Speak Out: Supreme Court agrees to take up religious dispute over health care

Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 11:52 AM:

I see no reason for me to help pay for contraception or abortions, either one.

It is not an illness but an activity that involves personal choice.... so it should be a personal expense.

And yes, I have heard all of the arguments about the social costs we would save etc. etc.

I could come closer to reconciling myself to help pay for sterilization for these irresponsible people, with a guarantee of no help ever to try and reverse it. At least we would be doing something positive to cleanse the gene pool.

Replies (164)

  • HWWT: Cleanse the gene pool? Isn't that something Hitler was advocating? I'm surprised at you HWWT agreeing with Adolph like that. BTW, which gene pool (for clarification) would we be cleansing?

    -- Posted by left turn on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 12:44 PM
  • The people in question here have full time jobs at Hobby Lobby. What do you have against them?

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 12:31 PM

    What are you talking about Ike? Hobby Lobby is suing to stay open and to be able to reconcile the owner's conscience. It is the government's decision if the owner exercises his right to close down vs stay open and subsidize birth control and abortion against his strong Christian beliefs, what denomination I do not know.

    So if you want to blame anyone for these people loosing their jobs, blame your Messiah. I just happen to agree with the owner of Hobby Lobby, but don't know if I would have the courage to do what he is about to do if he does not get relief from something he sees as morally wrong.

    Do you believe he does not have a right to close his business?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 12:54 PM
  • HWWT: Cleanse the gene pool? Isn't that something Hitler was advocating? I'm surprised at you HWWT agreeing with Adolph like that. BTW, which gene pool (for clarification) would we be cleansing?

    -- Posted by left turn on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 12:44 PM

    Lefty I don't need someone like you to speak for me... so don't go trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say.

    I didn't advocate anything, simply made a statement of what I would rather do.... but if I did decide to advocate cleansing a gene pool, have no doubt about it..... it would be Leftist Wing-Nuts and you would be pretty close to the top of the sterilization list. Check with Obama, did he say if you like your testicles, you can keep your testicles? Period! Or was that the Veterinarian Health Care Program I read about yesterday?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 1:04 PM
  • So qualifying for Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, and other tax-payer funded programs means they are all are in need of free birth control products?

    A lot of people that don't make Nil's wages are able to afford that for themselves.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:19 PM
  • -- Posted by Nil on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:11 PM

    Do you believe that he has the right to close the doors on his business?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:49 PM
  • I'd say it would be a good idea for those that want it. It's a lot cheaper to provide someone with birth control than Medicaid, WIC, and SNAP for yet another person.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:24 PM

    A logical but meaningless statement because providing birth control is not going to make the difference in them qualifying for all of those other programs anyway, in almost 100% if not 100% of the cases anyway.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:52 PM
  • Right...but it will help prevent them from getting pregnant, which would create another person on those programs.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:59 PM

    If they are on all of those programs they can very well afford birthcontrol if they want it. It is not my job to subsidize it no matter how you try to justify it.

    I have asked two people now if they believe that the owner of Hobby Lobby has the right to close the doors on his business if he chooses to do so.

    No response.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 3:22 PM
  • Groucho,

    What some people do not seem to know or understand.... a business of any size or any kind, is operated for the benefit of ownership. The fact that the business provides a service to customers and employment to people is merely a bonus benefit. It is not what the business is operated for. What the owner of a business owes the employee is to pay that employee an hours wages for an hours work at the rate both have agreed upon, plus any benefits agreed upon... no more, no less.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:01 PM
  • If folks have to be so poor to be on those government programs, the employees of Hobby Lobby and others earning wages shouldn't need such an insurance benefit paid by an employer that doesn't think it fits with his faith.

    Wheels, The owner of a business can close it, sell it, keep it, grow it or lose it all by himself. He needs not the government involved but it has been all too often closing of businesses were due to some stupid government rule or regulation.

    Obama, Obamacare and his people are about power first and the effects of ACA are making that point.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:23 PM
  • "If they are on all of those programs they can very well afford birthcontrol if they want it. It is not my job to subsidize it no matter how you try to justify it."

    Apparently you aren't aware a person has to be poor to be on those programs.

    Regardless, it would seem intelligent to encourage people who can't afford kids not to reproduce.

    "I have asked two people now if they believe that the owner of Hobby Lobby has the right to close the doors on his business if he chooses to do so."

    Because it's a stupid question

    -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:03 PM

    "Apparently you aren't aware a person has to be poor to be on those programs."

    I am well aware of the intention of these programs and also am aware there is a lot of fraud going on that in some cases is netting these so called poor more money than working people are getting.

    I have been poor, I am not insensitive to the poor so long as they are doing something to help themselves. I worked to combat it, and so can most others.

    "Regardless, it would seem intelligent to encourage people who can't afford kids not to reproduce."

    Liberal thinking, you are assuming they are not smart enough to have figured that out for themselves.

    ""I have asked two people now if they believe that the owner of Hobby Lobby has the right to close the doors on his business if he chooses to do so."

    Because it's a stupid question"

    No, it is not a stupid question. The answer would give me some insight into another's thinking. The fact is, you know my explanation above is the correct one and as a leftist, you do not want to admit the business owner has every right to close the operation for whatever reason he/she feels is necessary and no apologies are required to anyone.

    If the owner of Hobby Lobby chooses to close shop.... chalk it as one more failure of Obamacare.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:35 PM
  • If folks have to be so poor to be on those government programs, the employees of Hobby Lobby and others earning wages shouldn't need such an insurance benefit paid by an employer that doesn't think it fits with his faith.

    Wheels, The owner of a business can close it, sell it, keep it, grow it or lose it all by himself. He needs not the government involved but it has been all too often closing of businesses were due to some stupid government rule or regulation.

    Obama, Obamacare and his people are about power first and the effects of ACA are making that point.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:23 PM

    Notice how none of the leftists will own up to that fact, even though they know it to be true. But they would like to change that so a business owner has to petition a higher power to close down.

    And yes, it is about power and wealth redistribution. I knew he was wrong for this country in 2007. He has proved it time and again.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:52 PM
  • It's a stupid question because no one is suggesting he doesn't have the right to close the business if he wants to.

    If that's what he wanted to do, he would have done so already. However, he wants to keep his business open and avoid playing by the same rules everyone else does, trying to use his religion as an excuse.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:51 PM

    No, it is a valid question, the implication is there that the business owner can be pushed around and I want to know what that poster is thinking. A non answer pretty much tells me that.

    This country is based on the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And no government entity has the right to force any man, woman or child to do something that is against his conscience or religious beliefs. This has nothing to do with him not wanting to pay his share as you are stating. That is low and unfair on your part. You are making a judgement of this man.... I thought not judging people was what you leftists were all about.

    Hobby Lobby's owner and others have stated their faith objections to paying for birth control and abortion. I feel the same way. There was a time when people of some faiths were excused from the requirement to serve in the military for "conscientious objection", we respected their religious rights. What has changed?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:06 PM
  • Huh? I said nothing about paying his fair share. I said he doesn't want to play by the same rules...which is true, because he's going to court to try to change the rules.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:09 PM

    Have it your way but by playing by the rules he objects to reaquires he pay for something against his religious beliefs.

    The rules in my opinion and apparently others are illegal when you require a person to do something against his religious convictions. Obama will be putting pressure on the Supreme Court at this point to get them to reword the law as they did the last go around, rather than judge it on it's merits.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:21 PM
  • Wheels lost it again at 1:04 PM above.

    groucho, you have said some very condescending and inaccurate statements, but to say liberals want to get rid of Christianity has to take the cake. It even makes less sense than RSG's stupid posts. Looks like you and HWWT at least lost it on the same day. This day will live in infamy.

    -- Posted by left turn on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:47 PM
  • Where has Hobby Lobby said they will be closing any stores? I read they plan on adding an 36-60 stores this year.

    Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Hobby Lobby owner and the Becket Fund wants to skirt the law, what will they try to deny next?

    'Can any religious person who owns a company refuse to pay for insurance that would cover any health-care procedure or device that he or she doesn't believe in? What about for transplants, blood transfusions, vaccines, or psychological care? There are religions that object to them all.'

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/11/the-stakes-in-the-hobby-...

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:49 PM
  • That didn't happen. They didn't reword anything.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:28 PM

    The court determined that as written the law was unconstituional but Justice Roberts determined if they called it a tax it would be constitutional. During the writing of the bill Congress was very careful to not term it a tax. The court should have ruled on the bill as written and sent it back to Congress. How would you justify this?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:01 PM
  • Wheels lost it again at 1:04 PM above.

    groucho, you have said some very condescending and inaccurate statements, but to say liberals want to get rid of Christianity has to take the cake. It even makes less sense than RSG's stupid posts. Looks like you and HWWT at least lost it on the same day. This day will live in infamy.

    -- Posted by left turn on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:47 PM

    Lefty,

    Never lost anything. Just replied to you in like kind. You have to talk to children at their level if they are to understand.... you are no different.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:06 PM
  • 'Can any religious person who owns a company refuse to pay for insurance that would cover any health-care procedure or device that he or she doesn't believe in?

    -- Posted by honey bear on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:49 PM

    When did elective birth control or abortions become health care?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:09 PM
  • 'Can any religious person who owns a company refuse to pay for insurance that would cover any health-care procedure or device that he or she doesn't believe in? What about for transplants, blood transfusions, vaccines, or psychological care? There are religions that object to them all.'

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cl...

    -- Posted by honey bear on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 5:49 PM

    Any company, whomever it is owned by, should be able to refuse to pay for employee's health insurance.

    It is not a company's responsibility to provide insurance to anyone. Company provided insurance is simply a benefit offered by some companies as part of their compensation packages.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:15 PM
  • FFF

    That is before the Socialists bordering on Communists took over the government by lying through their teeth.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:25 PM
  • Benefits were an answer to price controls of a previous era of progressive takeover. Now the same progressive thinking takes us one notch further claiming those benefits are a right.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:53 PM
  • Any company, whomever it is owned by, should be able to refuse to pay for employee's health insurance.

    It is not a company's responsibility to provide insurance to anyone. Company provided insurance is simply a benefit offered by some companies as part of their compensation packages.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:15 PM

    Govt ONLY regulates benefits when an employer offers benefits to groups with over 50 employees.

    If you are going to play, you have to play by the rules.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:02 PM
  • When did elective birth control or abortions become health care?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 6:09 PM

    Round bout the same time child birth, breast cancer, blood transfusions, vaccinations, prostate exams, infertility, STDs, high blood pressure, heart disease, hip and knee replacements, high cholesterol et al became health care.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:08 PM
  • I believe that would only be in a left winger's mind. Elective procedures are hardly called health care. Why is Obamacare excluding breast implants? That is elective.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:16 PM
  • However, he wants to keep his business open and avoid playing by the same rules everyone else does, trying to use his religion as an excuse.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 4:51 PM

    That sound as if they are using their religion just to get out of paying. They are already paying for insurance. They don't want to pay for killing babies or contraceptives.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM
  • Technically, all medical procedures are 'elective'.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM
  • Did you mean cosmetic; I wouldn't want to speak for you?

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:28 PM
  • Technically, all medical procedures are 'elective'.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM

    Could be Sock Puppet.

    But it doesn't change the fact that no medical procedure or medication should be required to be paid for by someone who's religious convictions prohibit it.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 8:22 PM
  • But it doesn't change the fact that no medical procedure or medication should be required to be paid for by someone who's religious convictions prohibit it.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 8:22 PM

    Sorry to disagree. There are precedents where parents have refused life saving health care; who have been convicted of child endangerment and or murder.

    Hobby Lobby owners are attempting to force their beliefs upon their employees by withholding specific medical care from all employees.

    Slippery slope when non-medical employers dictate which medical coverage is allowed in their plan. What if they refused child birth, because employee didn't count cycle. Or HIV treatment because they ignorantly associate HIV with being gay. No vaccinations because employer believes they cause autism. Over 55 DNR mandatory, because employer believes God alone should decide who lives and dies; no joint replacements because God determines quality of life... and owners thinks old farts are a drain on society. No lung cancer treatment because employer belies all lung cancer is caused by smoking.

    The question should not be where is the health care line the employer draws. Employers are not qualified.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 8:57 AM
  • Slippery slope when non-medical employers dictate which medical coverage is allowed in their plan.

    The question should not be where is the health care line the employer draws. Employers are not qualified.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 8:57 AM

    One comment and that will be it for today.......

    I will take the non-medical employer to deal with over the non-medical government six days a week and Sunday..... you can always switch employers without leaving the country.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:05 AM
  • I don't think an employer is drawing a line as to what qualifies as health care but just not wanting to pay for or be a part of what is not supported within his religion. You all have at all the abortion counciling, birth control and tattoo removal you like, just don't make me pay premiums to support it.

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:15 AM
  • 'non-medical government'

    Actually group benefit standards are established by a panel of qualified medical professionals. Hobby Lobby and their lobbist group have no medical training.

    oj, Tattoo removal, face lifts, booob balloons, fat sukking are not covered under any group plan. They would be considered cosmetic.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:43 AM
  • The guy doesn't just think he should get to decide what kind of medical care his employees choose, he thinks he can decide birth control is equal to abortion

    -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:29 AM

    Not true at all.... the employee may get whatever done that he is willing to pay for himself. Some religions consider conception to have taken place when the sperm meets the egg and anything past that point is abortion if caused by outside forces such as the morning after pill. He is not telling his employees not to take it..... just that he doesn't want to be forced to pay for it against his religious convictions.

    Wait until the government starts telling you that you must get an abortion as your limit of one child in the family has been reached. Maybe then you Socialists will be happy with what you have done to a once free country.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:46 AM
  • Some are not seeing what is really taking place. Hobby lobby and their lobbyist group are seeking media attention. It is that simple.

    Hobby lobby has a choice of dropping all health care coverage and pay employees $xx to use toward their health care as employee sees fit. But then they lose media attention and what they perceive is their right to control employees' health care options.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:52 AM
  • And a huge part of the citizens are encouraging this to happen .

    -- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:49 AM

    The Blind Faith Tribe has lost another member. Check Dexter's early posts.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:53 AM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:59 AM
  • I wonder what mic and friends side will take when Sharia Law and dhimmitude are used as an argument against paying for obamacare? It's coming.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 10:01 AM
  • dude has his Right to Freedom of Religious beliefs

    No one is making him or a member of his family have an abortion. He is however forcing his beliefs, by limiting their healthcare, on all his employees and their family.

    How does that saying go 'you rights end where my nose begins'.

    If he were southern Baptist, who believe in no gambling, dancing, smoking et al.

    Based on his debate, he should be able to deny coverage; for a broken ankle if you were square dancing, for lung cancer if you associated with a smoker second hand smoke, injured in the parking lot at a casino.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 10:03 AM
  • Maybe this will help the Socialists understand the owner of Hobby Lobby a little better. He is not what a couple of them are trying to make him on here.

    From what I read he is a man of conviction and 13,000 people may be out of work when the dust settles.

    Add that to your resume of jobs well done Mr. Obama.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/27/thank_you_hobby_lobby_12079...

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 10:12 AM
  • Honey bear,your apples can't compare to the oranges. Bad examples.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 10:41 AM
  • Wheels, Where did your article state the owner is considering closing any stores? Google it, owner is opening stores, not closing them.

    Your article describes a bible thumping narcissist who believes we are still in the 1960's and he has the right to impose his beliefs on others. His extremist beliefs makes me wonder why women employees aren't made to wear skirts and not cut their hair.

    This is about free media attention... and could bite them in the arse. I will reconsider future visits, others might too.

    Happy Thanksgiving all... out for the day.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 10:53 AM
  • I think honey ear might need to look at the law before saying they can just drop healthcare.

    This is not a bad company to work for.

    "It's the company's dedication to biblical principles that led Hobby Lobby in April to raise full-time employees' starting minimum wage to $14 an hour at a time when many other firms have been forced to slash both wages and benefits."

    It would be bad that those people lose their good jobs because women can buy their own contraceptives or keep their legs closed.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 10:56 AM
  • It is an owner's right to control their employees . How can you say differently , each employee gets to have their own rules ?

    lol... Employers should offer a job description, employee manual, even drug testing ... no disagreement there.

    Employers do not have the right to dictate how an employee lives their private life. Nor do they have the right to discriminate against protected groups. Unless the employer is a 503c, they can not discriminate against smokers and obese individuals. And, without a medical degree, employers do not have the right to force medical choices or lack of choices on their employees.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:04 AM
  • Wheels' link says contaceptives are covered no co-pay. The only thing contested is abortificants. Also the company is self insured and not purchasing an outside product.

    An example of real extremism is:

    "Your article describes a bible thumping narcissist who believes we are still in the 1960's and he has the right to impose his beliefs on others. His extremist beliefs makes me wonder why women employees aren't made to wear skirts and not cut their hair."

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:06 AM
  • oj, Self-insured is regulated and must comply with the same insurance regulations. Only means the owner is gambling that money can be saved on insurance premiums v. paying totality of medical cost; meaning it is in the owners best interest to deny, deny, deny claims.

    Very few self insured companies are stupid enough not to secure a insurance policy that will pick up major medical when a specific dollar amount is reached.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:19 AM
  • -- Posted by honey bear on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 8:57 AM

    My employer is denying my family and I housing due to the fact my employer refuses to buy me a house.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:26 AM
  • Old John

    Yes and while other businesses have been given exemptions from the law by Der Fuehrer, Hobby Lobby cannot be given one on religious grounds. Why.... maybe based on financial campaign contributions?

    As some keep insinuating, lying about or whatever you would consider it.... Hobby Lobby's owner is not telling his employees what to do in their personal lives, only as it relates to him and their employment by him. And who is stupid enough to believe that a company as big as Hobby Lobby does not have an Employee Manual. Even a rinkey dink, in comparison, company as the one I ran had an Employee Manual.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:30 AM
  • Anyone believe Honeybear is not a Sock Puppet?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:32 AM
  • Hobby lobby has a choice of dropping all health care coverage and pay employees $xx to use toward their health care as employee sees fit. But then they lose media attention and what they perceive is their right to control employees' health care options.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:52 AM

    Hobby Lobby is not contolling anyone's healthcare options. The employees are free to purchase on their own any coverage they desire.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:33 AM
  • No one is making him or a member of his family have an abortion. He is however forcing his beliefs, by limiting their healthcare, on all his employees and their family-- Posted by honey bear on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:52 AM

    He is forcing his beliefs on no one. His employees are welcome to purchase any healthplan they desire.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:37 AM
  • He is forcing his beliefs on no one. His employees are welcome to purchase any healthplan they desire.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:37 AM

    FFF

    Or to not let the door hit them where the Good Lord split them, while on the way to seek employment else where.

    That aside, his employees are not the problem.... it is the Leftist Wing-Nuts in this country starting with Der Fuehrer.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:41 AM
  • Employers do not have the right to dictate how an employee lives their private life. Nor do they have the right to discriminate against protected groups. Unless the employer is a 503c, they can not discriminate against smokers and obese individuals. And, without a medical degree, employers do not have the right to force medical choices or lack of choices on their employees.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:04 AM

    Employers are doing no such thing. The employee is free to pay for any medical procedure he or she pleases.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:41 AM
  • I have seen a couple of interviews with the businesses involve No one is being denied insurance coverage. The companies do not feel they should subsidize policies that include,in their words,"artificial birth control" and abortion services. They are not some fly by night companies that suddenly dreamt this up to avoid paying. It has been their policy for a long time and employees knowingly went to work for them. But hey,you know what they call people who practice "natural" birth control? Parents! It's time for my Turkey Day expedition so I'm gonna make like a Catholic and pull out.....

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:43 AM
  • wheels, Why are you obsessed with usernames? Why is that? You seem to think others care more about a username than the discussion. You never give dt bs when he changes his username. Or were you diverting the discussion because you were wrong about closing all stores? Doesn't change the fact a discussion should be looked at respectfully from all sides. Feel free to call me teach, if that makes you day.

    fff, Employee's hands are tied if their employer offers healthcare; there are few insurance companies that will sell an individual policy if they have group coverage or are offered group coverage. ie Understanding indemnity does not allow two policies to pay for the same coverage.

    It is my understanding the issue is an employer is protesting what is considered minimum group coverage by govt standards.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 12:52 PM
  • groucho, Some us more fortunate get to head out for work about now, one of the few times I get paid almost half what I'm worth. OVERTIME! Out of my ETO of course. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 1:17 PM
  • Given the average wage of Hobby Lobby workers qualifying them for Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, and other tax-payer funded programs we need to ensure that they have free and easy access to contraceptives. A business owner should only be able to follow their moral & religious compass when I do not have to subsidize the results of it. -- Posted by Nil on Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:11 PM

    Please provide any evidence other than your leftist opinion that ANY employee of Hobby Lobby is on Medicaed, Snap, WIC, etc. You have zero proof and your statement is only backed up by your biased opinion.

    Second - How does a business insuring it's employees require you to subsidize anything? Absurd.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 8:09 PM
  • My employer is denying my family and I housing due to the fact my employer refuses to buy me a house. -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:26 AM

    fff, I am confident govt health care regulation does not include employers' requirement to buy their employees a house.

    Earlier I said 'Understanding indemnity does not allow two policies to pay for the same coverage.'

    To clarify, you may buy multiple policies (normally through deception), but the indemnity clause in all insurance policies (except life) does not allow the an insured to collect over actual damages--through one or multiple policies.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 8:48 PM
  • My employer is denying my family and I housing due to the fact my employer refuses to buy me a house.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:26 AM

    Dont give them any ideas.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 8:51 PM
  • What does indemnity have to do with the point of FFF's sarcasm?

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 10:54 PM
  • "wheels, Why are you obsessed with usernames? Why is that? You seem to think others care more about a username than the discussion."

    Well Thanksgiving 2013 is in the history books so I feel free to speak.

    Not Obsessed.... just feel it is dishonest for a poster to post under multiple names to try and build a majority. And having been in the business world for better than 50 years, I learned something very important..... always qualify your customer. That applies to others than just customers I have found. Now I am not going to explain that any further as I am sure you will put plenty of words in my mouth.

    You mentioned DT by name and me not chastising him... DT by whatever name is who he is, and he makes no secret of it. I would much rather have DT watching my back than a few I know who post here.

    I'll bet you thought the dummies on here never heard of "double indemnity" before, didn't you? Let me see now, the wheels are turning, got it, I remember another poster who in the past expounded on double indemnity and their knowledge of the insurance industry.

    What a tangled web we weave.....

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 12:33 AM
  • PS:

    Regards the owner closing the stores.... my wife told me that was suggested. I think she heard it on TV but would not swear to that. Do you have any proof that is not in the back of Hobby Lobby Owner's mind, or that he did not suggest that it could happen?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 12:37 AM
  • Honeybear said, "Hobby Lobby owners are attempting to force their beliefs upon their employees by withholding specific medical care from all employees."

    And I say the gubmnt is attempting to force it's beliefs on society by mandating certian crap be covered.

    [I used that word "crap" for commonsensematters; seems to get him involved in the discussion.]:)

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 12:45 AM
  • Old John,

    I think the misfits in Washington who foisted Obamacare off on us are going to live to regret it. As many people who are being adversely affected, there could be a tsunami at the polls next November. Everyone of those people who voted for that without reading it should be removed from office, starting with the ones that allowed their votes to be bought or allowed themselves to be bribed into voting for it in spite of their convictions it was not the right thing to do.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 1:07 AM
  • Wheels, Here are a few examples... there are more. It would seem your wife is wrong.

    Hobby Lobby to open two more Western New York stores

    http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2013/07/05/hobby-lobby-to-open-two-more-...

    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The Oklahoma City Planning Commission has approved plans for Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. to add six buildings to its warehouse and distribution center in Oklahoma City.

    http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2013/may/10/hobby-lobby-add-6-buildings-ware...

    'Update: Hobby Lobby has informed us they will not be closing any stores. In fact, they plan on adding an additional 36-60 stores this year. They also advised us the Becket Fund is handling their legal issues with the government at this time'

    http://brandontward.blogspot.com/2013/09/hobby-lobby-may-close-all-500-stores-in...

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 5:00 AM
  • Most businesses who are planning to close profitable, growing businesses, keep adding stores and warehouse space. *humor

    I would hope most understand indemnity. I worded the first comment poorly, that is why I clarified my thought.

    OJ, We elected those who set the rules.

    I ask myself why some distort words like 'gubmnt'? Maybe you can address my curiosity. Guessing users think it is cute or funny.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 5:14 AM
  • Nil, even if some Hobby Lobby employees have to use government programs (WIC, etc)it does not mean that the owner of HL has to provide coverage for birth control. He and the company are not responsible for how the employees spend their wages and if some can't make it on what they are paid it doesn't automatically mean that the employer needs to provide more! I guess the Supremos will decide legality here but IMHO there should be no question that they can refuse to cover birth control.

    -- Posted by ssnkemp on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 6:45 AM
  • Hobby Lobby owners are attempting to force their beliefs upon their employees by withholding specific medical care from all employees. -- Posted by honey bear on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 8:57 AM

    It's pretty clear there are a number of liberals on here who haven't a clue what a business is or how it runs. Several would like everyone to believe that the business' number one objective is to serve employees. That everything it does is about the employee. Wrong. It's about the CUSTOMER. That's business 101 and probably not a course you would take in some poly sci, psychology or humanities major.

    Businesses treat health care costs the same as payroll, utilities, raw materials, sales commissions, etc. No different. If the costs are too high, a *successful* business will shop around. They can raise deductibles, cut coverages, offer HSA accounts or do the opposite. And that is not "forcing beliefs on their employees".

    Employees have always had a say in what the business does. They can vote with their feet and take another job if they don't want to work there anymore.

    Choice - not a word in the liberal democrat dictionary today.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 9:03 AM
  • Employers do not have the right to dictate how an employee lives their private life. -- Posted by honey bear on Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 11:04 AM

    Wrong. As an employee you are dictated the hours you work (when), your job (what), where your job is, your performance (how) and even who they hire.

    You must hold a public job somewhere that you can get away with anything you want. Clearly you're not working in a private business anywhere.

    Where do you come up with this stuff. How does an employers health care policy "dictate" how an employee lives their private life?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 9:08 AM
  • I didn't vote for any of czars or secretaries.

    "Gubmnt" Good question, I think it depends on the writer; a way to be humble, to indicate or admit his ignorance or... reference to a time when folks respected the government blindly as always for the good of the country.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM
  • "As an employee you are dictated the hours you work (when), your job (what), where your job is, your performance (how) and even who they hire."

    What does any of that have to do with their private lives?

    Should the employer be allowed to prevent the employee from using any of her salary to pruchase birth control equipment or supplies?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 9:26 AM
  • What does any of that have to do with their private lives? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 9:26 AM

    Do you consider yourself a "slave" to your employer? Your work day IS your private life. You have made a CHOICE to go to work for an employer in a job you have selected with the hours/pay/requirements to keep that job. I have a private life 24 hours a day seven days a week and I work 60 hours of that every week.

    Man - the "dependency" attitude runs deep with liberals. Not only do they push it, they actually believe it. I guess that's why they support govt mandated 32oz soda bans, happy meal bans, salt bans and soon-to-be trans-fat bans.

    Take control of your life. You'll find it will raise the quality of it about 10 notches.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 9:32 AM
  • "As an employee you are dictated the hours you work (when), your job (what), where your job is, your performance (how) and even who they hire."

    What does any of that have to do with their private lives?

    Should the employer be allowed to prevent the employee from using any of her salary to pruchase birth control equipment or supplies?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 9:26 AM

    Just another Leftist's attempt to cloud the issue. No one, unless I missed something, said anything about controlling anyone's private lives.

    Ask a couple of rhetorical unrelated questions.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 10:22 AM
  • -- Posted by honey bear on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 5:00 AM

    Your first link from May says they will open stores.

    This link from Sept interprets the owners statement as he will close stores.

    http://www.tomtayloronline.org/2013/07/07/hobby-lobby-founder-may-close-all-stor...

    Your 2nd article says "Hobby Lobby has informed us they will not be closing any stores." No one in particular is quoted.

    I am sure Hobby Lobby, as successful as they are, operates as any good business does with long range plans for future expansion........ does that mean that those plans are written in stone and ownership will not make a change of plans if the business climate changes?

    Surely even a Leftist hater of private enterprise knows better than that.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 10:47 AM
  • I wonder if any of these lawsuits have an employee name as a plaintiff?

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 11:57 AM
  • America's Small Business will not be able to use the Government health insurance enrollment web-site for at least one more year . The personal info is getting mis-placed and scrambled .

    Another huge succcess story of the PPACA .

    -- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 12:17 PM

    Surely you jest!

    Obama promised it would be all fixed by tomorrow, surely he would not lie...... again!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 12:37 PM
  • most are busy being productive, u no contributing to society

    -- Posted by survivalist on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 6:54 PM
  • DT,

    You find another Fan Club Member..... I'm envious. ;-)

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 10:50 PM
  • -- Posted by survivalist on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 1:40 AM
  • who mentioned you?

    -- Posted by Baron Munchausen on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 1:40 AM

    Same party who mentioned you Sock Puppet.

    I enjoyed the song though.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 6:36 AM
  • What about exemptions for campaign contributors? Are they ok?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 9:49 AM
  • How about unions?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 9:50 AM
  • How many threads were created with the title :"Obamacare is working as planned." ?Where are the sage authors of these threads ?-- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 12:59 PM

    most are busy being productive, u no contributing to society-- Posted by Baron Munchausen on Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 6:54 PM

    you asked a question. I answered it. only person who mention you was you. someone needs to stop playing the victim. imo which you support freedom of opinion right?

    -- Posted by survivalist on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 10:29 AM
  • I would object to anything the government does that steps on the rights of the individual.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 1:17 PM
  • I apologize I wasn't clear. I oppose anyone, from any religion, trying to use religion to get a different set of rules to play by in cases where they traditionally do not object to said rules.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 9:30 AM

    Since when did a good number of Christian religions not object to birth control and abortion?

    Their objection is not insurance, it is what the government decided to mandate in the mandated insurance. Free people do not receive mandates to purchase from their governments without there being some kind of other condition attached, like driving a car on public roadways, that is most often the first example the Leftists throw out. The mandate to purchase health insurance requires nothing other than just being alive and breathing.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM
  • "...that is most often the first example..."

    That's your opinion...

    The first and most noteworthy fact that applies is that 99.999% of Americas require medical attention and/or treatment at various points in their lives. This fact justifies the requirement for all to carry insurance.

    Possibly you can recall how this concept was initiated and strongly supported by conservatives. What happened?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 2:22 PM
  • -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 2:22 PM

    Certainly my opinion but I believe it is borne out in fact, I cannot remember how many times I saw it used as justification for the unjustifiable.

    And your noteworthy fact has nothing to do with anything. These are supposed to be free Americans and should be left to make their own decisions, and be held responsible for those decisions. The real facts are if they were left alone and not compensated every time they pass wind, we would have many fewer problems.

    So far as how the concept was initiated, I could care less. It was not conservatives who initiated it and supported it. Maybe some Republicans but not conservatives. You need to learn the difference between the various Republicans... there are very few real Republicans left and even fewer real Democrats.

    Now go blow smoke up someone else, it doesn't take with me.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 2:56 PM
  • "The first and most noteworthy fact that applies is that 99.999%"

    You know Common, I have thought about this statement and I believe it is probably wrong.... I would think it is closer to 100% when you take the birth and death of an individual into account. Even those cases where the girl gives birth and disposes of the child to die in a dumpster requires a medical examiner to be involved when and if found. Still see no reason for a free man to be mandated to buy health insurance.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM
  • "As his supporters insist , it's his "Signature Legislation"."

    Glad it's Obama's signature on that POS. Even being a retired nobody from the Midwest, I wouldn't want signing something that bad on my resume.

    Now Leftists get busy and start agreeing with my self assessment. I will be so disappointed if you don't.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 3:31 PM
  • Looks like Common did a drive by and left without defending his prattle.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 3:34 PM
  • "This is turning out to be one of the biggest jokes of American history"

    Yes.... too bad it isn't funny!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 3:41 PM
  • The Amish pay into SS if they work for an outside company. They do not if they are self employed. From what I have read they do not collect SS benefits when eligible. From what I understand written in the healthcare mandates certain individuals may be excempt(Muslims,Anababtists,Christian Scientists,etc). There have been no penalties,taxes or whatever they are called now put into effect till 2014 so no one knows what or who may object and file lawsuits. That's why I stated "it's coming". And it is.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 5:31 PM
  • "My religion prevents me from paying FICA taxes for the benefit of Wheels."

    That is permitted if you are a ordained, ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister. But you are an admitted atheist so you have to pay.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 9:29 PM
  • I've been reading about different interpretations of the Blood Moon Prophecy so I should be able to get an exemption.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 10:54 PM
  • "...***wipe..."

    Is there any statement you can make without resorting to juvenile vulgarity or childish insults?

    Is that language really necessary for you to make a point?

    I am sure that most on here agree that you are a "G$*II*QH% JQH."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:27 AM
  • Mic,"from what I understand",you're a big snopes.com fan:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

    Silly girl.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 8:24 AM
  • The mandate to purchase health insurance requires nothing other than just being alive and breathing.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM

    So, like I said, it's the mandate they're opposed to, rather than the birth control provisions?

    I have no problem with them being opposed to the mandate. However, the mandate was determined to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court, and trying to use a religious objection now is disingenuous, and demeaning to their religion.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:35 AM

    Just like this one. Try to use a small portion of what someone has said to try and make a disingenuous point.

    What I replied to and what I said are below.

    **********************************************************************

    I apologize I wasn't clear. I oppose anyone, from any religion, trying to use religion to get a different set of rules to play by in cases where they traditionally do not object to said rules.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 9:30 AM

    Since when did a good number of Christian religions not object to birth control and abortion?

    Their objection is not insurance, it is what the government decided to mandate in the mandated insurance. Free people do not receive mandates to purchase from their governments without there being some kind of other condition attached, like driving a car on public roadways, that is most often the first example the Leftists throw out. The mandate to purchase health insurance requires nothing other than just being alive and breathing.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 9:14 AM
  • -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:27 AM

    Common,

    I don't believe I was speaking to you. When attacked, I respond.

    But to you, you came on, made a dumb statement and split yesterday, still no defense of your statement

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 9:17 AM
  • I quoted the relevant portion. Please explain why you think anything I left out changes my point.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 9:23 AM

    Below is the relevant part of my post on these people's objection...........

    "Since when did a good number of Christian religions not object to birth control and abortion?

    Their objection is not insurance, it is what the government decided to mandate in the mandated insurance."

    You are trying to portray these people's objection strictly as objecting to buying insurance it appears to me. Tht is dishonest. This company has been providing insurance for their employees long before Obamacare came along.

    There objection is birth control and abortion and they have every right to their convictions.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:02 AM
  • Wheels

    In the eyes of the Obama atheist there is no such distinction.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:05 AM
  • Regrets,

    It is about the Leftists desire to bring the country into submission. They are bent on turning Americans into obedient sheep.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:19 AM
  • Mic,what the heck are you accusing me of lying about?

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:42 AM
  • Do they also have a right to decide what employees may purchase with their hourly wage? -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:29 AM

    Checkmate. Compensation packages include both benefits and salary. If one debates the company has a right to ignore federal regulation that governs benefit packages and dictate which benefits they do not want based on religious freedom ... then they are also claiming an employer has the right to tell an employee can spend their compensation package wages.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:58 AM
  • Do they also have a right to decide what employees may purchase with their hourly wage?

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:29 AM

    Nobody cares what the employee does with his salary. So far as compensation packages. The employee was ok with the current agreement between Employer and Employee. If Obama wants to get between these two entities and one or the other is unhappy with his interference, either should be able to cancel the previous agreement and the employee can look for another job. That is free market.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 11:05 AM
  • Compensation packages include both benefits and salary. -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:58 AM

    You post some of the most bizarre things. The company can decide what your benefits and wages are - PERIOD - with the exception of minimum wage limits. If a person wanted to purchase birth control with their own wages NO COMPANY is forbidding them from doing that.

    Simply bizarre...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 11:18 AM
  • Mic,and how was that a lie? That was the point all along. It still does not mean that some group will not get involved trying to get out obamacare for religious reasons. You're never ending arguing is tiresome. Flapping your jaw just to hear yourself could be better served elsewhere although I did get a kick out that YouTube posting of you coercing the family into an obamacare discussion. There has been an exhaustive(pun intended) study of why men pass gas more than women. It's because you can't keep your mouth shut long enough to build up pressure. The day is too nice to muck up(spell that differently if you wish) arguing with a fool. You'll bring me down to your level and beat me with experience. You can have at it now. I know you can't stand not to have the last word.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 11:35 AM
  • Do they also have a right to decide what employees may purchase with their hourly wage?

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 10:29 AM

    No they don't. The employees are free to purchase birth control and abortions with there hourly wage.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 11:57 AM
  • Then why do they have the right to decide how an employee can use their health insurance? -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 12:28 PM

    Because the employee has NO right to demand that anything be covered in their health care. It is 100% up to the discretion of the employer. Period.

    You have NO right to dictate your health care in your VOLUNTARY relationship with an employee.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 12:59 PM
  • Dug said 'The company can decide what your benefits and wages are - PERIOD - with the exception of minimum wage limits'

    You are misinformed.. The entire premise of this debate/ thread is based on an employer protesting government regulation of their benefit package.

    Groups benefits are highly regulated, thanks to employers like Enron and WorldCom. ERISA Act 1974, tax reform act 1986, heath insurance portability 1996 to name a few.

    Wages are also regulated. ie EEOC, FLSA, FMLA, INLA 1990, just a few.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:03 PM
  • Dug also said 'Because the employee has NO right to demand that anything be covered in their health care. It is 100% up to the discretion of the employer. Period.'

    Wrong again. Compensation packages are an verbal--in most cases-- continuing,, bi-lateral contract. Meaning both sides have made promises that must be honored or the contract can be terminated by either side.

    Federally mandated benefits is a reasonable benefit expectation by employees.

    Then there are collective bargaining... whole other variable.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:16 PM
  • Employers shouldn't have the right to attempt to project their own morals onto their employees through compensation.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:09 PM

    Neither should the government.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:17 PM
  • Neither should the government. -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:17 PM

    I bet everyone has benefited from federal health care regulation, more than once. For example:

    Expanded definition of part time employee-with regard to benefit eligibility-, as companies were cutting hours to avoid full time benefits.

    COBRA- insurance portability, for those between jobs... available continued insurance coverage... especially helpful for uninsurable.

    FMLA- Job protection, unpaid 60 days for lengthy illness or family illness.

    Pension and retirement fund diversification, third party investment company and accounting/ auditing regulation-- after Enron and WorldCom.

    Workers' compensation.

    Unemployment.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:36 PM
  • Employers shouldn't have the right to attempt to project their own morals onto their employees through compensation.

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:09 PM

    So you would think it would be better if they make all employees part time and end their $14+ per hour pay and free healthcare? That would be be what the liberals want. Bite their nose off to spite their face.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:45 PM
  • we regret,

    Very few employees have 'free' healthcare. And if employers attempt to evade govt regs, you will see regulations adjusted to reflect employer behavior. 'Bite their nose off to spite their face.'

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:52 PM
  • Turt, Never claimed to post an all inclusive, comprehensive list; which would be near impossible. I noted...'to name a few'.

    My point was to broaden Dug's knowledge, as it was obvious he has never been an employer who has been compliant and paid for federal mandated employee benefits and wages.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 2:00 PM
  • 'but it's being done , obviously'

    No, that is not what is going on. An employer is challenging a minimum federal employee benefit regulation.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 2:13 PM
  • -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 2:00 PM

    I guess you dont know Dug.

    .....................................................................

    "Clinton didn't seem to have any problem working with Congress . What is the main difference now ?"

    Clinton didn't burn every bridge down to push his agenda. Obama divided them so bad they will never come back together under his presidency. That is not a quality of a leader.

    ..............................................................

    A comment on employees wrote on a blog:

    " Hi Mr Outzen, I so enjoy reading your blogs and posts! But I would like to gently disagree with your Hobby Lobby post from 12/29. You see I have worked for Hobby Lobby for 13 years and know the truth. Our benefits pkg which does include contraceptives is very generous. The only issue the Greens have is with the plan B "abortion" pill.

    It's really a shame that responsible journalists have not asked the employees how they feel!

    I am a designer and could work anywhere but I chose Hobby Lobby because of the integrity of the Green family and because they are so generous to employees. Starting wage for FT is $13 an hour.

    Thanks for all you do for our community and for taking the time to read this."

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 2:45 PM
  • we regret, Never claimed to 'know' Dug.

    However, if you are hinting that he has employees ... that would mean, based on his comments, he doesn't understand being complaint with regard to mandated federal employee benefits.

    Noting Dug has gone stealth after he was proven to be misinformed.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 2:59 PM
  • To this point, any employee has the right to decline coverage and take that of a spouse or purchase whatever suits them on the open market.

    Insurance is not a part of wages. It is a benefit and is not applied equally to all. Some cost the company more, some less.

    And what is the big deal when about $9 will purchase a month's worth of birth control pills which at $14 per hour, an employee should be able to afford.

    I have employed people and I have furnished an insurance package which was furnished to an employee for him to take coverage or decline coverage. And when you listen to two people spouting all they know about the various government regulation on business you know you have a couple of Leftists on your hands who have done little to nothing in their lifetime other than witch about what they should be given.

    Government regulation is what is wrong with the job market right now. People with the money to hire people and expand are not going to do it unless there is a fair return on their investment. That is something government will never be able to force a person to do, they will move their money out of the country.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:16 PM
  • Those who have knowledge, share facts.

    Those who can not dispute the facts, attack those who share knowledge and lose the debate.

    It is obvious some disagree with federal mandates. Nothing wrong with that, do could something productive to work toward your stance... speak out chit chat will not further your cause. imo

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:48 PM
  • Then why do they have the right to decide how an employee can use their health insurance?

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 12:28 PM

    If employer paying for insurance. Employer decides what insurance will be offered.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:53 PM
  • If I were in need of true knowledge Honey Bear you would not be on my list of one to seek it from, or the other, have all the answers, poster on here.

    And if speak out chit chat will not further a cause... what are you doing on here.

    If you have never been in the position of having to make a payroll, knowing good people are depending on you... you have little to offer on running a business.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM
  • I believe there is better than a 50 - 50 chance that Obamacare is going to implode because of it's own failures. And with an election coming up, the rats in Washington having voted for it, including those who were bribed, threatened and bought, are going to start deserting ship to save their own miserable hides.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:59 PM
  • If employer paying for insurance. Employer decides what insurance will be offered.-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:53 PM

    fff, Your statement is only partially right. Depending on the number of employees, there are mandated regulations that must be adhered to. Thus, the basis of the Hobby lobby case.

    And with that said, I'm done as we are repeating ourselves.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 4:08 PM
  • The gov't can take it's mandate and shove it up it's ***.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 4:18 PM
  • Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 4:18 PM

    fff, Now, now no reason to get nasty.

    Turt, If you have not already done so, contact your elected peps or vote for new ones. Petition.

    Honestly, I don't feel strongly either way. From either side, I wonder why or if the this would be an important 'battle' to fight... given the big health care picture.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:16 PM
  • Honestly, I don't feel strongly either way. From either side, I wonder why or if the this would be an important 'battle' to fight... given the big health care picture.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:16 PM

    Honestly now!

    And just what in your mind is the big health care picture?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:24 PM
  • Wheels, Several of the biggest problems are not being addressed-- healthcare industries soaring cost (as compared to household incomes) and ridiculous expansions and duplicate services by so called not-for-profits.

    While I feel the need for all to have affordable health care coverage, I'm not pleased with the failure of CMSs execution. CMS had the experience for a successful launch as they have managed Medicare's volume for years. Makes one wonder why they failed.

    Another concern, no one should be able to cover 100% of their health care cost. Doing so leads to abuse because there is no incentive to avoid unnecessary healthcare. A good Medicare supplement cost more, but Grannie has no reason to cut her own toe nails or buy shoes and socks, because she is diabetic. Uncle Buck heads to ER for a possible bladder infection, because he is lonely.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:41 PM
  • -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM

    "I don't know what you mean by "applied equally to all""

    When an employer offers group healthcare to employees and it includes some kind of dependent coverage as many do.... do you think for a minute that the 21 year old single male employee costs the employer the same money, or if you will gets as much of a benefit, as the married man with a wife and 3 or 4 children included on the policy does? Or is the female employee who is carried on her husband's policy at another job cheated because no money is spent on her health care policy. Simply put wages and benefits are two different areas and anyone who feels the employee or the government has a right to dictate that to the employer is ridiculous. FICA comes directly out of your salary and the employer's checkbook.... do you have a right to tell the government what benefits or payouts you get for what you put in?

    From your link.......

    "As the Thanksgiving break approaches, U.S. stocks rose Thursday with the Dow Jones Industrial Average posting another record finish thanks to better-than expected housing reports."

    If you think this paints a rosey picture on the state of the economy... think again. When does the housing market get back to where it dropped from?

    The stock market pricing is indicative of the cheap money from the Federal Reserve. Let them start raising the interest and quit printing money and watch what happens to the stock market.

    I think if the numbers are run, the stock market is not as high as when it hit $1000 in terms of real money.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:45 PM
  • You are misinformed.. Groups benefits are highly regulated, thanks to employers like Enron and WorldCom. ERISA Act 1974, tax reform act 1986, heath insurance portability 1996 to name a few. -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:03 PM

    So as an expert, does ERISA put a legal obligation on a company to offer retirement benefits? No. Period. What is the pension benefit of employees at MacDonalds? Ooops.

    As other liberals you slice and spin to score a point. Most of your talking points are socialist rehash. The ERISA act has nothing to do with requirements re: OFFERING pension or retirement. It does deal with funding levels, etc. IF the company offers such. It never requires a company to fund a pension or other retirement benefit either defined benefit or contribution.Be careful in your response. You're out of your league - I've done numerous labor negotiations and know of what I speak.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:50 PM
  • http://business.time.com/2013/11/26/stoc...

    -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM

    That is evil wall street that liberals wanted to suffer. Go out and talk to your local businesses and see how things are going. Look at contractor forums and you will see what they are saying.

    BTW another record high. That just shows the good old fashion conservative private sector would go wild if the liberals policies and Obama were gone. Government is the problem.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:51 PM
  • Too many comments, skimmed through. Only time an employers benefits are regulated is when employer chooses to offer benefits.

    -- Posted by scheuwlfz on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:54 PM
  • Wheels, Several of the biggest problems are not being addressed-- healthcare industries soaring cost

    -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 5:41 PM

    Obama promised a $2500 decrease in costs and instead people are getting thousands of dollars increase. Once again he lied... he knew this disaster was not going to solve our problems. This is nothing more than something to put in the history books that he claims as an accomplishment. Has nothing to do with the people and their problems.

    And if you think we are into trivial spending by folks who are lonesome.... how can you justify free birth control. All this does is require someone else to help pay your expenses. Insurance should be purchased with a reasonably high deductable that a person can chose for himself and depend on the coverage for catastrophic coverge.

    Everybody has different needs, one size fits all makes for a sloppily dressed crowd.

    I don't like the comparison to automobile coverage and I believe everybody should have liability to cover whom he may damage, but to require complete coverage on an automobile where a full tank of fuel comes close to doubling it's value makes no sense at all. Same as requiring maternity care for 60 year old coulples makes no sense. And I could care less how well that makes things work for Obamacare.

    Another thought on soaring health care costs. A good portion of this can be attributed to research and developement. You can expect to live at this point in time due to some of these developments where you would have died 25 years ago. Over the past 20 years we have had two people in our relatively small company survive breast cancer and the costs were affordable on our insurance. One was an employee and one was a dependent. Now the dependent of the one has been diagnosed within the past 3 weeks as having cancer of the throat and esophagus. Not operable but they feel they can save him with radiation and chemo. This man would have no chance whatsoever without modern medicine.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:05 PM
  • Dug bragged 'What is the pension benefit of employees at MacDonalds? Ooops'

    Hey Dug, When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. MickeyDs offers a well rounded benefit package. See link. Unless it is a union, very few offer 'pensions' now-a-days. 401ks have more bang for administrative cost buck.

    Never claimed benefits 'had' to be offered, but if they are, they ARE regulated... which you claimed they were not. ie 'The company can decide what your benefits and wages are - PERIOD - with the exception of minimum wage limits'

    http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/careers/benefits.html

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:06 PM
  • Notice how liberals like to use that "corporation" term to make it look evil. It is still privately owned by the Greens.

    I would hate to see these peoples good jobs go away because the Greens don't want THEIR insurance to cover the morning after pill. The Greens aren't against the regular birth control pills. But if these people lose there jobs it will be Obama and the liberal's fault, not the Greens.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:16 PM
  • Wheels, I can only speak from my family's experience. My family's group coverage portion remained the same, copays increased on office visits and a few prescriptions, high deductibles per family member $1500 unchanged, household max deductible $6000.

    My folks mid 70s, Medicare premium to remain the same, good up supplement UP $5, prescription part D, down $3.50, so net increase this year $1.50 a month, per person... down from the last 5 years which averaged about $18 a month increase each.

    Like I said, no strong feelings either way on birth control. My debate was based on the fact it was a regulation, as such should be upheld. Same as smoking dope, don't like the law, change it.

    Just reviewed a colonoscopy bill for $8000, hospital fee, not doctor. No way that the 'value' is worth it, but will anyone protest the fee... heck most won't even ask for an itemized bill.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:23 PM
  • "Just reviewed a colonoscopy bill for $8000, hospital fee, not doctor."

    In no way will the hospital receive the $8000 billed. They will be lucky to receive $1200.

    I have also reviewed the billed price for a procedure, the amount the insurance company pays and the price you pay if you have a deductible.

    The billing vs the recieving is a big game that I do not fully understand. Should be getting an opportunity to view the same procedure as billed and collected within the next 60 days.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:32 PM
  • 'Be careful in your response. You're out of your league - I've done numerous labor negotiations and know of what I speak.'

    Dug, Isn't the internet grand. You can pretend to be anything you want... when you grow up. Follow your own advice sugar... 'You're out of your league'.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:33 PM
  • 'In no way will the hospital receive the $8000 billed. They will be lucky to receive $1200.'

    Wheels, The amount will depend on insurance coverage. What is concerning, the uninsured sap would have been billed even more.. as they have no contractual agreements, like insurance co and Medicare.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:36 PM
  • Don't you think you should get paid to do a colonoscopy. -joke- Not a fun time and being billed $8000 was pooppy too. -pun intended-

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:40 PM
  • Just reviewed a colonoscopy bill for $8000, hospital fee, not doctor.

    Mine cost about $2500 total at Barnes.

    I read that Twin Rivers in Kennett was $3800 which is a high Medicaid area. They say the national average is $2400.

    One reason why the colostomy is high is medicare (government) pays $300 for it. Much less that what it costs to do the procedure. They have to regroup that money from somewhere.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:49 PM
  • Follow your own advice sugar... 'You're out of your league'. -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:33 PM

    If I'm out of my league, curious you didn't respond. Looks like you got schooled and made a smart-remark exit.

    Says all I need to know about your so-called "expertise" - hit and run... or can you manage another weak response?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:53 PM
  • HoneyBear

    I just pulled my bill from Oct 2012 for a colonoscopy. Wife gets one this month.

    My bill as follows.....

    Hospital Portion $1683.00 Paid $321.68

    Anesthesia $616 Paid $132.56

    Doctor $549 Paid $219.15

    Total Bill $2848 Total Collected $673.39 23.6%

    Somebody is either giving big discounts in your case or they are totally overcharging people. So far as people with no insurance.... I could have been that way if I chose to be irresponsible all my life, which does not make me responsible for their shortsightedness.

    Or as I saw on the wall in a friend's office one day.... A lack of planning on your part does not necessarily create a crisis on my part!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:04 PM
  • -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:06 PM

    Dug, It appears you neglected to read the above post; it was my response to you. Selective reading on your part.

    Wheels, Mom's was from local hospital; she is waiting on Medicare and supplement EOBs.

    As far as the uninsured sap, know of two cases where they could not buy insurance due to health issues. And 20 years after cancer, the premiums were more than one could earn. Some have fewer choices at no fault of their own.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:13 PM
  • And 20 years after cancer, the premiums were more than one could earn. Some have fewer choices at no fault of their own.

    Were they not covered before cancer? If not... why not?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:15 PM
  • Yes, coverage maxed out (in the 80's $500,000 was the norm), being self-employed, few options.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:22 PM
  • 'The company can decide what your benefits and wages are - PERIOD - with the exception of minimum wage limits'-- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:06 PM

    More spin or serious reading comprehension problems on your part.

    The company can decide what your benefits and wage are - PERIOD. Nothing - not a thing in your novel posting re: ERISA, etc. requires a company to offer a pension. So ERISA does not demand anything of a company until they decide to offer retirement plans and even then most of ERISA is funding related - not how much the company has to match or whether the plan is dc or db.

    So your theory that the government does control what a company provides in benefits couldn't be more wrong.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:23 PM
  • 'The company can decide what your benefits and wages are - PERIOD - with the exception of minimum wage limits'-- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 6:06 PM

    Dug, Put the booze down and walk away slowly. Bloggers don't let bloggers post while in a drunken stopper. You just put my tag on your post. Geez you can't remember what YOU posted. If that was a spin, it was YOUR spin.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:33 PM
  • Yes, coverage maxed out (in the 80's $500,000 was the norm), being self-employed, few options.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:22 PM

    Neither of the two ladies on our plan maxed out, one had a recurrence, the other has had other problems, but they are both still insured and we have changed companies during this time. We make sure before we change that pre-existing conditions are covered in the new policy. Actually both are now over 65, the employee still working with reduced hours, because nobody could pay her enough to keep her kids from cleaning her out. The other dependent's wife is retired, but before 65 the ongoing problems were taken care of and there was no maxing out.

    You do understand, that in that wonderful institution of medicare one can max out their hospital stay.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:34 PM
  • Dug, Put the booze down and walk away slowly. Bloggers don't let bloggers post while in a drunken stopper. You just put my tag on your post. Geez you can't remember what YOU posted. If that was a spin, it was YOUR spin.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:33 PM

    I reposted my own statement and then reinforced it. Funny you've switched to smart-*** remarks and little posting nuances.

    When you're as wrong as you've been, looks like you quit trying to respond to points and turn to names, snide remarks and punctuation/posting snippets. It's obvious you took my advice on experience and walked away from the substance.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:37 PM
  • Wheels, As far as I know, there is no such thing as endless medical coverage.

    Yet, most healthcare facilities know how to maximize what coverage is available. Especially noted with regard to short and long term nursing care and physical therapy coverage.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:40 PM
  • Dug, You can't admit it when you are proven wrong. If you can't take 'smart-*** remarks and little posting nuances', you should not post them. I deflect them back as good as you can shovel it out.

    Having a discussion with you is a waste of time. Wheels and turtle have carried on a nice discussion... you could learn from them.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:50 PM
  • Yet, most healthcare facilities know how to maximize what coverage is available. Especially noted with regard to short and long term nursing care and physical therapy coverage.

    -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:40 PM

    I believe in staying away from doctors unless needed. Get a physical once a year and a blood test at 6 months.

    So far as home nursing care and physical therapy, they can have their benefits. I had a knee replacements 5 years ago. They sent me home in record time and sent the home health care nurse and physical therapist by for about 5 visits each. I could not complain about the service, the nurse came by on the 4th of July as her first visit. It was prescribed care by the doctor and it paid off. I recovered quickly and have excellent motion in my knees because I followed their instructions.

    Don't remember the billing, but they were definitely not paid what they billed out.

    A far cry from the leg my Great Grandfather had amputated at home on the kitchen table after an accident in the very early 1900's. I had thought a doctor had removed his leg, but found out just recently from an older relative that there was no time to wait for a doctor and a neighbor performed the removal.... with no anesthetics. No insurance and he made his own wooden leg and lived another 15 to 20 years.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 8:00 PM
  • Wheels and turtle have carried on a nice discussion... you could learn from them. -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:50 PM

    You're clearly a sock puppet with an axe to grind. I don't know you and have posted nothing but facts and then you start with the "sugar bear" comments, etc.

    You could learn from everyone. Especially know who you're responding to. You clearly have me mixed up with someone else - smart ***.

    You don't know the difference between offering benefits and regulations. I know, it's hard.

    Now back to the question you can't seem to answer - does ERISA require a company to offer a pension? You seem to think so.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 8:16 PM
  • Noting Dug has gone stealth after he was proven to be misinformed. -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 2:59 PM

    I was on the road for 3 hours. The only stealth here is your refusal to acknowledge your mistake. Again - bizarre:

    "Federally mandated benefits is a reasonable benefit expectation by employees." -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:16 PM

    Pensions, HSA's, vacation are NOT federally mandated. You're clueless.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 8:37 PM
  • -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 7:50 PM

    Noting Honey Bear has gone stealth after she was proven to be misinformed.

    Hmmm... talking about dishing it out and can't take it? Still googling for an answer to the question you have passed on numerous times?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 8:49 PM
  • "A far cry from the leg my Great Grandfather had amputated at home on the kitchen table after an accident in the very early 1900's."

    That is going to make me sleep well tonite. Ouch!!!

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM
  • -- Posted by honey bear on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 1:36 PM

    What does that response have to do with morals?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 11:32 PM
  • Old John,

    Do you find it somewhat bothersome to go about your daily chores and then come back and have to read all of this crap and try to make some sense of it? ☺ ☺

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 12:44 AM
  • Wheels, Indeed, this one has me going back to see if I read it wrong or if two are both on the same side and won't admit it. But then it may be that I don't understand which came first, the king or the pope. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 1:09 AM
  • old john, How does my response not do with morals?My point was most everyone has benefited from government imposed rules/principles aka 'morals'.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals

    'two are both on the same side and won't admit it' Noticed this too.

    -- Posted by CSIP2016 on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 3:30 AM
  • most everyone has benefited from government imposed rules/principles aka 'morals'.-- Posted by honey bear on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 3:30 AM

    Wow - as big a socialist statement I've ever heard. The "morals" of government benefitting us all.

    Ronald Reagan: " It is very easy to describe a medical program as a humanitarian project. The advocates of socialized healthcare, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis."

    Better said: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 9:15 AM
  • "Although Republicans and Democrats love Soviet style central planning, and are unlikely to change, those unaffiliated with either party can easily see the failures of central planning done by the Obama Administration."

    BC

    For sure Obama is proving your point. And you can just pick a President and see the failures. I especially liked Nixon and wage and price controls. What a CF that was. You had to find a way to increase a technician's salary or you were going to loose him to someone who would call it an upgrade to give him more money. So an inventive scheme of grade classifications had to be put in place. Boy was I happy when that was over with, you could give a man who deserved it an increase in pay and it was only between the two of you.

    Hope the country can afford this current failure.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 12:26 PM
  • You may also know government imposed rules/principles as 'morals', I don't.

    Taking money from citizens for the benefit of individuals was not and should not be an intended function of central government.

    In many ways the government has rewarded individuals by taking less money [home loan interest etc] but forcing the purchase of insurance to cover abortion services is not keeping with the constitution's guarentee of freedom of government in religion.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 12:41 PM
  • I hope every legislator that voted for that POS legislation is turned out to pasture by his constituents in 2014.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 6:19 PM

Respond to this thread