[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
Gary Crabtree
moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
Wed Jul 2 14:35:13 PDT 2014
"Further, assuming that Hobby Lobby operates the same way (a relatively
safe bet), then how can you defend the SCOTUS decision *where HL has no
skin in the game*; that is, there is *no employer financial contribution*
to the coverage they claim to find personally objectionable?"
I would have to think that a sizable number of direct employees of hobby
lobby are in fact female (probably most) and as such they do have a rather
significant amount of "skin in the game."
g
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
wrote:
> To recap:
>
>
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> “It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer
> pays.”
>
>
>
> My response was 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.”
>
>
>
> You further responded:
>
> “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.”
>
>
>
> Yes, that is the UI’s contribution to the *employee’s* benefits. There
> is *no employer subsidy* for the health benefits of spouses and/or
> dependents.
>
>
>
> So, we’re back to my assertion that your initial statement was incorrect
> and my request that you quit making false statements, yes?
>
>
>
> Further, assuming that Hobby Lobby operates the same way (a relatively
> safe bet), then how can you defend the SCOTUS decision *where HL has no
> skin in the game*; that is, there is *no employer financial contribution*
> to the coverage they claim to find personally objectionable?
>
>
>
> You seem to be advocating a position that necessarily involves trampling
> the Constitutional rights of women that are completely and wholly unrelated
> to any aspect of employment “just because” the employer finds those
> Constitutional protections objectionable. In this instance, your are
> placing a higher value on what you perceive to be the religious freedom of
> a for-profit business at the expense of the Constitutional rights of actual
> real-life people (in this instance, women), which is completely at odds
> with your stated positions. You are, essentially, advocating a position
> where the Constitutional rights of those with economic power (in this
> instance, employers) trumps the Constitutional and legal protections
> guaranteed to individuals *regardless of economic power*.
>
>
>
> And, if you don’t understand the chilling consequences of such a stance,
> then I can only conclude you’ve not truly exercised your critical thinking
> skills and/or are intentionally ignoring the very real concerns being
> discussed by those who know far more than your or I will ever know about
> medicine and the law.
>
>
>
>
>
> Saundra
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:24 PM
> *To:* Saundra Lund; 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 <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 <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 <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
> <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
> <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 <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 <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/20140702/d5fbc6ce/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list