U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Deleted]

*employers only.

The employer gets to decide if he offers a wage of $4000 or $4500 a month. The employer gets to decide what benefits he offers. A company car with a taxable value of $250 or $1000. Why should the employer not be allowed to choose what sort of health insurance he offers?

If the employers reasoning is smart or stupid, based on finance, morals, religion or a roll of the dice - it doesn't matter. He's allowed to make this choice. You may not like it, but what you think doesn't really matter. It's his decision. He is free to choose.

The employee has the power to turn down the offer. And if you seriously argue that employees never turn down any offers, you're lost. There's a reason that wages are above the minimum wage. It's because enough people turned down the employers offer, which forced him to make a better offer.

[bergmann620]

The employer gets to decide if he offers a wage of $4000 or $4500 a month. The employer gets to decide what benefits he offers. A company car with a taxable value of $250 or $1000. Why should the employer not be allowed to choose what sort of health insurance he offers?

If the employers reasoning is smart or stupid, based on finance, morals, religion or a roll of the dice - it doesn't matter. He's allowed to make this choice. You may not like it, but what you think doesn't really matter. It's his decision. He is free to choose.

The employee has the power to turn down the offer. And if you seriously argue that employees never turn down any offers, you're lost. There's a reason that wages are above the minimum wage. It's because enough people turned down the employers offer, which forced him to make a better offer.

No, it's because of the threat of the government raising the minimum wage! The employer holds all the power. That's why we need the government to protect us. Otherwise, I might turn down a job that has an insufficient benefits package, and no one will ever hire me again!

[Wells]

Just challenging that "birth control" is a misnomer. The vast majority use it for birth control, at least in part. That's all I'm saying.

And the majority also use it for other things as well.

The employer gets to decide if he offers a wage of $4000 or $4500 a month. The employer gets to decide what benefits he offers. A company car with a taxable value of $250 or $1000. Why should the employer not be allowed to choose what sort of health insurance he offers?

He should. What he shouldn't get to do is decide what insurance can be used on based on his religious beliefs. That's him forcing others to follow what he thinks is right based on his faith.

[emulsion]

No, it's because of the threat of the government raising the minimum wage! The employer holds all the power. That's why we need the government to protect us. Otherwise, I might turn down a job that has an insufficient benefits package, and no one will ever hire me again!

I wish the government was here right now with me. It's just starting to get dark. I'm lonely. The government would slip in through the door while I was in the bath and strip down to its Constitution, cover itself with oil and give me an Asian massage. Oh the government, you cheeky little joy.

[PetersenIII]

He should. What he shouldn't get to do is decide what insurance can be used on based on his religious beliefs. That's him forcing others to follow what he thinks is right based on his faith.

Your analysis is in error. It is him exercising his right to practice his freedom of religion by not supporting actions that violate his faith.

Think of it this way: should the government be telling a Muslim restaurant owner that he MUST server pork, even if he is choosing not to serve pork because his religion forbids its consumption and in offering it he is condoning behavior his religion specifically prohibits? It's absurd to think our government should wield such power, and let that day never come to pass.

[Wells]

Your analysis is in error. It is him exercising his right to practice his freedom of religion by not supporting actions that violate his faith.

Your right to exercise your religion acts right up to the point where you're forcing others to act on it as well. Which is exactly what is happening. He's denying access to a medical procedure that he is not taking part in based on his own religious faith.

should the government be telling a Muslim restaurant owner that he MUST server pork

This has already been brought up and shot down.

[THE Bigzoman]

The birth control topic isnt a matter of it's right or wrong. It's a matter of logic, and as of right now, it is illogical for us to make it even harder for businesses to make a profit here What people don't realize is that we are dealing with a globalized world, Meaning we have to compete with other countries. Why does it make sense to make it harder for businesses to make a profit here by REQUIRING them to do yet another thing for it;s employess when they can hire chinese for much cheaper? At this rate, Nobody will want to do any business here and jobs will be flushed down the toilet quicker then they are

[Wells]

Essentially, I have a right to not have my access to medical care restricted by your faith. You can not use all the birth control you want. But just because you choose to provide health care that doesn't mean your faith can then be interjected between me and my doctor.

[Deleted]

Essentially, I have a right to not have my access to medical care restricted by your faith. You can not use all the birth control you want. But just because you choose to provide health care that doesn't mean your faith can then be interjected between me and my doctor.

That's not what going on.

You don't have a right to that medical care in the first place.

And again, it makes absolutely no difference what his motivation is. Faith, a roll of a dice, 100 page financial analysis or a tip from his mother-in-law, he can make the decision based on any of these.

[Wells]

That's not what going on.

You don't have a right to that medical care in the first place.

I have a right to not have your faith interfering in my treatments.

[Deleted]

I have a right to not have your faith interfering in my treatments.

That's not the case here.

You don't have a claim to the healthcare in the first place. His motivation as noted is irrelevant.

It's like saying "I have a right not to have your financial expertise interfere with my wage level".

[Wells]

That's not the case here.

So when an employer says you can use your insurance to cover BC because my religion says its wrong that's not him interfering in my treatment?

You don't have a claim to the healthcare in the first place.

You're right, I don't. But once he chooses to give me coverage he has no right to involve his religion in how I am treated.

[Deleted]

You're right, I don't. But once he chooses to give me coverage he has no right to involve his religion in how I am treated.

But he gets to choose what coverage he offers you in the first place.

So when an employer says you can use your insurance to cover BC because my religion says its wrong that's not him interfering in my treatment?

Not any more than an employer not giving you health insurance at all because of financial reasons, no.

[Wells]

But he gets to choose what coverage he offers you in the first place.

And I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his religion to dictate that.

Not any more than an employer not giving you health insurance at all because of financial reasons, no.

Again, I have freedom of religion, not freedom from my employer's financial decisions.

[Adrianoz]

Oh how far you have fallen. Can you even imagine that the Republican Party during the 19th century and early 20th century were staunchly opposed to wage slavery and the rise of corporations, that they considered rights to only belong to human beings, and not organic entities such as corporations? Progressives like Theodore Roosevelt would support this development, whilst Republicans opposed it. Can you even imagine that many Republicans, along with huge segments of the general populace and the workers' press, were advocating workers' management and ownership of the means of production? Saying that those who work in the mills should own them.

I hear terms like liberal and conservative being thrown around alot in US politics, but they are so watered down that they don't mean anything anymore. Conservatives were originally those who believed in the traditional values of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, of liberty, equality, fraternity and social justice, of a society where every individual, regardless of class, creed, race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, nationality, wealth, background, age, identity or gender, should have a right to strive for happiness on fair and equal terms and pursue their inner desires based on creativity, ingenuity and innovation, to the benefit of all.

I'd say I'm one of the few, real Conservatives based on that criteria.

Another interesting thing is the whole concept of trade and markets, where "Conservatives" tend to worship classical liberals like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who paradoxically enough were vastly opposed to what is today called neoliberalism; free trade, free markets and free flow of capital. Smith, for example, saw the threat it posed to Britain, as British capitalists would use their capital to offshore production to the Third World in order to exploit cheap labour and massproduce goods, import it back to Britain and flood the English market and devastate the economy; in fact, the only time the legendary "Invisible Hand" is mentioned in his entire "Wealth of Nations" it is done so in this context, where he says he hopes that the capitalists will not do this because of a home-bias, that they will accept a lower rate of profit, and thereby "as if by an invisible hand" Britain will be protected from the ravages of neoliberal globalization.

Ricardo in turn admitted that his theory on comparative advantages would not work if British capitalists decided to produce all their goods in Portugal, since interaction between Britain and Portugal was what he based his theory on, in order to maximize their profit-margins, and if British merchants decided to import all goods from Portugal to increase their own profit-margins, as that would ruin the English economy, but he, similarly to Smith, "hoped" that this would not happen because of a home-bias.

The point being that the Republican Party of today, similarly to the slightly less lunatic Democratic Party, is completely off the charts, with no basis in reality or science whatsoever. The only comfort one can get in American politics is that it will all crash and burn by the looks of things when we have presidential nominees claiming global warming is a punishment for legalizing gay marriage, and claiming it is nothing but a "liberal" hoax, and advocating the same kind of policies that have been rammed down our throats for the last decades which have brought us this Great Recession.

[Deleted]

And I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his religion to dictate that.
Again, I have freedom of religion, not freedom from my employer's financial decisions.

Freedom of religion actually ensures that the employer can make his decision. Freedom of religion does not mean that the faith of other people can never influence your life in any way.

Like the grocery store leaving out certain products from their sortiment due to religion, it may have an effect on your life. Freedom of religion protects the grocery store owner's right to leave out the products.

[bergmann620]

And I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his religion to dictate that.

I guess the question of the hour is, why?

Again, I have freedom of religion, not freedom from my employer's financial decisions.

Time and again, you skip past the most basic of points in this argument

The employer argues that his freedom of religion is compromised because his money is being used to fund a free birth control mandate. (He doesn't care that it might/can be used for other things- it's PRIMARY function is birth control.)

You argue that your freedom of religion is compromised. How? By 'restricted' access to birth control? (Are you a devotee of the Church of Progesterone?)

The only possible outcomes are:

1) You get coverage, but have to pay for your birth control out of pocket.
2) You get coverage that includes free birth control, and your boss's soul burns in everlasting hellfire.
3) Your boss, in order to comply with with Federal mandates, decides to not offer coverage at all to any of his employees.

The only possible solution that prevents anyone's rights from being trampled is to not offer coverage to anyone.

Of course, I don't accept that by not paying for birth control, an employer is forcing their beliefs on you.



As an aside, I find this whole debate very amusing, considering that a growing number of employers are forcing their (Non-religious) beliefs on their employees, even when they are at home. The largest employer in my area has completely banned smokers- they won't hire you if you test positive for nicotine, and if they have reason to test you and you fail, you can be terminated. I hope that the CEO isn't Mormon... That could be trouble.

[Deleted]

And he's also protected by property rights. It's his money, he decides what to offer his employees. This ensures that he can also use other reasoning for his decisions. For example, not giving health insurance at all as he thinks it's not worth it or the store owner not having broccoli in his grocery store because he thinks it smells.

[ptwonline]

Marijuana is used to treat myriad illnesses and side-effects, and yet it is ILLEGAL in most of the country.

The U.S. must be discriminating against all of us.

If the Catholic Church had their way it would likely be marijuana for men only.

I think President Obama needs to ask himself a question: What's worse- women covered through Catholic institutions not getting free BC, or no one at said institutions getting health coverage unless they buy it themselves. As a President determined to expand coverage, you'd think it would be in his best interest to promote whatever he could- including coverage without contraception- to increase it.

IMO, no. Better to stand up and stick to the principle in the first place than to cave in to discrimination and hoping that somewhere down the line it gets fixed. Otherwise you end up with flawed policies like Don't Ask Don't Tell.

It's alot cheaper to let peoples' self-interest in not having a kid lead them to using effective contraception on their own dime.

And yet we see time and time again that women do not use contraception properly or safely because of cost concerns. Not just the poor either. Economic pressures hit the middle classes too and proper contraception use is frequently a victim of those pressures.

[bergmann620]

IMO, no. Better to stand up and stick to the principle in the first place than to cave in to discrimination and hoping that somewhere down the line it gets fixed. Otherwise you end up with flawed policies like Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Better to stand up and say, "Fuck the first amendment if it doesn't agree with me."

And yet we see time and time again that women do not use contraception properly or safely because of cost concerns. Not just the poor either. Economic pressures hit the middle classes too and proper contraception use is frequently a victim of those pressures.

You can never write enough laws, regulations, or mandates to fix stupid. There aren't enough trees in all the world to be chopped down and made into enough paper to legislate stupid away. There's just enough to make sure stupid can thrive and shop at Walmart.