I was involved in a thread with a friend on Facebook about the attached meme I posted regarding the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.I had requested some source information and data related to some statements made. Here's the response I got.
- Pretty well documented that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) have lost their complete coverage from companies like IBM, Home Depot and UPS, etc. Not to mention the ridiculous increase I have seen in my insurance and just about everybody else that I know, I would be surprised if you have not seen the same. There have been many examples of people losing their options to use their doctors published in all types of media sources. I am not sure how these things are less important than one company making a stand to not have to pay for a small group (4) of contraceptives that they feel go against their beliefs. No matter if you are pro life or prochoice, I don't see how the government should be involved in mandating that employers support and pay for anything having to do with this topic. For what it's worth, I am fiscally conservative and middle to liberal on most social issues. My distrust of the government comes from years of studying history, that is what I got a degree in and what I have spent much of my free time studying for many years. The fact that anybody thinks that the government should be involved with this baffles my mind.
----------------
Question 1 – Do you think that as a society we should attempt to provide at least basic healthcare to all of our citizens (like almost every other industrialized country)? If you don’t think we should provide this as a society, we can end the discussion here. Stop reading now! We'll never find common ground. If you do, while not perfect, the ACA is a first attempt at doing this. I believe it is worth giving it a chance.
Ok… so I looked at your first two examples of coverage loss:
Question 2 – Who at IBM lost their complete coverage? Recent source? It is my understanding that IBM transitioned their retirees to a healthcare exchange. The retirees receive a payment to offset the cost of purchasing insurance. I can’t find a source that states current employees lost complete coverage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/07/ibm-moving-some-retirees-_n_3886749.html
Question 3 – Who at Home Depot lost complete coverage? Recent source? Based on looking at their website, health insurance is offered to both full-time and part-time employees. I see that last year there was reporting that Home Depot would transition part-time employees to the exchanges. Here’s info from their website:
https://secure.livethehealthyorangelife.com/files/orientation_guide_usparttime_us.pdf
That’s enough research for me. I don’t see anyone loosing “complete coverage” in either of these examples.
Are any of the “examples of people losing their options to use their doctors” that are substantially different from when a company changes their insurance provider and a new network of doctors is provided? Sources please. “Substantially different.” In my experience this is a rather common experience for those of us who have had employer provided health insurance. (But hey, I'm only a sample of 1.)
I agree, my insurance cost did go up this year. About 6% more than the increase in previous years. So the effective increase was actually more. I’m ok with that if it means that millions of women, children and men in the country will have access to affordable, quality healthcare. (If Georgia would approve medicare expansion, it would mean that I would not have had to pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Now you might ask why would I pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Because I can't let my daughter's mother go without health insurance. Long sad story.) I would of course prefer that our government have the balls to tax the mega-rich and mega-corporations to pay for healthcare for all, but we’ve got to vote better and get off our butts and actually protest before that is going to happen.
Regarding the statement: “I don't see how the government should be involved in mandating that employers support and pay for anything having to do with this topic.” My understanding is the employer is not paying for it. The employer is paying for medical insurance coverage which is part of the compensation package the employer agreed to provide the employee. The employee worked for it and earned it. The government is attempting to ensure women have access to healthcare that is defined by the woman and her doctor, not the misguided religious and misguided scientific beliefs of the employer. Their objection to these specific 4 treatments is flawed. See links:
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591
The bigger issue is where does this end with a corporation claiming religious exemption from laws? (rhetorical) Again, I say read the dissent. (Read the majority position as well.) The dissent starts around page 60:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Look through my shares for the last year, you’ll find many posts related to my position on healthcare and corporate control.
I think maybe I'm beginning to see where you are coming from. In very brief, my position is the government is us. We are the “them”. Or we should be. If government is bad, it is because we let it get that way. I believe our country and government has been taken over by mega-corporations whose only motivation is profit (for shareholders and executives). And, these same mega-corporations have successfully convinced us that “government” is the problem. That seems to imply that WE are the problem in the eyes of the corporations. Hey, they have religious beliefs, so they must have eyes too. Don’t buy into this lie. Government can be a force for good and progress. It has been in past. It could be again. (Yeah - lots of if, ands, buts, exceptions, clarifications and qualifications needed for this brief statement.)
Question 4,5 – Based on your study of history - Do you trust corporations more than government? Do you trust religion more than government? If your response to either or both of these questions is “yes”, your study and information set is significantly different from mine. (And that’s cans of worms I’m not up for opening.)
That question is rhetorical. I don’t need a response. Actually I don’t need responses to any of the questions or requests for sources. The questions were just foils to structure this poorly written response. I’m content with my understanding of the issues related to the questions. I appreciate you have a different point of view and I’m not going to change it. Please accept that I too have a different point of view on this topic from you. I’m not yielding, but I do recognize when there is a windmill in front of me. I’ll continue to side with many who decried this decision. I’m done. Cheers!
(Its late, please excuse any editing errors.)
I agree, my insurance cost did go up this year. About 6% more than the increase in previous years. So the effective increase was actually more. I’m ok with that if it means that millions of women, children and men in the country will have access to affordable, quality healthcare. (If Georgia would approve medicare expansion, it would mean that I would not have had to pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Now you might ask why would I pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Because I can't let my daughter's mother go without health insurance. Long sad story.) I would of course prefer that our government have the balls to tax the mega-rich and mega-corporations to pay for healthcare for all, but we’ve got to vote better and get off our butts and actually protest before that is going to happen.
Regarding the statement: “I don't see how the government should be involved in mandating that employers support and pay for anything having to do with this topic.” My understanding is the employer is not paying for it. The employer is paying for medical insurance coverage which is part of the compensation package the employer agreed to provide the employee. The employee worked for it and earned it. The government is attempting to ensure women have access to healthcare that is defined by the woman and her doctor, not the misguided religious and misguided scientific beliefs of the employer. Their objection to these specific 4 treatments is flawed. See links:
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591
The bigger issue is where does this end with a corporation claiming religious exemption from laws? (rhetorical) Again, I say read the dissent. (Read the majority position as well.) The dissent starts around page 60:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Look through my shares for the last year, you’ll find many posts related to my position on healthcare and corporate control.
I think maybe I'm beginning to see where you are coming from. In very brief, my position is the government is us. We are the “them”. Or we should be. If government is bad, it is because we let it get that way. I believe our country and government has been taken over by mega-corporations whose only motivation is profit (for shareholders and executives). And, these same mega-corporations have successfully convinced us that “government” is the problem. That seems to imply that WE are the problem in the eyes of the corporations. Hey, they have religious beliefs, so they must have eyes too. Don’t buy into this lie. Government can be a force for good and progress. It has been in past. It could be again. (Yeah - lots of if, ands, buts, exceptions, clarifications and qualifications needed for this brief statement.)
Question 4,5 – Based on your study of history - Do you trust corporations more than government? Do you trust religion more than government? If your response to either or both of these questions is “yes”, your study and information set is significantly different from mine. (And that’s cans of worms I’m not up for opening.)
That question is rhetorical. I don’t need a response. Actually I don’t need responses to any of the questions or requests for sources. The questions were just foils to structure this poorly written response. I’m content with my understanding of the issues related to the questions. I appreciate you have a different point of view and I’m not going to change it. Please accept that I too have a different point of view on this topic from you. I’m not yielding, but I do recognize when there is a windmill in front of me. I’ll continue to side with many who decried this decision. I’m done. Cheers!
(Its late, please excuse any editing errors.)
----------------------
Commentary -
As I have found often to be the case when you dig into the details of the broad claims and unsubstantiated like those made above you find that they just don't hold water.
Is it possible to be "fiscally conservative and middle to liberal on most social issues". I used to define myself this way, but I don't think it is possible. If I have to pick a label, and I don't like to do that, I'd pick Progressive.
Thankfully - I've had no response. :)
Thankfully - I've had no response. :)
