tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post5974807120582283534..comments2024-03-02T03:29:09.759-05:00Comments on SerandEz and Friends: On The Wisdom Of OldEzziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-19579908720734704232012-03-02T00:35:21.233-05:002012-03-02T00:35:21.233-05:00Would you ever say Conservatives JUST want to dere...Would you ever say Conservatives JUST want to deregulate a certain business? No. Of course not. The kernal attempt to deregulate comes from the principle of less government. Neither side is valueless. Each has its values and they roll from there. It's not SIMPLY an economic pragmatic decision on part of Democrats to regulate the insurance companies for birth control. It stems from an apriori value. And this is not a criticism of them, simply a description.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-4826178217820847272012-03-02T00:32:29.290-05:002012-03-02T00:32:29.290-05:00>This has nothing to do with rights. Either the...>This has nothing to do with rights. Either the "right" to medical care, or the "right" to birth control.It's just an attempt to regulate insurance plans.<br /><br />Yes. Yes. You are right. It is an attempt to regulate insurance plans BECAUSE the Democrats made this up to be a "right" Democrats view this as a woman's rights. And obviously, kal vachomer, if you are against someone's rights, you are evil. And that is how Democrats successfully paint the Republicans. Republicans scratch their heads and ask how the hell did a "want" become a "right"?<br /><br />http://www.lvrj.com/news/senate-defeats-amendment-to-reverse-birth-control-rule-141052713.html<br /><br />>I don't think it's absurd for an employer to offer to pay for your gas or gym membership.<br /><br />Ok. So that is the thrust of our disagreement. In a hundred years, when someone reads this, they will know where we stand. <br /><br />Vox, I love you.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-9594493665892953522012-03-01T20:14:01.578-05:002012-03-01T20:14:01.578-05:00>I've conceded nothing.
Whoops. I meant to...>I've conceded nothing.<br /><br />Whoops. I meant to say "you would have conceded the point, for sure" as a result of my rebuttal which I thought was lost forever. <br /><br />>You have no problem shoving anything done the throat of a religious institution as long as people conceivably call it their "right to have" such as birth control or hypothetically euthanasia. <br /><br />Kal v'chomer if it was a right we were talking about, but we are NOT talking about rights, even. This has nothing to do with rights. Either the "right" to medical care, or the "right" to birth control. It's just an attempt to regulate insurance plans. The imposition on private employers is 100% incidental to that goal, purely because in America most insurance plans are purchased by employers. In a country where all plans were bought by individuals, the burden would fall on the individuals and/or the insurance companies themselves, as is what is ultimately happening here with the birth control compromise. In a country where the state provided the insurance, it would be the burden of the state. <br /><br />>My moral premise Vox, is that I don't feel an employee is entitled to any entitlement from their employer. A benefit is a benefit. The left is trying to transform the benefits into an entitlement.<br /><br />No. They surely want to, and that's the motivation behind making health care a government business. But Obamacare represents the compromise they came up with, i.e. regulate the insurance industry, which is considered less radical for government to do.<br /><br />>Isn't that what I just said. The right is for Liberty at the detriment of equality. The left is for equality at the detriment of liberty.<br /><br />This perhaps describes their idealized self-conceptions in general, but you can look at this regulation completely in line with pragmatic, deficit-fighting, welfare-expanding concerns. These are concerns beyond "equality" and "social safety net." Just like highway speed limits are not necessarily a liberal attempt to enforce equality and uniformity. <br /><br />>But I want none of these at the expense of the greater picture of the government telling my employer what it can offer or can't offer. <br /><br />Okay. But I still don't understand why you look at the coal miner and say, yeah, I'm willing to screw the employer there. Is it because the concept of an employer paying for your gym membership is silly? Lots of employers do it.<br /><br />>My employer wants a happy employee right? Well, it's in my employers best interest to reduce stress for me, and I would be VERY happy if someone else would cover my rent on top of my compensation. We can add it to the benefits package.<br /><br />In principle, I see nothing wrong with this. I feel I should add that I'm perfectly fine with a world where most Americans did not rely on their employers for their health insurance plans - I prefer it be a public government good with the option for an increased level of private service ("luxury plans") if the individual is willing to pay a private service for it.<br /><br />But the way our world works, is if you want to stipulate minimum levels of service, you have to also have a go at employers. They're just the biggest providers of it. <br /><br />I don't think it's absurd for an employer to offer to pay for your gas or gym membership. But if my employer did sign a contract to that effect, and then tried to weasel out by defining "gym membership" to mean "membership in Cirque du Soleil" or "gas" to mean farts, I think I would have an actionable claim I could bring in a court run by a government. This is just one step further.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-7818604339865461762012-03-01T13:55:03.922-05:002012-03-01T13:55:03.922-05:00>I see no reason why not?
Exactly. You see thi...>I see no reason why not?<br /><br />Exactly. You see this and say "why not." It suits me good. I look at it and say "it WOULD suit me good" BUT I don't want it at the expense of further regulation to a private company. Because, in the end, i don't want to just think about "the me" but at the totality of the picture and whether I want further government involvement at how it regulates. <br /><br />Do I want free health insurance from my employer? Sure. Would I want a raise? Sure. Do I want it to cover birth control at no extra charge? Sure. But I want none of these at the expense of the greater picture of the government telling my employer what it can offer or can't offer. <br /><br /><br />>This principle is arbitrary and unworkable in a practical setting. It's arbitrary because why stop or start there? <br /><br />No, its not arbitrary at all. It seems from your standpoint anything can be rationalized in such a way that everything has some crumb of significance to the well being of the employee, that an employer should be responsible for. I have to get to work right? He should cover my auto insurance. My employer wants a happy employee right? Well, it's in my employers best interest to reduce stress for me, and I would be VERY happy if someone else would cover my rent on top of my compensation. We can add it to the benefits package.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-38253335363631785272012-03-01T13:55:03.360-05:002012-03-01T13:55:03.360-05:00>I see no reason why not?
Exactly. You see thi...>I see no reason why not?<br /><br />Exactly. You see this and say "why not." It suits me good. I look at it and say "it WOULD suit me good" BUT I don't want it at the expense of further regulation to a private company. Because, in the end, i don't want to just think about "the me" but at the totality of the picture and whether I want further government involvement at how it regulates. <br /><br />Do I want free health insurance from my employer? Sure. Would I want a raise? Sure. Do I want it to cover birth control at no extra charge? Sure. But I want none of these at the expense of the greater picture of the government telling my employer what it can offer or can't offer. <br /><br /><br />>This principle is arbitrary and unworkable in a practical setting. It's arbitrary because why stop or start there? <br /><br />No, its not arbitrary at all. It seems from your standpoint anything can be rationalized in such a way that everything has some crumb of significance to the well being of the employee, that an employer should be responsible for. I have to get to work right? He should cover my auto insurance. My employer wants a happy employee right? Well, it's in my employers best interest to reduce stress for me, and I would be VERY happy if someone else would cover my rent on top of my compensation. We can add it to the benefits package.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-88857161826555728952012-03-01T13:45:15.321-05:002012-03-01T13:45:15.321-05:00>you have conceded the point, for sure.
I'...>you have conceded the point, for sure.<br /><br />I've conceded nothing. You are looking for a starting premise. I gave it to you. I want government out as much as possible. Now I agree with you that government is already in the game. But so what? It doesn't mean I want them in more. Birth control and gym membership are fantastic things. It doesn't mean I want government regulating businesses to offer it. <br /><br />>and you fear people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.<br /><br />Yes. I fear people being forced by the government. I want them to take responsibility on their own. <br /><br />>Do religions get to cop out of all their legal obligations?<br /><br />Well isn't that what this argument is all about? Keeping THIS from BECOMING their legal obligations. You have no problem shoving anything done the throat of a religious institution as long as people conceivably call it their "right to have" such as birth control or hypothetically euthanasia. <br /><br />>even if it intrudes upon the sacred prerogative of the employer.<br /><br />Isn't that what I just said. The right is for Liberty at the detriment of equality. The left is for equality at the detriment of liberty.<br /><br />My moral premise Vox, is that I don't feel an employee is entitled to any entitlement from their employer. A benefit is a benefit. The left is trying to transform the benefits into an entitlement. And the reason I don't believe in these entitlements is because in the long run, it makes people worse, morally. <br /><br />>There is no rights issue. <br /><br />Sure it is. That is how these things get onto the public debate stage.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-74015774232999606732012-03-01T12:46:56.201-05:002012-03-01T12:46:56.201-05:00Blogger thinks you're spam. :) I think it'...Blogger thinks you're spam. :) I think it's in there now. Will reply later.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-33753999997260697932012-03-01T11:13:05.573-05:002012-03-01T11:13:05.573-05:00Ezzie, before my last response to HH, there was an...Ezzie, before my last response to HH, there was another, longer response. It was very awesome, and I would hate to think it's gone forever. Do you get comments also by email? Anyway, HH, my response was awesome, and you have conceded the point, for sure.<br /><br />As to Ezzie:<br /><br />>But there are specific items which are important to various religions, and there is little to no reason to cross those lines (certainly as it was proposed to have been done originally). ... this particular item is one which is an issue for members of certain religions, and moreover is not something that the people whom it's supposed to 'protect' cannot purchase on their own.<br /><br />With money the Church gives them! Even as originally proposed, why is Church paid-for insurance with which to buy BC different than Church provided money with which to buy BC? The Church's objection stems not just from the Church "being forced" to prevent birth but from everyone being allowed to use birth control and with it being even more readily available. <br /><br />>It's dissimilar from your peyote example completely, which is restricting an illegal act; this is trying to force a group to perform an action they find morally reprehensible, and moreover for something that is not necessary to be done this way.<br /><br />This is specifically why I said there is no distinction between positive and negative liberty in this regard. That very same court decision says very clearly the government can force you to do things you find religiously objectionable. Moreover, if necessity was the only standard by which we judged government activity, we could never have government activity.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-67865514312241205372012-03-01T11:03:11.610-05:002012-03-01T11:03:11.610-05:00>No, I am happy when gov't does what it is ...>No, I am happy when gov't does what it is supposed to do.<br /><br />Still undefined.<br /><br />>and let alone to institutions that are morally against such things. <br /><br />They happen to object to this. But they could object to anything, even our frivolous measles vaccinations. Do religions get to cop out of all their legal obligations?<br /><br />>I don't think because woman all of a sudden don't want to pay for birth control<br /><br />Obviously, there's a political element here, in that the Democrats know their constituency, and if Obamacare was Romneycare on a national level, I assume this would not be part of the required service. <br /><br />OTOH, this isn't just women want cheap pills. It's generally accepted that health care costs for everyone, whether through premiums or government spending on social services borne by taxes, if everyone had a certain level of insurance already going in. If "insurance" for our purposes could mean anything, it wouldn't be a very effective program. This is is jut one element.<br /><br />>The "rights" issue is not my issue, but an issue with the Left.<br /><br />There is no rights issue. <br /><br />>But it is exactly this that I fear our gov't being able to force it's citizens to buy something upon their personhood.<br /><br />You fear entitlements, and you fear people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-58644502555752488662012-03-01T11:02:45.997-05:002012-03-01T11:02:45.997-05:00>I guess you mean the free market will dictate ...>I guess you mean the free market will dictate it's in his best interest to offer this benefit right? <br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />>So why is government getting involved?<br /><br />Government also regulates a minimum wage. There is a long history of government regulation of the employee compensation provided by employers. This isn't radical.<br /><br />I assume the reason here is incidental to the government's larger scheme. The government regulates insurance packages, and believes they must offer at least a basic level of service, judged to include birth control (I don't know if free, but some sort of level of service). Since most people in America get their insurance through their employer, practically speaking, if the government wants its regulation of the insurance industry to be effective, it has to also regulate insurance plans offered by employers. To not do so, to bud out of every employer's business, as it were, would vitiate the whole thing. <br /><br />>There are many many many health benefits out there Vox, including phyiscal exercise. I don't suppose the gov't should regulate insurance offer that too should they?<br /><br />I see no reason why not? A health benefit is a health benefit. All the talk of death panels came from the idea that if people wish to consult with physicians on end-of-life care, that should be covered by insurance, too. I don't think it's absurd to get some sort of copay for gym membership or something.<br /><br />I'm getting three different things from you here. One, you seem predisposed to thinking that any government intervention in health is unwarranted, absent it meeting some obscure standard of necessity, so far undefined. Two, you happen to think birth control and physical exercise are particularly frivolous health services which, even assuming government involvement in health insurance, are too silly for insurance to cover, or to be required to cover? Three, some sort of hostility to the Left for really liking birth control, which is the possible destruction of a life.<br /><br />>That if gov't DOES regulate it should regulate something that has exact bearing on what it is your employee is doing for the job. <br /><br />This principle is arbitrary and unworkable in a practical setting. It's arbitrary because why stop or start there? Why does compensation not bear on a core concern of the employer? Why is health more important to a coal miner than a deacon? It's unworkable because any time the government wishes to regulate something which bears exactly on whatever an industry does, it's going to enact regulation that at least incidentally impact the ancillary business concerns of others. This regulation, for example, stems from regulation of the insurance industry. Because most of our insurance comes from employers, it is functionally impossible to regulate insurance companies in ways that do not intrude upon employer liberty.<br /><br />>Let companies that want to offer insurance give it. And let companies pick what they want to offer. <br /><br />I'm just saying in a world where government regulates minimum wage and maximum hours, and where health costs are the biggest financial drain for both the government and the consumer, it seems insane no to try to regulate the insurance industry, even if it intrudes upon the sacred prerogative of the employer. I'm not seeing the Rubicon we just crossed.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-66056889168612930212012-03-01T02:25:18.259-05:002012-03-01T02:25:18.259-05:00>You side with conservative religious groups ag...>You side with conservative religious groups against the government and you dislike government interest in medicine in general.<br /><br />What do you mean we side with the Conservatives against government interest in medicine? That is the premise. Medicine is just an example. The premise is how do you insure the greatest amount of Liberty out there even if it's to the detriment of some individuals (in our case, that would not be able to afford birth control) and even when that Liberty is given to slimy insurance or bank industries. Because ultimately, that same Liberty is given to the people. We are working on different premises. Liberals value Equality to the detriment of Liberty. Conservatives value Liberty to the detriment of Equality. So in our case, the freedom of CHurch is questioned in order to facilitate equality of health that is distributed out there....under the guise of a "right"Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-81268008965561752172012-03-01T02:12:52.922-05:002012-03-01T02:12:52.922-05:00>However, it is the norm, and it is expected.
...>However, it is the norm, and it is expected.<br /><br />Hence the problem: Expectations.<br /><br />>If you're an employer who does not offer a plan, you will have to offer some other incentive, e.g. a higher salary.<br /><br />You will HAVE to? I guess you mean the free market will dictate it's in his best interest to offer this benefit right? So why is government getting involved?<br /><br />>Are you saying there's no health benefits at all to ready access to birth control? That there is no discernible reason for a government that bears responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, both economic and medical, to be at all interested in whether people who want birth control can get it with their insurance?<br /><br />I am saying, the Left has been near successful in using language such as "women's health" and "reproductive rights" to convince a public that destroying a potential life (to many) is the same thing as destroying a potential deadly virus. It all comes under the umbrella of "health." And who in their right minds would be against a woman being healthy, right? Only a cold blooded republican of course. There are many many many health benefits out there Vox, including phyiscal exercise. I don't suppose the gov't should regulate insurance offer that too should they?<br /><br />>Then why not let the coal company tell their employees to pay for their own damn black lung? What is the operating principle here? Health services you like - these the government can enforce - health services you don't - none of the government's damn business?<br /><br />Vox, dude, I responded to this twice. In general, I would like gov't out. But exceptions do occur (just like they occur in every facet of life). That if gov't DOES regulate it should regulate something that has exact bearing on what it is your employee is doing for the job. <br /><br />>we have a system that assumes employers will provide it as part of compensation.<br /><br />Don't assume anything. Let companies that want to offer insurance give it. And let companies pick what they want to offer. <br /><br />>You're not happy with the government doing anything.<br /><br />No, I am happy when gov't does what it is supposed to do. I don't think because woman all of a sudden don't want to pay for birth control, kal va'chomer, it means gov't has to now tell the insurance company it has to pay for that, and let alone to institutions that are morally against such things. <br /><br />The fact that our gov't has been doing this already is not a good sign for me Vox. I would be happier if gov't involvement would be less. The fact that we have been doing it like this for some time does not mean we should continue.<br /><br />>Part of this is mandating a certain amount of basic service in every plan.<br /><br />And so we come to the crux of it all. This is my problem. The mandate. Regulating commerce does not mean mandating. Of course, the Court will have to decide on this one. But it is exactly this that I fear our gov't being able to force it's citizens to buy something upon their personhood.<br /><br />And no, I have no problem with birth control. My wife is quite a fan. We pay for them ourselves. The "rights" issue is not my issue, but an issue with the Left. That is how all this starts. Read my comment above.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-12820757940337659352012-03-01T00:13:51.687-05:002012-03-01T00:13:51.687-05:00That's just it. For the most part, religions a...That's just it. For the most part, religions aren't trying to avoid or stop everything. But there are specific items which are important to various religions, and there is little to no reason to cross those lines (certainly as it was proposed to have been done originally). <br /><br />Are there reasonable safeguards which government can put in place that are non-objectionable? Sure, lots of them. And in those instances, there wasn't any real objection to what was put in place. People of this country value certain standards, and it makes sense to create some standards - i.e. situations where the government interferes <b>on behalf</b> of the people, which is what government is supposed to: Do what the people they represent wish them to do. <br /><br />Within that representation of the people, certain wise guidelines were laid out to protect various rights of the people, even when they are in the minority, and a few in particular were specified with good reason: Speech, religion, etc. Would it be good if cigarette companies had to put pictures of messed up lungs on their boxes? Yes. But it tramples on their freedom of speech, and IIRC the Supreme Court just sided with them that while they need the warning, they can't be forced to put the graphic.<br /><br />Here, you have a situation where the government is trying to enact something which they feel is an important item for people's health. However, this particular item is one which is an issue for members of certain religions, and moreover is not something that the people whom it's supposed to 'protect' cannot purchase on their own. It's dissimilar from your peyote example completely, which is restricting an illegal act; this is trying to force a group to perform an action they find morally reprehensible, and moreover for something that is not necessary to be done this way. (Interesting aside: I think Santorum is trying to make an even stronger argument, which is that the premise that birth control is protective of women is actually false based on the data from the last 50 years.)<br /><br />I believe that that's the balance that is necessary: Government should only be acting on behalf of the general population, and within that, should limit itself in particular when it comes to situations which encroach on the freedoms of the people. <br /><br />You're right that the government can tax; it can regulate. But within that, it shouldn't simply try to create a set way of life for the people, but instead only act to protect the people without encroaching on their lives and their beliefs.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-24141957997562322652012-02-29T23:51:35.678-05:002012-02-29T23:51:35.678-05:00>If government can restrict any aspect or force...>If government can restrict any aspect or force any action related to religion, then what value does it have? In your view there is no balance - it simply comes down to government decides, period. <br /><br />Sure I believe in balance. But make the argument that the balancing here is wrong. All I'm getting here is vague, absolutist objections. "It's absurd for government to be regulating employment insurance programs! Birth control is an absurd area for government interest! Whoever heard of government telling people what to do? Religion trumps all!" <br /><br />I've been trying to drill down on these premises, and figure out how you're coming to your conclusions. From what I can tell so far, your "balance" analysis is just conclusory. You side with conservative religious groups against the government and you dislike government interest in medicine in general. It just sounds a lot like "Republicans don't like X, therefore X is illegitimate and the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves."<br /><br />Give me the principle here, from which we can construct a rule. At what point do we stop deferring to religious objections?Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-5110718786056681012012-02-29T22:07:25.827-05:002012-02-29T22:07:25.827-05:00I think you're missing the main point here.
N...I think you're missing the main point here.<br /><br /><i>No.</i><br /><br />I think this is the telling line. In your mind, government has no limits. What does freedom of religion mean? If government can restrict any aspect or force any action related to religion, then what value does it have? In your view there is no balance - it simply comes down to government decides, period. <br /><br />You keep using examples of government already doing things as a proof they can do more, but that's precisely the point. We believe there should be a check on that power, and that even some of what has happened to date is questionable. That's not to say that these actions are unconstitutional; but that government has passed laws regarding various aspects of, say, health insurance guidelines, does not mean that they therefore are allowed to or even if allowed to that they should do the same with other aspects, particularly when those interfere with other freedoms.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-54598101493449801542012-02-29T21:59:35.233-05:002012-02-29T21:59:35.233-05:00>Missed my point. The point was that even with ...>Missed my point. The point was that even with the power to do so, the govt was extremely reluctant to do so - only if they felt it was truly necessary.<br /><br />As opposed to government programs now? Just done for a lark? If the government didn't think it was necessary, presumably, it wouldn't do it. Time was, the government thought it absolutely necessary that nobody be allowed to drink alcohol - even if their state allowed them to. Time was, the government thought people should be able to avail themselves of the legal system to keep people as slaves. There was no halcyon era of government only meddling in absolutely necessary affairs. A government that takes an interest in the insurance plans offered by employers is not a frivolously meddlesome government, even by American standards.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-4319774170230527982012-02-29T21:54:25.458-05:002012-02-29T21:54:25.458-05:00>I am not willing to hand over that much power ...>I am not willing to hand over that much power to the state. Least of all in such morally charged issues. I don't take too kindly to people that believe they are entitled to something, and since they can't acquire it own their own, they decide to send the state out, and take it.<br /><br />I am not entirely sure of the society in which you think you've been living. The government has been able to use, and has been using, these powers for a long time. And our government is by far the least intrusive in this regard. Because we don't want to "force" people into a government health plan, or even allow a government health plan, we have a system that assumes employers will provide it as part of compensation. Now you're telling us that the government can't regulate those plans, because then it would be "forcing" them to provide care they don't like. Yes, government is force. You're not happy with the government doing anything.<br /><br />Our democracy long ago decided that our government has an interest in interstate commerce and the individual health of its citizens, which can be expressed in the Medicare and Medicaid plans, Social Security, the EPA, forcing hospitals to treat the destitute, regulation of the insurance industry, etc. Part of this is mandating a certain amount of basic service in every plan. It is not free. It is being paid for. Whatever extra cost will come out of salaries or be passed onto the consumer. But is not a "right."<br /><br />That you frame it as an issue of rights, leads me to believe your problem is not with employers "being forced" to pay for birth control or euthanasia. Your problem is with the legality, or possible legality, of birth control and euthanasia. But the birth control boat has left the dock. Good luck with euthanasia.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-5096002437257779652012-02-29T21:54:05.195-05:002012-02-29T21:54:05.195-05:00>You're just playing semantics. The employe...>You're just playing semantics. The employer does not want to give a higher salary therefore now the government is forcing them to receive it another way. And since they are not paying for it, it IS free. <br /><br />It's not semantics. It's what it is. The government does not require employers to pay for their employees' health insurance, just like it does not require them to have casual Fridays. The norm in most countries is that employers do not pay for their employees' health insurance. In many countries, it is the government. However, in America, for a variety of reasons, part of the typical employment compensation package is medical insurance. This is by no means universal, however - many employers do not. However, it is the norm, and it is expected. Thanks to our screwy system, most people rely on their employers for insurance. If you're an employer who does not offer a plan, you will have to offer some other incentive, e.g. a higher salary. The government is not forcing either side of the equation. The free market for labor is.<br /><br />What the government is regulating is insurance plans. All insurance plans must offer to pay for birth control. Again, is the government allowed to regulate insurance plans, employer purchased or otherwise? Or is it per se illegitimate for the government to regulate insurance?<br /><br />>From a common sense POV, health insurance is there to be healthy. That is medicine in general. So if you are going to offer health insurance I can't imagine you wanting to be against a measles vaccination.<br /><br />Are you saying there's no health benefits at all to ready access to birth control? That there is no discernible reason for a government that bears responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, both economic and medical, to be at all interested in whether people who want birth control can get it with their insurance?<br /><br />>But if you want to ask me about government involvement, I would say they should just butt the hell out. If a company does not want to give you measles vaccination pay for it your damn self.<br /><br />Then why not let the coal company tell their employees to pay for their own damn black lung? What is the operating principle here? Health services you like - these the government can enforce - health services you don't - none of the government's damn business?Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-55902888430087666952012-02-29T18:56:13.588-05:002012-02-29T18:56:13.588-05:00>Is the distinction you're aiming at that t...>Is the distinction you're aiming at that the government can only mandate regulation for on-the-premises conduct?<br /><br />Well, if I am going to accept government getting involved in regulation of the business...it ought to be...business related. I am currently an employee of a media company. I eat. I eat at home. Should my employer be forced to offer me free food?<br /><br />>First, it's not free. It's an employee benefit. It's in lieu of a greater salary.<br /><br />You're just playing semantics. The employer does not want to give a higher salary therefore now the government is forcing them to receive it another way. And since they are not paying for it, it IS free. <br /><br /><br />>Second, what is the difference between birth control and measles vaccinations?<br /><br />One is a potential life, the other is a virus. From a common sense POV, health insurance is there to be healthy. That is medicine in general. So if you are going to offer health insurance I can't imagine you wanting to be against a measles vaccination. But if you want to ask me about government involvement, I would say they should just butt the hell out. If a company does not want to give you measles vaccination pay for it your damn self.<br /><br />>No.<br /><br />So that's where we differ. I am not willing to hand over that much power to the state. Least of all in such morally charged issues. I don't take too kindly to people that believe they are entitled to something, and since they can't acquire it own their own, they decide to send the state out, and take it.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-44714649923539401092012-02-29T16:28:29.326-05:002012-02-29T16:28:29.326-05:00>A coal miner getting hurt on the job is direct...>A coal miner getting hurt on the job is directly linked to his job. A more suiting example for your "employees having sex" would be a brothel where the sex is the job.<br /><br />Again, what is your principle? Why is it okay for the government to tell coal extractors they must provide first aid kits on their premises, but it's not okay to tell other employers the insurance benefits they agree to pay for must include some basic things?<br /><br />I understood your point about coal miners to be that coal companies must expect injuries to happen to their workers, and that they therefore must be prepared to provide them. Just as the Catholic Church must expect its employees to have sex, perhaps not on the premises, but I'm sure they do have sex somewhere. Is the distinction you're aiming at that the government can only mandate regulation for on-the-premises conduct?<br /><br />>At what point do you believe "national policy" crosses a line? So because women don't want to pay for their own birth control that means you set out a national policy that they are owed free ones? <br /><br />First, it's not free. It's an employee benefit. It's in lieu of a greater salary. For whatever reason, employers would rather pay for their employee's insurance. Second, what is the difference between birth control and measles vaccinations? Is it just that the Church doesn't like birth control but likes measles vaccinations? Christian scientists, I am sure, appreciate neither. Is there to be absolutely no permissible area of government regulation for insurance because anyone can come up with a religious objection to anything? Again, what is the principle you are advocating?<br /><br />>If euthanasia became legal, do you believe it would cross a line for national policy to dictate the OU has to offer it?<br /><br />No.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-86593446820139209002012-02-29T03:11:26.842-05:002012-02-29T03:11:26.842-05:00>But more seriously, what principle are you adv...>But more seriously, what principle are you advocating here?<br /><br />What do you mean what am I advocating? At what point do you believe "national policy" crosses a line? So because women don't want to pay for their own birth control that means you set out a national policy that they are owed free ones? And that you have to trump someone elses' belief in that process? If euthanasia became legal, do you believe it would cross a line for national policy to dictate the OU has to offer it?Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-48718093345305637542012-02-29T03:07:51.030-05:002012-02-29T03:07:51.030-05:00>They don't employ life forms that reproduc...>They don't employ life forms that reproduce sexually? Pretty sure the occurrence of employees having sex is not a demonstrably rarer occurrence than coal miners needing first aid.<br /><br />Oh stop it. They also employ life forms that eat as well. Maybe free food should be given to them as well. I feel like pulling out my hair here. Did you seriously write that? Employees having sex has nothing to do with working for a church. A coal miner getting hurt on the job is directly linked to his job. A more suiting example for your "employees having sex" would be a brothel where the sex is the job.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-58054065642623720472012-02-29T01:17:34.780-05:002012-02-29T01:17:34.780-05:00No it isn't. Your money is being used by you t...<i>No it isn't. Your money is being used by you to buy, for yourself, health insurance. Indirectly, this benefits the public weal, but it's not going into some government superfund. And, again, taxes are something the government takes you to mamash spend on the public. Get over it.</i><br /><br />Re: insurance - only to an extent, and in the specifics here the Church is fronting likely 75% of the bill for coverage they don't want to include for moral reasons.<br /><br />Re: taxes, that's obviously a matter of intense debate as to what should or shouldn't be spent on the public from people and company's earnings.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-68440224529056209912012-02-29T01:15:25.801-05:002012-02-29T01:15:25.801-05:00Dude! Article I, Section 8, clause - Congress shal...<i>Dude! Article I, Section 8, clause - Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. The income tax *may* be a different thing, but there's a constitutional amendment for that too. Honestly, what is it with Republicans and taxes? You guys act as if the whole concept was thought up at a meeting of the Super-Socialist Fun Club after the 2004 Democratic convention.</i><br /><br />Missed my point. The point was that even with the power to do so, the govt was extremely reluctant to do so - only if they felt it was truly necessary.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-11153466292197786272012-02-28T15:17:04.717-05:002012-02-28T15:17:04.717-05:00>The churchs' "business" has noth...>The churchs' "business" has nothing to do with contraception.<br /><br />They don't employ life forms that reproduce sexually? Pretty sure the occurrence of employees having sex is not a demonstrably rarer occurrence than coal miners needing first aid.<br /><br />Also, to be only slightly cheeky - how are they <i>not</i> in the business of contraception? They instruct half their employees not to have sex at all, and they tell everyone else they should have sex, but not use contraception! It's front and center! <br /><br />But more seriously, what principle are you advocating here? The government can only regulate business activities deemed essential to your business, regardless of national policy? The government is per se not allowed to regulate insurance or compensation schemes, because insurance is only essential to insurance companies? That would be ridiculous.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.com