[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 1 18:17:01 PDT 2014
I made no disparaging remarks about you personally. I didn't try to
imply that you had something wrong with you because you thought a
certain way, I made no insinuations about you in any way. You may have
found it offensive, but you cannot categorize it as an attack on you.
So which right *is* being restricted? Since we are on the subject.
What if it was a company objecting to paying for homeopathy treatments?
Shouldn't employers have a lot to say about what is in the benefit
packages they provide to their employees?
Paul
On 07/01/2014 05:41 PM, Sunil wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I'll bet I'm not the only person who found this offensive:
>
> 'Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?'
>
> Maybe people unload on you when you say things that Rush Limbaugh
> does. Don't put on your martyr hat when you say that and people respond.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:23:39 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
> It's statements like these that I'm objecting to:
>
> "...of course it's of no consequence to *you* that..."
>
> "...but it's good to know you belong in the "tyranny of the bigots"
> category..."
>
> "...why on earth should you care that..."
>
> Are they really necessary? Can't we discuss the issues without
> getting personal?
>
> In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay stub
> (posted for the 3rd of June), I see a line item for "Employer
> Contribution for Benefits". It's about $350 in my case, paid by the
> employer per biweek. I also see employer amounts for "Pre-Tax Health
> Savings Account" (their match for the amount I'm putting in my HSA),
> and "Long" and "Short Term Disability Coverage". Also Medicare, but
> all employers have to pay FHI if I remember correctly.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 07/01/2014 01:44 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> I was hoping we could actually discuss your thinking without you
> playing your predictable "why is everybody always picking on me"
> card to avoid discussing statements you make that you want us to
> just blindly accept. I don't think pointing out the flaws,
> limitations, and obvious conclusions of your thinking are personal
> insults, but I'm sorry if your sensitivities made you feel as
> though they were because that wasn't my intention.
>
> Just as, I assume, you weren't intending to personally insult
> those of us with concerns about guns on campus by calling our
> concerns "irrational fears," or a lot of other comments you've
> made that might have felt like personal attacks if you were on the
> receiving end. What's that saying? Something about people in
> glass houses . . .
>
> So, let's try this *one* point again:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> "It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the
> employer pays."
>
> My response is that your statement is incorrect:
>
> "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."
>
> What say you?
>
> Saundra
>
> *From:*Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 1:07 PM
> *To:* Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
> 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>
> [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 <mailto: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
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140701/45ef6d94/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list