ... 1617181920

Similar Threads

  1. Cases for the OnePlus One?
    By rkleung in forum OnePlus One
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-02-2014, 05:52 PM
  2. anyone think Razr M Battery Case will be too late?
    By antonywan in forum Droid RAZR M
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2014, 01:17 AM
  3. Best Nexus 7 cases?
    By RaginCajun2OI8 in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 10:53 AM
  4. HTC One M8 Cases and Screen Protectors
    By Wildo6882 in forum Marketplace Archive
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-06-2014, 01:51 PM
  5. Samsung keyboard autocorrect random case errors
    By mdye in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 11:35 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD