Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Letter From CEO of Hobby Lobby inregard to Obamacare

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
November 19, 2012 6:38:29 PM

Quote:
A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there,Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.

Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
November 19, 2012 6:56:21 PM

Good to see the religious beliefs of the owners of the Hobby Lobby trump the beliefs of their workers.

More political motivation masked by religion.
November 19, 2012 6:56:40 PM

Thanks for posting.

True writing as some have confirmed. Fairly impressive that this shows up on the first page when googling it too.
November 19, 2012 7:05:04 PM

wanamingo said:
Good to see the religious beliefs of the owners of the Hobby Lobby trump the beliefs of their workers.

More political motivation masked by religion.
More like owners of private companies running their businesses according to their principles and not as government mandates.

If a privately owned company can make policy that concealed carry is not allowed in their businesses in a State where concealed carry is perfectly legal and where that policy effectively trumps State law in favor of the rights of private business, then a privately owned company can rightfully sue the government for mandating them to provide a service that is against their principles.

Unfortunately government mandates are politicizing religious principles.




November 19, 2012 7:14:40 PM

I wonder if any Muslim or Jewish people work for them. Since they feel the need to impose their faith on those that work for them they must hire only christians.
November 19, 2012 7:28:36 PM

johnsonma said:
I wonder if any Muslim or Jewish people work for them. Since they feel the need to impose their faith on those that work for them they must hire only christians.


I would wager they do, employ people who do not agree with their core beliefs 100%.
It would be like saying no Christian, works at say, Starbucks or Wal-mart.

November 19, 2012 7:31:18 PM

What about legitimate contraception for a medical condition? You and I know there are enough cases to warrant contraception to regulate "Monthly Cycles".

November 19, 2012 9:31:58 PM

wanamingo said:
What about legitimate contraception for a medical condition? You and I know there are enough cases to warrant contraception to regulate "Monthly Cycles".
Most if not all drug prescription plans make exceptions for women who need contraception for reasons other than birth control. If a woman needs oral contraception to regulate heavy menstruation, as hormone stabilizers, or prevent ovarian cysts, etc then it is no longer using contraception as contraception. At that point doctors and insurers consider the prescription a "medical necessity" as it changes the nature of the reason for taking the contraception from strictly being for birth control to being necessary for maintaining health and/or lifestyle.

There may be a minority of religious organizations that choose a specific health insurer because they do not cover oral contraception as part of the base package, but I venture that those companies are in the extreme minority. Most likely, religious organizations, like any other company managing health care costs, choose their health care insurer based on cost for value and the amount of coverage provided.

The irony of this whole issue is that there are many religious (Catholic) organizations that already provide oral contraception as part of the overall package offered by their health insurer. Which only plays into the fallacy of politicizing contraception as a women's health issue.

November 20, 2012 12:48:26 AM

Another loopy religious nut trying to impose his religious and moral principles on the rest of us.

Good luck with the lawsuit ... feeding a heap of lawyers in the process.

/akwardmoment
November 20, 2012 1:05:12 AM

JBB-SaDo said:
Quote:
A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there,Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.

Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
I am sick and tired seeing these religious fanatics making excuses for the health of their employees and Obamacare. This is just a dam excuse because he is cheap.
November 20, 2012 1:06:33 AM

Reynod said:
Another loopy religious nut trying to impose his religious and moral principles on the rest of us.

Good luck with the lawsuit ... feeding a heap of lawyers in the process.

/akwardmoment
100% correct Sir
November 20, 2012 4:51:34 AM

I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

Just read this, apply it towards the constitution
November 20, 2012 11:23:08 AM

chunkymonster said:
Most if not all drug prescription plans make exceptions for women who need contraception for reasons other than birth control. If a woman needs oral contraception to regulate heavy menstruation, as hormone stabilizers, or prevent ovarian cysts, etc then it is no longer using contraception as contraception. At that point doctors and insurers consider the prescription a "medical necessity" as it changes the nature of the reason for taking the contraception from strictly being for birth control to being necessary for maintaining health and/or lifestyle.

There may be a minority of religious organizations that choose a specific health insurer because they do not cover oral contraception as part of the base package, but I venture that those companies are in the extreme minority. Most likely, religious organizations, like any other company managing health care costs, choose their health care insurer based on cost for value and the amount of coverage provided.

The irony of this whole issue is that there are many religious (Catholic) organizations that already provide oral contraception as part of the overall package offered by their health insurer. Which only plays into the fallacy of politicizing contraception as a women's health issue.


Thats not what the guy wants, he doesnt want to offer any form of birth control for any reason, the owner considers them abortion drugs.

I also find it interesting that right around obamacare time people suddenly start caring... Did you know that 28 states already covered contraceptives before obamacare? There was no problem before. Heres a good example of a religious institution that had been offering birth control as a part of its health care.

There are already religious exceptions, its not like anyone is going to burn in hellfire because a cashier at a hobby lobby is is using contraceptive. And even if you do go to hell for practicing safe sex thats no god I want a part of.

Hes a loony who is forcing morality on his employees.
November 20, 2012 11:24:30 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

Just read this, apply it towards the constitution


Which companies did the government pardon from the mandate because of cost or convenience?
November 20, 2012 12:10:41 PM

Thanks for the copy pasta but that info is next to useless.

Why are they exempt? Whats with all of the asterisks? Who compiled the list? Why cant I find it anywhere else?
November 20, 2012 12:34:14 PM

Nothing wrong with a company not wanting to pay for select medical care they don't believe in. Certain areas should be exempt such as birth control and things their religion is against. Since they are being forced into providing something they are religiously against as a FAMILY owned company, I back them. If they were not family owned, I wouldn't really care.
November 20, 2012 1:05:46 PM

riser said:
Nothing wrong with a company not wanting to pay for select medical care they don't believe in. Certain areas should be exempt such as birth control and things their religion is against. Since they are being forced into providing something they are religiously against as a FAMILY owned company, I back them. If they were not family owned, I wouldn't really care.


So if the owners of a company are Jehovah Witnesses they can remove a blood transfusion from your healthcare because it doesn't match their beliefs?

November 20, 2012 1:13:19 PM

wanamingo said:

There are already religious exceptions, its not like anyone is going to burn in hellfire because a cashier at a hobby lobby is is using contraceptive. And even if you do go to hell for practicing safe sex thats no god I want a part of.


He is not trying to mandate what his employees believe. He,
Spoiler
wants *the right back* to believe what he wants, and not have the Gov tell him what he can believe.


Hes a loony who is forcing morality on his employees.[/quotemsg]

He not "Forcing" his employees to work for him, as an employer I believe, in The U.S he still has the *right* to run his business anyway he deems fit. he is fighting because that right is being taken away.
November 20, 2012 1:26:44 PM

So what you are saying now is that before a company hires a person they have to tell them what the owners religious beliefs are and if those beliefs interfere with your beliefs you have to seek work elsewhere?

And freedom of religion doesn't extend into the workplace.... Thats an awfully slippery slope you are on.
November 20, 2012 1:47:21 PM

wanamingo said:
So what you are saying now is that before a company hires a person they have to tell them what the owners religious beliefs are and if those beliefs interfere with your beliefs you have to seek work elsewhere?


I didn't say The company should be forced to tell them before they employ someone.



Quote:
And freedom of religion doesn't extend into the workplace.... Thats an awfully slippery slope you are on.


Yeah I am, aren't I.
Faith has an place in everything we do. no matter what you believe, Your "religion or "non religion" it affects the decisions you make in life.


November 20, 2012 1:59:15 PM

wanamingo said:
So if the owners of a company are Jehovah Witnesses they can remove a blood transfusion from your healthcare because it doesn't match their beliefs?


If it were a private business, yes, they should not have to pay for that portion that they do not believe in. It can be listed as not covered and the individual can purchase the necessary insurance or pay out of pocket expenses. Again, only as a private business where the owners' religion factors in and what they pay for directly impacts their religious beliefs.

You are OK with removing the separation of Church and State?
November 20, 2012 2:04:49 PM

Slippery slope here gentlemen.

Tomorrow all the Waltons convert to The Church of the First Born and suddenly they have to provide no healthcare coverage?

Healthcare should be a human right, not to be decided by your employer......

You also realize this leaves a huge door open for sharia.....
November 20, 2012 2:12:00 PM

I am all for the separation of church and state. But I also believe that access to healthcare is a human right, one that shouldnt be infringed upon.... Once you have a person blocking you from a basic human right because of THEIR religion it becomes a freedom of religion (Or lack of) issue.
November 20, 2012 2:13:13 PM

wanamingo said:
Slippery slope here gentlemen.

Tomorrow all the Waltons convert to The Church of the First Born and suddenly they have to provide no healthcare coverage?

Healthcare should be a human right, not to be decided by your employer......

You also realize this leaves a huge door open for sharia.....



I am not saying heathcare should be decided by your employer.....and not by the Gov. You should have the choice of what insurance you have.




November 20, 2012 2:42:53 PM

JBB-SaDo said:
I am not saying heathcare should be decided by your employer.....and not by the Gov. You should have the choice of what insurance you have.


Unless your employer has a problem with it on religious grounds.... That choice is being removed because of someone elses BS.

Im all for deciding what healthcare you want to have, you dont have to get contraception if you dont want to. The decision should be yours not the gov or your employer.

Something like 98% of women will use birth control at some point in their lives, but only a few percent of men will need viagra. Why should that be covered but birth control isnt?
November 20, 2012 2:45:20 PM

I have a family owned business so I should be able to use child labor. Also you cannot drink caffeinated beverages while at work as it is against my beliefs as it is the drug of the devil.

What are we the middle east or the United States of America? This kind of backwards thinking does no one any good.
November 20, 2012 2:47:00 PM

JBB-SaDo said:
I am not saying heathcare should be decided by your employer.....and not by the Gov. You should have the choice of what insurance you have.


All the government is saying here is that all women should be given the option, while the employer says they should not be given the option.
November 20, 2012 4:07:15 PM

The failure of granulation is what government does/is.
Solution, allow those that want it an out thru the government only BINGO
November 20, 2012 4:21:23 PM

But having difficulties getting an erection is covered? So since sex for men is covered why not contraceptives for women?
November 20, 2012 4:40:37 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I put a link in there what do you want?

If you don't know the answers to your questions perhaps you should take the time to inform yourself before throwing 100% of your support behind an idea you know very little about.

That's just a suggestion though.


Ive been informing myself :sol:  your info is just useless and most likely out of context. Maybe you should research your links before posting info in bulk, because your link is not the least bit helpful. Just a suggestion though. :kaola: 
November 20, 2012 4:49:39 PM

Quote:
The Affordable Care Act is designed to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality coverage options – while ensuring that those who like their current coverage can keep it. Unfortunately, today, limited benefit plans, or “mini-med” plans are often the only type of insurance offered to some workers. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit benefits. In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000.

Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act. While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer. In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage. In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy.

As of today, a total of 733 waivers have been granted for 2011. Key facts about annual limits waivers:

There was an increase in the number of applications received at the end of 2010 because December 1 was the final day to apply for a waiver for a plan or policy year that begins on January 1 – as many plans do. Over 500 waivers were granted in December. While the number of approved waivers increased by more than 200 percent, the total number of enrollees in plans receiving waivers has increased by only 48 percent since the previous posting.
Of all the waivers granted to date:
Employment-Based Coverage: The vast majority – 712 plans representing 97 percent of all waivers – were granted to health plans that are employment-related.
Self-Insured Employer Plans Applicants: Employer-based health plans received most of the waivers – 359.
Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants: Most of the other health plans receiving waivers are multi-employer health funds created by a collective bargaining agreement between a union and two or more employers, pursuant to the Taft-Hartley Act. These “union plans” are employment based group health plans and operate for the sole benefit of workers. They tend to be larger than other typical group health plans because they cover multiple employers. There are also single-employer union plans that have received a waiver. In total, 182 collectively-bargained plans have received waivers.
Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs): HRAs are employer-funded group health plans where employees are reimbursed tax-free for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount for a coverage period. In total, HHS has approved 171 applications for waivers for HRAs.
Health Insurers: Sixteen waivers were granted to health insurers, which can apply for a waiver for multiple mini-med products sold to employers or individuals.
State Governments: Four waivers have gone to State governments. States may apply for a waiver of the restricted annual limits on behalf of issuers of state-mandated policies if state law required the policies to be offered by the issuers prior to September 23, 2010.

The number of enrollees in plans with annual limits waivers is 2.1 million, representing only about 1 percent of all Americans who have private health insurance today.

Improving Transparency

HHS periodically posts the list of the plans that have been granted waivers to ensure the public is aware of the waiver process and stakeholders understand how they are affected. Also, on December 9, 2010 HHS issued new rules requiring that health insurers offering mini-med plans must notify consumers in plain language that their plan offers extremely limited benefits and direct them to www.HealthCare.gov where they can get more information about other coverage options. The rules require health plans with waivers to tell consumers if their health care coverage is subject to an annual dollar limit lower than what is required under the law. This way, enrollees know when their coverage is limited.

Annual limits waivers are temporary. In 2014 annual dollar limits will be prohibited and mini-med plans will no longer be necessary.



http://web.archive.org/web/20110614192404/http://www.hh...
November 20, 2012 4:55:52 PM

wanamingo said:
Thats not what the guy wants, he doesnt want to offer any form of birth control for any reason, the owner considers them abortion drugs.

I also find it interesting that right around obamacare time people suddenly start caring... Did you know that 28 states already covered contraceptives before obamacare? There was no problem before. Heres a good example of a religious institution that had been offering birth control as a part of its health care.

There are already religious exceptions, its not like anyone is going to burn in hellfire because a cashier at a hobby lobby is is using contraceptive. And even if you do go to hell for practicing safe sex thats no god I want a part of.

Hes a loony who is forcing morality on his employees.
wanamingo said:
So if the owners of a company are Jehovah Witnesses they can remove a blood transfusion from your healthcare because it doesn't match their beliefs?
wanamingo said:
So what you are saying now is that before a company hires a person they have to tell them what the owners religious beliefs are and if those beliefs interfere with your beliefs you have to seek work elsewhere?

And freedom of religion doesn't extend into the workplace.... Thats an awfully slippery slope you are on.
wanamingo said:
Slippery slope here gentlemen.

Tomorrow all the Waltons convert to The Church of the First Born and suddenly they have to provide no healthcare coverage?

Healthcare should be a human right, not to be decided by your employer......

You also realize this leaves a huge door open for sharia.....
wanamingo said:
I am all for the separation of church and state. But I also believe that access to healthcare is a human right, one that shouldnt be infringed upon.... Once you have a person blocking you from a basic human right because of THEIR religion it becomes a freedom of religion (Or lack of) issue.
johnsonma said:
I have a family owned business so I should be able to use child labor. Also you cannot drink caffeinated beverages while at work as it is against my beliefs as it is the drug of the devil.

What are we the middle east or the United States of America? This kind of backwards thinking does no one any good.
johnsonma said:
All the government is saying here is that all women should be given the option, while the employer says they should not be given the option.
Wow! Wow-o-wow! There is so much wrong with these above statements, I just dunno where to begin; at will employment, the history of private enterprise, the history of american business, entrepreneurship, intellectual property, private property, discrimination laws, religious freedom, social democracy, the Federalist Papers, the United States Constitution, SCOTUS rulings, collective bargaining agreements versus employment contracts, the difference between a natural rights and human rights and societal benefits...this is just off the top of my head...

It is obvious that the concepts of personal responsibility, citizenship, State sovereignty, and republicanism are being shoved aside in favor of bigger governmental, centralized authority, entitlements, and social democracy.

wanamingo said:
Ive been informing myself :sol: 
IT'S ABOUT FRIGGIN TIME! Because it has been painfully obvious that you have very little background knowledge or understanding of the positions you support.
November 20, 2012 4:57:16 PM

wanamingo said:
I am all for the separation of church and state. But I also believe that access to healthcare is a human right, one that shouldnt be infringed upon.... Once you have a person blocking you from a basic human right because of THEIR religion it becomes a freedom of religion (Or lack of) issue.


Health Care is not a right. Let's make that very clear.

I define a right as anything you can do for yourself without impacting, impeding, or causing another person to act. You have a right to self defense - you do not need someone else to do something for you in order to defend yourself. You have the right to free speech, you can talk all day long and no one has to do anything for you to do that.

Health care requires a trained professional to provide services to you. This is not a right. Under ObamaCare, they are being forced into providing services to you under the guise of being paid for it. You have the right to remain silent under your Miranda Rights. What are the rights of a doctor?

You know what? I'm all for ObamaCare when a Bill of Rights for Doctors comes about providing them with protection from being forced into providing their service to others.

Why are we forcing them to provide their skillset to people? That is unfair - you can say they're being paid. I say they're being overworked.

Again, Health Care is not a Right. You can call it what you will, but it is anything but a Right.
November 20, 2012 4:58:09 PM

wanamingo said:
Unless your employer has a problem with it on religious grounds.... That choice is being removed because of someone elses BS.

Im all for deciding what healthcare you want to have, you dont have to get contraception if you dont want to. The decision should be yours not the gov or your employer.

Something like 98% of women will use birth control at some point in their lives, but only a few percent of men will need viagra. Why should that be covered but birth control isnt?


And everyone has the right and ability to go out and buy their own healthcare outside of a business sponsored plan too.
November 20, 2012 5:27:50 PM

lol I think affordable access to healthcare is a right and so do the other people who voted for the current president. Sorry if you guys believe otherwise(Does this apply to emergency rooms?).

Its not like FREE!! Free Abortions and abortion pills for ALL!!!!

It makes no sense that a company can force a person into what kind of healthcare the employer deems fit, it logically does not make any sense.

According to Chunkys logic (Im not sure that the right word....) my boss can refuse to cover my chemo treatments because he does believe in "Radiation" or he doesnt believe that God accepts "Blood Transfusions" and I have to deal with it because the people at the top of the ladder, whom I have never met, decide what medical treatments are for me.

Its taking the choice out of you hands and putting into the person who gives you a paycheck. Not to mention all of the possibly issues we have with coercion and forced silence because your livelihood is on the line.
November 20, 2012 5:32:37 PM

chunkymonster said:
Wow! Wow-o-wow! There is so much wrong with these above statements, I just dunno where to begin; at will employment, the history of private enterprise, the history of american business, entrepreneurship, intellectual property, private property, discrimination laws, religious freedom, social democracy, the Federalist Papers, the United States Constitution, SCOTUS rulings, collective bargaining agreements versus employment contracts, the difference between a natural rights and human rights and societal benefits...this is just off the top of my head...



Condescending note aside..... You make no sense....

WTF does private property have to do with your employer deciding what medication you need, or discrimination laws for that matter? Just because you list off a bunch of words like social democracy doesn't mean you have a point lol. More rhetoric less information.
November 20, 2012 5:36:21 PM

Why does a business even need to provide health care? Why not make it that everyone has to buy their own plan outside of a business? Would that not simply fix the issue?

Healthcare is expensive because the equipment, technology, training, medicine, and liability are all expensive.

Under ObamaCare, doctors should have all liability removed from them for being forced into providing their skillset to others.

We do not have enough healthcare professionals in this country to provide healthcare to all the people. That is an issue - are we going to start forcing people into medicine and being doctors to meet that demand?
November 20, 2012 5:41:04 PM

riser said:
Health Care is not a right. Let's make that very clear.

I define a right as anything you can do for yourself without impacting, impeding, or causing another person to act. You have a right to self defense - you do not need someone else to do something for you in order to defend yourself. You have the right to free speech, you can talk all day long and no one has to do anything for you to do that.



Do you consider access to medication a right? I do. Do you consider being able to decide what is best for yourself a right? I do. Do you think that having an employer decide what is right for you against what you believe right? I dont.


riser said:


Health care requires a trained professional to provide services to you. This is not a right. Under ObamaCare, they are being forced into providing services to you under the guise of being paid for it. You have the right to remain silent under your Miranda Rights. What are the rights of a doctor?

You know what? I'm all for ObamaCare when a Bill of Rights for Doctors comes about providing them with protection from being forced into providing their service to others.

Why are we forcing them to provide their skillset to people? That is unfair - you can say they're being paid. I say they're being overworked.

Again, Health Care is not a Right. You can call it what you will, but it is anything but a Right.


Doctors are a part of the healthcare plan of course, but there are many many other ways the system works besides on the backs of doctors. No one forced anyone to become a doctor, no one is forcing a doctor to help anyone.


Besides its at will employment if the doctor doesnt want to work he doesn't have to, right Chunky?




November 20, 2012 6:09:19 PM

chunkymonster said:
Wow! Wow-o-wow! There is so much wrong with these above statements, I just dunno where to begin; at will employment, the history of private enterprise, the history of american business, entrepreneurship, intellectual property, private property, discrimination laws, religious freedom, social democracy, the Federalist Papers, the United States Constitution, SCOTUS rulings, collective bargaining agreements versus employment contracts, the difference between a natural rights and human rights and societal benefits...this is just off the top of my head...

It is obvious that the concepts of personal responsibility, citizenship, State sovereignty, and republicanism are being shoved aside in favor of bigger governmental, centralized authority, entitlements, and social democracy.

IT'S ABOUT FRIGGIN TIME! Because it has been painfully obvious that you have very little background knowledge or understanding of the positions you support.


Its amazing how you just spout out garbled crap and then insult someone who actually posts logical thoughts.
November 20, 2012 6:15:48 PM

Quote:
Do you consider access to medication a right? I do. Do you consider being able to decide what is best for yourself a right? I do. Do you think that having an employer decide what is right for you against what you believe right? I dont.


I do not consider medication a right. It is a privilege. It is something someone else has to do in order for me to have. I am unable to do it myself and thus it is not a Right. I can not imagine a "Right" is something that someone else has to do in order for me to have. What if all companies making medicine stopped? We all have the Right to something that isn't available. What then? That's how I define what a Right is. Something you can do for yourself that does not require anyone else to act upon.

We are more than welcome to decide what is best for us. That is our Right. How we go about it is our own Right. I agree with you there. When it comes to a doctor having to diagnose me, that is not my right. That is a privilege provided by that doctor to me. I am unable to do it myself without someone else acting.

You pretty much have a right to do anything you want for yourself, by yourself. When you force someone else to provide healthcare, then force doctors to provide healthcare to you, that is not a right. That is threating.

What if the doctor doesn't want to provide your "right" to you? You can not do without the doctor, therefore it can not be considered a right.

You have the Right to get HealthCare Insurance if you want it for yourself. You do not have the Right to for someone into providing health care services to you.

See that? Health care.. service. Health care is not a right. It is a service just like fast food. For a nominal fee, you will be provided with a service. This is not a right.
November 20, 2012 6:20:07 PM

Bill of Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_...

Please point out in those Rights where someone else must provide a non-government service to an individual.

In fact, I would even argue that if Health Care is considered a Right, the option of having someone in servitude as a Slave is a Right as well. Simply put, you are forcing someone to perform a service to you with some form of compensation, regardless is said person wants to perform that service or not.
November 20, 2012 6:31:30 PM

Article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights- Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

So yes access to medicine and healthcare is considered a human right.

I dont follow your meaning behind "Forcing doctors to provide healthcare" the insurance company pays for the procedure no one is making doctors perform abortions against their will. I dont think anyone is advocating letting the homeless into private practices and making the doctors diagnose them.


Im also not sure I follow your logic, clean water isnt a right because someone else does the job of cleaning it and making sure no one is putting chemicals in it....
November 20, 2012 6:41:31 PM

With all due respect, when the constitution was written hospitals were places you went to die not get better.
November 20, 2012 6:58:07 PM

wanamingo said:
Condescending note aside..... You make no sense....

WTF does private property have to do with your employer deciding what medication you need, or discrimination laws for that matter? Just because you list off a bunch of words like social democracy doesn't mean you have a point lol. More rhetoric less information.
johnsonma said:
Its amazing how you just spout out garbled crap and then insult someone who actually posts logical thoughts.
There is not enough room in these forums for me to explain to you the relationship between discrimination laws and freedom of religion in the workplace. There is not enough room for me to explain to you private enterprise and employer/employee relationships. There is not enough room for me to explain to you the very things that you should have learned about personal responsibility and citizenship as it exists within the context of our republican form of government.

If anything you two only solidify my opinion that you have been taught what to think rather than how to think, that you believe that the improbable is practical, and that exchanging security provides you more liberty.

Call me condescending, say that I make no sense, say that my posts are garbled crap, I don't care...but for the love of all that is left of this republic, at least taking the time to research my garbled crap and apply the principles within the context of a market economy and our republic form of government.

November 20, 2012 7:11:44 PM

wanamingo said:
Article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights- Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So you are advocating that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should usurp the United States Constitution as the supreme law of our country?

-100 points for using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to support any argument that usurps national sovereignty.

You do realize that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself is not a document that is legally binding. Countries that have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be held legally responsible if they do not follow through on providing those rights. The Declaration is a standard for countries to follow. It expresses the ideals that the signing countries hold for human rights.
November 20, 2012 7:13:56 PM

chunkymonster said:
There is not enough room in these forums for me to explain to you the relationship between discrimination laws and freedom of religion in the workplace. There is not enough room for me to explain to you private enterprise and employer/employee relationships. There is not enough room for me to explain to you the very things that you should have learned about personal responsibility and citizenship as it exists within the context of our republican form of government.

If anything you two only solidify my opinion that you have been taught what to think rather than how to think, that you believe that the improbable is practical, and that exchanging security provides you more liberty.

Call me condescending, say that I make no sense, say that my posts are garbled crap, I don't care...but for the love of all that is left of this republic, at least taking the time to research my garbled crap and apply the principles within the context of a market economy and our republic form of government.



Great way to hide behind your rhetoric, I wish I could just say: I think I know what Im talking about, social democracy, liberty, justice, I dont have time to explain, Democracy, you can say what you want, freedom of religion, discrimination, human rights, Ive read all the books on Becks reading list, private property, intellectual property, churches, tits, explosions, monster trucks......

Im pretty sure the founding fathers would think you guys are insane. Who made the first hospital and who funded it? They were murder factories, not so much anymore.
November 20, 2012 7:15:45 PM

wanamingo said:
With all due respect, when the constitution was written hospitals were places you went to die not get better.
Laughable! You say that as to imply that somehow the Constitution is less viable now as it was then.

When the Constitution was written it was done to enable people like you and me to freely express ourselves without free of reprisal or punishment. Is that any less viable?

The argument that the Constitution is old, out of date, or somehow how of touch with today's modern problems is weak and without a fundamental understanding of the document itself.
November 20, 2012 7:28:51 PM

wanamingo said:
Great way to hide behind your rhetoric, I wish I could just say: I think I know what Im talking about, social democracy, liberty, justice, I dont have time to explain, Democracy, you can say what you want, freedom of religion, discrimination, human rights, Ive read all the books on Becks reading list, private property, intellectual property, churches, tits, explosions, monster trucks......

Im pretty sure the founding fathers would think you guys are insane. Who made the first hospital and who funded it? They were murder factories, not so much anymore.
Say what you need to make yourself feel good. It doesn't change the fact that you are unable to realize the fact that freedom of religion does extend to the workplace and the correlation to discrimination laws. It doesn't change the fact that you fail to have a basic understanding of republicanism and a market economy compared to a social democracy. It doesn't change the fact that you do not understand the difference between natural rights, human rights, and societal benefits. By your continued claim that I'm spouting gibberish, again, only solidifies my opinion that you do not understand the principles of republicanism, citizenship, a market economy, and how government has no place mandating health care to the individual person or mandating what services a business should or should not provide.

btw...Ben Franklin funded the first hospital, 1752, Philadelphia, PA...as far as being murder factories, don't be so stupid as to not realize the advances in technology between then and now...

Lastly, who's Beck and what is his reading list?
November 20, 2012 7:44:58 PM

chunkymonster said:
Say what you need to make yourself feel good. It doesn't change the fact that you are unable to realize the fact that freedom of religion does extend to the workplace and the correlation to discrimination laws. It doesn't change the fact that you fail to have a basic understanding of republicanism and a market economy compared to a social democracy. It doesn't change the fact that you do not understand the difference between natural rights, human rights, and societal benefits. By your continued claim that I'm spouting gibberish, again, only solidifies my opinion that you do not understand the principles of republicanism, citizenship, a market economy, and how government has no place mandating health care to the individual person or mandating what services a business should or should not provide.

Your argument is so intellectually shallow it doesn't even deserve a response.


November 21, 2012 12:21:57 AM

wanamingo said:
lol I think affordable access to healthcare is a right and so do the other people who voted for the current president. Sorry if you guys believe otherwise(Does this apply to emergency rooms?).

Its not like FREE!! Free Abortions and abortion pills for ALL!!!!

It makes no sense that a company can force a person into what kind of healthcare the employer deems fit, it logically does not make any sense.

According to Chunkys logic (Im not sure that the right word....) my boss can refuse to cover my chemo treatments because he does believe in "Radiation" or he doesnt believe that God accepts "Blood Transfusions" and I have to deal with it because the people at the top of the ladder, whom I have never met, decide what medical treatments are for me.

Its taking the choice out of you hands and putting into the person who gives you a paycheck. Not to mention all of the possibly issues we have with coercion and forced silence because your livelihood is on the line.

Define scale in the first statement as to being a right.

Its not free, nor will payment be comparable to even market values.

It makes no sense a government can force this tax down our throats, lie about it, as a tax, it doesnt fit the "right" issue, nor would it sound as good, and wouldnt have been so embraced byt everyone involved.

Acting like employers didnt cover radiation in their plans is foolishness, as this obviously would be known to even exist by now, as Im sure it would have been in one of Obamas reelection commercials.
Acting like the free market was so horrible is disingenuous at best, and seems unrealistic at most.
Having the safety nets that were in place was considered minimal, and not the norm.
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!