Calm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) . He is demanding that you can only buy certain types of hamburger with your wages that you worked for. Get it now?Seriously?How is he going to do this? Assign another employee to follow around all women employees and have them steal the drug if the woman buys it?Or send out a list to all pharmacies forbidding them to sell the drug to the list they give them? Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah 2
ELF1024 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) Seriously?How is he going to do this? Assign another employee to follow around all women employees and have them steal the drug if the woman buys it?Or send out a list to all pharmacies forbidding them to sell the drug to the list they give them? It would appear that if you do not have insurance that will cover the pills... you can't get it... Of course that ignores the fact that just having insurance doesn't mean that you can find a doctor or hospital in your area that accepts it. The lack of logic confounds me. Edited July 2, 2014 by ELF1024
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Well, aren't you just part of the entitlement generation. You think the employer owes you birth control?I love it! In my childhood, it was "the Pepsi generation." Today it's the Entitlement Generation . Perhaps somebody could come up with a hip reworking of this jingle.
Garden Girl Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) He's not giving you anything. You are working for him. You are his employee. He is demanding that you can only buy certain types of hamburger with your wages that you worked for. Get it now? TSS...C'mon... this surprises me... I agree with Cal... how in the world would HL ever be able to demand or control what you did with your wages? An employee with HL provided insurance has access to the 16 types of BC provided by those policies. HL pays for that insurance, or a portion thereof... what the employee does with the remainder of his wages is entirely up to the employee and HL has no way or legal ability to "demand" anything... least of all what type of BC is personally purchased by the employee, including the "morning after" pill. GG Edited July 2, 2014 by Garden Girl 2
ELF1024 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I love it! In my childhood, it was "the Pepsi generation." Today it's the Entitlement Generation . Perhaps somebody could come up with a hip reworking of this jingle. Wish I could claim it, but it's already been trademarked.... Generation Y Narcissistic and Entitled to Everything! Does Gen Y Have Too Much Self-Esteem?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Wish I could claim it, but it's already been trademarked.... Generation Y Narcissistic and Entitled to Everything! Does Gen Y Have Too Much Self-Esteem?Alas, it's not limited to Generation Y folk. The voice-over in the Pepsi commercial I linked to said, "Who is the Pepsi generation? Just about everybody with the young view of things." To apply it to the Entitlement Generation, we could adapt Mr. VoiceOver's words to say, "Who is the Entitlement Generation? Just about everybody with the Egocentric View of Things."
Popular Post Carebear0411 Posted July 2, 2014 Popular Post Posted July 2, 2014 If you keep repeating the same nonsense long enough and loud enough some people will believe it. Yes it does. Any corporation can now tell its female employees how to spend their wages. Employers medical health plan is just part of the wages paid to their employees. Any corporation can now impose their religion on their female employees. Now the female employees of any corporation have to go to their boss and ask permission to use any type of birth control, based not on what the female's own MD says is the best for them, but based on the boss's religion. IMNTBHO When(outside of normal work hours) their female employees have sex with, and what if any form of birth control their female employees use, is none of any employer's business. Of course we can always go with the Mormon Senator from Utah Mike Lee that women whom have sex and want birth control are sluts. Then wonder why we're perceived as ignorant fools.Ok, you are really pushing the logic envelope. If what you say is true than my employer is telling me how to spend my wages when they don't cover hearing aid or batteries. For those of us who are HH, hearing aids are essential...but almost all insurances exempt themselves from paying even a portion of the cost. To meet your criteria of fairness, all insurances would have to pay 100% of every single medical need there could possibly be, to keep employers from "telling employees how to spend their wages". Ridiculous!!!!! 7
Stone holm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Ok, you are really pushing the logic envelope. If what you say is true than my employer is telling me how to spend my wages when they don't cover hearing aid or batteries. For those of us who are HH, hearing aids are essential...but almost all insurances exempt themselves from paying even a portion of the cost. To meet your criteria of fairness, all insurances would have to pay 100% of every single medical need there could possibly be, to keep employers from "telling employees how to spend their wages". Ridiculous!!!!!Is that because hearing aids are religiously offensive?
Calm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) Is that because hearing aids are religiously offensive?It means that there are a number of reasons that people make exclusions on what insurance covers and few if any argue it is telling people how to spend their money.Why should the result of excluding for religious reasons be any different?If I shave my head for comfort or for a religious reason, the result is the same...a shaved head. If I don't get insurance to cover surgery because it is cosmetic or for religious reasons, the result is the same...I can choose to pay for it myself or go without and use another option if one is available....in this specific case, 16 other options.I used bc for at least 15 years. I couldn't use the pill, still never got pregnant when I didn't want to and we never used abstinence or the 'natural method'. Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 It means that there are a number of reasons that people make exclusions on what insurance covers and few if any argue it is telling people how to spend their money.Why should the result of excluding for religious reasons be any different?If I shave my head for comfort or for a religious reason, the result is the same...a shaved head. If I don't get insurance to cover surgery because it is cosmetic or for religious reasons, the result is the same...I can choose to pay for it myself or go without and use another option if one is available....in this specific case, 16 other options. Apparently in Stone holm's world, a religious reason for making a decision is never a valid one. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 These point might have been made on this thread already in one form or another, but I just ran across this piece, linked to from Peterson's blog, that pretty much lays it all out clearly. My favorite snippet: Those who are screaming themselves hoarse after the Hobby Lobby decision would agree that Yeshiva need not serve unkosher food, and PETA need not include calf meat on its menu. Yes, somehow, Hobby Lobby is evil because it pays for 16 kinds of contraceptives, and expects its employees themselves to purchase four others that might kill human babies.At its core, the Left’s moaning over Hobby Lobby is less about access to medicine and more about access to free stuff. I can understand some anger on the part of the liberal establishment because of a perceived symbolic loss here. But that doesn't justify the utter falsehood that is being purveyed regarding the impact of the SCOTUS decision on employees.
cipriano Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Hello TSS...Here again your argument goes off the rails... Hobby Lobby pays its employees double the minimum wage... and has for quite some time...And I ask you... 16 forms of birth control provided through HL aren't enough? Sheesh... Oh, I forgot... those 16 forms of BC require responsibility of the users to plan ahead and take them consistently... not just whip off their panties and forge ahead mindlessly and phooey on the consequences... GGWow, that is shockingly misogynystic and judgemental. Bordering on the hateful. Re double the minimum wage - wow, big deal. That barely crosses the 30k/year line. And that's if the employee gets a steady 40 hours a week. That's doubtful at a business like Hobby Lobby. If one has a couple dependents at home you can qualify for some social safety net programs at that wage. The entrance into the American middle class is 75k/year for a household. Let us not kid each other. This decision is not about religion or freedom. It's about big business. The opinions of religious folks are being co-opted by corporations (easily I might add, judging by this thread), appealing to memes such as personal responsibility, chastity and the like. One more point. Will Hobby Lobby stop carrying Chinese sweat shop products because of forced abortions and 2-child policy in that country? I won't hold my breath.
Popular Post Calm Posted July 2, 2014 Popular Post Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) "Wow, that is shockingly misogynistic..."I am sure GG feels just the same about guys that won't think ten minutes ahead and insist on having unprotected sex because condoms are too inconvenient.Some of us don't view sex as a recreational toy which involves little to no responsibility on a user.I find it to be misogynistic to treat women as if they are incapable to plan ahead or control themselves regarding something so important to their personal health. Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah 6
Popular Post Garden Girl Posted July 2, 2014 Popular Post Posted July 2, 2014 If you keep repeating the same nonsense long enough and loud enough some people will believe it. Yes it does. Any corporation can now tell its female employees how to spend their wages. Employers medical health plan is just part of the wages paid to their employees. Any corporation can now impose their religion on their female employees. Now the female employees of any corporation have to go to their boss and ask permission to use any type of birth control, based not on what the female's own MD says is the best for them, but based on the boss's religion. IMNTBHO When(outside of normal work hours) their female employees have sex with, and what if any form of birth control their female employees use, is none of any employer's business. Of course we can always go with the Mormon Senator from Utah Mike Lee that women whom have sex and want birth control are sluts. Then wonder why we're perceived as ignorant fools.TSS...I can usually abide your opinions because I understand that we are poles apart, particularly politically, but thankfully not spiritually...BUT... TSS... you are off the wall on this one. I don't know how you can continue to assert that HL can now impose their religion on female employees, or that HL can tell a female employee how she can spend her wages... or even more incredible, that female employees must go to their bosses to ask permission to use ANY type of birth control. Have you completely lost your senses??! You're giving this old woman the vapors, TSS... the female employees who have health insurance through HL have the choice of 16 forms of BC covered by whatever plans are offered and from which they choose. HL probably pays part or all of the insurance premium. Whatever is left over from any employer/employee deductions is discretionary funds to be used by the female employee in any way she chooses, including purchasing BC that she wants that might not be covered by the insurance... she answers to no one in her choice or purchase, even for the "morning after" pill. She does not have to ask her bosses permission to purchase BC, regardless of type as you so falsely assert above. GG 6
Calm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) I admire women. Known a lot of them. I respect them and find that the vast majority of them are intelligent and capable of doing great things...and not so great as in ordinary things.Would we call someone misogynistic for judging a womancapable of keeping track of her own period and being prepared for when that hits? It is about the same level of preparation in my experience (and that is for the more hassle involved forms of bc) and one actually has greater control over sex because a woman can say "no" to that at least. Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah
Garden Girl Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Wow, that is shockingly misogynystic and judgemental. Bordering on the hateful. Hello cipriano...I may have been a tad over the top... but not much... I'm impatient with irresponsible women, and men, who do not take time to consider consequences of their actions... and Calmoriah is right, I do feel the same about men who will not use condoms instead of just acting irresponsibly with no view of possible consequences, like pregnancy... since when is it the woman's total responsibility... my view is that if anyone (man or woman) is going to enter into sexual activity, then do so responsibly and take advantage of the myriad forms of birth control, many of which are available through centers/groups for low income individuals. And HL provides access to BC through its insurance programs available for their employees to choose from. GG 2
strappinglad Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Wow, that is shockingly misogynystic and judgemental. Bordering on the hateful. Pot--kettle---irony
Popular Post Pahoran Posted July 3, 2014 Popular Post Posted July 3, 2014 He's not giving you anything. You are working for him. You are his employee. He is demanding that you can only buy certain types of hamburger with your wages that you worked for. Get it now? Why do you keep repeating this obvious falsehood as if continuous repetition will somehow make it true? The employer isn't demanding that his employees buy or not buy anything with their wages. Hobby Lobby is not telling its employees how to spend their money. Hobby Lobby is choosing to spend its own money in accordance with its principles. Benefits are part of a package, but they are not "wages." This is not rocket science, sometime. Regards,Pahoran 7
MorningStar Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 My son't insurance doesn't cover the preferred acne medication, so we had the option of choosing a different one or could pay out of pocket. We didn't have to ask anyone for permission to take it - just needed the doctor's prescription. 4
cipriano Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Pot--kettle---ironyRe irony - My post was not ironic at all, be it intentional or unintentional. I would quote Inigo Montoya, but I'm sure that gag has been done to death. No thoughts on HL and it's use of Chinese labor to fill it's shelves? Anyone? I repeat: This is a decision about money, not religion or freedom.
strappinglad Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Often I can't understand without an analogy so here goes,: An employer offers an employment package which includes a tattoo if desired. The employee is not required to get a tattoo but the company will pay for one. There is a stipulation, however. The tattoo must be on the approved tattoo list in order to have the company pay for it. The employee is free to get any other tattoo he wishes but must pay for it himself. To me ,the employer has the right to provide an employment package and foot the bill. The employee has the right to accept or reject employment as outlined. It is apparent that the 'tattoo benefit ' is designed to entice employees to work for the company. If an employee signs on and later says he wants the company to pay for any tattoo no matter what, that becomes an article for negotiation between parties and not a matter of government insistence over the objections of one of the parties.
strappinglad Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Re irony - My post was not ironic at all, be it intentional or unintentional. I would quote Inigo Montoya, but I'm sure that gag has been done to death. No thoughts on HL and it's use of Chinese labor to fill it's shelves? Anyone? I repeat: This is a decision about money, not religion or freedom. To call someone misogynistic and judgmental is ... well... judgmental...no? That's irony. Besides, pots and kettles are often iron...y . Oh, and just try to find a pot or kettle NOT made in China. Edited July 3, 2014 by strappinglad
cipriano Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 To call someone misogynistic and judgmental is ... well... judgmental...no? That's irony. Besides, pots and kettles are often iron...y .Oh, and just try to find a pot or kettle NOT made in China.Cognitive Dissonance results in bad jokes.
Pahoran Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Cognitive Dissonance results in bad jokes. Speaking of "done to death," that "cognitive dissonance" bit of psychobabble is really old news. Regards,Pahoran
cipriano Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Speaking of "done to death," that "cognitive dissonance" bit of psychobabble is really old news. Regards,PahoranTouche' I have a dislike for psychobabble myself. Having conceded that, I ask again: Do you have any thoughts on Hobby Lobby (not only a person according to Citizens United, but now one with "religious freedom") utilizing Chinese labor?
Recommended Posts