Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

SCOTUS strikes down contraceptive mandate

thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:11:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

Because Obamacare was supposed to be the government taking control of the whole healthcare system maybe?
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

But you are right that it's essentially employers choosing what types of insurance plans their employees will have. To many of us, that only flies insofar as the plans are actually adequate.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:18:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:11:23 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

Because Obamacare was supposed to be the government taking control of the whole healthcare system maybe?

One, that doesn't answer his question. Two, you couldn't be more wrong on the facts. It's not even CLOSE to a "government takeover" of healthcare. Tell me more about the healthcare plan created by Nixon, codified by Heritage, endorsed by every Republican in the 90s, and signed into law by the 2012 GOP nominee is a "government takeover."

For goodness' sake, it requires people to purchase a private product. That's not a government takeover: single-payer, which all of us wanted, is a "government takeover." Even that's a question of degree.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:18:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

For the Johnny one-note advocates who don't think things through:
Because corporations aren't people, and as such, there is no religious freedoms.
Oh, and religion is stupid, and workers are freedom from their employer's religious doctrines.
And, of course, you can't control a woman's right to her body.

The legal issue is where the line is drawn, since there are laws protecting religious stances for worker from persecution (like not hiring). I disagree with these laws as well.

I think the knee-jerk reaction/slippery slope is that any company will claim religious freedom to avoid following laws.
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:18:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

That's semantics though. While you can't control what your workers use their money on, being forced to pay for something you object to morally is not the same at all. Being forced to include it in a healthcare plan forces an employers hand, there no getting around that with semantic peddling. If it didn't, it would not be called a mandate.

I have no moral issue with birth control or any type medicine. But I have a pretty big moral objection to forcing people to act against their conscience. Is there any reason to force employers to cover something like this? What do you personally think?

But you are right that it's essentially employers choosing what types of insurance plans their employees will have. To many of us, that only flies insofar as the plans are actually adequate.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

Odd, since according to Sebilius, the law only affects about 5% of workers.
But, tis another reason why employers shouldn't be allowed to deduct healthcare expesnes, and let the workers get what they want with their higher wages.

But you are right that it's essentially employers choosing what types of insurance plans their employees will have. To many of us, that only flies insofar as the plans are actually adequate.

I've heard that there are 20 covered contraceptive in the law, and Hobby Lobby only took issue with 4 - all morning after (i.e. abortion).
Any truth to this?
Does that change your opinion, if the issue is funding (as they see it) abortion, and not birth control per se?
My work here is, finally, done.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:24:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:18:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

That's semantics though. While you can't control what your workers use their money on, being forced to pay for something you object to morally is not the same at all. Being forced to include it in a healthcare plan forces an employers hand, there no getting around that with semantic peddling. If it didn't, it would not be called a mandate.

I have no moral issue with birth control or any type medicine. But I have a pretty big moral objection to forcing people to act against their conscience. Is there any reason to force employers to cover something like this? What do you personally think?

Well, I'd hate to take the semantics game further because you're right on that, but when you say employers I'm assuming you mean insurance companies who would need to cover birth control even if they have a moral objection to it. If not, please correct me.

It's really a matter of how employees are going to obtain birth control if they are at all going to receive it. Without the mandate, they'd purchase it over-the-counter, but then the issue of unaffordability kicks in. So, the logic then becomes if employees are entitled to compensation, and that compensation may include birth control, why not cover it in the most efficient way, which actually reduces healthcare costs anyway?

You raise a good point on the notion of having a moral objection to it, and there really isn't much of a rebuttal to that, as far as I know, other than the dichotomy between physically paying and offering compensation for labor, which is actually how a federal judge has ruled on the issue. But, then again, there are a lot of crazy things covered by private insurance which a lot of people don't use. Should an employer be able to pick through them and choose the ones he likes? I think it's a slippery slope to begin to offer exceptions. For instance, an employer could be an avid Alex Jones listener and think vaccines come from Satan. So he goes on to purchase an insurance plan that doesn't cover vaccines. At the rate, there isn't much of a need or a benefit from the government requiring a minimum standard of coverage, which I'm sure at least most people would support.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:22:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

Odd, since according to Sebilius, the law only affects about 5% of workers.
But, tis another reason why employers shouldn't be allowed to deduct healthcare expesnes, and let the workers get what they want with their higher wages.


I haven't seen that figure from Sebellius, but it seems plausible.

I'm not quite sure if I agree that that would happen if deductions for healthcare-related expenses were removed. The implication, if I'm not mistaken, is that insurance coverage and employees would be effectively separated (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not convinced that this would be the case, as it implicates that wages would rise as benefits fall. It's plausible in theory, but I'm not sure if it's realistic in a world where the bottom line takes precedent over employee well-being.

But you are right that it's essentially employers choosing what types of insurance plans their employees will have. To many of us, that only flies insofar as the plans are actually adequate.

I've heard that there are 20 covered contraceptive in the law, and Hobby Lobby only took issue with 4 - all morning after (i.e. abortion).
Any truth to this?
Does that change your opinion, if the issue is funding (as they see it) abortion, and not birth control per se?

I know they took issue with the day-after pill. I'm not sure if there were others, but that was much of their logic: that the day-after pill is abortion.

It doesn't change my position because the day-after-pill isn't abortion lol. If it were, that would be a whole other debate.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:11:23 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

Because Obamacare was supposed to be the government taking control of the whole healthcare system maybe?

That's not what the ACA does at all.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:30:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:24:29 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:18:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

That's semantics though. While you can't control what your workers use their money on, being forced to pay for something you object to morally is not the same at all. Being forced to include it in a healthcare plan forces an employers hand, there no getting around that with semantic peddling. If it didn't, it would not be called a mandate.

I have no moral issue with birth control or any type medicine. But I have a pretty big moral objection to forcing people to act against their conscience. Is there any reason to force employers to cover something like this? What do you personally think?

Well, I'd hate to take the semantics game further because you're right on that, but when you say employers I'm assuming you mean insurance companies who would need to cover birth control even if they have a moral objection to it. If not, please correct me.

What I mean is the companies being forced to provide insurance plans that cover these medicines despite their objections to them.

It's really a matter of how employees are going to obtain birth control if they are at all going to receive it. Without the mandate, they'd purchase it over-the-counter, but then the issue of unaffordability kicks in. So, the logic then becomes if employees are entitled to compensation, and that compensation may include birth control, why not cover it in the most efficient way, which actually reduces healthcare costs anyway?

Because employers have rights too. We could cut down on all birth control costs by sterilizing the population but that would be a rights violation. The question is, should an employer be required to pay for something they have a moral objection to, and the answer to me is no.

You raise a good point on the notion of having a moral objection to it, and there really isn't much of a rebuttal to that, as far as I know, other than the dichotomy between physically paying and offering compensation for labor, which is actually how a federal judge has ruled on the issue. But, then again, there are a lot of crazy things covered by private insurance which a lot of people don't use. Should an employer be able to pick through them and choose the ones he likes?

Yes. Yes they should be allowed to choose what insurance plans to give their employees.

I think it's a slippery slope to begin to offer exceptions. For instance, an employer could be an avid Alex Jones listener and think vaccines come from Satan. So he goes on to purchase an insurance plan that doesn't cover vaccines.

And that would be his right. Why is the employee entitled to care, payed out of someone else's pocket?

At the rate, there isn't much of a need or a benefit from the government requiring a minimum standard of coverage, which I'm sure at least most people would support.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:34:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:30:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:24:29 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:18:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

That's semantics though. While you can't control what your workers use their money on, being forced to pay for something you object to morally is not the same at all. Being forced to include it in a healthcare plan forces an employers hand, there no getting around that with semantic peddling. If it didn't, it would not be called a mandate.

I have no moral issue with birth control or any type medicine. But I have a pretty big moral objection to forcing people to act against their conscience. Is there any reason to force employers to cover something like this? What do you personally think?

Well, I'd hate to take the semantics game further because you're right on that, but when you say employers I'm assuming you mean insurance companies who would need to cover birth control even if they have a moral objection to it. If not, please correct me.

What I mean is the companies being forced to provide insurance plans that cover these medicines despite their objections to them.


Oh, ok. Then the last thing I said about vaccines is how I would respond to that.

It's really a matter of how employees are going to obtain birth control if they are at all going to receive it. Without the mandate, they'd purchase it over-the-counter, but then the issue of unaffordability kicks in. So, the logic then becomes if employees are entitled to compensation, and that compensation may include birth control, why not cover it in the most efficient way, which actually reduces healthcare costs anyway?

Because employers have rights too. We could cut down on all birth control costs by sterilizing the population but that would be a rights violation. The question is, should an employer be required to pay for something they have a moral objection to, and the answer to me is no.


But then we get into a game of what is and isn't morally objectionable. Not to mention, isn't it a case of employees forcing their morals onto their employees? Of course employers have rights, but so do employees, so it's largely a matter of balancing those rights. To me, I'm with Rick Santorum on this (shocking, I bet): he suggested that the government could just pay for birth control. I'm all onboard with that.

You raise a good point on the notion of having a moral objection to it, and there really isn't much of a rebuttal to that, as far as I know, other than the dichotomy between physically paying and offering compensation for labor, which is actually how a federal judge has ruled on the issue. But, then again, there are a lot of crazy things covered by private insurance which a lot of people don't use. Should an employer be able to pick through them and choose the ones he likes?

Yes. Yes they should be allowed to choose what insurance plans to give their employees.


On that we disagree. I understand where you're coming from, and if bargaining power were equal, this would be plausible, but unfortunately it isn't.

I think it's a slippery slope to begin to offer exceptions. For instance, an employer could be an avid Alex Jones listener and think vaccines come from Satan. So he goes on to purchase an insurance plan that doesn't cover vaccines.

And that would be his right. Why is the employee entitled to care, payed out of someone else's pocket?


It's not exactly paid out of someone else's pocket if the employee earned that compensation, is it?

Is your position that employers shouldn't be required to provide coverage at all? I could conceivably get onboard with that.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:40:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:34:58 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:30:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:24:29 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:18:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

That's semantics though. While you can't control what your workers use their money on, being forced to pay for something you object to morally is not the same at all. Being forced to include it in a healthcare plan forces an employers hand, there no getting around that with semantic peddling. If it didn't, it would not be called a mandate.

I have no moral issue with birth control or any type medicine. But I have a pretty big moral objection to forcing people to act against their conscience. Is there any reason to force employers to cover something like this? What do you personally think?

Well, I'd hate to take the semantics game further because you're right on that, but when you say employers I'm assuming you mean insurance companies who would need to cover birth control even if they have a moral objection to it. If not, please correct me.

What I mean is the companies being forced to provide insurance plans that cover these medicines despite their objections to them.


Oh, ok. Then the last thing I said about vaccines is how I would respond to that.

It's really a matter of how employees are going to obtain birth control if they are at all going to receive it. Without the mandate, they'd purchase it over-the-counter, but then the issue of unaffordability kicks in. So, the logic then becomes if employees are entitled to compensation, and that compensation may include birth control, why not cover it in the most efficient way, which actually reduces healthcare costs anyway?

Because employers have rights too. We could cut down on all birth control costs by sterilizing the population but that would be a rights violation. The question is, should an employer be required to pay for something they have a moral objection to, and the answer to me is no.


But then we get into a game of what is and isn't morally objectionable. Not to mention, isn't it a case of employees forcing their morals onto their employees?

No. The employer telling the employee they can't have sex is a case of them forcing their morals onto them. Telling them that they aren't going to buy them contraceptives is not the same.

Of course employers have rights, but so do employees, so it's largely a matter of balancing those rights. To me, I'm with Rick Santorum on this (shocking, I bet): he suggested that the government could just pay for birth control. I'm all onboard with that.

You raise a good point on the notion of having a moral objection to it, and there really isn't much of a rebuttal to that, as far as I know, other than the dichotomy between physically paying and offering compensation for labor, which is actually how a federal judge has ruled on the issue. But, then again, there are a lot of crazy things covered by private insurance which a lot of people don't use. Should an employer be able to pick through them and choose the ones he likes?

Yes. Yes they should be allowed to choose what insurance plans to give their employees.


On that we disagree. I understand where you're coming from, and if bargaining power were equal, this would be plausible, but unfortunately it isn't.

I think it's a slippery slope to begin to offer exceptions. For instance, an employer could be an avid Alex Jones listener and think vaccines come from Satan. So he goes on to purchase an insurance plan that doesn't cover vaccines.

And that would be his right. Why is the employee entitled to care, payed out of someone else's pocket?


It's not exactly paid out of someone else's pocket if the employee earned that compensation, is it?

Except that the employer is forced to provide the "compensation". It isn't as if the employer said "okay, do this labor and I will give you X benefits" it's the government saying "employer you WILL pay for this". So yeah, it is out of the employers pocket.

Is your position that employers shouldn't be required to provide coverage at all? I could conceivably get onboard with that.

Of course they shouldn't. My libertarianism has faded a good deal but I still can't agree with the government meddling in contractual agreements and telling people what they have to bring to the table in negotiations.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:42:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.

Working on that second general theory? ;P
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:46:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:40:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:34:58 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:30:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:24:29 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:18:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:14:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?


The argument, which I personally subscribe to, is that if birth control is a medicine, it should be covered in the same way that viagra et al. are. There are a number of medical benefits to it -- e.g., it helps in preventing ovarian cancer -- so it does arguably qualify. But the main argument is that employers aren't actually physically "buying" birth control for their employees, but rather purchasing insurance plans that cover it -- and insurance plans are required under law, or I should say "were" required under law -- to provide it. Employees would be able to choose whether or not to purchase birth control in the same way they would spend their wages on whatever they'd like. In that sense, then, employees essentially traded their labor for coverage.

That's semantics though. While you can't control what your workers use their money on, being forced to pay for something you object to morally is not the same at all. Being forced to include it in a healthcare plan forces an employers hand, there no getting around that with semantic peddling. If it didn't, it would not be called a mandate.

I have no moral issue with birth control or any type medicine. But I have a pretty big moral objection to forcing people to act against their conscience. Is there any reason to force employers to cover something like this? What do you personally think?

Well, I'd hate to take the semantics game further because you're right on that, but when you say employers I'm assuming you mean insurance companies who would need to cover birth control even if they have a moral objection to it. If not, please correct me.

What I mean is the companies being forced to provide insurance plans that cover these medicines despite their objections to them.


Oh, ok. Then the last thing I said about vaccines is how I would respond to that.

It's really a matter of how employees are going to obtain birth control if they are at all going to receive it. Without the mandate, they'd purchase it over-the-counter, but then the issue of unaffordability kicks in. So, the logic then becomes if employees are entitled to compensation, and that compensation may include birth control, why not cover it in the most efficient way, which actually reduces healthcare costs anyway?

Because employers have rights too. We could cut down on all birth control costs by sterilizing the population but that would be a rights violation. The question is, should an employer be required to pay for something they have a moral objection to, and the answer to me is no.


But then we get into a game of what is and isn't morally objectionable. Not to mention, isn't it a case of employees forcing their morals onto their employees?

No. The employer telling the employee they can't have sex is a case of them forcing their morals onto them. Telling them that they aren't going to buy them contraceptives is not the same.


But not offering comprehensive coverage is a de facto proclamation that employees shouldn't be able to make their own decisions as to their private lives merely because an employer is going to object to the kind of coverage they can have -- which doesn't even involve directly purchasing the birth control.

Let's put it this way: if you unknowingly purchased an insurance plan that covered (x), and you were morally opposed to (x) but didn't know you were indirectly paying for it, is it morally wrong?

Of course employers have rights, but so do employees, so it's largely a matter of balancing those rights. To me, I'm with Rick Santorum on this (shocking, I bet): he suggested that the government could just pay for birth control. I'm all onboard with that.

You raise a good point on the notion of having a moral objection to it, and there really isn't much of a rebuttal to that, as far as I know, other than the dichotomy between physically paying and offering compensation for labor, which is actually how a federal judge has ruled on the issue. But, then again, there are a lot of crazy things covered by private insurance which a lot of people don't use. Should an employer be able to pick through them and choose the ones he likes?

Yes. Yes they should be allowed to choose what insurance plans to give their employees.


On that we disagree. I understand where you're coming from, and if bargaining power were equal, this would be plausible, but unfortunately it isn't.

I think it's a slippery slope to begin to offer exceptions. For instance, an employer could be an avid Alex Jones listener and think vaccines come from Satan. So he goes on to purchase an insurance plan that doesn't cover vaccines.

And that would be his right. Why is the employee entitled to care, payed out of someone else's pocket?


It's not exactly paid out of someone else's pocket if the employee earned that compensation, is it?

Except that the employer is forced to provide the "compensation". It isn't as if the employer said "okay, do this labor and I will give you X benefits" it's the government saying "employer you WILL pay for this". So yeah, it is out of the employers pocket.


Well of course employers are forced to provide compensation. People don't work for free. It is essentially, "do (x) labor and I'll give you (y) benefits." The problem is asymmetries of bargaining power: if the employer said, "I'll cover A, B, and C, but you're on your own on D, which I know you depend on because you have a high risk of Ovarian Cancer," the employee wouldn't be in a position, at least in this downturn (classic Phillip's curve), to say, "Well, ok, I'll work for someone else." The mandate is there to rectify this asymmetry.

Is your position that employers shouldn't be required to provide coverage at all? I could conceivably get onboard with that.

Of course they shouldn't. My libertarianism has faded a good deal but I still can't agree with the government meddling in contractual agreements and telling people what they have to bring to the table in negotiations.

Fair enough, though I think our disagreement is more on economics than on morality.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:46:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

The best argument was that giving corporations civil rights, would also allow corporations to abuse the system even further through other means.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:42:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.

Working on that second general theory? ;P

lol, of course not! The first one covered everything :). People are still to this day trying to decipher it.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:47:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How are contraceptives religiously justified. The courts determined the ACA didn't violate religious freedom, so they're hypocrites.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem, is that actual people have to pay the taxes for a law that wasn't determined to violate religious freedom. Contraceptives don't violate anyone's beliefs, so the root of the problem is with congress itself and not corporate individualism.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:54:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Well of course employers are forced to provide compensation. People don't work for free. It is essentially, "do (x) labor and I'll give you (y) benefits." The problem is asymmetries of bargaining power: if the employer said, "I'll cover A, B, and C, but you're on your own on D, which I know you depend on because you have a high risk of Ovarian Cancer," the employee wouldn't be in a position, at least in this downturn (classic Phillip's curve), to say, "Well, ok, I'll work for someone else." The mandate is there to rectify this asymmetry."

I don't believe the government should be involved in deciding who has the most bargaining power and who doesn't. So I guess that's the crux of the disagreement--I think the government should enforce prexisting contracts, you think the government should try to offset power differentials to help the little guy. Cool. Now I get it. I don't agree but that's a reasonable and somewhat compelling position. Thanks!
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:57:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:46:41 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:42:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.

Working on that second general theory? ;P

lol, of course not! The first one covered everything :). People are still to this day trying to decipher it.

Haha that reminds me of when in the Keynes and Hayek rap battle, Hayek looks in the drawer in his hotel room and a copy of The General Theory is in there where a Bible generally is
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:59:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:30:41 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:11:23 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

Because Obamacare was supposed to be the government taking control of the whole healthcare system maybe?

That's not what the ACA does at all.

Of course that's not what ACA does, but the opposition believes in the power of government mandates. (hence the word supposed)
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:04:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:57:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:46:41 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:42:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.

Working on that second general theory? ;P

lol, of course not! The first one covered everything :). People are still to this day trying to decipher it.

Haha that reminds me of when in the Keynes and Hayek rap battle, Hayek looks in the drawer in his hotel room and a copy of The General Theory is in there where a Bible generally is

Now I have to rewatch it hahah.

As to your above comment: Exactly right. Should make for an interesting debate at some point.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:08:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:57:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:46:41 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:42:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.

Working on that second general theory? ;P

lol, of course not! The first one covered everything :). People are still to this day trying to decipher it.

Haha that reminds me of when in the Keynes and Hayek rap battle, Hayek looks in the drawer in his hotel room and a copy of The General Theory is in there where a Bible generally is

They also have Keynes skinny and with a full set of hair.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:19:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 1:04:12 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:57:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:46:41 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:42:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.

Working on that second general theory? ;P

lol, of course not! The first one covered everything :). People are still to this day trying to decipher it.

Haha that reminds me of when in the Keynes and Hayek rap battle, Hayek looks in the drawer in his hotel room and a copy of The General Theory is in there where a Bible generally is

Now I have to rewatch it hahah.

As to your above comment: Exactly right. Should make for an interesting debate at some point.

Yeah this is a case where the effects of politics (appealing to the lowest common denominator) kind of forces me to argue against straw men. It's hard to look past the "war on women" rhetoric and try to figure out why rational people hold the position.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:20:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 1:08:38 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:57:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:46:41 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:42:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:36:18 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/1/2014 12:31:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Keynes do you wanna debate this? I get back from my trip and therefore computer access tomorrow....

Hmm, I'd love to debate it at some point, but I'm busy for the next few weeks.

Working on that second general theory? ;P

lol, of course not! The first one covered everything :). People are still to this day trying to decipher it.

Haha that reminds me of when in the Keynes and Hayek rap battle, Hayek looks in the drawer in his hotel room and a copy of The General Theory is in there where a Bible generally is

They also have Keynes skinny and with a full set of hair.

Haha that's awesome
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 2:04:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:01:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate to abstain. Could someone please walk me through the other side of the argument? Because to me, unlike most political issues, this seems pretty clear cut. I've seen a lot of frantic articles written by leftists but none of it is even remotely compelling. I'll see them using rhetoric like "now your boss gets to decide whether or not you get birth control" but to me, it seems that it's just allowing the person or group who pays for your health insurance to decide what they want to cover. What am I missing?

I believe the main issue is the idea that corporations possess rights and freedoms granted to American citizens. Power and freedom/rights should be inversely proportional in order to ensure social equality ... a ruling in violation of that principle is a blow to liberalism in general.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault