[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 1 13:07:04 PDT 2014
Well, I was hoping we could discuss this without the personal insults.
Paul
On 07/01/2014 12:21 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> "It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer
> pays."
>
> Boy, you sure are out of touch with how modern employer-based health
> insurance is paid! Keep current, Paul, rather than disseminate long
> outdated sound bites.
>
> The last time I checked, *my husband and I *paid 100% of the cost of
> *my* health insurance through the UI, and that's the way it was for
> all state employees the last time I checked. That's been the trend,
> too, with private sector employer-based health insurance for a *number
> of years*, as well as eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for
> the employee. Indeed, there are more than a few employers who offer
> absolutely no health insurance subsidy for employees -- their position
> is that their "subsidy" is allowing the employee the benefit of being
> a part of a larger group that gets a lower rate.
>
> Paul also wrote:
>
> "I don't see a problem with a small group of "close-knit" people with
> similar beliefs objecting to something they feel goes against their
> religious beliefs."
>
> Of course you don't, but it's good to know you belong in the "tyranny
> of the bigots" category that thinks that anyone should be able to
> impose their religious beliefs on those with different beliefs, which
> certainly contradicts a lot of the positions you've stated on V2020.
> I'm in the category of thinking that people are free to believe
> whatever they want, but they don't have the right to force their
> religious beliefs on me.
>
> Too, why on earth should you care that about 90% of companies in
> America responsible for employing approximately 52% of working
> Americans qualify as "small closely-held" companies that can now use
> wholly false religious bigotry to deny access to necessary health care
> for female employees and employees with female family members? That
> may be the America you want to live in, but it isn't the one the
> majority of Americans want to live in.
>
> Paul also wrote:
>
> "Especially when the consequence is to pay for a specific
> contraceptive yourself."
>
> Once again, your gender ignorance and economic insensitivity would be
> stunning had you not exhibited them so many times before.
>
> Yes, the American way is to force female crime victims to bear the
> cost of being raped by men, isn't it, Paul, and that religious
> American ideal should be preserved at all costs, shouldn't it? It's
> also the American way relegate "immoral" women to forced breeder
> status when they have sex, isn't it?
>
> And, of course it's of no consequence to *you* that the cost of an IUD
> for women for whom that form of birth control is most appropriate is
> about a month's wage for lower paid employees without health insurance
> . . . or for plans that exclude coverage for women. That may be
> economically feasible for *you* since *you* don't fall into that
> category, but here's a news flash for you: that is as financially
> impossible for many women, particularly women who have children to
> feed & clothe. Yet you find it appropriate for religious bigots to
> punish women & children in an attempt to coerce "moral" behavior out
> of those uppity women.
>
> Of course, a viable alternative *might have been* to direct those
> women to non-profit family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood
> where contraceptives are more affordable. At least, that *might* have
> been a viable alternative before the Religious Right started its war
> on women. Oops -- guess that's not a viable alternative for a lot of
> women anymore.
>
> Saundra
>
> Moscow, ID
>
> Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
>
> ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rumelhart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:05 AM
> *To:* Sunil; vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Yes, you're right. It's not free. It's subsidized by everyone who
> pays into it, plus what the employer pays. I don't see a problem with
> a small group of "close-knit" people with similar beliefs objecting to
> something they feel goes against their religious beliefs. Especially
> when the consequence is to pay for a specific contraceptive yourself.
> It's not like they are objecting to open-heart surgery.
>
> Is having the ability to get health care in general from your employer
> a basic human right? Is the ability to have your contraceptives in
> general or the "morning after" pill in specific as a part of your
> health plan offered at work a basic human right?
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Paul,
>
> Is your UI healthcare free or is it part of your employment compensation?
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:03:00 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>;
> vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>
> Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>>
> *To:* vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates
> religious rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights of
> flesh-and-blood people. HL is not about restricting the power of
> government and it's naive to think that's its objective. If the
> government were restricting birth control, as it once did, this
> majority would have no objection to that exercise of government power.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com <mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>;
> donaldrose at cpcinternet.com <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>;
> vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see inconsistency in
> rulings. In both cases the rulings restricted the power of the
> government.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>;
> vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Great points, Rose, and I'm afraid I agree with your assessment.
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious even if it's uncomfortable some.
>
> It's long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of
> ethics federal judges must adhere to.
>
> Saundra
>
> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Rosemary Huskey
> *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain
> philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values
> that we trust and hold dear. In light of the Supreme Court decision
> supporting the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth
> control they claim to be at odds with their religious beliefs, I
> wondered if the court was persuaded not by legal arguments but by
> their own religious affiliations. Were any of the five male justices
> associated with religious groups that uphold the doctrine of
> patriarchy, i.e., do they attend churches that deny women ministerial
> or priesthood roles. Guess what? Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia,
> Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic.
>
> In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in
> 1973 eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream
> Protestant churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation
> between religion affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm
> belief that unearned gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and
> deferred to in the church certainly creates an atmosphere that
> celebrates and bestows unique privilege for male members. And, what
> could possibly more be patriarchal than controlling women's
> reproductive choices?
>
> Rose Huskey
>
>
> ======================================================= List services
> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> ======================================================= List services
> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140701/5828eae7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list