Which right(s) is(are) being restricted?
Also, just an observation, but I've not seen even one single solitary quote (not even one on anonymity) from any Hobby Lobby female employees on this issue. I've also not seen any statements from the Hobby Lobby insurers. Why so much silence from those most affected?
From: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:41:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
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
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]
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>
To: 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
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point,
perhaps.
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com;
vision2020 at moscow.com
Which
right is being restricted, a woman's
right to free contraceptives?
Paul
From:
Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision 2020 <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
To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm;
donaldrose at cpcinternet.com;
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
To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com;
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]
On Behalf
Of Rosemary
Huskey
Sent:
Monday, June
30, 2014 2:49
PM
To: 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
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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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/20140701/2167086c/attachment-0001.html>