"Federal agencies can't just issue press releases and demand that people follow them." Well, that ship sailed a while back, unfortunately, as far too many people believe that is how it works and our current "beloved leader" seems to spend the majority of his time furthering this notion.
Yes, I missed keyed as I meant the first sentence to be a question as you were the one positing that not having vaginal sex could somehow lead to pregnancy, not me.
No, I said that Obamacare requires that employers employing over 50 workers are required to offer insurance. The argument was when did it become a government-mandate for companies to do this.
As for it only affecting a handful of large companies, there are thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of companies employing around 50 people in the US, so the law affects a whole lot more than "a tiny minority of large companies".
As for it continually being postponed... Don't you find it amazing that the man who has said he is proud for the law to be named after him is (probably unconstitutionally) unilaterally deciding to not enforce this provision. Why is that? Might it be because even he understands the negative effect it would have on the already struggling economy?
Only in libtard land or communist land. I can't believe that I actually read someone state that the Founding Fathers never intended business to turn a profit. Do you have any proof of that viewpoint.
Reality has proven that abstinence can actually cause pregnancy. I've heard of this one case but it is quite disputed, especially here on/. Reality has proven that most people can have exactly the amount of self-control they choose to have.
Obamacare IS the first law to mandate that coverage. Prior laws did not mandate that businesses provide the insurance; they may have made it easier for businesses to do so but that is a far cry from mandating. Giving a discount for doing something is far different than fining for not as the former does nothing to you if you opt out while the latter involves lawyers and armed agents and such if you opt out.
Because the ruling was not about an interaction with the government. It was about government mandated triangular interaction between an employer, employees and insurance companies. Had Obamacare nationalized health-care and it stuck, then Hobby Lobby most likely would have lost.
No, you cannot dictate what treatment they receive. You can, however, dictate what insurance coverage you will offer them subject to certain laws. This case was about the law crossing a previously established boundary.
Your employees would still be able to get any treatment they want to negotiate with providers. The US still has providers that re not employed by the government and are still free to negotiate treatment with their patients. Insurance won't pay for all treatments in the US but it won't in any other country either.
So you agree with the court that employer provided contraceptives is not a basic civil right, how awesome.
If employer provided health coverage and contraceptives really were a basic right then why did Obama and his cronies bother with a 1200 page law when they could have simply sued a few large corporations for violating those basic rights, won the case and been done with it?
If an employer chooses to not provide insurance that allows one MRI per week for any reason whatsoever, is that also infringing on the rights of the employee?
Why is it irrational to expect that? Where did I say abstinence? If the only way you can imagine having a sexual relationship with a women is one that may result in pregnancy you are either very misinformed about basic human anatomy/physiology/biology or you have a very limited imagination. Mainly, I bitch about people making choices and then complaining that I won't pay the consequences for them. Discounting rape, people freely choose to engage in behavior that a reasonable person should expect may lead to pregnancy. People should be expected to deal with the consequences of that choice; i shouldn't be held responsible unless I am participating with them. And I really doubt that "just in case I get raped" is viable as rape, though too frequent, is not that frequent.
I may have slept through parts of those health classes but I don't remember the part about where I will die if I don't have sex. But hey, a car is similar to a planet in that they are both a means to go somewhere.
Yup, the Midwest and extending into the NYC area here in the US also experienced extremely high temperature and humidity that same summer. Enough that we had than the usual number of deaths but nowhere near the numbers that France experienced.
As for AC use in Europe... I lived in maybe 8 different apartments scattered around Switzerland and Lorrach, Germany in the mid-1980's and I had maybe two of those apartments that did not have AC. These were by no means expensive nor exclusive apartments and the apartments I had seemed to be pretty much the norm. I guess some parts of Europe have bigger issues with modern conveniences than other parts. Kind of like how elevators are things to be used in some parts and things to be ignored in others.
It is not the same type of logic because one is an interaction with the government and the other is a government mandated interaction with a non-government and are covered by different laws and precedents.
You should probably file a lawsuit and see if you can convince the judges that not only were they wrong in this case but they totally blew the chance to really build up Obamacare into something it isn't and was never intended to be.
And before Obamacare, employers had more discretion over what was offered in the plan they are compensating you with. Even after Obamacare they still have discretion just slightly less. This whole case was about where to draw the line on how much discretion. Do you honestly believe that employers negotiating for a plan on your behalf have absolutely no options other than which company to sign up with?
False dichotomy much? Maybe a third option of not engaging in behavior that might reasonably lead to pregnancy when not adequately prepared to take care of said children? This can apply equally to men and women.
Slashdot Mirror
"Federal agencies can't just issue press releases and demand that people follow them." Well, that ship sailed a while back, unfortunately, as far too many people believe that is how it works and our current "beloved leader" seems to spend the majority of his time furthering this notion.
Yes, I missed keyed as I meant the first sentence to be a question as you were the one positing that not having vaginal sex could somehow lead to pregnancy, not me.
No, I said that Obamacare requires that employers employing over 50 workers are required to offer insurance. The argument was when did it become a government-mandate for companies to do this.
As for it only affecting a handful of large companies, there are thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of companies employing around 50 people in the US, so the law affects a whole lot more than "a tiny minority of large companies".
As for it continually being postponed... Don't you find it amazing that the man who has said he is proud for the law to be named after him is (probably unconstitutionally) unilaterally deciding to not enforce this provision. Why is that? Might it be because even he understands the negative effect it would have on the already struggling economy?
And a lot of saying it is so does not make it so.
Oh, maybe to prevent it from being stolen to be used for those otherwise legitimate purposes.
I think greenwow is being one of the inbreds. http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... LOL
Only in libtard land or communist land. I can't believe that I actually read someone state that the Founding Fathers never intended business to turn a profit. Do you have any proof of that viewpoint.
Reality has proven that abstinence can actually cause pregnancy. I've heard of this one case but it is quite disputed, especially here on /. Reality has proven that most people can have exactly the amount of self-control they choose to have.
Obamacare IS the first law to mandate that coverage. Prior laws did not mandate that businesses provide the insurance; they may have made it easier for businesses to do so but that is a far cry from mandating. Giving a discount for doing something is far different than fining for not as the former does nothing to you if you opt out while the latter involves lawyers and armed agents and such if you opt out.
I guess that would depend on when the conversion happened relative to said convert being told he couldn't wear his colander.
Because the ruling was not about an interaction with the government. It was about government mandated triangular interaction between an employer, employees and insurance companies. Had Obamacare nationalized health-care and it stuck, then Hobby Lobby most likely would have lost.
No, you cannot dictate what treatment they receive. You can, however, dictate what insurance coverage you will offer them subject to certain laws. This case was about the law crossing a previously established boundary.
Your employees would still be able to get any treatment they want to negotiate with providers. The US still has providers that re not employed by the government and are still free to negotiate treatment with their patients. Insurance won't pay for all treatments in the US but it won't in any other country either.
So you agree with the court that employer provided contraceptives is not a basic civil right, how awesome.
If employer provided health coverage and contraceptives really were a basic right then why did Obama and his cronies bother with a 1200 page law when they could have simply sued a few large corporations for violating those basic rights, won the case and been done with it?
Oh yeah, because it isn't.
And that would affect this ruling in what way? The ruling held that the religious beliefs of the business owners (real people) had to be honored.
Yes, whipping is the same as not providing birth control because they are both an act of physical assault.
Selling your fictional daughter would be considered fraud unless the buyer understood she is fictional.
As for polygamy... the marriage rulings will lead to that far sooner than an insurance ruling.
If an employer chooses to not provide insurance that allows one MRI per week for any reason whatsoever, is that also infringing on the rights of the employee?
Why is it irrational to expect that? Where did I say abstinence? If the only way you can imagine having a sexual relationship with a women is one that may result in pregnancy you are either very misinformed about basic human anatomy/physiology/biology or you have a very limited imagination. Mainly, I bitch about people making choices and then complaining that I won't pay the consequences for them. Discounting rape, people freely choose to engage in behavior that a reasonable person should expect may lead to pregnancy. People should be expected to deal with the consequences of that choice; i shouldn't be held responsible unless I am participating with them. And I really doubt that "just in case I get raped" is viable as rape, though too frequent, is not that frequent.
I may have slept through parts of those health classes but I don't remember the part about where I will die if I don't have sex. But hey, a car is similar to a planet in that they are both a means to go somewhere.
Those that agree with the idiot ((s)he chose the name) may speak out; those that disagree may not.
Yup, the Midwest and extending into the NYC area here in the US also experienced extremely high temperature and humidity that same summer. Enough that we had than the usual number of deaths but nowhere near the numbers that France experienced.
As for AC use in Europe... I lived in maybe 8 different apartments scattered around Switzerland and Lorrach, Germany in the mid-1980's and I had maybe two of those apartments that did not have AC. These were by no means expensive nor exclusive apartments and the apartments I had seemed to be pretty much the norm. I guess some parts of Europe have bigger issues with modern conveniences than other parts. Kind of like how elevators are things to be used in some parts and things to be ignored in others.
It is not the same type of logic because one is an interaction with the government and the other is a government mandated interaction with a non-government and are covered by different laws and precedents.
You should probably file a lawsuit and see if you can convince the judges that not only were they wrong in this case but they totally blew the chance to really build up Obamacare into something it isn't and was never intended to be.
And before Obamacare, employers had more discretion over what was offered in the plan they are compensating you with. Even after Obamacare they still have discretion just slightly less. This whole case was about where to draw the line on how much discretion. Do you honestly believe that employers negotiating for a plan on your behalf have absolutely no options other than which company to sign up with?
If they aren't having sex with you, then I'll agree with you. If they are having sex with you, then you are equally responsible for the outcome.
False dichotomy much? Maybe a third option of not engaging in behavior that might reasonably lead to pregnancy when not adequately prepared to take care of said children? This can apply equally to men and women.
Now lets not let facts get in the way.