Contraception Coverage Mandate

I do not think coin had anything to do with your reigniting your name calling. You managed to do that all by your little ol' lonesome self.

 

Individual rights versus corporate rights. Your argument is focused more for the benefit of one side, mine the other.

What I'm hearing from you is that the corporation (a church) is not required to pay for the mandate, yet isn't satisfied with that. They apparently do not want their members being able to have access to contraception through insurance offered by the church, correct? From the White House press briefing, it looked to me like they were saying churches would not be required to have it in their policies, but individuals in the church could still aquire it if they so chose.

Insurance companies must cover it, and there is no cost to individuals, but it appears that the argument is that the churches don't want their members to be able to have access to it. So the case should be called "The Church versus It's Members."

 

I'm guessing you wear glasses. You may need new ones.

 

For a fourth time, it has nothing to do with members and, yes, as I have also stated before, the Church absolutely does pay the insurance and directly (or possibly indirectly) for the contraception.

Again, it has nothing to do with " individuals in the church" (i.e. members).

"it appears that the argument is that the churches don't want their members to be able to have access to it" - not pertinent to the discussion.

"it looked to me like they were saying churches would not be required to have it in their policies, but individuals in [employees of] the church could still aquire it if they so chose." Now this is what they want it to sound like they were saying, but all they really said was that the insurance companies would be required to provide contraception, but the Church would not pay for it. Even ignoring the fact that companies do not give things away without recovering their costs (in this case from the Church), in most cases, the party directly paying the cost is the Church and not the insurance company. (i.e. the Church is self insured.)

"The Church versus It's Members." - again, you are the only one here talking about the members of a church. The really does only pertain to the EMPLOYEES of the Church. The Church does not provide insurance to it members, but it is required to provide insurance to its EMPLOYEES (i.e. nurses, doctors, secretaries, etc. How many Catholic hospitals have you heard of?)

 

Okay, I'll concede that. It can get kind of nasty then. But when undesirable elements like that show up and insist on causing trouble your options are limited. What can you do, since as you say they are the ones with the tasers, the clubs, the guns and the tear gas not to mention those nasty little explosive things?

 

Just to be clear up front, I'm not trying to piss you off here, I'm just trying to get to a point where both of us have a semblance of a satisfactory understanding of the issue, and I'm not there yet.

I now see you are thinking in terms of a religious employer/employee relationship. I never really think of religions as having "employees", but rather something more like "paid believers." As I understand it, religions are tax-exempt, yes? Do you happen to know if that applies to their "employees" as well? Are their earnings tax-exempt also?

On a side note, I used to deliver newspapers to a father/priest/whatever at his church. Cheapest, nastiest person on my route lol

Honestly, I was just trying to seperate the non-human church entity from the religious people. The group (the church) is said to be fighting against the mandate. The church doesn't want their employees to have the option then. The term "employees" should have been stated more clearly earlier on. If it had been, we would've been long past that part of the argument.

Would you agree that the church does not want their employees to have access to contraception through the insurance bought through the church?

So, you agree that on the surface the churches, and it's employees, will not be paying a premium for contraception coverage, but will essentially since ...being the law of the land, and everyone paying into it... in effect they are?

Would you agree it should satisfy the church's demand if their employees got a discount on the premium* of the insurance equal to what the value of contraception coverage was? *Assuming all employees chose not to have the coverage. Thereby they would not be "paying into" the mandate. Would they allow their employees to "opt in" if they so choose to? Or would they prevent their employees from having that choice. Hard to say what they'd agree to, but I'd prefer the employees had the option.

 

I'm probably one of the worst people to answer that question but, I do what I feel is just. Whether that is legal or not doesn't really concern me much lol

I should add: I show cops the proper respect they deserve, they have a tough job and are woefully underpaid IMO. But, if they fail to show proper respect for me, I consider it fair enough to do likewise. Not that I expect to win the argument, of course lol

 

I am not "thinking in terms of a religious employer/employee relationship", that is the only pertinent party to this discussion from Sebelius to you local minister. No one, save you, has any reference to the members. I stated "Church industries in post #38, employees in post #53 and coin quoted an ABC article about the church's employees in post #34.

To the best of my knowledge, the only church employees who are tax exempt are their ministers. Just where they draw the line between them and their speakers et al, I do not know.

No, I do not agree that "the church does not want their employees to have access to contraception". No one is denying anyone access to contraception. They only do not want to pay for it.

"you agree that on the surface the churches, and it's employees, will not be paying a premium for contraception coverage" - Wrong. You need to learn how self insured works. When you figure that out, you will see that the Church is writing the check to the drug companies to pay for the contraception. That is what makes the regulation unconstitutional or at least the most blatant part of it.

"Would you agree it should satisfy the church's demand if ........" Absolutely not

 

I'm not going to argue the contradiction there, it's pointless. What I said is, it hadn't been made clear to me that you were referring to employees. That it was mentioned here or there isn't making it "clear" since other terms were also used, and much more frequently, but were not specifically pointed out until recently. Now that is has been made clear, I'll use the term "employee."

 

So, if they don't have to pay for it then they should be satisfied.

 

That is exactly the idea, but Sebelius says they do have to pay, all-be-it in twisted words. I would be willing to bet SCOTUS will change her mind - QUICK!

BTW, you will be unable to show me anywhere I have stated that the Church was to pay for or insure any of its members

 

Well no, that's where you're wrong. I don't need to learn how self-insurance works... 'cause I don't have a horse in this race. I don't care if either party (church and government) wins or loses the argument, they both suck from my point of view.

It looks to me as if the churches' employees will have to purchase the contraception coverage through another non-church related policy if they want it.

 

I have no idea where that is coming from, unless you are referring to the church not wanting to have to pay for contraception coverage due to their being self-insured.

 

You have come to the proper conclusion. Problem - Sibelius says the churches will have to pay (despite her twisted wording).

 

HERE!

 

Oh, yet again I have to set you straight on a topic. First, I'm not complaining. I'm merely curious why you resort to the lowest common denominator when speaking. That's vulgar (by definition). I'm not making a judgment just an observation. I think I've come to realize that you're not very educated, so that may be the reason. But, before you get nasty let me just say that you may not be personally responsible for not having achieved a higher education. The system, as with so many other things in your life, probably just let you down. Secondly, I don't know what "1st amendment bs" you're referring to. You're allowed to say just about anything on this forum you want. Do you think your right is being infringed upon?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? This has already been discussed. George W. Bush used cocaine and, as far as I've read, admitted to having used it. What's the big deal?

 

Thank God! When you said you walked through an Occupy camp I became very worried that you might have been shot, robbed, raped or set on fire. I'm glad you made it out OK. Talked your way out, didja?

 

I'll bet you didn't walk through the flea bag camp in DC. I saw it up close & I guarantee you wouldn't feel safe (or healthy) there.

 

I'm still not following.
You stated:

And I responded with:

You're saying the comment of mine you were referring to was:

I'll look at again, in the corrected order:
Me:

You:

I'm still not following, but it's not really important is it? If you think we should both just let it go, fine, we can just call it and move on.

 

Uh huh. Well, you're sort of correct, in that I do not adhere to the bs rules of higher society. My pinky stays firmly gripped to my bottle of 151, unlike the snobby douche-bags you seem to prefer. I have listened to a song relating to high society though, it refers to ballroom dancing... which seems right up your snobby little alley. The song is called "Big Balls" and is performed by a band called AC-DC. Give it a whirl if you are so inclined. You could even listen to it with your dainty little pinky raised for all I care.