Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Mar 7, 2012, 11:53 AM

I tell you what--try getting qualified employees without benefits as you see it, especially females, and see how that works for your religious hospital.

I don't think there are any staffing issues at our local hospital.

Not sure you are aware of this... but as of now... there is NO mandate for them to offer ANY medical insurance. That is why they call it a "benefit " . Just so you know that there are no labor laws mandating that .

This is a new requirement that the President and his commisar Sebillius ginned up to create a phony campaign issue .

TUT317 · Mar 7, 2012, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do you guys have any NEW arguments? These have all been addressed ad nauseum and I'm not going to respond to any more posts implying I don't know what a word means.

Hi Steve,

I am sure you know what a word means. I am sure you know what a lot of different words means.

The problem is that you and me are not in a position to argue in front of a bunch of judges as to exactly what a word means.

Smart lawyers will put forward convincing arguments as to what a word means. If this is unsuccessful they will argue that a particular word should carry a different meaning for legal purposes.

You, me, and most people, can argue that something is unconstitutional because the words don't reflect true meaning of the statement. We can argue this until the cows come home but in the end (rightly or wrongly) what is constitutional will be decided by the judges.

If it turns out the lawyers for the current administration are smart to put forward a convincing judicial arguments then word(s) will mean for legal purposes what every they say it means.

For legal purposes a corporation will be considered a person under certain circumstances. This idea of corporate personhood is a lot nonsense. However, more importantly it is legal nonsense and as far as the courts are concerned this is all that matters.

Tut

talaniman · Mar 7, 2012, 09:22 PM

Factualy wrong, as this mandate for clarity of benefits started under Nixon, and continues to this day so don't make this out to be left wing thing, or a new mandate under Obama. This was when the GOP, wanted universal healcare, and a mandate for every one to participate. Before the extreme right got into the act, and the republicans were sensible, and logical.

U.S. Department of Labor - A Summary of Major DOL Laws

Employee Benefit Security

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employers who offer pension or welfare benefit plans for their employees. Title I of ERISA is administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) (formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration) and imposes a wide range of fiduciary, disclosure and reporting requirements on fiduciaries of pension and welfare benefit plans and on others having dealings with these plans. These provisions preempt many similar state laws. Under Title IV, certain employers and plan administrators must fund an insurance system to protect certain kinds of retirement benefits, with premiums paid to the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). EBSA also administers reporting requirements for continuation of health-care provisions, required under the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and the health care portability requirements on group plans under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

paraclete · Mar 7, 2012, 10:39 PM

I would say Tal you are suffering from snakebite (COBRA) probably in the hippocket

talaniman · Mar 7, 2012, 11:12 PM

No snake bite here Clete, just giving the facts, or is that dry Aussie humor showing?

tomder55 · Mar 8, 2012, 03:24 AM

Tal ;you can't quote a Nixon regulation as a right wing thing. This is the same Nixon who was very much into government control over everything [something you cal " sensible, and logical"].As I recall back then the Dems did not like such power ;at least not in the hands of a Republic.

And you definitely cannot argue that a brand new national mandate that clearly violates the 1st amendment is something that has been established since the 1970s .

Yes ;under Federal Law IF an employer offers medical coverage it has to comply with certain Federal requirements. It does not mandate that an employer must offer the coverage .

paraclete · Mar 8, 2012, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

No snake bite here Clete, just giving the facts, or is that dry Aussie humor showing?

Hey Tal you got it in one

talaniman · Mar 8, 2012, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

tal ;you can't quote a Nixon regulation as a right wing thing. This is the same Nixon who was very much into government control over everything [something you cal " sensible, and logical"].As I recall back then the Dems did not like such power ;at least not in the hands of a Repubic.

And you definitely cannot argue that a brand new national mandate that clearly violates the 1st amendment is something that has been established since the 1970s .

Yes ;under Federal Law IF an employer offers medical coverage it has to comply with certain Federal requirements. It does not mandate that an employer must offer the coverage .

Mandate - support from electorate: the authority bestowed on a government or other organization by an electoral victory, effectively authorizing it to carry out the policies for which it campaigned.

Obama ran on health care, so you can say the people mandated his mandate, despite the semantics you righties have presented. The supreme court will decide if its constitutional or not. Until then your assertion of clearly is just an opinion.

Woman's reproductive health care is a requirement for insurance companies, and by law, all employers with so many employees must offer insurance.

The issue before SCOTUS is can government mandate health insurance for all its citizens. Not whether it violates the churches first amendment rights, and the accommodation that has you righties drawers in a bunch is nothing more than a federal adoption of state law that already exists.

The number of states adopting these exemptions allowed by law, is expanding, not shrinking, I might add. But then this is a court that says corporations are people too, so we wait and see.

excon · Mar 8, 2012, 08:33 AM

Hello again,

Let me examine this PC stuff a little further... I think the birth control pill is MEDICINE. I think it's medicine because your doctor has to prescribe it, and you buy it from the pharmacy, where they KEEP it from you until you've identified yourself... I don't think it could be ANYTHING else, BUT medicine.

Therefore, IF it's MEDICINE, it SHOULD be covered by HEALTH insurance.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 8, 2012, 08:44 AM

I don't know what plan you have . Mine ? There are many medicines that are not in the insurance company's formulary that are not covered... even if the doctor prescribed it .

speechlesstx · Mar 8, 2012, 10:47 AM

Um, yeah, I already covered that before. No insurance company covers every medication, and your unelected, unaccountable Obamacare bureaucracy is going to do the same thing, decide what treatments they're going to allow. I thought you already knew how that worked.

tomder55 · Mar 8, 2012, 10:57 AM

They even go further under this unconstitutional mandate .They demand that the church or the insurance company that supplied their insurance plan provide them for "free" .

TUT317 · Mar 9, 2012, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

they even go further under this unconstitutional mandate .They demand that the church or the insurance company that supplied their insurance plan provide them for "free" .

Hi Tom,

I guess that's what happens when a government wants to introduce a universal health care plan. Under your system of government the only way this can be achieved is through 'back door' methods.

Tut

speechlesstx · Mar 9, 2012, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Tom,

I guess that's what happens when a government wants to introduce a universal health care plan. Under your system of government the only way this can be achieved is through 'back door' methods.

Tut

"transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." -Barack Hussein Obama

excon · Mar 9, 2012, 07:58 AM

Hello again,

Let me switch gears here... If you took the past several incidents, the church backlash, Santorum's stand on contraception, the Blunt amendment, the defunding of PP by Komen, the Limprod incident, the 400 bills in congress LIMITING abortion, and you lumped them all into ONE category, you could reasonably call it a WAR ON WOMEN..

No?

I think the Dems have picked that up.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 9, 2012, 08:04 AM

Yeah that's what the left hopes the debate is defined instead of 1st amendment free exercise issues ;and the power of the Federal government to mandate a product or service get purchased by individuals.

You really think the Komen group ;an organization dedicated to cure breast cancer is waging war on women ? Chuckle.

talaniman · Mar 9, 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah that's what the left hopes the debate is defined instead of 1st amendment free exercise issues ;and the power of the Federal government to mandate a product or service get purchased by individuals.

You really think the Komen group ;an organization dedicated to cure breast cancer is waging war on women ? chuckle.

I don't think the organization in general wanted a war, or controversy, but a few of them(1) at the top had a specific agenda and got called on it, and now they are gone. That war is over.

speechlesstx · Mar 9, 2012, 08:40 AM

Ex, we didn't ask for any debate about contraception, no one planned on banning contraception, contraception was the furthest thing from our minds. My wife has a full time job, I have no intention of ever keeping her barefoot and making my breakfast. In fact, I do most of the cooking and dishes, I do my own laundry and ironing. I SERVE her, so let's get this conservative sexist crap off the table.

George Stephanopoulos pimped for Obama's coming mandate to inject this irrelevant subject into the debate, which is NOT about contraception. Yet you've been a tool for the left that few weeks telling us a woman's 'healthcare' is none of our business, while making it EVERYONE's business by supporting a mandate to make me pay for it. I can't account for your contradictory views there, it baffles me.

It is in fact a war on the first amendment, not a war on women. I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

TUT317 · Mar 9, 2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, we didn't ask for any debate about contraception, no one planned on banning contraception, contraception was the furthest thing from our minds. My wife has a full time job, I have no intention of ever keeping her barefoot and making my breakfast. In fact, I do most of the cooking and dishes, I do my own laundry and ironing. I SERVE her, so let's get this conservative sexist crap off the table.

George Stephanopoulos pimped for Obama's coming mandate to inject this irrelevant subject into the debate, which is NOT about contraception. Yet you've been a tool for the left that few weeks telling us a woman's 'healthcare' is none of our business, while making it EVERYONE's business by supporting a mandate to make me pay for it. I can't account for your contradictory views there, it baffles me.

It is in fact a war on the first amendment, not a war on women. I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

It baffles me too.

American history shows corporations waging an increasingly successful war against 1st and 14 amendment rights. Yet, this is conveniently overlooked. It's all right for corporations, but not government?

Tut

talaniman · Mar 9, 2012, 05:20 PM

Some people Tut, have a vested interest in a weak central government, and a government fearing population. Its like the debate over regulations and tying them to jobs instead of seeing its corporation making money and being legally unaccountable when things go wrong. Think BP! Think AIG!

What I don't get is what's behind an ordinary citizen wanting a weak government that cannot protect, or ensure the security of citizens from corporate greed? I just don't get it?