bfloydo Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 188 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 53 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/23/1957 Share Posted February 23, 2016 7 hours ago, ayin jade said: Forcing a religious company to provide health care insurance that covers (ie the company pays for) something they have a religious moral objection to IS an assault on religious liberty. A Simple Solution -- Maybe ( LOL ) Why cant the Company drop the insurance carrier and let the people get the insurance they choose in the open market? Yes, the company might or would be inclined to give the people a raise to cover the cost to their employees, but that should resolve the companies morale dilemma ... should it not it? The money is now the individuals to buy the insurance they choose, using their own Individual Religious Freedom. Problem Resolved. More than likely, the company would not like my resolution .... If so Why? Because, The Company ( in line with the Church ) would have to relinquish some of its control and authority over the Religious Freedoms, of its individual employees/ members. Individual Freedoms are Protected not companies, businesses, or even churches. Calling this an assault is almost laughable, in comparison to when the RCC was/ is the Governing Body, through the hundreds of inquisition years, to the hiding and protecting criminals who sexually assaulted children( and the criminals that where/ are accomplice/ complicit in hiding the crime), and Mafia Blood money Laundering. If the company does not like the Ruling, or an alternative solution( as the one I suggested ). The only option left is to get fined, and or take it up with God. I am not much of a betting man but, When cash is on the line how long do you think the company will pay the fines to keep from offending their Religious Moral's? This maybe the Truest measure of Conviction and Conscience in the matter....... Stay Tuned and Lets us see the dollar value the Company might place on this most important issue....................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, bfloydo said: A Simple Solution -- Maybe ( LOL ) Why cant the Company drop the insurance carrier and let the people get the insurance they choose in the open market? Yes, the company might or would be inclined to give the people a raise to cover the cost to their employees, but that should resolve the companies morale dilemma ... should it not it? The money is now the individuals to buy the insurance they choose, using their own Individual Religious Freedom. Problem Resolved. More than likely, the company would not like my resolution .... If so Why? Because, The Company ( in line with the Church ) would have to relinquish some of its control and authority over the Religious Freedoms, of its individual employees/ members. Individual Freedoms are Protected not companies, businesses, or even churches. Calling this an assault is almost laughable, in comparison to when the RCC was/ is the Governing Body, through the hundreds of inquisition years, to the hiding and protecting criminals who sexually assaulted children( and the criminals that where/ are accomplice/ complicit in hiding the crime), and Mafia Blood money Laundering. If the company does not like the Ruling, or an alternative solution( as the one I suggested ). The only option left is to get fined, and or take it up with God. I am not much of a betting man but, When cash is on the line how long do you think the company will pay the fines to keep from offending their Religious Moral's? This maybe the Truest measure of Conviction and Conscience in the matter....... Stay Tuned and Lets us see the dollar value the Company might place on this most important issue....................................... Because the company is being forced to have it, thanks to obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfloydo Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 188 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 53 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/23/1957 Share Posted February 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, ayin jade said: Because the company is being forced to have it, thanks to obamacare. No the Company isnt being Forced. The Company can drop their employee health coverage, and give individuals the money to purchase their own coverage. The individual has the option to not purchase contraception, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drug options. Problem solved. Just as my earlier, wordier and more specif thread indicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.70 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, bfloydo said: No the Company isnt being Forced. The Company can drop their employee health coverage, and give individuals the money to purchase their own coverage. The individual has the option to not purchase contraception, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drug options. Problem solved. Just as my earlier, wordier and more specif thread indicated. Are you sure about that? EWTN self insures. The cost of comparable insurance that employees could purchase individually would be much, much, much more expensive. An article from the NYTimes explains why EWTN cannnot comply. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/why-ewtn-wont-cover-contraception.html?_r=0 It ends with this statement: The mandate makes it impossible for us to live up to [our] core mission, giving us the choice of either compromising our beliefs or being crushed by fines. That ultimatum is unfair, unconstitutional and repugnant — which is why we have no choice but to fight it in court. They are fighting not just for their own rights, but for all of your rights as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2016 20 minutes ago, bfloydo said: No the Company isnt being Forced. The Company can drop their employee health coverage, and give individuals the money to purchase their own coverage. The individual has the option to not purchase contraception, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drug options. Problem solved. Just as my earlier, wordier and more specif thread indicated. So giving them money to pay for coverage that goes against their beliefs is still going against their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2016 4 hours ago, ayin jade said: So giving them money to pay for coverage that goes against their beliefs is still going against their beliefs. Since the money given would be in the form of a higher salary, they don't have the right to tell people what to do with their salary. Or at least I don't think so, perhaps you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfloydo Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 188 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 53 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/23/1957 Share Posted February 23, 2016 7 hours ago, thereselittleflower said: Are you sure about that? EWTN self insures. The cost of comparable insurance that employees could purchase individually would be much, much, much more expensive. An article from the NYTimes explains why EWTN cannnot comply. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/why-ewtn-wont-cover-contraception.html?_r=0 It ends with this statement: The mandate makes it impossible for us to live up to [our] core mission, giving us the choice of either compromising our beliefs or being crushed by fines. That ultimatum is unfair, unconstitutional and repugnant — which is why we have no choice but to fight it in court. They are fighting not just for their own rights, but for all of your rights as well. Yes, I am sure =0) Employer Responsibility Under the Affordable Care Act The Affordable Care Act does not require businesses to provide health benefits to their workers, but applicable large employers may face penalties if they don’t make affordable coverage available. The Employer Shared Responsibility Provision of the Affordable Care Act penalizes employers who either do not offer coverage or do not offer coverage which meets minimum value and affordability standards. In 2016, these penalties will apply to firms with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees. This flowchart illustrates how those employer responsibilities work. -- http://kff.org/infographic/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act/ The EWTN says it would be fined $600,000 to start and as I read there statement. That's Chump change to this business that sells perhaps thousands of items for profit and makes 10's if not 100's of Millions of dollars a year. The company is spending at least $7,000,000 a year just for employees( @20k ea.). A mark up of 1 - 3% on the items it sells would more than cover the costs. I am sure the viewers of the station would understand, as it applies to morale value. I can assure you way more than $600,000 has been spent by this company( and other sources ) in legal fees that continue to rise. How can they be fighting for the rights of others by Refusing choice??? They pay taxes, and those taxes support the same moral issues we are discussing any many more the RCC does not support, do they not??? If they quit paying taxes, I steadfastly believe they are standing on firm Religious Morals. My personal view is the Gov. should provide health care to all, I would totally agree to have my taxes raised to accomplish this. As you may Know there are still many millions w/o healthcare. Peace/ Love/ Blessing to All Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.70 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 excuse me? So - according to what you just posted: they are required to provide insurance - (so they cannot simply not provide anything and give their employees money to buy their own), and you say they can stop doing so? Really? According to what you just posted above, No they can't. They are REQUIRED to provide insurance. So they are being REQUIRED to provide something that violates their conscience based on their religious convictions. If you don't think they are fighting for religious freedom for all of us, then I don't know what to say to you, except to say this is an example of not being able to see the forest for the trees . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.70 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 4 hours ago, Vendtre said: Since the money given would be in the form of a higher salary, they don't have the right to tell people what to do with their salary. Or at least I don't think so, perhaps you do How could they regulate that? But even so, as bfloydo demonstrated, they are required to provide insurance, so as far as I can see, this idea would be moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said: How could they regulate that? But even so, as bfloydo demonstrated, they are required to provide insurance, so as far as I can see, this idea would be moot. They are required to choose between providing insurance or paying a fine. Some companies have found the fine to be a less amount than providing insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts