I meant that generally, insurance companies decide for themselves what medicines or medical treatments they will or won't cover. If you want a plan that covers more, you are able to find such a plan with the same company or one of the many others. Now, with the ACA mandating certain items in all plans, that is no longer the case for these items. But other items, such as Viagra, are still at the discretion of the insurance company and the plans they offer.
I don't need to tell that to Scientologists or Mormons or Adventists, or even Catholics. The government is the one telling mattack2 that if he invents a church, it will not be considered legitimate. I have no say in the matter.
It's not up to me, but it is up to the government. Try to smoke peyote and claim your religion demands it. Unless you are Native American, you will be in trouble. Because the government decides which is an established religion, and which is just people inventing things.
Whether you use a building or not doesn't make any difference whether you say "religion" or "church". I used the word church because the poster I responded to used the word. Was that not obvious?
And while I was never a fan of Ginsburg in my younger years, given the recent evolution of the SCotUS, that opinion is rapidly changing, especially when she has this to say on the matter (573 U.S. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg dissent, pg. 14):
Until this (Citizens United) litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law...the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” (Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 [1819]).
Back when Marshall was on the bench, did they have corporations that were simply one person who incorporated for legal and financial protection?
Corporations have ONE religion, and that is to make as much money as possible.
Except many of them don't, of their own choice. They put their profits into humanitarian endeavors. Especially corporations such as the one that owns Hobby Lobby., where the owners' religious beliefs preclude a lavish lifestyle.
They are under common law obligations to screw over people to do so.
This has been stated on this board repeatedly, and it is completely incorrect. The person who explained the court case to you was either lying to you, functionally illiterate and unable to make sense of a court paper, or simply parroting lies that had been said to them earlier. Please read Dodge v Ford Motor Company, and stop parroting this lie to others.
Tto say they have religious convictions is absurdity at its finest.
You obviously have to clue what is actually the case here, with this corporation. As a non-religious person myself, I find it unfortunate that your own feelings about religion override your sensibilities.
Watch the abuse begin. It's the latest slip down the slippery slope started in 1800s when the absurd idea of "Corporate Personhood" started.
Watch the abuse that tries to begin get slapped down instantly, since this ruling stated it is only covering this one particular aspect of the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandate.
And insurance companies have the right to choose which drugs they do or do not cover. If you are their client, and don't like the coverage of a particular plan, you can find a different plan from the same company that costs more to cover more, or just switch to another insurance company that covers what you want and pay them your money.
No one is saying the insurance companies don't have the right to cover one or the other medicine.
No, healthcare is not earned or part of pay. Health insurance is part of their compensation, and it is the insurance the company is willing to provide. This was perfectly acceptable insurance before Obamacare became law, and as the president promised, you can keep your health insurance.
So why can the company not keep their insurance as the President of the United States of America promised they could?
Several reasons. 1. There is no such church 2. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church 3. You are too honest to invent a church just to cheat someone out of health care 4. The decision was limited to this issue of abortion drugs 5. You actually do think businesses have to pay for things people could pay for themselves
I don't know what the hell to think about Obama anymore. The guy we elected was smart, charismatic, capable, articulate;....
A big part of the problem is he wasn't actually 3 of those 4 things. He read teleprompters really well, but anytime he responded off the cuff, he was a stammering fool. The media did a good job of covering for him.
They can refuse any sort of money that is not US$ for it is not legal tender.
The Euro would still be legal tender, even if Fry's doesn't accept it. The company's willingness to accept foreign currency does not affect the validity of that currency.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the explanation. I stand corrected.
Please see my response to kwbauer above.
I misspoke.
I meant that generally, insurance companies decide for themselves what medicines or medical treatments they will or won't cover. If you want a plan that covers more, you are able to find such a plan with the same company or one of the many others. Now, with the ACA mandating certain items in all plans, that is no longer the case for these items. But other items, such as Viagra, are still at the discretion of the insurance company and the plans they offer.
You are right. Although I'm not sure if you are countering something I wrote in response to mattack2's post, or providing background information.
I don't need to tell that to Scientologists or Mormons or Adventists, or even Catholics. The government is the one telling mattack2 that if he invents a church, it will not be considered legitimate. I have no say in the matter.
It's not up to me, but it is up to the government. Try to smoke peyote and claim your religion demands it. Unless you are Native American, you will be in trouble. Because the government decides which is an established religion, and which is just people inventing things.
Whether you use a building or not doesn't make any difference whether you say "religion" or "church". I used the word church because the poster I responded to used the word. Was that not obvious?
As for roads, most of them were made by private people and companies, long before government got involved.
Oregon Trail, subdivisions, and country roads are all from people and companies. Government took over roads that others had already put in place.
I was referring specifically to mattack2. He thinks someone is being cheated out of health care, and my statement was in that regard.
Actually, based on the majority of their comments on this board, and other boards, I can't agree with that last sentence.
So, if a millionaire decided to work for Hobby Lobby, you would be OK with them not getting abortion insurance?
Because that is what you just stated.
And while I was never a fan of Ginsburg in my younger years, given the recent evolution of the SCotUS, that opinion is rapidly changing, especially when she has this to say on the matter (573 U.S. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg dissent, pg. 14):
Until this (Citizens United) litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law...the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” (Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 [1819]).
Back when Marshall was on the bench, did they have corporations that were simply one person who incorporated for legal and financial protection?
Corporations have ONE religion, and that is to make as much money as possible.
Except many of them don't, of their own choice. They put their profits into humanitarian endeavors. Especially corporations such as the one that owns Hobby Lobby., where the owners' religious beliefs preclude a lavish lifestyle.
They are under common law obligations to screw over people to do so.
This has been stated on this board repeatedly, and it is completely incorrect. The person who explained the court case to you was either lying to you, functionally illiterate and unable to make sense of a court paper, or simply parroting lies that had been said to them earlier. Please read Dodge v Ford Motor Company, and stop parroting this lie to others.
Tto say they have religious convictions is absurdity at its finest.
You obviously have to clue what is actually the case here, with this corporation. As a non-religious person myself, I find it unfortunate that your own feelings about religion override your sensibilities.
Watch the abuse begin. It's the latest slip down the slippery slope started in 1800s when the absurd idea of "Corporate Personhood" started.
Watch the abuse that tries to begin get slapped down instantly, since this ruling stated it is only covering this one particular aspect of the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandate.
Damn. I was waiting for this since around noon.
It does make for lively debate, even though half the posts are simply wrong. ;^)
And insurance companies have the right to choose which drugs they do or do not cover. If you are their client, and don't like the coverage of a particular plan, you can find a different plan from the same company that costs more to cover more, or just switch to another insurance company that covers what you want and pay them your money.
No one is saying the insurance companies don't have the right to cover one or the other medicine.
No, healthcare is not earned or part of pay. Health insurance is part of their compensation, and it is the insurance the company is willing to provide. This was perfectly acceptable insurance before Obamacare became law, and as the president promised, you can keep your health insurance.
So why can the company not keep their insurance as the President of the United States of America promised they could?
Several reasons.
1. There is no such church
2. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church
3. You are too honest to invent a church just to cheat someone out of health care
4. The decision was limited to this issue of abortion drugs
5. You actually do think businesses have to pay for things people could pay for themselves
Anything else you are unsure of?
An 'organism' is not a philosophical construct.
Is a baby chicken a chick before it breaks out of its egg? Is it a chick while it depends on its mother to keep it warm and safe until it hatches?
Where does philosophy enter into that argument?
I don't know what the hell to think about Obama anymore. The guy we elected was smart, charismatic, capable, articulate; ....
A big part of the problem is he wasn't actually 3 of those 4 things. He read teleprompters really well, but anytime he responded off the cuff, he was a stammering fool. The media did a good job of covering for him.
Have you read slashdot for the last 5 or 6 years?
Have you read other online boards?
It happens on all of them that I have read. Repeatedly.
But this will be when he's not high on drugs.
Put Phil Specter in too.
De ja vu...
Quick, hide. Agent Smith just found us in the matrix.
G f J l
r l a e
e o p t
e w a t
n i n e
+ g e r
? & s s
# ] e .
) ^ ~ @
They can refuse any sort of money that is not US$ for it is not legal tender.
The Euro would still be legal tender, even if Fry's doesn't accept it. The company's willingness to accept foreign currency does not affect the validity of that currency.
So, "priceless" does not mean it has no price. In fact, it apparently means it has a price that isn't particularly high.
'Running' as people do with feet, or as water does down a streambed?