View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

City needs to say ‘yes’ to sick pay for part-time employees

Posted: July 15, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 15, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

The Signal reported on July 10 (“Bill would mandate sick pay for part-time employees”) that the City Council voted to oppose Assembly Bill 1522 as the “...estimated financial impact to the city as a result of the bill could be as high as $180,000 per year.”

The article also states the city of Santa Clarita has an estimated 585 part-time seasonal employees who could be affected by this legislation.

The legislation in question would give part-time employees who worked 30 or more days in a calendar year some sick days. The bill would “limit an employee’s use of those paid sick days to 24 hours, or three days, in each calendar year. ...”

The city of Santa Clarita promotes itself as a good place to live and work. According to figures published in the Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corporation and College of the Canyons 2014 Economic & Real Estate Outlook, the Santa Clarita Valley’s more than 283,000 people (including the city’s population of more than 204,000) has a projected per capital income of over $67,000 for 2014.

Plus, the expected median home price is over $442,000.

It appears that this is a fairly affluent community — unless, that is, you have a part-time city job with no sick days.

It would cost each resident of the city less than $1 per year to give part-time employees time off to take care of an illness.

It would cost less than one ice cream cone, per person, per year.

We find it appalling that the City Council could oppose legislation that helps people who work for all of us.

We hope the council revisits this matter and elects to support it.

 

Comments

Nitesho: Posted: July 15, 2014 9:21 a.m.

What does the median house price have to do with part time sick pay? Are you saying people how work part time should be able to buy a home on part time pay?


philellis: Posted: July 15, 2014 9:47 a.m.

Just part of a house -


ricketzz: Posted: July 15, 2014 10:35 a.m.

Many people who have a part time job have more than one. They can work 12+ hour days. They are juggling rent, insurance, transportation (god forbid a baby) etc. They need coverage from the system they give their best years to.


17trillion: Posted: July 15, 2014 11:38 a.m.

I would like a pool in my backyard, a really nice one with a spa. It would only cost each resident in SC about 40 cents.

I would like to send my kids to an Ivy League school. It would only cost each resident about $1.25.

I would like to....ah, never mind.


Nitesho: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:12 p.m.

"We find it appalling that the City Council could oppose legislation that helps people who work for all of us."

I find it appalling you are trying to be generous with other peoples money.

So what if it's under a dollar as claimed. Add that $1 to the water rate increase, to the power rate increase, the bond measures that keep getting passed, the property tax increase, the HOA fees increase, the sales tax increase and let's not forget the minimum wage increase. between federal, state, county and local taxes, there comes to a point when enough is enough.

Just wait for the toll roads...


projalice11: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:33 p.m.

To the cynics, who are you to say that workers don't need sick leave **


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:50 p.m.

Taxpayers, projalice11, taxpayers.

Are you positing that we shouldn't have a say in how funds are allocated?


Nitesho: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:51 p.m.

projalice11: Posted: July 15, 2014 9:33 a.m.

To the cynics, who are you to say that workers don't need sick leave **

Who are you to say that we, the taxpayers, should pay for it?


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 1:06 p.m.

Shorter LTE:

It appears that this is a fairly affluent community with a per capita income average of $67k and the expected median home price is over $442,000, so pay up sucker. Or we'll make you feel guilty about that ice cream cone you earned.

Attempts to shame your hard working fellow citizens ≠ a cost/benefit study. Markets should determine compensation, not legislators.

Charity should be private and voluntary. Government coercion is neither.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…” – James Madison


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 15, 2014 1:10 p.m.

I'd be willing to give up part of my ice cream cone. Maybe the first lick or two.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 15, 2014 2:41 p.m.

I'm retired -- don't even have a part-time job -- which puts a big crimp in my desire to own a Ferrari.

C'mon, you mean, nasty, selfish SCV residents! Pitch in!


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:39 p.m.

Your grievance doesn't align with one of the Left's authorized victim classes, Brian. You clearly don't understand how income redistribution works.

But first, the "science":

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!

Perhaps Indy can explain it to us simpletons.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 15, 2014 5:00 p.m.

But, tech, I think I DO understand it.

You guys have the ability to pay, and I have the need for a Ferrari.

What's the problem?

And surely I'm a legitimate "victim". I'm "youth-challenged".

A "senior".


chefgirl358: Posted: July 15, 2014 5:11 p.m.

"It would cost each resident of the city less than $1 per year to give part-time employees time off to take care of an illness."

Typical liberal...everyone else should pay for something that I think is a good idea regardless of public opinion.

No, it wouldn't cost each resident less than $1, it would cost each HOMEOWNER because I'm guessing that they want to take it out of property taxes or something similar, leaving everyone else in apartments, etc., free of this ridiculous tax.

I pay enough in taxes, if you want to have some ridiculous warm and fuzzy program Susann and Cliff, then YOU pay for it. As far as businesses go, we need to stop driving them OUT of our state with onerous taxes and hoops we make them jump through. We should be encouraging businesses to stay here, or come to CA with tax incentives, etc., not piling on more problems for an employer to worry about and say screw it, we're going to Texas or Nevada or Arizona.

P.S. Maybe people with part time jobs that need better benefits should shop for a better job. I would imagine most jobs that fall into this category are retail, food industry, etc., not typically a long term career for the majority of people (high school / college age kids, etc) who work in that industry.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 15, 2014 5:44 p.m.

Dang. Just got ice cream on my new Ferrari.
But first, the science;

Ice Cream + Ferarri -> Exploited workers and income redistribution


Lotus8: Posted: July 15, 2014 6:36 p.m.

If you have a part-time job where you are paid by the hour, you get paid to be there during that time. You can not show up, but you won't get paid for not showing up because the work you are supposed to be doing isn't getting done.

If I were your employer and you made the argument to me that giving you 24 hours off per year wouldn't negatively impact the job you were doing, I'd cut your hours on the spot. You just told us all that if you had 24 less hours at work the work you are responsible for would still get done.

There are very few careers where folks work part time and don't get sick days (nurses and teachers, for instance). Most part time positions are jobs. And we all know what JOB stands for...Just Over Broke.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:04 p.m.

AR... you may NOT eat ice cream in my new Ferrari.


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:41 p.m.

Hey man, why don't we just mellow out and move to Berkeley?

Berkeley dispensaries must give free pot to poor members, city says

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bekeley-marijuana-free-20140709-story.html


BrianBaker: Posted: July 15, 2014 8:12 p.m.

Hahahaha, tech!

Great link. I just read the story.

"Berkeley had three permitted dispensaries as of early 2012, according to the ordinance."


Either those three will be out of business PDQ, or all the other saps who live in that commie enclave will get to pay more to support the "poor", defined as "$32,000 a year for one person and $46,000 a year for a family of four."

You can make 46 grand a year, and get your blow for free. Such a deal!


ricketzz: Posted: July 16, 2014 10:44 a.m.

Health care is an unalienable right; it is as universal as the right to a "common defense" because disease is an enemy that affects everyone. Right to life also covers access to doctors.

When y'all drop that absurd F-35 JSF boondoggle and stop keeping bases open for fears closing them will hurt the civilians, you can caterwaul about the social welfare state. The capitalist welfare state is way bigger.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 16, 2014 10:51 a.m.

ricketzz- can you state the section of the Constitution where that is written? My copy does not seem to have this "unalienable" (LOL) right.


Nitesho: Posted: July 16, 2014 10:56 a.m.

" it is as universal as the right to a "common defense" because disease is an enemy that affects everyone"

Well that's an interesting spin on it. Funny how it wasn't for over 230 years...


17trillion: Posted: July 16, 2014 11:47 a.m.

"Typical liberal...everyone else should pay for something that I think is a good idea regardless of public opinion."

Kind of like your position on Hobby Lobby Chefgirl. Look, I like your opinions the vast percentage of time, but one could say the same about you and your desire to have every company provide every form of birth control imaginable rather than just 75% of every birth control imaginable.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 16, 2014 1:58 p.m.

17, I don't think the company should have anything to do with what INSURANCE PROVIDES. If an employer provides insurance, that should be the end of it. The employer shouldn't have a say in what the insurance will or won't cover for ANY type of treatment. I can't think of anything else that an employer dictates to an insurance company what they don't want to pay for, and it's a very slippery slope that they are going down.


Nitesho: Posted: July 16, 2014 2:12 p.m.

"I can't think of anything else that an employer dictates to an insurance company what they don't want to pay for"

extra life insurance.

Companies pay for basic life. Translation to medical is basic coverage.
If you want more coverage, then you ELECT to pay for it, not the company.

Only difference is here, the company didn't want to pay for 4 of the methods. If the employee wants these 4 other options, they can ELECT to pay for it themselves.


tech: Posted: July 16, 2014 3:03 p.m.

Other examples, chefgirl:

• Chiropractic
• Dental
• Vision
• Acupuncture
• Herbal medicine

Unless mandated by the state or Feds, business group medical plans for employees didn't usually include coverage for these services or they were optional. Corporate HR makes cost/benefit decisions and tailors it as part of the compensation package.

It's a voluntary contract between employer and employee. At least is was until government and the ham fisted administrative state got involved in micromanaging another aspect of our lives.

The Hobby Lobby Decision and Its Distortions
Nothing in the Supreme Court's recent ruling denies women access to birth control.

By Senators Kelly Ayotte And Deb Fischer

In the days since the Supreme Court's June 30 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, we have been troubled by those who seem eager to misrepresent both the facts of the case and the impact of its ruling on women—all to divide Americans and score political points in a tough election year.

The biggest distortion: the #NotMyBossBusiness campaign on Twitter, which falsely suggests that under the ruling employers can deny their employees access to birth control.

That's flat-out false. Nothing in the Hobby Lobby ruling stops a woman from getting or filling a prescription for any form of contraception. Those who distort the court's decision insist that one cannot support religious liberty and also support access to safe, affordable birth control. But these are principles that we, and millions of others, support. Americans believe strongly that we should be able to practice our religion without undue interference from the government. It's a fundamental conviction that goes to the very core of our character—and dates back to the founding of our nation. The Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, which protects rights of conscience, reaffirmed our centuries-old tradition of religious liberty.

Contrary to the misleading rhetoric, the Hobby Lobby ruling does not take away women's access to birth control. No employee is prohibited from purchasing any Food and Drug Administration approved drug or device, and contraception remains readily available and accessible for all women nationwide. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, prior to ObamaCare over 85% of large businesses already offered contraceptive coverage to their employees. And the ObamaCare mandate under review in the case doesn't even apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. For lower-income women, there are five programs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that help ensure access to contraception for women, including Medicaid.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/kelly-ayotte-and-deb-fischer-the-hobby-lobby-decision-and-its-distortions-1405469473


chefgirl358: Posted: July 16, 2014 5:20 p.m.

Tech,

I stand corrected. My insurance covers most of the things you mentioned, but I know it doesn't for a lot of folks.

Thank you for the additional information. I respectfully disagree in terms of religious point of view. I just don't think people's personal religious beliefs who run a company should be allowed to have any influence over their employee's life choices.

So just because a woman can get her birth control (bc) elsewhere, why should she have to jump through a bunch of hoops and be inconvenienced because her employer doesn't believe in certain forms of bc? Why should the employer be able to dictate what forms of bc the insurance will cover? I get that this doesn't affect the vast majority of employees, in fact very few, but it's a step back for women's rights none the less. Just like several other states are gradually chipping away at abortion rights, it all adds up.


tech: Posted: July 16, 2014 6:16 p.m.

Noted, chefgirl.

It's important to clarify that in reality the debate (in this case) is coerced affirmative involvement in funding of 4 out of 20 contraceptive methods that impede/prevent implantation of a fertilized egg as determined by the FDA. For those who support biological science, i.e. human life and all its potential begin at conception, this post-conception methodology is deemed an abortifacient. It's viewed as a life or death decision that impacts a human life beyond that of the mother.

The SCOTUS found that the HHS mandated coverage of all 20 FDA approved contraceptive methods by for profit enterprises to be in violation of the RFRA. Those that disagree will need to undergo the legislative process of revising RFRA. I encourage you to research the history of that statute and the overwhelming bipartisan support it received when sending it to President Clinton for signature. It's a statutory legal issue, not solely a religious freedom one.

While people of good conscience can respectfully disagree, I encourage you not to be overly broad in your definition of the specific issue. To be sure, the larger issue is nuanced rather than clearly delineated. However, it's important to acknowledge that no one is being denied access to FDA approved contraceptives nor are they confined to being employed by firms that don't share their perspective. The employer/employee contract is voluntary, not coerced. Compromise on matters of freedom, principle, rights and law aren't always convenient for all parties.

The state has a monopoly on force and we should take care to consider how it's applied.


ricketzz: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:15 a.m.

The RFRA is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is embarrassing; they can't even follow rules of logic.

The Constitution is not a list of all the inherent rights retained by The People. It says so in the 9th Amendment.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:38 a.m.

All well and good, but just because you have a right to something DOESN'T mean you also have some "right" to have someone else pay for it, whether with tax dollars or company dollars.

This is EXACTLY why I talk about the Porsche or Ferrari I want every time this topic comes up.

Every single one of us has an "unalienable right" to buy any legal product we wish...... as long as WE can pay for it ourselves. No question.

But where in the Constitution does it say anything at all about that "right" being subsidized by others?

The Declaration says we have the right to the "pursuit of happiness". It doesn't guarantee we're going to catch it.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:53 a.m.

ricketzz- this is why the granting of new "rights" is so problematic. I say I have the right to take your property if I so desire. I have the right to drive my car in any manner I deem appropriate including driving on the left. I have the right to urinate on food in the grocery store. I have the right to walk on the freeway. I have the right to place poison in food I serve to others.

At some point, the "rights" we claim for ourselves endanger or impinge on the "rights" of others (see BB's post above). That is why the framers of the Constitution were so careful in this area and why we must respect this document.

Many republics/democracies do not last as long as we have. This is due, in part to this strong legacy document. When we begin to disrespect or even question the Constitution, we place ourselves in great peril.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 11:39 a.m.

I should have a right to utilize whatever coverage my medical insurance provides, without interference from my employer, period. I'll pay whatever my portion of that treatment is, through my insurance. I shouldn't have to go somewhere else and deal with all sorts of weird inconveniences because my employer doesn't like what the actual medical insurance already covers. And most medical insurances DO cover those 4 treatments. I'm not asking for someone else to pay for it. If you have a blood pressure issue and your insurance covers that treatment, the cost is between you and your medical provider, not between you and your employer, not between the insurance and the employer. Employers purchase coverage for employees not item by item, but as a whole and they should not be able to go line by line and check off what they don't want employees to receive coverage for. It shouldn't have anything to do with them AT ALL.


17trillion: Posted: July 17, 2014 11:59 a.m.

So it offends your sensibilities that you should have to pay a dollar a year for sick time for part timers but you're ok with an employer being FORCED to spend thousands, 10's of thousands, or hundreds of thousands a year for insurance that exactly suits your desires?

The problem is that employers are FORCED to cover ALL mandates within Obamacare which raises costs on everyone, but you don't care about such things as long as your IUD is covered or your abortion pill because you or others were too lazy or too stupid or too whatever just to take the other 16 methods that ARE covered that prevent pregnancy rather than terminate it.

You're not asking someone to pay for it? BS!!! That is exactly what you are not just asking, but demanding. Your desire or lack of to procreate is between you and your partner.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 12:03 p.m.

Chefgirl you're contradicting yourself:

"I should have a right to utilize whatever coverage my medical insurance provides, without interference from my employer, period... I'm not asking for someone else to pay for it."


Yes, you are. WHO'S paying for your "company-provided" health insurance? You, or your employer? Your employer is, so "someone else" is already paying for it. Them.

I'm retired now, but when I was working my employer provided really excellent health insurance... but there were some things they elected NOT to cover: acupuncture; a shrink (except under very limited circumstances); only 3 chiropractic treatments; and some other things I can't recall now. Since they were footing the majority of the bill, it was rightfully their decision to make as to what coverage they wanted to provide and pay for.

Did that mean I was somehow BARRED from getting those things? Nope, not at all. I was perfectly free to get those things and pay for them myself, or go out to the supplemental insurance market and get additional insurance coverage at my own expense.

You: "Employers purchase coverage for employees not item by item, but as a whole ..."

Wrong. They sit down every year with the insurers and go over what coverages are provided, then negotiate a package that meets their needs. They may -- and do -- determine what benefits they want included, or excluded, from that package. There's a wide range of packages employers provide, from minimal catastrophic coverage to fully comprehensive programs; from HMOs to PPOs; and the prices they pay vary accordingly.


Nitesho: Posted: July 17, 2014 12:18 p.m.

"I should have a right to utilize whatever coverage my medical insurance provides, without interference from my employer, period. I'll pay whatever my portion of that treatment is, through my insurance."
"I'm not asking for someone else to pay for it."

These statements above contradict each other...

"I should have a right to utilize whatever coverage my medical insurance provides, without interference from my employer, period."

Your employer pays the lion's share of your coverage. You pay maybe 20-30% of what it actually costs.

"I'll pay whatever my portion of that treatment is, through my insurance."

Your employer is actually paying for a good portion of your treatments as you call them. You are paying a co-payment of a potion of your subsidized healthcare. You're not getting something for free. It's not just between you and your insurance. It's about you, your employer and your insurance.

"I'm not asking for someone else to pay for it."
Yes you are. You are asking your insurance (that your employer pays for) to cover 80% (in most cases). You are paying a fraction of the actual costs. That money needs to come from somewhere.


Nitesho: Posted: July 17, 2014 12:30 p.m.

"The problem is that employers are FORCED to cover ALL mandates within Obamacare which raises costs on everyone"

Exactly. I am forced to pay for prenatal even though we are done having kids. I am forced to pay for birth control that I don't use. I am forced to pay for alcohol addition even though I don't drink. All to the tune of an additional $300 a month since the "Affordable" Care Act took place.

It's ok for me to pay $300 more per month for something I don't need but women are complaining about 4 out of 20 ways to keep from getting pregnant? I don't get it.


17trillion: Posted: July 17, 2014 1:08 p.m.

Good point Nitesho. I don't need or want maternity but I'm FORCED to have it and thus my insurance has gone up 125% since 1/1/13. Part of that increase is to make sure people like Chefgirl have 20 forms of birth control and she claims she's not asking anyone to pay for it? What, does the birth control ferry make these things out of pixie dust?


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 17, 2014 1:20 p.m.

And now we see the issue.
When its something for us, its a "right."
When its something for others, its an "entitlement."

This is how we have all been bought off, to one degree or another.
Which is the extreme danger of a socialist state.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 1:21 p.m.

I haven't been bought off yet, AR.

Still waiting for my Ferrari to show up in my driveway. THEN I'll be officially bought off...


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 1:30 p.m.

I've posted the Tytler Cycle before, but here it is again:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;

"From spiritual faith to great courage;

"From courage to liberty;

"From liberty to abundance;

"From abundance to complacency;

"From complacency to apathy;

"From apathy to dependence;

"From dependence back into bondage.”



Nitesho: Posted: July 17, 2014 1:37 p.m.

"And now we see the issue.
When its something for us, its a "right."
When its something for others, its an "entitlement." "

BINGO BINGO BINGO


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 17, 2014 2:15 p.m.

BB- I assume you will be promptly returning your Social Security checks?

I think I'll use mine to buy a Porsche. Ferrari rides too rough.


philellis: Posted: July 17, 2014 2:16 p.m.

I am all in favor of rights but we need to stop all entitlements. Sorry, guys, but it is all about me. Brian, that means no Ferrari for you, but I will gladly send you a picture of mine, as soon as it is delivered.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 2:26 p.m.

LOL, AR.

There's generally someone who brings that up, but it's usually the Dem/socialists like stevie-boy or Captain Irrelevant. I'm surprised it was YOU this time.

So here's my standard response:

I was in the work force for almost half a century. If the government will refund to me all the "contributions" I was forced to make into Social Securidad and Medicare, adjusted for inflation and including the interest I'd have earned had I been able to keep that money and invest it myself, I'll be MORE than happy to sign a waiver forfeiting any and all future claims to any government program.

I figure that check will be well north of a million bucks.


Phil, once I get that check, I WILL have my Ferrari. Maybe with a Porsche on the side...
.
.
--edited.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 3:05 p.m.

17,

For the last time, according to actual SCIENCE and not religious zealots, those 4 methods of birth control are NOT ABORTIFACENTS.

As far as the other comments, I'm sorry but I just totally disagree with all of you on this. I think to single out women, and specifically women's reproductive rights in particular, should not be allowed. Most insurance covers all of the birth control mentioned, and they should not be forced NOT to cover some specific birth control because some employer is a religious whack job. If the insurance normally covers it, that should be the end of it. If it doesn't, fine, then the person can figure out how to get it otherwise, but the person shouldn't be forced to go through that just because the employer, has some objection to certain medical treatments, while not objecting to the other forms of birth control. In fact, in a true medical emergency, if someone needed an actual abortion, would their insurance not be able to cover that in an emergency room because some company manager back at the office is a pro lifer?

I do stand corrected on one thing, you're right in the sense that the employer does pay for certain things but that is just implied with any insurance coverage. I don't want to pay for fat people who can't control themselves to get their stomach stapled or for their diabetes treatment, but that's really none of my business, that's between a PATIENT, Their INSURANCE, and THEIR DOCTOR to decide, and not one other single person should have any say in the matter. Either provide medical insurance or don't, but beyond that I just don't think it's any of their business.

I guess I've been lucky because my company doesn't get involved with my medical insurance, they simply provide it, and I pay for a pretty sizable portion of that too by the way, as do most employees. There aren't very many companies offering full insurance coverage with ZERO contribution from the employee.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 3:21 p.m.

Huh?

"Either provide medical insurance or don't, but beyond that I just don't think it's any of their business."

Sorry, you've gulped the Kool-Aid, and didn't even bother responding to the actual points made. Which is a very surprising stance -- a double standard -- coming from you.

There is NO "standardized" health insurance provided by private companies, at least prior to Obamacare.

Some provided none at all; others provided catastrophic "minimal" policies only; some provided HMO coverage; some provided a choice of HMO or PPO; some had all kinds of exclusions; there are high-deductible and low-deductible policies; some with high copays and some with low copays; and all of them had different price points.

So what, exactly, are you talking about?

I gotta say, you sound EXACTLY like the Obamacare people, who don't know what they're talking about, rely on talking points, and support the idea of government-mandated insurance, thereby utterly destroying the market.


You also sound just like Sandra Fluke, that idiot woman who insists that everyone else has to pay for her birth control, as if as a lawyer she can't afford it herself.

Do you take the same position on acupuncture? If not, why not? Because most policies exclude that, too.


Nitesho: Posted: July 17, 2014 3:41 p.m.

Chef

Have you ever wondered what your life would be like had your parents felt so strongly for "reproductive rights"? and put them into practice?

What does reproductive rights even mean?
Your right to reproduce? you have that now.
Your right to not reproduce? you have that now.
Your right to prevent reproduction? you have that now.

Your rights to terminate a pregnancy? Is that what you are referring to? --edited.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:10 p.m.

Phil- you made a small typo:

"I am all in favor of MY rights but we need to stop all YOUR entitlements"

BB- LOL. Wouldn't it be a kick to get all these folks in one room? Maybe at some local restaurant?


17trillion: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:22 p.m.

"be forced NOT to cover some specific birth control because some employer is a religious whack job."

Someone that believes in Jesus and the bible is now a whack job? Where does that arrogance come from? Who are you to question the intent of the owners of HL? You know nothing about them and I guarraneffingtee those people are better people than most people, and I'm an atheist!

"For the last time, according to actual SCIENCE and not religious zealots, those 4 methods of birth control are NOT ABORTIFACENTS."

Who cares? Explain why the other 16 aren't good enough? Explain to me how a woman, a supposedly intelligent one, can get so hysterical over a lack of funding for an extremely expensive birth control method over a very cheap one? As I said, are women so stupid that they can't quite figure out how their other 16 choices work?

"but the person shouldn't be forced to go through that just because the employer, has some objection to certain medical treatments"

So you have a choice, a choice to work or not work for this person, but they don't have any choice? They didn't get a choice CG, it was mandated, ordered, decreed, by some HHS official. IT'S NOT EVEN IN THE ORIGINAL OBAMACARE LAW, NOWHERE! If 20 forms of birth control were in the original law it never would have passed.

What a hypocrite! You rant about paying a dollar when it's the health of thousands of part timers is involved and then whine like a baby because you have to pay for your Plan B or IUD? What the hell "right" has been taken away from you? The rights of your employers to choose a plan that they can afford and think is best for their employees and company are the only rights I see getting the shaft. You on the other hand can still hop over to Planned Parenthood and get free, or virtually free, birth control.


17trillion: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:24 p.m.

Here is the new definition of whack job. From the Hobby Lobby website:

•Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
•Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
•Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
•Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.


Yea, what utterly disgusting people. They should be killed! (To the NSA, that was sarcasm)


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:50 p.m.

Ok, when an employer buys health insurance for their company employees, does the employer get to go down the line and check off what they want the insurance to cover, or is the more likely scenario that they choose to pay for a certain plan that offers blanket coverage and exclusions of certain treatments? If I'm the employer choosing insurance, let's say I decide to offer my employees Kaiser, Cigna PPO and Blue Cross HMO and PPO. Out of those plans, those insurance companies will already have set items they do and don't cover, like Kaiser probably doesn't cover chiropractic visits. I am simply saying that should be the end of the line. The employer shouldn't get to go in at that point and be able to start checking off things that would normally be covered under that plan and delete them. If they are already paying for that plan, and it includes those treatments for that price, then it doesn't cost the employer any additional money anyway AND up until Obamacare, no employer ever complained about what the insurance they offered, covered. --edited.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:14 p.m.

BrianBaker,

I am absolutely dead set against Obamacare and Govt. mandated insurance, I truly believe that Obama and Obamacare are two of THE worst things that have ever happened to this great nation.

If a policy ALREADY excludes something, FINE. Whether it's acupuncture, IUD's, cortisone injections, whatever, if the policy itself excludes something, that is what it is. But an employer should not be able to go in and take away things that are already covered under a policy.

Nitesho, there are a number of groups/people right now across the U.S. gradually chipping away at women's rights in terms of abortion, birth control, etc., and I don't want to see women lose ground on any of those fronts. If you want an abortion, you should be able to seek one out in your own state (on your own dime) within a reasonable distance, without having to undergo multiple visits for counseling sessions, intravaginal ultrasounds, and your doctor shouldn't have to have admitting priveleges at a local hospital, and a variety of other unneccesary things designed to dissuade women from getting an abortion. My parents absolutely used birth control for several years until they decided they wanted a child. My mother even had an IUD momentarily, said it was the most painful horrible thing she ever endured. Allegedly, those have improved in recent years, but I have no idea if that's true or not. Either way, if a woman and her dr think it's best for her...good for them.

17, I care because the entire HL fight was based on an unscientific opinion that the very things they're opposed to, don't even cause abortion. Regarding the 4 excluded items, let me try to word this differently, if an insurance policy purchased by the employer typically covered those items, then it should stay that way - the employer shouldn't get to pick and choose what's covered under a specific plan that is already preset. If the policy doesn't normally cover those items, then I have no problem with that.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:16 p.m.

BrianBaker, Sandra Fluke, really? Ouch.

I hope you understand my point of view a little better after looking at my last two posts.


17trillion: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:21 p.m.

Ok fine, but the owners of HL were never given that opportunity. They didn't get to decide to cover contraceptives or not so it wasn't an "employer choosing" situation. It was mandated and they don't like it and since they're paying for it they objected based on, what I can tell, a genuine and noble religious objection. And by the way, yes an employer basically got to pick and choose coverage that they would offer their employees but that is no longer the case. Now they must cover maternity, drug and booze addiction, chiropractic, and host of other things they wouldn't normally cover. You didn't always have birth control coverage, I assume, so now why the outrage over having 4 out of 20 be denied based on a reasonable objection? I still don't get it. What "right" is being taken away? Why the hostility over HL's owners asserting their rights? What exactly did "you" lose?

"AND up until Obamacare, no employer ever complained about what the insurance they offered, covered."

Come on Chefgirl, that's because it was THEIR decision, not some bureaucrat sitting in DC. Nobody complained because it wasn't shoved down their throats and made into a mandate. My policies for my employees didn't cover maternity. Couldn't afford it so I didn't offer it. Get it?


Nitesho: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:26 p.m.

"there are a number of groups/people right now across the U.S. gradually chipping away at women's rights in terms of abortion, birth control, etc., and I don't want to see women lose ground on any of those fronts. "

Agreed. But don't call an abortion "reproductive rights" Call it what it is.

"If you want an abortion, you should be able to seek one out in your own state (on your own dime)"
What do you think the 4 things you are up in arms about do? According to your own statement...you should pay for your 4 choices and not your employer.


17trillion: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:30 p.m.

"the employer shouldn't get to pick and choose what's covered under a specific plan that is already preset."

But because of Obamacare, those options no longer exist. In the past maybe HL could exclude all contraceptives? Who knows, I'm not familiar with what they had. I just don't get why 16 out of 20 isn't good enough and why it now amounts to some BS war on women. We, employers, used to be able to pick and choose but now the only thing you can pick and choose is the deductible and out of pocket. When I had 300 people I paid for a catastrophic plan, it was all I could afford because I was a high volume, low yield, business. If I were to have those employees today I couldn't afford to cover them with even the cheapest plan. I would pay the fine, 600k a year, and cut wages. Otherwise I would be out of business paying even 3 or 4k a year for a crappy plan for my employees. There is no choice! Obamacare took that away and someone fought back and won. I think that's more important than any minute roll back of a minute amount of people not being able to use a minute amount of birth control options.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:39 p.m.

17, Actually I always have had my bc covered, without an issue for 30 years.

I completely agree that Obamacare is a horrible nightmare. I absolutely think that no employer, nor the general public that's going to end up footing the bill for this entire fiasco, should be forced to cover addiction, maternity, etc.

I think the one thing we definitely all agree on is that we all hate Obamacare. I am of the firm belief that we should have things the way we did before (with a few changes) and people and employers could shop for their own policies tailored to their budgets, lifestyles and needs. Maybe a lot of people would disagree with me on that because they had lousy insurance and now they are getting a much better deal. I've been very fortunate and have always had very good PPO insurance so I can't relate to some of the struggles people have had, except that I did have a 6 month period with NO insurance in my early 20's and a nasty car accident with an ambulance ride, and a 2 hour ER visit that cost me like $5,000 for some x-rays and a bottle of vicodin. It took me years to pay that off, but I did.

In any case 17, yes, I do get it. I didn't realize that employers were able to do that previously, I thought that you just purchased Plan A, Plan C, Plan J and each one covered set items in a package deal. I didn't know that you could pick and choose specific items to cover or not. Since it was that way already, I don't have an issue with it under those circumstances. I thought this was a new thing with Obamacare specifically that allowed employers who wanted exemptions to start doing that, but I do see now what you are saying about employers (AND taxpayers!) having all of these extra things forced upon them that nobody wants to offer (like drug rehab, etc.).





chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:41 p.m.

I still don't think employers should HAVE to pay for part time workers to have paid sick days.


17trillion: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:58 p.m.

Fair enough CG, we'll just disagree on this item. As far as I can tell, it's the only one. :)

If you could though, re-examine you calling the owners of HL whack jobs. As I said, I'm not religious at all and I question much about religion, but these people appear to have sincere convictions and while one might disagree with their stance, we set the bar awfully low by calling them whack jobs.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:01 p.m.

17, fair enough. :)


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:06 p.m.

Chefgirl, you asked: "Ok, when an employer buys health insurance for their company employees, does the employer get to go down the line and check off what they want the insurance to cover..."

Yes, that is EXACTLY what they do, every single year.

" ... or is the more likely scenario that they choose to pay for a certain plan that offers blanket coverage and exclusions of certain treatments?"

Nope. That's not how it's done.

At one point in my career I actually had an agent license, and had a part-time job selling health insurance to small companies, and that is EXACTLY what we'd do: ask them what specific coverages they wanted to include in their plan, which was individually tailored for their company. It's no different for big companies.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:06 p.m.

Perhaps these summaries would prove useful.

Answers to All Your Hobby Lobby Questions

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-02/answers-to-all-your-hobby-lobby-questions

Democrats on Hobby Lobby: ‘Misspeaks,’ ‘opinion’ and overheated rhetoric

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/14/democrats-on-hobby-lobby-misspeaks-opinion-and-overheated-rhetoric/


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:14 p.m.

Health insurance on the open market is no different from car insurance. When you sit down with your agent to set your policy limits, there are all kinds of choices you make. Do you want Uninsured Motorist coverage or not? Do you want just minimum 30/50/10 insurance, or do you want higher limits? Do you want car rental included? How about towing? Do you want to insure damage to your own car or not? It's not required, unless you're financing your car, and then the lender/lessor requires it. Do you want umbrella coverage or not? How about medical, yes or no?

Companies do the exact same thing when they make their company health plan decisions every year.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:15 p.m.

AR ..... all in the same room at the same time?

How does that work? Last guy standing gets stuck with the bill, or what?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:19 p.m.

Chefgirl: "BrianBaker, Sandra Fluke, really? Ouch."

LOL

Yeah, well.... I'm trying to make my point with you, and I KNEW that one would hurt. But unfortunately, it's also true in this case. That's why I'm am absolutely FLABBERGASTED that you're taking that position, all the while still vowing that you're opposed to Obamacare.

I believe you when I say that, but you seem completely blind to the fact that your position on this is EXACTLY what Obamacare's all about.

You: "I hope you understand my point of view a little better after looking at my last two posts."


Not yet. I'm awaiting your epiphany to reality.

LOL!


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:21 p.m.

A handy infographic:

http://www.becketfund.org/scotus-decided-burwell-v-hobby-lobby/


philellis: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:30 p.m.

AR, no typo, remember "rights" are what I have and "entitlements" are what you get.

You know, I think that this whole argument is really off base. The real discussion should be why does the government discriminate against men and not offer us 20 viable (and free) contraceptive methods?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 6:36 p.m.

Yeah, well....

Of course, I'm stating the obvious, and kinda preaching to the choir, but why does the government have its big fat nose in this issue at all?



Government healthcare...... It's working so WELL. Just look at the VA!


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:08 p.m.

BrianBaker,

I stand corrected. I truly thought (wrongly) that PREVIOUSLY, employers purchased health plans that were preset packages (which they NOW do under Obamacare). After you and 17 beat it into my head, I now understand that employers USED to be able to pick and choose, just like your auto insurance analogy, what coverage they offered. I do not have an issue with this.

I THOUGHT (again, wrongly) that employers were now looking at a preset package and removing things through exemptions that had ALWAYS been covered under previous packaged plans.

I now see that is not the case. My primary confusion was in not understanding how employers used to be able to pick and choose coverage, just like the rest of us could before, tailor our insurance to our budgets, lifestyles and needs. I thought if an employer gave you health coverage before, they were just given a package from insurance companies like plan a covers this, plan b covers this and so on, not understanding that the employer and insurer worked together to craft the plan. NOW I get it.

Bottom line, I just wish things were the way the were before Obamacare:(

Does that make more sense?


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:10 p.m.

Phil- the best male contraceptive: teenagers.

BB- it would be an evening to remember. Invite all the posters to a restaurant and meet face-to-face. It could be the start of something amazing. Or end in murder. LOL....


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:19 p.m.

Always,

That's funny I had the same thought about us all meeting. Just thinking about what that would be like and if we could figure out who was who without using names initially, just by what people said.

I KNOW I could single out Ricketzz and SteveHw.


philellis: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:35 p.m.

We tried that once before with a group of us from Jeff's site. It was a fun evening. if WIndy were to show up we would recognize him as soon as he opended his mouth.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 17, 2014 8:57 p.m.

THERE ya go, chefgirl!

Welcome back to the fold.

Yeah, this is simply yet another of the endless examples of how and why Obamacare is an abortion foisted on this country.




As to a restaurant meet... Hell, I'm up for it. I always have at least a pocket knife on me anyway...


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:50 p.m.

"Bottom line, I just wish things were the way the were before Obamacare:(

Does that make more sense?" - chefgirl

"Progressives" are why we can't have nice things.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:57 p.m.

"If Windy were to show up we would recognize him as soon as he opened his mouth." - philellis

No doubt.

I'd have to rent a car because the resident stalker would be taking photos of my license plate in an attempt to determine my identity. Come to think of it, he'd likely harass the rental agency as well.

Creepy. :-D


Nitesho: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:15 p.m.

Tech. Just show up in a Prius. That would confuse him and leave him dumbfounded. I mean more so than usual.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 17, 2014 11:57 p.m.

Which one was Windy? The one who made a barely veiled threat on my life or the troll who sticks up for sexual predators?


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 12:28 a.m.

LOL, Nitesho! I'll mount this in the back window:

http://i.imgur.com/OSJWJRY.jpg


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:19 a.m.

@tech. Lol!


ricketzz: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:51 a.m.

The V.A. is government run health care. Medicare is single payer health care. Obamacare is private sector health care.

How many people here have the same doctor as they had in 2010? I do. I have the same 5 doctors in fact. Same clinics. Same hospital. I bet this is true for the overwhelming majority of us.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 18, 2014 11:07 a.m.

Alright. I think its worth a crack. How about Friday, 7/25, 7:00pm at the Habit in Granary Square? I'll show up early and get a couple tables together.

We could call it a meeting of the "Debate Club." LOL. Or, whatever...


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 11:09 a.m.

I don't. And my costs have gone up over 125% for worse coverage.

Oh and Obamacare maybe private as you call it. But it's government mandated coverage of private insurance. So it's all the downside of government without the costs burdened by the government. It's on the people.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 18, 2014 1:17 p.m.

AlwaysRight,

Dang, I can't make it next weekend, but I'm in if anybody wants to do it again another time.

Have fun!


ricketzz: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:38 a.m.

The Government and the People are the same entity in the government our Founders gave us. Removing the minimum age for Medicare would be ideal.


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 2:15 p.m.

"The Government and the People are the same entity in the government our Founders gave us." - ricketzz

No, they aren't. Reread the Tenth Amendment.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's wrong. You are not part of "the government". What elected or appointed office in local, state or Federal government do you hold, ricketzz?

In our Federalist Republic, we elect representatives who subsequently hold office. They are part of the government during their term. When they leave office, they are no longer part of the government. The vast majority of government employees aren't elected by citizens.

Here (again) is how the Constitution delineates government and "the people":

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

United States = Federal Government
States = states
The people = citizens

The purpose of your conflating government and "the people" is to place government at the center of society rather than people. This is the intent of "progressive" politics, i.e. to champion collective over individual rights. The Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government over people because of the historical record of tyranny by the former.


ricketzz: Posted: July 20, 2014 10:20 a.m.

The tenth amendment was added to appease idiots. I rest my case.


ricketzz: Posted: July 20, 2014 10:29 a.m.

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." A.Lincoln

President Lincoln grew up helping his father find cheap land with a clear title; they had a farm taken from under their feet in Kentucky. Where civilization goes so do the swindlers. Lincoln borrowed books and taught himself to be a fine lawyer, then President. He gets it. He was 100% self made and achieved the most garish version of the American Dream, yet still was "of the people". He refused any trappings of status, except maybe the hat.


hopeful: Posted: July 20, 2014 2:48 p.m.

Ricketzz - and your point is?

I agree with one of your assessments that Lincoln "gets it." As you pointed out, Lincoln understood the importance of God and HIS blessings on our nation, verified by the quote you provide: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

It is sad that so many forget what Lincoln clearly understood.


ricketzz: Posted: July 21, 2014 11:14 a.m.

Lincoln, like many Presidents, was not above invoking the Almighty if it made his words more valuable to some. There is no evidence the man was a True Believer. He was a fan of Thomas Paine's writing and shared the latter's skepticism.


ricketzz: Posted: July 23, 2014 10:33 a.m.

But what I meant is Lincoln says we are a government of, by and for the people, contrary to someone who writes above that the USA government is not the same as the People. It must be convenient.

"What do you mean "we", White Man?"

We beat the fascists in 1945. We support them today. Who really wins ww2 after all?


tech: Posted: July 26, 2014 8:44 p.m.

"…contrary to someone who writes above that the USA government is not the same as the People." - ricketzz

Arguing with the Constitution again, ricketzz? Amend it or acknowledge reality.


ricketzz: Posted: July 28, 2014 10:10 a.m.

If "we" are not the government, who is?


tech: Posted: July 29, 2014 11:36 p.m.

See above, Mr. Merry-Go-Round.


ricketzz: Posted: July 30, 2014 1:13 p.m.

"We the People" is the entity that gives permission to the Drafters to write the rules. This country was started to benefit the People and to keep Tyrants (generals, clergy, bankers, armorers, merchants) at bay.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...