Maybe. You going to try to argue that the employees contribution covers contraception? But then what does a man's contribution cover?
Vasectomies, Viagra, **** pumps?
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
What if a corporation argues that hiring black people or LGTB people or midgets etc conflicts with their personal religious beliefs.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
And is not women's ability to receive possible life saving healthcare a compelling interest?
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
The problem with your examples is whether I'm imposing my religious beliefs on you. If I don't hire Blacks (if I'm Mormon) Jews (Opus Dei) or Gays (Arizonans), I'm imposing my religious beliefs on those groups.
How?
......
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Yeah but they do not have a right to work for him.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
True, but neither here nor there. if the employer is going to use religious considerations to make that choice, he's imposing his religious views on somebody else.
By the way, arguing that the Civil Rights Act will go kaput is much more of a strawman than my deli example.
Not really, this is more of a slippery slope argument, once you say a corporations have religious rights everything is up for grabs.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Yeah really. Still can't impose your beliefs on another.
No by forcing me to hire a Muslim you are imposing your beliefs on me.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
You're not forced to hire a Muslim. You're just not allowed to not hire him because he's Muslim.
Don't go here and waste time. Even if you were correct, the compelling interest of the government in promoting a public policy that disallows this would be overwhelming.
But what does that matter? Obama has unilaterally rolled back parts of the "the law" whenever he feels like it.
Wrong. He has not rolled back or altered any law. Like his predecessors he quite legally, and usually wisely and appropriately, has tinkered with the implementing and administrative regulations. It's part of his job
"...this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron..."
He did not delay or roll back the law. He has adjusted various deadlines, wisely or unwisely, depending on you point of view, but has done so by exercising his legitimate authority inherent in the implementing regulations.
The executive branch cannot change laws, although it can choose not to defend them in court, but it has flexibility with the implementing regulations. This is what has happened with "Obamacare" as well as much other legislation over the years.
The law in many places says your dog must be on a leash when in public. It does not dictate when you may or must walk your dog.
"...this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron..."
Delay is the correct term. I already corrected myself and stated that I should have used the word "delay" and not "rollback".
Not sure why you are trying to argue that the administration has not "delayed" anything. To say otherwise is wrong. Maybe the media is wrong also then by using the term "delay"?
It must be killing you that there have been 7.1 million sign-ups.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
It must be killing you that there have been 7.1 million sign-ups.
Nope. Not at all. Doesn't bother me one bit.
Also realize that signing up and actually paying are 2 different things. The administration refuses to release information about those that have actually paid.
My wife has signed up 4 people on the exchange since February. Two in February and two in early March. Not one of them has paid their premium yet. Now take that same scenario and multiply it by the hundreds of health insurance agents across the US where the same thing is happening.
7 million is a "cooked up" number right now. Get back to me when you actually have numbers for those that have actually paid their premium.
The administration refuses to release information about those that have actually paid.
Are you really so foolish as to believe that 90% of the people that went through the trouble of signing up will not actually pay for their insurance?
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Are you foolish enough to believe that 7 million have actually paid?
My wife even enrolled a few more people in the exchange than the 4 I mentioned but then they backed out at the last minute and went off the exchange because the exchange was too much of a hassle and the people didn't like giving out a lot of the personal information they were asking.
Nobody is insured until they pay. No use continuing this discussion unless you have real figures. Not cooked ones.
He did not delay or roll back the law. He has adjusted various deadlines, wisely or unwisely, depending on you point of view, but has done so by exercising his legitimate authority inherent in the implementing regulations.
Very questionable as he still must faithfully execute the laws. The courts could legitimately ask why major deadlines have been changed - like the employer mandate - even after a law was passed four years earlier.
A hardy perennial now enjoying a revival is the "How many have PAID???" freakout. Independent ACA statistics tracker Charles Gaba has put this one under his microscope. His conclusions are that, first of all, the issue is probably exaggerated and, second, it's way premature even to count nonpaying enrollees, because many of them won't even receive bills for weeks yet. (We're indebted to Gaba for the triple-question marks in our headline, as well as for resurrecting the useful term "freakout.")
The level of paid enrollments is an important metric, because enrollees aren't actually covered by their health plans until they've paid the first installment on their premiums. So the suggestion that the enrollment figures are inflated by supposed "deadbeats" is a popular one among conservative ACA critics. (In some cases grace periods have allowed for retroactive coverage, but they've been rare.)
Here's what Gaba found, however. First, the percentage of enrollees who have paid up (the "paid rate") looks to be hovering at 81%-85%. The figure is murky because only 10 states actually provide a figure. That includes California, which bases its figure on what it hears from the insurance companies getting the payment and which says its paid rate is "more than 85%" as of March 15.
But Gaba observes that the 15% shortfall includes a lot of people who aren't sleazing out on their bills. It includes millions of people who enrolled between mid-February and mid-March and won't start coverage until April 1; there will be more who have enrolled since March 15 who won't start coverage until May 1. Their first bill might not arrive until as long as six weeks after their enrollment, which means many haven't paid because they haven't been billed yet or have been billed but the payment isn't yet due.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Replies
What if a corporation argues that hiring black people or LGTB people or midgets etc conflicts with their personal religious beliefs.
Er. Not mandated by Obamacare, but you're free to get a cervical exam if you want.
See post 6.
In addition, the government clearly has a compelling reason to not allow this to happen. (Question #2).
How?
......
By the way, arguing that the Civil Rights Act will go kaput is much more of a strawman than my deli example.
**** pumps. There has been a HUGE increase in them.
I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
No by forcing me to hire a Muslim you are imposing your beliefs on me.
Don't go here and waste time. Even if you were correct, the compelling interest of the government in promoting a public policy that disallows this would be overwhelming.
I blame social media for this...
Mike
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
No, wait, GM is rich and mostly white - wrist slap, wink and a nod. Perhaps ten days of community service.
George Will
Because it's the law.
The notion that Hobby Lobby can opt out on religious grounds ridicules this and every law on the books.
But what does that matter? Obama has unilaterally rolled back parts of the "the law" whenever he feels like it.
Wrong. He has not rolled back or altered any law. Like his predecessors he quite legally, and usually wisely and appropriately, has tinkered with the implementing and administrative regulations. It's part of his job
George Will
It's how our system works, not semantics.
He did not delay or roll back the law. He has adjusted various deadlines, wisely or unwisely, depending on you point of view, but has done so by exercising his legitimate authority inherent in the implementing regulations.
The executive branch cannot change laws, although it can choose not to defend them in court, but it has flexibility with the implementing regulations. This is what has happened with "Obamacare" as well as much other legislation over the years.
The law in many places says your dog must be on a leash when in public. It does not dictate when you may or must walk your dog.
George Will
Delay is the correct term. I already corrected myself and stated that I should have used the word "delay" and not "rollback".
Not sure why you are trying to argue that the administration has not "delayed" anything. To say otherwise is wrong. Maybe the media is wrong also then by using the term "delay"?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101393331
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1402641
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-affordable-care-act-105036.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/
Nope. Not at all. Doesn't bother me one bit.
Also realize that signing up and actually paying are 2 different things. The administration refuses to release information about those that have actually paid.
My wife has signed up 4 people on the exchange since February. Two in February and two in early March. Not one of them has paid their premium yet. Now take that same scenario and multiply it by the hundreds of health insurance agents across the US where the same thing is happening.
7 million is a "cooked up" number right now. Get back to me when you actually have numbers for those that have actually paid their premium.
40+ million to go...
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Are you really so foolish as to believe that 90% of the people that went through the trouble of signing up will not actually pay for their insurance?
My wife even enrolled a few more people in the exchange than the 4 I mentioned but then they backed out at the last minute and went off the exchange because the exchange was too much of a hassle and the people didn't like giving out a lot of the personal information they were asking.
Nobody is insured until they pay. No use continuing this discussion unless you have real figures. Not cooked ones.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Very questionable as he still must faithfully execute the laws. The courts could legitimately ask why major deadlines have been changed - like the employer mandate - even after a law was passed four years earlier.