Hmm You want me to pay for what?

pokermind wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare to us who don't like it) that an employer who has religious objections cannot be forced to pay for employee contraceptives as required under law.

Life style choices mandated by Uncle Sam, having sex is as much a choice as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and using illegal drugs. OK liberals should an employer be required to financially support these choices too?

What the hell happened to if you want it you buy it, or do without! Just for fun let's see how a poll of us does. Note you can change your vote but you get only one thus only open to registered users.

Poker

Daryl wrote:Poker you and I agree on some things and disagree on others. In this case I'm not commenting on the USA's health system specifically, but I do believe that a modern national universal health system should provide assistance to people who have lifestyle caused medical situations.
Thus if someone has lung cancer from smoking or cirrhosis of the liver from drinking we should provide medical care for them, not just turn them out to die.
At the same time we should sponsor education on the effects of such physical abuse to minimise future damage.

If you believe having sex is an avoidable lifestyle choice then you must be older than me or have a poor memory. See where chastity has got the Catholic church.

Mind you I do find it strange that the US expects the employer to pick up the tab for any medical expenses. That's what tax is for.

pokermind wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare to us who don't like it) that an employer who has religious objections cannot be forced to pay for employee contraceptives as required under law.

Life style choices mandated by Uncle Sam, having sex is as much a choice as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and using illegal drugs. OK liberals should an employer be required to financially support these choices too?

What the hell happened to if you want it you buy it, or do without! Just for fun let's see how a poll of us does. Note you can change your vote but you get only one thus only open to registered users.

Poker

pokermind wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare to us who don't like it) that an employer who has religious objections cannot be forced to pay for employee contraceptives as required under law.

Life style choices mandated by Uncle Sam, having sex is as much a choice as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and using illegal drugs. OK liberals should an employer be required to financially support these choices too?

What the hell happened to if you want it you buy it, or do without! Just for fun let's see how a poll of us does. Note you can change your vote but you get only one thus only open to registered users.

Poker

pokermind wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare to us who don't like it) that an employer who has religious objections cannot be forced to pay for employee contraceptives as required under law.

Life style choices mandated by Uncle Sam, having sex is as much a choice as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and using illegal drugs. OK liberals should an employer be required to financially support these choices too?

What the hell happened to if you want it you buy it, or do without! Just for fun let's see how a poll of us does. Note you can change your vote but you get only one thus only open to registered users.

Poker

PeterZ wrote:This part of the moral difficulty in having socialized health care, Daryl. Some of the poor lifestyle choices you cite that lead to deteriorating health issues would be supported even encouraged if someone paid for treating it. There are moral people who would consider subsidizing and encouraging that poor behavior immoral. Should people who believe that have to support what they consider immoral?

The question disappears if such treatment is performed as a charity or for individuals paying for it themselves. The provider of charity chooses to provide his/resources or services. The individual payer is responsible for hii own moral choices. Yet in socialized health care tax dollars from those that disagree with the purpose must support what could be considered encouragement of people to harm themselves.

Not an easy question and we likely will come down on different sides of the issue, but the moral issue does remain.

Daryl wrote:Poker you and I agree on some things and disagree on others. In this case I'm not commenting on the USA's health system specifically, but I do believe that a modern national universal health system should provide assistance to people who have lifestyle caused medical situations.
Thus if someone has lung cancer from smoking or cirrhosis of the liver from drinking we should provide medical care for them, not just turn them out to die.
At the same time we should sponsor education on the effects of such physical abuse to minimise future damage.

If you believe having sex is an avoidable lifestyle choice then you must be older than me or have a poor memory. See where chastity has got the Catholic church.

Mind you I do find it strange that the US expects the employer to pick up the tab for any medical expenses. That's what tax is for.

slackmistress wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous asked: You're being so ignorant with your tweets. Hobby Lobby is a company that isn't going to support something they do not believe in. They aren't saying for people to not use birth control or any types of birth control. They just don't want to be the ones allowing it through their insurance. The company is being bashed for doing what they believe in while ignorant people like you get upset about it. If you don't agree don't work for them. It's simple

Point one:

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Corporations get certain benefits that people don’t: tax breaks, protection from criminal charges being filed, etc.

If Hobby Lobby would like to be a PERSON WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, then Hobby Lobby should not get the protection of a corporation.

Point two:

If Hobby Lobby had the courage of their religious convictions, they would not:

Purchase products from China, which has an egregious policy of forced abortions;
invest in companies that make the morning after pill, among other medications, that Hobby Lobby wants to forbid their employees from accessing.
If you are a human in the United States, it should not be up to your boss to decide what medicine is appropriate for you to take. It should be up to your doctor. Yes, and insurance company could deny you, but YOUR BOSS SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DECISIONS WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR HEALTH CARE.

Point three:

Hobby Lobby is totes cool with vasectomies and erectile dysfunction drugs.

Point four:

One of the points people up is that Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to cover the Morning After Pill because it’s abortion. Except that the Morning After Pill ISN’T ABORTION. The Morning After Pill delays or inhibits ovulation. IT PREVENTS PREGNANCY. This is science. But maybe you think gravity is a myth, too.

Point five:

Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses* traditionally do not believe in medicine. So I imagine you ‘re okay with a business run by someone who practices these faiths to not cover your mom’s chemo, or your diabetes medication, or a blood transfusion for your child. (*Edited to add: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in medicine, just not blood transfusions. Thanks to annelangston for the clarification.)

http://slackmistress.tumblr.com/post/90467567617/youre-being-so-ignorant-with-your-tweets-hobby-lobby

Eyal wrote:I doubt that knowing that any ensuing lung cancer/cirhosis will be treated at taxpayer expense will be what encourages smoking/drinking.

More seriously, it's already settled that by being part of a state, your contribution may be used on things that you may consider to be immoral. A pacifist's taxes contribute to the military as much as a non-pacifist's.

Furthermore, I fail to see why this ruling is limited to contraception. The same logic would seem to imply that a corporation owned by a Jehovah's Witness should not pay for blood transfusions, or that one owned by a follower of Christian Science should not pay for any medical care.

PeterZ wrote:This part of the moral difficulty in having socialized health care, Daryl. Some of the poor lifestyle choices you cite that lead to deteriorating health issues would be supported even encouraged if someone paid for treating it. There are moral people who would consider subsidizing and encouraging that poor behavior immoral. Should people who believe that have to support what they consider immoral?

The question disappears if such treatment is performed as a charity or for individuals paying for it themselves. The provider of charity chooses to provide his/resources or services. The individual payer is responsible for hii own moral choices. Yet in socialized health care tax dollars from those that disagree with the purpose must support what could be considered encouragement of people to harm themselves.

Not an easy question and we likely will come down on different sides of the issue, but the moral issue does remain.