I'd rather have judges who didn't feel corporate freedoms were more important than personal freedoms now. And if you think another liberal judge would be approved by the Senate/House, you've not been paying attention for the last 8 years.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Scalia is big, but I don't think he can eat that much.
They can't just shutdown the Supreme Court for an entire presidential term and they can't rule without an odd number of votes. It's going to happen and we'll be better for it.
If you say so.
Actually, apparently I was wrong about them not being able to make rulings. As long as they have at least 6 sitting justices, they can make a ruling.
I still have yet to hear why these particular contraceptive pills shouldn't' be covered. Anyone who can do a basic google search knows they don't cause abortion, the Jesus reason doesn't hold up (I've got 5 years and a masters degree in Biblical Theology with a minor in Old Testament studies, trust me, this isn't in there unless you are totally cool with doing some very serious cherry picking and ignoring all context, history and general scholarly opinion, OR you are Catholic in which case fuck the Bible, you got POPE POWER!). I mean, I get what Gas is saying, "why should we pay for those women pills when they can go to Walmart and buy them on their own"? That is, and I honestly mean this, a perfectly fine view to have. It's just that it can also apply to basically every other thing insurance covers so I still come back to: Why not? What is so different about these few things that we must get exemptions from them? So far I'm only hearing (in general, not from here necessarily) crazy religious views that have zero basis in the actual religion or views based on lies or major exaggerations of the actual science. Hell the flagship evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, did an article explain why these are NOT abortion pills.
I'm actually starting to suspect this isn't about ANY of those things no matter what Hobby Lobby (which is a super shitty and horrible story btw oh AND it's come out that they invest about 73 MILLION dollars in the pharmaceutical companies that make these particular pills so, hey, major hypocrites! who would have thought?!?) but it's 100% about Obamacare and fighting it any way they can because they hate it so much.
I'm actually starting to suspect this isn't about ANY of those things no matter what Hobby Lobby (which is a super shitty and horrible story btw oh AND it's come out that they invest about 73 MILLION dollars in the pharmaceutical companies that make these particular pills so, hey, major hypocrites! who would have thought?!?) but it's 100% about Obamacare and fighting it any way they can because they hate it so much.
And yet the morning after pills themselves mention a chance of preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. You really want to insult them for trusting the FDA, the organization we use to oversee all food and drug safety issues?
I'm sure the people running Hobby Lobby are involved in every investment choice the 401k makes, that they're specifically aware of the "dozens if not hundreds of different holdings" (Mother Jones' own words) in the retirement funds and everything that each company invested in, or any of their subsidiaries, makes. And perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but according to Mother Jones, it's the nine funds that contain any such holdings that total 73 million, not that there were 73 million dollars in those holdings.
Since the investments are in their employees' 401k plans, it's actually the employees (who may or may not share their beliefs) making the money, not the company. Since they do matching contributions, you could say Hobby Lobby is actually losing money to them, couldn't you?
GasBandit
Staff member
Hey, they got Kagan and Sotomayor, what more proof do you need?
I thought I'd let you know that I'm appropriating this word for use under appropriate circumstances.
--Patrick
A) Birth control or morning after pill makes a huge difference, imo. I was just going to say any employee refused coverage of their birth control pill should, on principle, stay home 2 or 3 days a month with cramps and bleeding - after all, the medication to cotnrol and regulate it isn't allowed. Morning after....Eh, I'm iffy on. All in all, it's not something that should be used regularly enough that it should make much of a difference.
B) As long as there's enough ways of protecting yourself, I can understand not just covering any and all - a coverage should include at least some variations of dealing with a cold, not just one, but that doesn't mean it should necessarily cover all possible ways of dealing with a cold.
C) People abusing the Word of God for political or private profit reasons? What h as the world come to?! This is unprecedented!?!
B) As long as there's enough ways of protecting yourself, I can understand not just covering any and all - a coverage should include at least some variations of dealing with a cold, not just one, but that doesn't mean it should necessarily cover all possible ways of dealing with a cold.
C) People abusing the Word of God for political or private profit reasons? What h as the world come to?! This is unprecedented!?!
[Republican]Well, maybe she should've just consented; then it wouldn't have been a rape.[/Republican]
Necronic
Staff member
Maybe, but they are doing so by choice. Really it's not making money of losing it, it's a vehicle for compensating their employees: it's an investment
Whose choice? This is where my previous point questioning whether or not the Greens are personally aware of every company that any of their retirement funds invest in, as well as everything that each such company or any of their subsidiaries makes, comes in. Steinman really covered this point better than I did though.
Necronic
Staff member
are they aware of the natal choices of all of their employees? Of course not, so they create broad rules to proactively push an ethical system they agree with (which is fine). The same could be true with a managed trust like a 401k, and there ARE values based mutual funds.
And I'm not sure where your getting that Hobby Lobby has no choice, that's completely inaccurate. Your company determines the investment options of your 401k (which is why mine really really suck)
I agree though that they just might not have known, but now that they do they should change that because part of their pay package involves profit from abortifacients[DOUBLEPOST=1404231305,1404231141][/DOUBLEPOST]First google hit. First sentence
http://www.finra.org/Investors/SmartInvesting/Retirement/Smart401kInvesting/investing/
And I'm not sure where your getting that Hobby Lobby has no choice, that's completely inaccurate. Your company determines the investment options of your 401k (which is why mine really really suck)
I agree though that they just might not have known, but now that they do they should change that because part of their pay package involves profit from abortifacients[DOUBLEPOST=1404231305,1404231141][/DOUBLEPOST]First google hit. First sentence
http://www.finra.org/Investors/SmartInvesting/Retirement/Smart401kInvesting/investing/
I didn't say they had no choice, I questioned whether the Green's are the one who personally made the choices. Just because the company makes the choices doesn't mean that they aren't delegated to someone like a hired finiancial expert. Also, deciding on which mutual fund, bond fund, money market fund, ect the employees can pay into doesn't to my knowledge (which is very much a layman's knowledge, feel free to correct me on this) mean examining each and every potential company each fund may invest in. Espy was saying that since their 401(k) plans include some of these companies, they much not really care about the issue and only be against Obamacare, I was pointing out how this could be the case and they still do honestly care about the issue.
Necronic
Staff member
Let's look at these so-called differences one by own
It's micromanaging for CEOs to look at/determine what's in 401ks: and it's not micromanaging to look at employee health insurance policies?
401ks are complex products that take a lot of analysis to figure out if they invest in morally objectionable products: as opposed to health insurance policies, which are not complex? Health insurance policies are just as complex as mutual funds.
Employees have a choice to invest in their 401ks: do we really want to use the term "choice" in this argument in this way? Abortifacients are just as much a matter of employee choice as 401ks are. Moreso actually, because if I want to utilize the 401k I HAVE to invest in morally objectionable companies. If I am in the insurance program I don't have to take an abortifacient. Using choice as an argument here is a REALLY bad idea.
It's for the employee benefit, not the Greens: how does acces to abortifacients profit the greens any more than an employee 401k program. There is no difference here.
-----------
Here's the only two real differences:
1). Removing acces to abortifacients will primarily hurt young single low-wage women. Switching the 401k to an ethical, but lower yield mutual fund, will hurt higher earning higher placed employees.
2) the arbortifacients case is far more directly linked to obamacare.
I still agree with GB that they can do whatever the fuck they want as a privately held company. But I don't buy their moral outrage, this is political and sort of greasy since it uses the poor as a pawn.
It's micromanaging for CEOs to look at/determine what's in 401ks: and it's not micromanaging to look at employee health insurance policies?
401ks are complex products that take a lot of analysis to figure out if they invest in morally objectionable products: as opposed to health insurance policies, which are not complex? Health insurance policies are just as complex as mutual funds.
Employees have a choice to invest in their 401ks: do we really want to use the term "choice" in this argument in this way? Abortifacients are just as much a matter of employee choice as 401ks are. Moreso actually, because if I want to utilize the 401k I HAVE to invest in morally objectionable companies. If I am in the insurance program I don't have to take an abortifacient. Using choice as an argument here is a REALLY bad idea.
It's for the employee benefit, not the Greens: how does acces to abortifacients profit the greens any more than an employee 401k program. There is no difference here.
-----------
Here's the only two real differences:
1). Removing acces to abortifacients will primarily hurt young single low-wage women. Switching the 401k to an ethical, but lower yield mutual fund, will hurt higher earning higher placed employees.
2) the arbortifacients case is far more directly linked to obamacare.
I still agree with GB that they can do whatever the fuck they want as a privately held company. But I don't buy their moral outrage, this is political and sort of greasy since it uses the poor as a pawn.
Last edited:
I really have no clue what you're aguring with at this point, I assume it's with something I said, but you seem to be getting something else entirely out of my posts. Again, my point was merely that in this case, it is entirely possible for the Green's to be not be aware of the every single company their 401(k) plans invest in, so they aren't neccessarily lying bastards that don't care about the abortifacients.
Because you know there's no way they care about directly providing what they see as abortion drugs to people somehow? Also, while Hobby Lobby will not be providing those drugs, that doesn't mean that people don't have coverage for them, part of the reason for the court's decision is that the government already has measures in place to cover people that aren't covered by the exceptions for these things the government already gave to religious and non-profit organizations.
Necronic
Staff member
I was arguing with some points you made as well as points made earlier by others. Just wanted to put them all together.
I already said it could be an honest mistake, it's only something you would see if you were specifically looking for it (like....I dunno...the health insurance stuff). It's the only logical justification to me, and it's understandable.
But now that the mistake has been pointed out I don't see how they can continue to use these mutual funds. Christian/ethical mutual funds exist, they just might not earn as much.
Also they aren't directly providing those drugs to their employees. The insurance company is. In the same way they aren't paying their employees with abortifacient profits. The mutual fund is.
It's either a problem or it isn't
I already said it could be an honest mistake, it's only something you would see if you were specifically looking for it (like....I dunno...the health insurance stuff). It's the only logical justification to me, and it's understandable.
But now that the mistake has been pointed out I don't see how they can continue to use these mutual funds. Christian/ethical mutual funds exist, they just might not earn as much.
Also they aren't directly providing those drugs to their employees. The insurance company is. In the same way they aren't paying their employees with abortifacient profits. The mutual fund is.
It's either a problem or it isn't
Last edited:
Necronic
Staff member
I feel I'm showing pretty clearly how there really aren't that many differences, yes. I feel I made a pretty good argument for why they are not that different, and I believe I addressed all the perceived differences are not really differences. The only major difference is that one was a problem they wanted to find and the other wasn't.
That does not mean ill intention, but their reaction to discovering it will say a lot about their character.
Ed: also, saying they are religious differences does not mean they don't have to be logically coherent and internally consistent. They have to at least agree with their own arguments if they want people to listen
That does not mean ill intention, but their reaction to discovering it will say a lot about their character.
Ed: also, saying they are religious differences does not mean they don't have to be logically coherent and internally consistent. They have to at least agree with their own arguments if they want people to listen
Last edited:
My boss owner decided bathroom breaks are against his religion, so now we wear diapers.
Necronic
Staff member
In fairness to Krisken he's using the free market solution. Don't like their policy? Fuck em.
Also I doubt the dems will have govt pay for it, not this close to an election. If they do put it to a vote it will be purely for the theatrics of getting it denied. It is far better for them to have the republicans vote against this than for it to be approved. The former makes the republicans look worse than the latter makes the dems look better. People still see republicans (regardless of if it's right) as not being super woman friendly, this will only make them look worse.
Sure it galvanizes the religious right, but it's not like they are on the fence. You just need them to turn up. But they are galvanizing the religious right while alienatin moderates, which is a great place for dems to have them
Ultimately this ruling will do more harm to republicans than good.
Also I doubt the dems will have govt pay for it, not this close to an election. If they do put it to a vote it will be purely for the theatrics of getting it denied. It is far better for them to have the republicans vote against this than for it to be approved. The former makes the republicans look worse than the latter makes the dems look better. People still see republicans (regardless of if it's right) as not being super woman friendly, this will only make them look worse.
Sure it galvanizes the religious right, but it's not like they are on the fence. You just need them to turn up. But they are galvanizing the religious right while alienatin moderates, which is a great place for dems to have them
Ultimately this ruling will do more harm to republicans than good.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not for your actions, for the underlying reasons for them. A man who saves a drowning woman because he expects to get laid for it is not a hero.
GasBandit
Staff member
I wonder how people would be reacting if a republican senator had threatened that a republican president may have to "borrow" some power to bypass the legislative branch. Does Dick Durbin understand the separation of powers, or does he just disregard it when convenient?
Necronic
Staff member
So this is purely a funding issue? The holding was :
I guess he who controls the money controls the kingdom, and that makes it a way to defacto legislate, which has value, but...it's also potentially greasy. I can't believe I forgot all of this, it was a big part of the argument back when the ACA came out.
I still hold that wins for the religious right (congressionally or otherwise) do dems more good than republicans though. Not many people really support the religious right, and seeing an entire party devoted to their cause really freaks out a lot of moderates.