Letter From CEO of Hobby Lobby inregard to Obamacare

[mjmjpfaff]

Your aunt and uncle make up the less than .5% of Canuks that comes here then.

But lets look at it logically, with numbers and such. We would assume that hospitals along the border are just overrun with sick canadians, Maple sugar OD's are getting more and more common. But what we see is a little different

The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.

Im not sure why your Aunt and Uncle would lie to you, maybe they have a very good sense of humor. Also I did put that same question to a few Canuks here and they seemed to think it was funny, their wait times are the same as ours. But they did let me know that for cosmetic surgery there is often a wait, but important life saving surgery is the same.

Please do not insight that they lied to me. First off you do not know them and I would know if they came to the US since they do so rarely and especially if they are getting surgeries. Why don't you think about what you say before you call out someone like that. Did I say your Canadian sources are liars just because someone else (or some biased article) said so. No. Show some respect.
There is no one dying in the streets in the US and NO ONE has to go to Canada or Mexico for care (with the exception of risky surgeries that are not allowed in the US). It is a law that hospitals have to care for people if they come into the ER.
Really? A link from AARP? If you want me to take in the information you are putting out there please choose a less biased site.

 

[wcomputerboy]

What about legitimate contraception for a medical condition? You and I know there are enough cases to warrant contraception to regulate "Monthly Cycles".

A direct quote from the Green's lawyers.

"The Green family has no moral objection to the use of preventive contraceptives and will continue covering preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family’s religious convictions prohibit them from providing or paying for the abortion-inducing drugs, the “morning-after” and “week-after” pills, which would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception."

 

[johnsonma]

Pretend I own a family run business as the aforementioned green family and had very strict religious views just like them.

What if I believed that surgery violates a human's soul and therefore I will not provide or pay for any surgical procedures. Is it within my right as a business owner to impose this belief on my workers? This is much more extreme but follows the exact same principle.

 

[riser]

Pretend I own a family run business as the aforementioned green family and had very strict religious views just like them.

What if I believed that surgery violates a human's soul and therefore I will not provide or pay for any surgical procedures. Is it within my right as a business owner to impose this belief on my workers? This is much more extreme but follows the exact same principle.

You are not imposing anything. You are simply saying that as an employer you do not wish to pay for something your religious belief system does not tolerate.

Look at it from another point of a view: The government is forcing people to go against their religious beliefs.

Another point of view: How much money have you donated in the last year to the Republican party? What if you were being forced to donate money to them?

 

[johnsonma]

I would rather give the individual the right to choose whether or not to to take the pill. They are not forcing the "people" to do anything. They are merely making the business give the individual the power to choose for themselves.

 

[wcomputerboy]

You are not imposing anything. You are simply saying that as an employer you do not wish to pay for something your religious belief system does not tolerate.

Look at it from another point of a view: The government is forcing people to go against their religious beliefs.

Another point of view: How much money have you donated in the last year to the Republican party? What if you were being forced to donate money to them?

Good point riser - As an employer you are not forcing people not to have a surgery, you are just saying that you would not pay for it. If people want that surgery, they can opt out of the employer's healthcare program and find health insurance elsewhere that would pay for surgery.

Personally I would rather have my employer pay me the money they are spending on my insurance and let me find my own.

 

[johnsonma]

What about the choices and freedoms of the individual employer? Does he have his choices and freedoms taken away just because he is an employer?

Does their individual freedom trump that of all his or her employees?

Also, how does killing a small mass of replicating cells constitute a murder? If it does, you better not scratch yourself ever again as this be the equal to murder.

 

[wanamingo]

I guess that could be classified as sexual discrimination. Would it be ok for the hobby lobby to fire a man because he is using viagra?

Also Im glad we are talking about the overall picture here but the guy who wrote that letter thinks contraceptives cause abortions, which we know is not the case.

 

[johnsonma]

Good point riser - As an employer you are not forcing people not to have a surgery, you are just saying that you would not pay for it. If people want that surgery, they can opt out of the employer's healthcare program and find health insurance elsewhere that would pay for surgery.

Personally I would rather have my employer pay me the money they are spending on my insurance and let me find my own.

You will still be indirectly affecting their decision as outside insurance costs more and will not cover as much. Out of sight out of mind in the eyes of the employer. The whole reason this was passed in the first place was to make it affordable for people so that they can have the choice.

 

[wcomputerboy]

You will still be indirectly affecting their decision as outside insurance costs more and will not cover as much. Out of sight out of mind in the eyes of the employer. The whole reason this was passed in the first place was to make it affordable for people so that they can have the choice.

This structure of health insurance, where employers are purchasing plans for their employees, is what is driving the cost up. Insurance is mandated, and so the insurance companies can charge a higher price. Outside insurance would cost much less if the structure was different and the individual was the one purchasing it. The insurance market would be forced to lower prices to be competitive. If the reason this was passed was to make insurance affordable, pay the employee more, so they can afford insurance. That would truly create choice in the market instead of a one size fits all plan from the employer.

 

[wanamingo]

Its not against their religion to offer birth control or sex enabling (Totally not the right word) devices.

The point here is the guy thinks that birth control causes abortion, which is not true.

Did you know that penile implants are covered? So is viagra, and penis pumps, even vasectomies are covered by most healthcare plans. So its not the sex they are against, or birth control, its only the fact that they dont understand how birth control works.

So we have literally paid for men to get erections with taxpayer money but we draw the line when it comes to womens reproduction. Does anyone see the hypocrisy here?

 

[riser]

Its not against their religion to offer birth control or sex enabling (Totally not the right word) devices.

The point here is the guy thinks that birth control causes abortion, which is not true.

Did you know that penile implants are covered? So is viagra, and penis pumps, even vasectomies are covered by most healthcare plans. So its not the sex they are against, or birth control, its only the fact that they dont understand how birth control works.

So we have literally paid for men to get erections with taxpayer money but we draw the line when it comes to womens reproduction. Does anyone see the hypocrisy here?

Life beings at conception (sex). The morning after pill is considered an abortion device. Viagra, penis pumps, and vasectomies are not the same as abortions and morning after pills. I'm sure the health plan would likely cover having their tubes tied and a other preventive procedures. An individual doesn't matter, it is the conception part that makes it different.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If its just a hunk of skin, then leave it alone, do nothing, it wont matter

 

[riser]

If its just a hunk of skin, then leave it alone, do nothing, it wont matter

haha good point.

 

[johnsonma]

Yes. The employee is not being forced to work for this employer. As long as company policy is made clear upon hiring the employee there is no problem.

You can not exercise a freedom or choice if in doing so you prevent the free exercise thereof of someone else.

A fetus is not just a blob of replicating cells. Maybe if your a f*cking cyborg it is. It is a human being, with a heartbeat, and brain activity, and I would dare say a living soul.

You would argue the opposite and if it helps you sleep better at night, so be it.

How does it violate the employer's choice? They can still choose not to offer a healthcare solution and instead give the employees a raise to purchase their own and also take a percentage of the saved money to pay the tax. The employees don't have a choice if they can't get it from their employment based healthcare solution and they can't afford it outside of their plan.

In my previous response I was talking about the early stages of sperm-egg interaction, where it really is nothing but replicating cells. There is not heartbeat and there is no brain activity because brain cells have not even begun to form. It is literally a clump of cells replicating and that's it, it doesn't even kill the cells it just stops them from clinging to the uterus, which occurs naturally sometimes anyways. This is nothing more than people pushing religious based nonsense on to other people.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

In a natural uterine separation, there is usually a sound reason for it.
This scenario prevents health risks and deformities in the child, and possibly if the mother isnt healthy.
Thats the built in natural defenses of the body versus a defined act, and no, are not the same thing, and again, if its a lump of cells, still do nothing, since it wouldnt matter

 

[johnsonma]

How does it violate the employer's choice? by taking the choice away from him? Seems like a violation to me. He is not denying them morning after pills. He is simply saying he's not going to pay for it. Contraception is VERY cheap. If they can't afford it outside of employer healthcare mayhaps they should revisit their budgeting priorities. The employee does have a choice. A) dont' work for this employer if you don't like the benefits and policies, B) buy it your own damn self.

It may be religious based nonsense to you but I call it company policy, as is the OWNER'S discretion. I got a whole 3 ring binder of my company policies I have to follow. If you don't want to follow the policy, don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Policies based on logic and reasoning are completely understandable, but policies based on religious mumbo jumbo have no place within an advanced society.

In the end there is really nothing different when compared to other contraceptives.

 

[riser]

Policies based on logic and reasoning are completely understandable, but policies based on religious mumbo jumbo have no place within an advanced society.

In the end there is really nothing different when compared to other contraceptives.

test

 

[riser]

Policies based on logic and reasoning are completely understandable, but policies based on religious mumbo jumbo have no place within an advanced society.

In the end there is really nothing different when compared to other contraceptives.

You are saying that your belief system trumps someone else's belief system. Logic and reasoning can often be wrong as well given the time. We don't have to look too hard to find where people's logic and reasoning have been screwed up even in our "advanced society."

 

[johnsonma]

You are saying that your belief system trumps someone else's belief system. Logic and reasoning can often be wrong as well given the time. We don't have to look too hard to find where people's logic and reasoning have been screwed up even in our "advanced society."

If logic and reasoning are wrong people will admit it and change(eventually), you will never be able to reason with someone over their religion. I only looked at it logically to see it is no different than other contraceptives and shouldn't be excluded.

Would you rather be a society that looks at problems like this or would you rather we drifted closer to say Iran?

 

[riser]

Your argument is flawed. Someone with Religious view at least has ground to stand on and you can easily see what they are. Logic and reasoning changes nearly daily, merely look to our country's own presidency for that matter.

I would rather have someone who has a founded belief in something, than someone who goes with whatever the latest 'logic and reasoning' is. Look at history and you can see where logic and reasoning has done significant damage throughout history. Religion has done the same but often under the guise of logic and reasoning.

The Crusades, for example, were logic and reasoning, and not religious zealots. Vietnam was logic and reasoning, not religion.
George Washington was bled to death over logic and reasoning, not religion.

The list can go on and on with logic and reasoning being completely stupid and utterly backwards. Religious beliefs in the least have grounds that will not be crossed. They may not be the best, but they are not the worst.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If you arent free to live your religious views, you truly arent free.
To say this isnt an attack on religious beliefs is nonsense.
Having a POV, regardless its origin should be the right of every person for true freedom.
Some use others POVs, depending on origin, simply for their own gain, and claim its the others who do so.
Interesting.....

 

[johnsonma]

Your argument is flawed. Someone with Religious view at least has ground to stand on and you can easily see what they are. Logic and reasoning changes nearly daily, merely look to our country's own presidency for that matter.

I would rather have someone who has a founded belief in something, than someone who goes with whatever the latest 'logic and reasoning' is. Look at history and you can see where logic and reasoning has done significant damage throughout history. Religion has done the same but often under the guise of logic and reasoning.

The Crusades, for example, were logic and reasoning, and not religious zealots. Vietnam was logic and reasoning, not religion.
George Washington was bled to death over logic and reasoning, not religion.

The list can go on and on with logic and reasoning being completely stupid and utterly backwards. Religious beliefs in the least have grounds that will not be crossed. They may not be the best, but they are not the worst.

You say my argument is flaw yet yours is based on a fairy tail. You say that logical reasoning is somehow devoid of morality and you could not be farther from the truth.

The crusades may have begun with a logical reasoning behind them but would have never been possible if it wasn't for religion.

I find it impossible to comprehend how you could think that static, backward thinking would somehow accomplish more than an open minded approach. If we stuck to your way of thinking we never would of figured out the world was round because we would still believe steadfastly the world is flat. We would still believe we are the center of the universe and all sorts of other nonsense.

This ground you speak of that religion stands on is perceived by the same process with which religion came into existence in the first place. This ground of ignorance has no place deciding policy in institutions as small as a business or as large as a government.

Would you rather use a computer or a notepad when doing calculations? Sure the computer could still get it wrong based on human error but its still a hell of a lot better than a notepad.

 

[johnsonma]

You keep equating this to religion. It's about freedom at the fundamental level.

I believe life begins at conception, and I am not religious. Spirtual yes, but do not adhere to any particular religion. This business owner believes that abortion is murder. He is not stopping anyone from having an abortion or taking the morning after pill. He is merely saying he refuses to pay for it so if you want it you will have to pay for it yourself.

Completely logical and resonable to me.

He refuses to pay for it because his religion says he can't. Any other reason I would accept like it will decrease revenue or it has side effects that he doesn't think are safe for his employee's. The fact that the entire argument hinges on a religious reasoning is the exact reason why its flawed.

For your argument to work you would have to explain to me how life begins at conception, if you could do that then I would accept your argument. If you mention a soul or some divine hand as reasoning I will not.

 

[riser]

You say my argument is flaw yet yours is based on a fairy tail. You say that logical reasoning is somehow devoid of morality and you could not be farther from the truth.

The crusades may have begun with a logical reasoning behind them but would have never been possible if it wasn't for religion.

I find it impossible to comprehend how you could think that static, backward thinking would somehow accomplish more than an open minded approach. If we stuck to your way of thinking we never would of figured out the world was round because we would still believe steadfastly the world is flat. We would still believe we are the center of the universe and all sorts of other nonsense.

This ground you speak of that religion stands on is perceived by the same process with which religion came into existence in the first place. This ground of ignorance has no place deciding policy in institutions as small as a business or as large as a government.

Would you rather use a computer or a notepad when doing calculations? Sure the computer could still get it wrong based on human error but its still a hell of a lot better than a notepad.

I like how your argument is now to distract from the original argument. This is a typical thing of the liberal left - distract and make something else and claim a win.