Hypocrisy

[BackInTex]

That is despicable even for you

No, not for him.

[BackInTex]

They're not asking someone else to pay for it. They're asking it be an employment benefit, the same as all the others.

You were never good at word problems, were you?

Who do you think pays for it?

Who do I think pays for an employee's benefits? Are you kidding?

[Bob Juch]

You were never good at word problems, were you?

Who do you think pays for it?

Who do I think pays for an employee's benefits? Are you kidding?

No, I'm not. You seem to think it's the employer who pays just because he's a nice guy. Benefits are the same thing as wages: They're compensation for the work employees perform. In the new hire orientation I had Monday morning they made it clear that they consider our benefits to be pay.

[Beebs52]

Who do you think pays for it?

Who do I think pays for an employee's benefits? Are you kidding?

No, I'm not. You seem to think it's the employer who pays just because he's a nice guy. Benefits are the same thing as wages: They're compensation for the work employees perform. In the new hire orientation I had Monday morning they made it clear that they consider our benefits to be pay.

That's exactly correct. It's why it's called a BENEFIT and not a RIGHT. It's part of the wage package. How hard is that to figure out?

And, if I recall you're a gun owner, right?

[BackInTex]

In the new hire orientation I had Monday morning they made it clear that they consider our benefits to be pay.

Your employer doesn't pay you?

[Bob Juch]

In the new hire orientation I had Monday morning they made it clear that they consider our benefits to be pay.

Your employer doesn't pay you?

No, I do this job for the fun. I should be paying them.

[Beebs52]

In the new hire orientation I had Monday morning they made it clear that they consider our benefits to be pay.

Your employer doesn't pay you?

No, I do this job for the fun. I should be paying them.

Life is good for the presumptuous.

[BackInTex]

In the new hire orientation I had Monday morning they made it clear that they consider our benefits to be pay.

Your employer doesn't pay you?

No, I do this job for the fun. I should be paying them.

Well then, your assertion that the women are not asking someone else to pay for their contraceptives may be correct if, like you, they work for free and the entire workforce in the manufacture and supply chain of the contraceptives all work for free, too.

[Bob Juch]

Your employer doesn't pay you?

No, I do this job for the fun. I should be paying them.

Well then, your assertion that the women are not asking someone else to pay for their contraceptives may be correct if, like you, they work for free and the entire workforce in the manufacture and supply chain of the contraceptives all work for free, too.

More Texas logic.

[silverscreenselect]

Well then, your assertion that the women are not asking someone else to pay for their contraceptives may be correct if, like you, they work for free and the entire workforce in the manufacture and supply chain of the contraceptives all work for free, too.

By this same logic, you are asking your employer to pay for your food and clothes and mortgage payment, etc. You use the money you receive from your employer in exchange for your labor (indirectly) to pay for your new hips, just as you use the money you receive from your employer (directly) to pay for your food and clothing.

It is true that the federal (and in some cases the state) government has placed some conditions on how the employer must compensate you. For example, your employer isn't allowed to pay you what most right wing fanatics are truly worth, about 49 cents an hour. And, if the employer sets up a retirement or 401 plan for you, there are rules it must follow. Similarly, there are rules the employer must follow if it chooses to provide you with healthcare benefits. Namely, that those benefits must provide coverage for certain items, including contraception. That is, until five members of the Supreme Court thought that a for-profit corporation could decide which of those rules did and did not meet with their religious beliefs.

[BackInTex]

By this same logic, you are asking your employer to pay for your food and clothes and mortgage payment, etc. You use the money you receive from your employer in exchange for your labor (indirectly) to pay for your new hips, just as you use the money you receive from your employer (directly) to pay for your food and clothing.

Spoken like a true liberal. No concept of the meaning of freedom to choose. Ironic considering.....

[tlynn78]

By this same logic, you are asking your employer to pay for your food and clothes and mortgage payment, etc. You use the money you receive from your employer in exchange for your labor (indirectly) to pay for your new hips, just as you use the money you receive from your employer (directly) to pay for your food and clothing.

Spoken like a true liberal. No concept of the meaning of freedom to choose. Ironic considering.....

This thread is certainly good for a few laughs each day, that's for sure. The twisted logic astounds. And no, I'm not referring to the Beebs. She's simply twisted.

[BackInTex]

By this same logic, you are asking your employer to pay for your food and clothes and mortgage payment, etc. You use the money you receive from your employer in exchange for your labor (indirectly) to pay for your new hips, just as you use the money you receive from your employer (directly) to pay for your food and clothing.

Spoken like a true liberal. No concept of the meaning of freedom to choose. Ironic considering.....

After re-reading the last two posts, I'm thinking you (SSS) may not have noticed my sarcafont. I know Bob J can't comprehend it (based on his demonstration of economic principles in both this discussion and the Uhaul discussion), but I'm pretty sure you can and will.

Bob's assertion is that women asking for contraception coverage are NOT asking for anyone to pay for it.

My, and TMITSSS's, assertions is that they are asking someone else (not themselves) to pay for it.

Starting from the base state where they are not provided conctracetion in any form.

A woman works for $9.25/hour plus benefits making widgets, 10 of them each hour on average.
Those benefits include medical check-ups only for which the employer pays an insurance company $50/month per employee. A pretty skimpy plan, but trying to keep it simple.
Also, to keep it simple, lets say there are no income or other taxes.
After one month of working 21 days in a month for 8 hours each day the employer pays her $1554 and now has 1680 widgets to sell.

The woman asks for, and receives the additional benefit of monthly contraception pills.

She still makes $9.25/hour making the same number of widget per hour for her employer.

The next month she works another 21 day for 8 hours each day and produces the same number of widgets.
The employer pays her $1554 and has 1680 widgets to sell, just like the prior month.
However, the employee now has a pack of birth control pills.

Who paid for the pills?

What if the woman had never even asked for the coverage, and out of the blue, the employer increased everyone's wages by 25 cents/hour.
Now the woman, at the end of the month has $42 more than she had the prior month.
She goes out and buys a package of contraceptive pills for $42.

Who paid for the pills?

What if instead, she bought a gun?
What if she bought a gun prior to the raise?
What if each month, the employer gives each employee a gun?
Who's paying for the guns?

The point being, there IS a difference in the answer to "Who's paying for x?" when a person has the choice of what to purchase with their compensation. If the purchase is forced on them, such as they get a gun at the end of the month, I would say the employer is paying for it. If they get cash compensation and they can choose to buy a gun, or contraceptives, or donate to a local charity, I'd say the employee is paying for it.

At the end of the day, its all a trade, all compensation (cash + benefits) for the employees labor. But in the unilateral change of adding a benefit with no offset on the labor side (more production or greater value relative to the market), it is clearly the employer paying for it.

[silverscreenselect]

A woman works for $9.25/hour plus benefits making widgets, 10 of them each hour on average.
Those benefits include medical check-ups only for which the employer pays an insurance company $50/month per employee. A pretty skimpy plan, but trying to keep it simple.

At the end of the day, its all a trade, all compensation (cash + benefits) for the employees labor. But in the unilateral change of adding a benefit with no offset on the labor side (more production or greater value relative to the market), it is clearly the employer paying for it.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the employer gets billed directly for her birth control pills.

Let's assume there are three employees.

One is a healthy 25 year old male who has no medical expenses over the course of the month. Under your logic, the employer has paid him nothing because he had no medical expenses during the month.

The second is the woman who receives $42 worth of birth control pills. Without insurance, she must pay $42 from her own pocket. Under your logic the employer has paid her $42.

The third is BiT II who has a hip replacement during that month and receives medical treatment worth $20,000. Without the employer's insurance, he must pay $20,000 out of his own pocket. So, by your logic, the employer has paid him $20,000 during the month. WOW, he must be one of the highest paid employees in the entire company.

The employer is not paying the woman $42, any more than it is paying BiT II $20,000. The employer is paying each of them, plus the healthy guy who had no medical expenses, $50, in the form of insurance, the cash benefit of which varies from employee to employee and from month to month. But each of these employees contributes the exact same amount to the company in the number of widgets they make. In fact, BiT II probably misses work during the month and makes fewer widgets that month than his co-workers.

It's possible that the cost of providing contraceptive care raises the overall cost of insurance to all employees by a few cents a month. And you might argue about freedom to choose and that an employer shouldn't be "forced" to offer its employees any particular benefits. However, that ship sailed a century ago when courts began upholding minimum wage and maximum hour laws against that exact same type of claims. The government can require businesses to pay a minimum wage and overtime. It can set the rules for pension vesting. It can establish conditions under which employers offer health insurance to their employees. The employer would undoubtedly save money by not offering medical insurance to female employees or black employees, but it isn't allowed to do so under the law.

[smilergrogan]

Who pays you guys for spending the whole workday posting this stuff? How much would you need to be paid to not post it? Maybe we can take up a collection.

[silverscreenselect]

Who pays you guys for spending the whole workday posting this stuff? How much would you need to be paid to not post it? Maybe we can take up a collection.

I'm unemployed right now. I'm spending for my own time and it's time well spent.

[BackInTex]

A woman works for $9.25/hour plus benefits making widgets, 10 of them each hour on average.
Those benefits include medical check-ups only for which the employer pays an insurance company $50/month per employee. A pretty skimpy plan, but trying to keep it simple.

At the end of the day, its all a trade, all compensation (cash + benefits) for the employees labor. But in the unilateral change of adding a benefit with no offset on the labor side (more production or greater value relative to the market), it is clearly the employer paying for it.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the employer gets billed directly for her birth control pills.

Let's assume there are three employees.

One is a healthy 25 year old male who has no medical expenses over the course of the month. Under your logic, the employer has paid him nothing because he had no medical expenses during the month.

The second is the woman who receives $42 worth of birth control pills. Without insurance, she must pay $42 from her own pocket. Under your logic the employer has paid her $42.

The third is BiT II who has a hip replacement during that month and receives medical treatment worth $20,000. Without the employer's insurance, he must pay $20,000 out of his own pocket. So, by your logic, the employer has paid him $20,000 during the month. WOW, he must be one of the highest paid employees in the entire company.

The employer is not paying the woman $42, any more than it is paying BiT II $20,000. The employer is paying each of them, plus the healthy guy who had no medical expenses, $50, in the form of insurance, the cash benefit of which varies from employee to employee and from month to month. But each of these employees contributes the exact same amount to the company in the number of widgets they make. In fact, BiT II probably misses work during the month and makes fewer widgets that month than his co-workers.

It's possible that the cost of providing contraceptive care raises the overall cost of insurance to all employees by a few cents a month. And you might argue about freedom to choose and that an employer shouldn't be "forced" to offer its employees any particular benefits. However, that ship sailed a century ago when courts began upholding minimum wage and maximum hour laws against that exact same type of claims. The government can require businesses to pay a minimum wage and overtime. It can set the rules for pension vesting. It can establish conditions under which employers offer health insurance to their employees. The employer would undoubtedly save money by not offering medical insurance to female employees or black employees, but it isn't allowed to do so under the law.

O.K. I admit I was wrong. I now realize you can't comprehend the economics at play and the subtle differences in terms. Likely because you can't separate your opinions and beliefs from facts when making analysis. My mistake.

I personally think providing contraceptive coverage is a good thing from an economic point of view. And it likely lowers the cost of medical coverage. And morally I have no objection to it (with the exception of abortion as a method of contraception, and don't confuse my moral objection to abortion as a stance of it being legal or not). But, if I pay for an employee's coverage, $100/month with no contraceptive coverage and only $75/month if it is included, I'm still paying for it at the $75/month rate. And if I had a moral objection to contraceptives, it should be my choice to continue, at my financial peril to pay the additional $25 month, or to pay my employee more and let them decide what to buy.

The fact remains, if I as an employer am paying for the coverage, then I'm paying for it.


And your example of value to the employee when taking into account claims is irrelevant. But that is a longer and slightly more complex discussion.

[silverscreenselect]

And if I had a moral objection to contraceptives, it should be my choice to continue, at my financial peril to pay the additional $25 month, or to pay my employee more and let them decide what to buy.

Again, that ship sailed 100 years ago when employers used to argue that forcing them to pay a minimum wage interfered with their rights to contract. As did forcing them to pay social security and medicare. And forcing them to pay equal wages to blacks and women. And forcing them to offer various ERISA benefits according to specified rules.

That was pretty much settled law until five members of the Supreme Court decided that a for-profit corporation had some sort of religious freedom that superseded a century of established law.

And of course Hobby Lobby isn't paying women one cent more to buy their own contraceptives. These women just have to make the money they receive stretch further. Presumably, if Hobby Lobby felt that hip replacements were immoral, by your logic, it would give my hypothetical BiT II $20,000 to pay for his own hip replacement.

[TheConfessor]

Who pays you guys for spending the whole workday posting this stuff? How much would you need to be paid to not post it? Maybe we can take up a collection.

I'm unemployed right now. I'm spending for my own time and it's time well spent.

You should move to Texas, where employers in every line of business can never seem to fill all their openings for online political pundits. And all that work gets counted in the Gross National Product.

[Bob Juch]

The Green family's idea of religious freedom includes mandatory bible study classes in every public school.