General Discussion

riqster

(13,986 posts)

26. The problem is, until it becomes a government function, those workers will not have health care.

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:19 PM

Nov 2013

Most will have untreated illnesses. Some will die.

That, sir, is "so what".

When we finally get to national health care, I'll be dancing. Until then, we have to protect each other from the motherfucking health insurers and employers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On November 21st, 2012, I wrote about a potential pitfall of the Hobby Lobby case [View all] riqster Nov 2013 OP

I hadn't thought it through to the point of all those Christian Science & faith healer conversions, Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #1

All these years of working for business people has made me very cynical nt riqster Nov 2013 #3

Then Jewish-owned businesses will drop maternity coverage unless JaneyVee Nov 2013 #2

Possible. Or requirements to cover multiple spouses, for some faiths. riqster Nov 2013 #4

No. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #5

Thank you. n/t dragonlady Nov 2013 #17

+1 eggplant Nov 2013 #42

I agree. But birth control is only something that applies to Catholics. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #44

No, wrong again. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #45

Where exactly in the bible does it mention birth control? JaneyVee Nov 2013 #47

Oh, now, don't be silly. Fundamentalists don't really focus on the fundamentals. riqster Nov 2013 #48

I think they claim it falls under the "be fruitful and multiply" provision. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #51

WTF? PCIntern Nov 2013 #18

Don't be appalled. I'm half Jewish. It was snarkasm. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #43

There is an app for that. ;) madaboutharry Nov 2013 #46

I had a snarkgasm once. riqster Nov 2013 #49

Why would those employees not buy from the exchange instead? lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #6

Not all employees can. I can't, for instance. riqster Nov 2013 #7

The OP suggested that employers would become Christian Scientists as an excuse to cancel coverage lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #21

The problem is, until it becomes a government function, those workers will not have health care. riqster Nov 2013 #26

Either your OP was badly written or you're moving the goal posts. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #30

The employers were denying coverage for items they found objectionable. riqster Nov 2013 #34

Because they'd still have employer-provided "health insurance". jeff47 Nov 2013 #9

I don't think you're thinking large enough. jeff47 Nov 2013 #8

Oh, wow. Brilliant. riqster Nov 2013 #10

Wait until my exciting revelations that forbid the minimum wage and 40 hour week. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #11

"And upon his head was the mark of the EEOC" riqster Nov 2013 #13

The mormons will probably beat you to it n2doc Nov 2013 #14

Yes, but I won't include any of that inconvenient "morality" stuff. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #16

Not like Rmoney bothered with that either- morality is for the little people n/t n2doc Nov 2013 #19

Yes, but I can make it so getting your second mistress is required to reach heaven. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #20

Joseph Smith already beat you by a mile BrotherIvan Nov 2013 #57

Reason #3967 why it's creepy to have your employer involved in your health care. arcane1 Nov 2013 #12

Yeah, the Supremes will regret taking this one. Lots of worms in that can. riqster Nov 2013 #15

The problem is we have at least four justices who believe Lochner was rightly decided. last1standing Nov 2013 #22

These employers have to register their businesses as actual members of said churches, though. ancianita Nov 2013 #23

That is not the case with Hobby Lobby. riqster Nov 2013 #27

Even so, Hobby Lobby still has to prove that IT is a registered member of a church, with charter ancianita Nov 2013 #36

Perhaps. Although I din't believe they are arguing in that manner. riqster Nov 2013 #38

That's not what they're arguing. WillowTree Nov 2013 #53

In that case, they shouldn't likely win unless they can show that hirees agreed in advance to their ancianita Nov 2013 #55

I agree with your points. riqster Nov 2013 #56

Missing entirely from this argument randr Nov 2013 #24

Absolutely. Unless following church teaching is somehow conditional to their employment which, ancianita Nov 2013 #41

They offer "help" to their employees so they can live by biblical principles. riqster Nov 2013 #50

$cientology would presumably deny its employees mental health coverage KamaAina Nov 2013 #25

This has already happened for the individual mandate wercal Nov 2013 #28

5-4 against is my prediction. Burf-_- Nov 2013 #29

Good points. I would add this : riqster Nov 2013 #32

Rastafarian owned businesses Mr.Bill Nov 2013 #31

OK, so there's a few cases where it could work out well. riqster Nov 2013 #33

First problem with this scenario is that... TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #35

No, I said the owners of the hypothetical business were Christian Scientists. riqster Nov 2013 #37

That's kinda my point-- commercial enterprises open to the public... TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #39

Agreed. Hobby Lobby wants to change that. riqster Nov 2013 #40

first ammendment plays no favorites Burf-_- Nov 2013 #52

Were it not for a slew of pro-corporate personhood rulings, I'd relax. riqster Nov 2013 #54

i know bro Burf-_- Nov 2013 #58

It would be a treat to see. riqster Nov 2013 #59

To me, it's pretty cut and dry. jazzimov Nov 2013 #60

Yah, that is my opinion. riqster Nov 2013 #61