All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama: Worst President Ever?
7/5/2014 2:59 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2014 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.
Sure they are.

If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.

Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?
If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, that violates your rights?
So now an insurance company is a person?

I thought it might be an "entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders".

Has something changed since last night in your definition of businesses?

I'm assuming that there are people that work at insurance companies, right?

And you didn't answer the question.
I'm assuming there are people who work at Hobby Lobby, too.  Right?

I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

So, to summarize your position: some companies (like Hobby Lobby) aren't people, so they have no right to religious freedom.  But other companies (like insurance companies) are people, so it's no different if they purchase birth control for their insured individuals with premiums paid from their business clients, than if the individuals bought it themselves with wages paid by their employers.

In other words: businesses may or may not be people, depending on how conveniently it fits your argument.

Good job.
You missed the point. We are, for the sake of argument, agreeing with the Supreme Court that a corporation is a person.

With that in mind:

If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, how does that violate your rights?
Sorry, I'm not playing your game, in which sometimes corporations are people and sometimes they're not, depending on which definition is more convenient at any particular point in time for you.

With that in mind:

Your question is irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not saying sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. They are.


If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, how does that violate your rights?
7/5/2014 3:03 PM
It's abortion vs birth control.  You can have all the birth control you want.

You shan't force free peoples to facilitate murder.
7/5/2014 3:04 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/4/2014 3:45:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 7:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 7:18:00 PM (view original):
No one is being forced to take birth control. Everyone is free to exercise whatever religion they want. You just can't force your religion on others who do want to take birth control or get gay married.
Yet you feel it's OK for the government to force people who object to birth control to subsidize it's distribution.

Good job.
You aren't subsidizing anything. You're paying premiums. It's essentially the same as paying salaries and having the employees buy it themselves.

Party A pays Party B. Party B buys birth control

Party A pays Party C. Party C buys birth control.

In which scenario is Party A's religious freedom infringed?
Maybe this hypothetical illustration can answer your question.

Scenario A) An employer offers (as part of its benefits package) an option which deducts X amt of money each week. This money gets paid to some local illegal drug dealers. At any time the employee participating in this (voluntary) program may go to a select number of dealers (in the "network") and get what they need. Just show the membership card to the dealer and you're good to go, because the dealer has already been paid ahead of time through this employer's program.

Scenario B) An employer pays his employee a wage. That employee takes some of that money and buys illegal drugs.

In which scenario is the employer at risk of being found complicit in illegal drug trafficking?
bad_luck? did you have an answer for this question?

Why not?
7/5/2014 3:17 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2014 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2014 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.
Sure they are.

If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.

Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?
If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, that violates your rights?
So now an insurance company is a person?

I thought it might be an "entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders".

Has something changed since last night in your definition of businesses?

I'm assuming that there are people that work at insurance companies, right?

And you didn't answer the question.
I'm assuming there are people who work at Hobby Lobby, too.  Right?

I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

So, to summarize your position: some companies (like Hobby Lobby) aren't people, so they have no right to religious freedom.  But other companies (like insurance companies) are people, so it's no different if they purchase birth control for their insured individuals with premiums paid from their business clients, than if the individuals bought it themselves with wages paid by their employers.

In other words: businesses may or may not be people, depending on how conveniently it fits your argument.

Good job.
You missed the point. We are, for the sake of argument, agreeing with the Supreme Court that a corporation is a person.

With that in mind:

If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, how does that violate your rights?
Sorry, I'm not playing your game, in which sometimes corporations are people and sometimes they're not, depending on which definition is more convenient at any particular point in time for you.

With that in mind:

Your question is irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not saying sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. They are.


If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, how does that violate your rights?
Well, the other day you implied that they weren't, because you said they should not be afforded their constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs.  Now, you're saying they are because, for the purpose of this question, it's convenient to you.

But what the heck . . . I'll bend a little.

Let's put some context around the question.  Context makes a difference, and could result in different answers to what seemingly might be the same question.

Why am I paying money to this someone?  Is it because we both willingly entered into a contract where I am paying wages for service provided, or is it because the government is mandating me to pay them money?
7/5/2014 3:34 PM
The government mandates that you pay your employees wages. And you offered healthcare (that covered contraception) prior to the health insurance mandate, when it was optional.

Again, please explain how your rights are violated when someone else buys something with money you gave them.

Because I don't think that they are. Just saying, "something violates my rights," doesn't make it true.
7/5/2014 3:44 PM
Posted by moy23 on 7/5/2014 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/5/2014 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by DougOut on 7/5/2014 1:30:00 PM (view original):
Hobby Lobby provides birth control. 

Sixteen devises or ways.  They deny four.

Those four are considered abortion.

Hobby Lobby pays twice the minimum wage to workers.

It costs $9 a month for birth control.

Walk around the corner and you can get it for free.

Planned parenthood or any building next door to another one paid for by tax payers.
Sorry. That's not good enough.

A woman's constitutional right to be provided with free contraceptives of any and every form, is FAR more valuable than the imaginary constitutional right to not have religious beliefs infringed upon.
Its a right to get free birth control? Can I get a free car? A free phone? A free home? A free dinner? I want my rights!!!!
Some people can get a free phone.

7/5/2014 3:48 PM
You got your rights.

We want ours.

You got all the ways to prevent a baby.

We refuse to murder it.

Tell me where I'm wrong.
7/5/2014 3:53 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/5/2014 3:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/4/2014 3:45:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 7:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 7:18:00 PM (view original):
No one is being forced to take birth control. Everyone is free to exercise whatever religion they want. You just can't force your religion on others who do want to take birth control or get gay married.
Yet you feel it's OK for the government to force people who object to birth control to subsidize it's distribution.

Good job.
You aren't subsidizing anything. You're paying premiums. It's essentially the same as paying salaries and having the employees buy it themselves.

Party A pays Party B. Party B buys birth control

Party A pays Party C. Party C buys birth control.

In which scenario is Party A's religious freedom infringed?
Maybe this hypothetical illustration can answer your question.

Scenario A) An employer offers (as part of its benefits package) an option which deducts X amt of money each week. This money gets paid to some local illegal drug dealers. At any time the employee participating in this (voluntary) program may go to a select number of dealers (in the "network") and get what they need. Just show the membership card to the dealer and you're good to go, because the dealer has already been paid ahead of time through this employer's program.

Scenario B) An employer pays his employee a wage. That employee takes some of that money and buys illegal drugs.

In which scenario is the employer at risk of being found complicit in illegal drug trafficking?
bad_luck? did you have an answer for this question?

Why not?
Cause then you'd have to concede that a difference in the scenarios exist, which exposes your whole argument.
7/5/2014 4:09 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):
The government mandates that you pay your employees wages. And you offered healthcare (that covered contraception) prior to the health insurance mandate, when it was optional.

Again, please explain how your rights are violated when someone else buys something with money you gave them.

Because I don't think that they are. Just saying, "something violates my rights," doesn't make it true.
Way to avoid the question.

Again, I'll go back to my previous question that you also avoided answering: is paying an employee and subsidizing health insurance the same thing?
7/5/2014 4:10 PM
And what the heck, let's just cut to the chase:

Are you a religious person?  Do you believe in God, or some other similar higher power?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/5/2014 4:17 PM
Posted by The Taint on 7/5/2014 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/5/2014 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 7/5/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
And I still haven't heard anyone arguing for this decision tackle the fact that they invest in the very thing they are so against. Not to mention do business with one of the countries that has one of the worse records on abortion.
It's not relevant to the discussion. 
Sure it is. Sincere belief was part of the decision. How sincerely does HL object to birth control/abortion when they are helping fund the companies(countries) that are developing these items?
Are we forced to comply or do we have freedom of choice?
7/5/2014 4:22 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):
The government mandates that you pay your employees wages. And you offered healthcare (that covered contraception) prior to the health insurance mandate, when it was optional.

Again, please explain how your rights are violated when someone else buys something with money you gave them.

Because I don't think that they are. Just saying, "something violates my rights," doesn't make it true.
Way to avoid the question.

Again, I'll go back to my previous question that you also avoided answering: is paying an employee and subsidizing health insurance the same thing?
You're subsidizing birth control either way.
7/5/2014 4:30 PM
Birth control or abortion?

Prevention or murder?

This is the issue and we need an answer.
7/5/2014 4:36 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):
The government mandates that you pay your employees wages. And you offered healthcare (that covered contraception) prior to the health insurance mandate, when it was optional.

Again, please explain how your rights are violated when someone else buys something with money you gave them.

Because I don't think that they are. Just saying, "something violates my rights," doesn't make it true.
Way to avoid the question.

Again, I'll go back to my previous question that you also avoided answering: is paying an employee and subsidizing health insurance the same thing?
You're subsidizing birth control either way.
Way to avoid the question again.

Good job.

So, if wages are the same as subsidies, why does the government mandate that companies subsidize health insurance for their employees?  Why can't companies just give the subsidies directly to the employees as additional wages, so that the employee can do what they wish with the money?

of 245
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama: Worst President Ever?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.