Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Democrat aversion to reality (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=768009)

  • Sep 26, 2013, 06:37 AM
    talaniman
    Cojones and Dr. Suess, that's a winner. He is still squealing repeal and that's NOT a winner, neither is shutting down the government. He did make himself TParty guy #1, and that's probably his whole point in all this.

    I have stated that I will live with whatever comes from the court ruling, and my question was will you? Neither of us has much choice.

    Just for the record, the nuns buy nothing, the corporation is what must obey the law, and that's what they signed up for when the did it, knowing full well they had other options to protect themselves for liabilities.

    I take a dim view of the church lying to me.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 06:39 AM
    smoothy
    The republicans wouldn't be shutting down the government... face it... the choice to shut it down is in the hands of the democrats... and they would be doing it out of spite, since most of the American population want nothing to do with Obamacare in the fiorst place.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 06:48 AM
    talaniman
    The public will love it after they find out republicans have been lying through there teeth about it. They love what they have seen implemented so far.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 06:50 AM
    excon
    Hello again, smoothy:
    Quote:

    and they would be doing it out of spite, since most of the American population want nothing to do with Obamacare in the fiorst place.
    Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

    Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

    He LOST, and he lost BIG!

    Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

    Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

    Excon
  • Sep 26, 2013, 07:16 AM
    smoothy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, smoothy:
    Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

    Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

    He LOST, and he lost BIG!

    Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

    Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

    excon

    Reality check here...

    ALL current and valid polls show overwelmining desire to dump Obamacare.

    The House is who controls the purse... not the senate... not the White house.

    They create, write and pass the spending bill... if the Democrat controlled senate or the Bozo controlled White house refuse to sign it... THEY are the ones shutting down the Government by putting their petty partisan politics above what's good for the country.

    But then trying to talk to a democrat about what they are doing wrong is like trying to talk with a cannible about what's wrong with eating people. They don't get it because they've always been doing the wrong thing.

    They feel the constitution and Bill of rights are obsticals to circumvent... instead of something to aspire to embrace.


    Incidentally... Not even Liberalland loves it... according to the 9-26-2013 Express (a Washington comPost publication)... in 2010 Washington DC had 918 active primary care physicians reporting to the board... today there are only 453 that even spend more than 20 hours a week seeing patients at all.

    They don't have it in their online version to link but its in their print copy today. Good luck finding a doctor.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 07:22 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, smoothy:
    Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

    Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

    He LOST, and he lost BIG!

    Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

    Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

    excon

    Now you sound like McLame . We had 8 years of Bush and never once did I hear the Dems say that elections have consequences so they should stop fighting for what they believe in ,or stop opposing the President's agenda . I never heard Shmucky say that the Dems should "respect outcomes of election " .
  • Sep 26, 2013, 07:23 AM
    talaniman
    Enough of this rabble shut the sucker down and see.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 07:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Cojones and Dr. Suess, that's a winner. He is still squealing repeal and that's NOT a winner, neither is shutting down the government. He did make himself TParty guy #1, and that's probably his whole point in all this.

    LOL, you guys are scared of him.

    Quote:

    I have stated that I will live with whatever comes from the court ruling, and my question was will you? Neither of us has much choice.
    And so far Hobby Lobby has the court on their side.

    Quote:

    Just for the record, the nuns buy nothing, the corporation is what must obey the law, and that's what they signed up for when the did it, knowing full well they had other options to protect themselves for liabilities.
    The corporation is non-profit. Tax exempt but not contraceptive exempt? Really, arguing with you is surreal.
    Quote:

    I take a dim view of the church lying to me.
    As would I, but the only one lying about it here is you in trying to define the church as some for profit business - while endorsing a forced violation of their protected beliefs. And that my friend is as insensitive as it gets, picking on nuns who've taken a vow of chastity and penalizing them for refusing to violate their protected beliefs while they're only trying to help the poor.

    Dude, that's cold blooded.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 07:26 AM
    smoothy
    Incidentally... Not even Liberalland loves it... according to the 9-26-2013 Express, lower right, page 15 (a Washington comPost publication)... in 2010 Washington DC had 918 active primary care physicians reporting to the board... today there are only 453 that even spend more than 20 hours a week seeing patients at all.

    For a population of a bit over 632,000

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

    They don't have it in their online version to link but its in their print copy today. Good luck finding a doctor.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 09:53 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    As would I, but the only one lying about it here is you in trying to define the church as some for profit business - while endorsing a forced violation of their protected beliefs. And that my friend is as insensitive as it gets, picking on nuns who've taken a vow of chastity and penalizing them for refusing to violate their protected beliefs while they're only trying to help the poor.

    Dude, that's cold blooded.

    They are a multinational corporation with offices all over the world. You may feature the charity the nuns do, and not only are they tax exempt, but receive government payments through Medicare and Medicaid.

    What part of waiting for the final court ruling are you not understanding here guy? I just know that before I give a multimillion dollar corporation my money, or time, I check them out whether a nun, is the CEO, or NOT.

    And yes they are a conglomerate of multimillion dollar corporations, with an IRS 501(c) 3 exemption in the US.

    So buying a required by law policy, in no way forces nuns to buy contraceptives. And its not for the nuns, its for employees. It doesn't save any money for insurances for sure, or the church. But for a young female, nurse or accountant it maybe gender discriminatory. But that's for the employee to decide.

    In any case we await a ruling.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 10:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    They are a multinational corporation with offices all over the world. You may feature the charity the nuns do, and not only are they tax exempt, but receive government payments through Medicare and Medicaid.

    What part of waiting for the final court ruling are you not understanding here guy? I just know that before I give a multimillion dollar corporation my money, or time, I check them out whether a nun, is the CEO, or NOT.

    And yes they are a conglomerate of multimillion dollar corporations, with an IRS 501(c) 3 exemption in the US.

    So buying a required by law policy, in no way forces nuns to buy contraceptives. And its not for the nuns, its for employees. It doesn't save any money for insurances for sure, or the church. But for a young female, nurse or accountant it maybe gender discriminatory. But that's for the employee to decide.

    In any case we await a ruling.

    What part of it's freakin' ridiculous to force anyone to buy contraceptive coverage do you not get? But the church? Really? It should have NEVER happened and you're guy who waives and weaves through his own law could make it all go away with the stroke of a pen.

    This is your evil "multinational corporation":

    Quote:

    The first group of Little Sisters destined for America left the motherhouse on August 28, 1868. After a long journey by boat they set foot on American soil in Brooklyn, New York, on September 13, 1868. The Little Sisters were faced with a cultural barrier, as no one traveling over spoke English.

    Soon after arriving in Brooklyn the Little Sisters received their first donation, a gift of $20, from Rev. Isaac Hecker, founder of the Paulists. After welcoming their first Residents, the Sisters wrote back to the motherhouse: “The public appear delighted to see that we are willing to work for the poor; that we ask no endowment; that we desire to trust in Providence and in the generosity of the public.” A second group of Sisters arrived in Cincinnati on October 14, 1868. The arrangements for the home were facilitated by Sarah Worthington Peter, a convert to Catholicism and daughter of an Ohio senator. Six days before Christmas a third group of Little Sisters arrive in New Orleans. The house was offered to them by a group of charitable ladies who already named the house “Home of St. Joseph.” As a show of support, the municipal government paved the street in front of the home and approved an allowance of $1,000 to pay for repairs to the building.

    On April 6, 1869, the Little Sisters establish their work in Baltimore. The seminary, staffed by French Sulpicians, offers donations of food and their moral support. Bishop Martin John Spalding states, “The Little Sisters of the Poor are called to do a great deal of good in America, not only among the poor, but also among the rich; for words no longer suffice — works are necessary.” From Baltimore the Little Sisters head west, establishing a house in Saint Louis on May 3, 1869. People would ask, “What are you going to do in a house where there is nothing?” “Wait a few days,” the Little Sisters replied.

    Observing the Little Sisters, Bishop Patrick J. Ryan said, “If one builds on holy poverty, Providence cements the building.” Shortly after, the Sisters established a relationship with a steamboat company on the Mississippi who would solicit donations from their passengers and would set aside leftovers from the dining room, all to the benefit of the aged poor of Saint Louis. Philadelphia opened its doors to the Little Sisters on August 24, 1869. In an act of generosity on the part of a young Philadelphian, Mary Twibill, asked for her estate to be left to the Little Sisters.

    Just one month later Louisville welcomed the Little Sisters. Bishop William George MacCloskey provided his assistance by lending the Sisters an estate that was intended for a seminary. The Little Sisters write back to the motherhouse, “Divine Providence provided according to our needs; within a few days, our house was found furnished with beds, tables, chairs, kitchen utensils and provisions of all kinds. We were quite overcome with gratitude towards the good God, who disposed so well people’s hearts in our favor.” The Little Sisters arrived in Boston on April 19, 1870. The Superior of the local Jesuit community remarked, “What I admire is that these Sisters are such as people describe them. One sees that they not only have confidence in Providence, but that they have not a doubt of its protection. One sees that they do not calculate, they do not reckon, they do not ask what people will give them for the needs of their poor.”

    In the spring of 1870, the Little Sisters also opened a home in Cleveland. With help from a local German family the Sisters were provided with linens, mattresses and other sorts of necessary items, while the bishop, along with a wealthy Protestant, contributed toward the purchase of a suitable property. The tenth home was established in our Nation’s Capital on February 2, 1871. Together with the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Father Walter, parish priest of St. Patrick’s Church, Washington, D.C. provided the Sisters with a house with carpeted rooms, numerous fire places, plenty of furniture and a well-stocked kitchen. The home gained considerable political support and the Little Sisters were authorized to beg for donations in Federal government buildings — an unprecedented privilege that continued uninterrupted until the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
    When you express your disdain for corporate interests I had no idea that carried over to nuns who beg for donations to help the poor.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 10:57 AM
    talaniman
    Why does my disdain for the corporate structure mean disdain for the good work of the nuns?

    Two different areas of discussion to me. Seems you cannot separate the differences. And I have proved that in addition to donations and fund raisers the federal government also subsidizes their efforts with tax status, and direct payments.

    No doubt the nuns will do good work no matter what insurance the corporation buys. And to be clear, many religious charities do indeed buy health insurance that covers contraceptives. Not just contraceptives, but a full range of family planning and female reproductive heath services. Again, lets be clear, the whole conversation isn't about the works, but the benefits of EMPLOYEES.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 11:07 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Why does my disdain for the corporate structure mean disdain for the good work of the nuns?

    Everything, duh. You're the one using the "corporate" label to justify the mandate and call the church a liar. Get real, Tal, you think I was born yesterday?

    Quote:

    Two different areas of discussion to me. Seems you cannot separate the differences. And I have proved that in addition to donations and fund raisers the federal government also subsidizes their efforts with tax status, and direct payments.
    Which means exactly nothing, it's a non-profit charitable religious organization and the mandate violates their first amendment rights.

    Quote:

    No doubt the nuns will do good work no matter what insurance the corporation buys. And to be clear, many religious charities do indeed buy health insurance that covers contraceptives. Not just contraceptives, but a full range of family planning and female reproductive heath services. Again, lets be clear, the whole conversation isn't about the works, but the benefits of EMPLOYEES.
    Drop the corporate crap, the nuns are the corporation. Geez, you're being totally ridiculous about this.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 11:20 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    the nuns are the corporation
    No they aren't. The hospital is full of employees who aren't nuns, or even female. You're being totally ridiculous about this.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 12:14 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    No they aren't. The hospital is full of employees who aren't nuns, or even female. You're being totally ridiculous about this.

    You don't even know what you're talking about, the Little Sisters of the Poor is not a hospital. They are nuns who help the poor. Try and keep up all that information was right in front of you.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 02:03 PM
    talaniman
    Catholic bishops urge US to oppose food stamp cuts

    Why are you not so outraged by the food stamp cuts?
  • Sep 26, 2013, 02:04 PM
    NeedKarma
    Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
    That's their business operations then.

    Anyway they have " have no plans to close any of our homes, nor to leave the United States, as a result of the HHS Mandate."
  • Sep 26, 2013, 02:29 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
    That's their business operations then.

    Anyway they have " have no plans to close any of our homes, nor to leave the United States, as a result of the HHS Mandate."

    What part of charity do you not get? It is not a business.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 02:36 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Catholic bishops urge US to oppose food stamp cuts

    Why are you not so outraged by the food stamp cuts?

    Been there, done that. Even the CBO supports the cut in food stamps. If you want more food stamps take out of Obama's crony corporate charity fund, you'd think that would be an area of agreement.

    And P.S. there is no constitutional right to food stamps and you want to punish those whose ministry is to feed the hungry and turn that over to a wasteful federal nanny.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 02:44 PM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
    That's their business operations then.


    I would imagine that under corporate personhood you would be correct.The sisters aren't the corporation the corporation is the person.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 03:02 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tuttyd View Post
    I would imagine that under corporate personhood you would be correct.The sisters aren't the corporation the corporation is the person.

    They are non-profit corporation, not a business. They don't trade in goods or services they minister to the poor. The "corporate" title doesn't mean they cede their first amendment rights.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 03:09 PM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    They are non-profit corporation, not a business. They don't trade in goods or services they minister to the poor. The "corporate" title doesn't mean they cede their first amendment rights.

    It doesn't really matter if they are non-profit. They can be still registered as a corporation. Incorporation as far as the sisters are concerned would mean they are registered as a legal entity. This would mean they have legal status as a company. The key feature of corporate personhood is that generally speaking the sisters cannot be sued for individual work done while they are incorporated.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 04:57 PM
    speechlesstx
    I understand the protection from legal action against them personally, I made that point earlier. It does not mean they've ceded their first amendment rights. Religious freedom is not conditional on whether one is incorporated.
  • Sep 26, 2013, 05:18 PM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I understand the protection from legal action against them personally, I made that point earlier. It does not mean they've ceded their first amendment rights. Religious freedom is not conditional on whether or not one is incorporated.


    You told Tal to drop the corporate crap and that the nuns are the corporation. You then admonished him for being ridiculous. As I pointed out before you are not correct. The nuns are not the corporation, the corporation for the purpose of this exercise is the individual.

    The relevant corporate Acts don't take anything from the First Amendment.
  • Sep 27, 2013, 03:51 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    The relevant corporate Acts don't take anything from the First Amendment.
    I think that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's ridiculous to force nuns to buy contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs, their protected right, which is not canceled out because the group is incorporated. These guys think that incorporation means they're a business and they just have to suck it up and do as Uncle Sam tells them in spite of their constitutional rights.
  • Sep 27, 2013, 05:09 AM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I think that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's ridiculous to force nuns to buy contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs, their protected right, which is not canceled out because the group is incorporated. These guys think that incorporation means they're a business and they just have to suck it up and do as Uncle Sam tells them in spite of their constitutional rights.

    Yes, what you have been saying from the beginning is in relation to the First Amendment. I far as I can see it is a reasonable argument. However, I don't recall any arguments you have put forward in relation to corporations, incorporation and corporate personhood.

    The exception to this is you abashment of those who proposed a "corporate crap" explanation. Yes, the First Amendment is obviously relevant to the issue at hand. It is equally obvious that you were not born yesterday. Despite this fact corporation and incorporation is also relevant to the discussion.
  • Sep 27, 2013, 05:29 AM
    speechlesstx
    The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?
  • Sep 27, 2013, 06:05 AM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

    I think you have probably answered your own question. The legal argument would probably end up being that it is the 'persona', not the individual that is adhering to the mandate. Therefore, the individual is not being asked to violate their rights. Corporations as a persons in law don't have religious beliefs.

    I don't particularly like this argument because I am opposed to the idea of corporate personhood being considered as having some First Amendment. Rights. Nonetheless, SCOTUS has determined otherwise. I also think that their decision has created a rod for your backs.

    As I have said many times before, I think that people are forced to go against their religious beliefs, regardless of the legal status of the argument.
  • Sep 27, 2013, 02:34 PM
    speechlesstx
    Just think of all the food stamps that could have been issued...

    Obama Commits $320 Million in Aid for Bankrupt Detroit


    50 years of progressive policies turned Detroit into a third world territory, turned the country's city with the highest per capita income into a wasteland - and the left is throwing a fit over a food stamp cut that is justified while DC starts pouring more money into their failed experiment so they can start it all over again.

    SMH...
  • Sep 28, 2013, 01:11 AM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

    My previous response to your post was largely hypothetical. However, I would like to look at the actual contraception mandate. I thought religious organizations that had a objection to the mandate could opt out and let the insurance company pay for employee contraception?
  • Sep 28, 2013, 01:47 AM
    tomder55
    That is not an opt out... that is a transparent ploy .Do you really think the insurance companies absorb the costs ? Since the contraception is still mandated ,then the religious institution that is providing the insurance is effectively providing the coverage regardless of their doctrinal objections to artificial contraception.
  • Sep 28, 2013, 03:35 AM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    that is not an opt out ....that is a transparent ploy .Do you really think the insurance companies absorb the costs ? Since the contraception is still mandated ,then the religious institution that is providing the insurance is effectively providing the coverage regardless of their doctrinal objections to artificial contraception.


    Well, I guess if a person feels the state is forcing them to act against their beliefs then for all intention purposes it is real.

    Obviously I am not a lawyer but I see the problem going back as the first corporate personhood rulings made by SCOTUS. Subsequent rulings have strengthened this nonsensical persona.

    Corporations are not exempt from government regulations and this is possibly related to the 14 Amendment. In a similar way corporations cannot claim to have a religious objection anymore than it can claim to be able to vote. However, they can claim other 1st Amendment rights.

    I see part of the problem being that only a real person can have a religious objection to the mandate, not a corporation. I would imagine that the government would argue it is entitled to regulate healthcare via corporatist definitions.

    In the case of health care I think corporate personhood has come back to haunt you.
  • Sep 28, 2013, 03:46 AM
    tomder55
    So your argument is that if a religious institution incorporates it forfeits it's rights ;or maybe your argument is that a corporation by definition is completely dependent to the dictates of the state and only has the rights the state sees fit to deem . I see that model as tyranny and nonsensical .
  • Sep 28, 2013, 03:54 AM
    NeedKarma
    You realize that as an individual you have to follow the laws of the state. Is that "tyranny and nonsensical "?
  • Sep 28, 2013, 04:07 AM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    so your argument is that if a religious institution incorporates it forfeits it's rights

    An institution of any type cannot have beliefs. Only the people who belong to that institution have beliefs. To say otherwise is to create a fallacy of composition. It is a fiction. However, when it comes to government regulations of corporations it is legal fiction.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    or maybe your argument is that a corporation by definition is completely dependent to the dictates of the state and only has the rights the state sees fit to deem . I see that model as tyranny and nonsensical .

    Welcome to the Tyranny of Australia
  • Sep 28, 2013, 05:25 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tuttyd View Post


    Welcome to the Tyranny of Australia

    I know what you have said tutt is said dirisively in debate but this is no tyranny, in this land you can have medical insurance or you can not have it, those who choose not to have it pay a uniform levy to cover the cost of their care, should they need it and for this they can be treated for free should they choose to do so. The poor and the unemployed pay nothing.The tyranny lies across the Pacific where apparently it is illegal not to have medical insurance and those who don't will pay an increasing percentage of their income year by year, which contributes nothing to their health care costs

    I know which tyranny I choose to live under, a truly democratic nation which cares for its people
  • Sep 28, 2013, 05:31 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    You realize that as an individual you have to follow the laws of the state. Is that "tyranny and nonsensical "?

    If the laws violate rights then yes they are tyrannical. To force religious employers to provide contraceptive coverage ,directly or indirectly ,knowing it violates their doctrine objections is indeed tyranny.
  • Sep 28, 2013, 05:40 AM
    paraclete
    This is a furphy, the use of these contraceptives is not mandated nor is other forms of coverage, it is part of a general policy and what has been done is to say you can't write your own because we want some form of uniformity otherwise you will have people opting out of coverage and then clogging the system

    There are religious nutters everywhere and this is one time they are obvious, they should take their new Pope's advice and get focused on important matters
  • Sep 28, 2013, 05:53 AM
    tomder55
    I did not say the use of contraceptive was mandatory .I said the coverage was. I am also not interested in 'uniformity ' of coverage . There is where most of the problems lie. It is all these mandated coverages that drive up the cost in the 1st place.
  • Sep 28, 2013, 06:49 AM
    talaniman
    It's the insurance industry that is mandated to offer contraceptives as a basic part of its health care plans. The premium cost is the same whether you use it, or not. Be aware that insurances are regulated by the states and so are the exemptions a church can get, and every state has there own. Look it up if you don't believe me.

    The IRS is the one who gives exemptions for federal tax purposes. No you don't give up your rights by incorporating, but you do fall under a guideline and the laws that affect ALL the corporations. In short it's the insured and the insurer buying and paying for contraceptives, not the church, or the nuns who work for the church or the corporation.

    Now some churches have rejected the carve out or accommodation that was recommended by the feds that allowed individuals to deal directly with the providers for contraceptive coverage, I suspect because it made no difference in their premium costs, so it comes down to a corporation suing for a special policy that reflects its religious views, and the insurance companies have already agreed to it. So has the government.

    So what are they suing for? And lets be very clear, all religious organizations are not suing as a whole, just some individual religious organizations. My opinion, expanding the rights of religious corporations opens the door for the denial of services and benefits of employees to those organizations. If CEO's can make employees adhere to, or be subject to their religious beliefs through policy, or payment then they themselves are violating the rights of ordinary citizens.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 PM.