[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Wed Jul 2 11:19:51 PDT 2014

To recap:

Paul wrote:

"It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer pays."

My response was that your statement is incorrect:

"The last time I checked, my husband and I paid 100% of the cost of my
health insurance through the UI, and that's the way it was for all state
employees the last time I checked.  That's been the trend, too, with private
sector employer-based health insurance for a number of years, as well as
eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for the employee.  Indeed, there
are more than a few employers who offer absolutely no health insurance
subsidy for employees - their position is that their "subsidy" is allowing
the employee the benefit of being a part of a larger group that gets a lower
rate."

You further responded:

"In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay stub (posted for
the 3rd of June), I see a line item for "Employer Contribution for
Benefits".  It's about $350 in my case, paid by the employer per biweek."

Yes, that is the UI's contribution to the employee's benefits.  There is no
employer subsidy for the health benefits of spouses and/or dependents.

So, we're back to my assertion that your initial statement was incorrect and
my request that you quit making false statements, yes?

Further, assuming that Hobby Lobby operates the same way (a relatively safe
bet), then how can you defend the SCOTUS decision where HL has no skin in
the game; that is, there is no employer financial contribution to the
coverage they claim to find personally objectionable?

You seem to be advocating a position that necessarily involves trampling the
Constitutional rights of women that are completely and wholly unrelated to
any aspect of employment "just because" the employer finds those
Constitutional protections objectionable.  In this instance, your are
placing a higher value on what you perceive to be the religious freedom of a
for-profit business at the expense of the Constitutional rights of actual
real-life people (in this instance, women), which is completely at odds with
your stated positions.  You are, essentially, advocating a position where
the Constitutional rights of those with economic power (in this instance,
employers) trumps the Constitutional and legal protections guaranteed to
individuals regardless of economic power.

And, if you don't understand the chilling consequences of such a stance,
then I can only conclude you've not truly exercised your critical thinking
skills and/or are intentionally ignoring the very real concerns being
discussed by those who know far more than your or I will ever know about
medicine and the law.  

Saundra

From: Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:24 PM
To: Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

It's statements like these that I'm objecting to:

"...of course it's of no consequence to you that..."

"...but it's good to know you belong in the "tyranny of the bigots"
category..."

"...why on earth should you care that..."

Are they really necessary?  Can't we discuss the issues without getting
personal?

In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay stub (posted for
the 3rd of June), I see a line item for "Employer Contribution for
Benefits".  It's about $350 in my case, paid by the employer per biweek.  I
also see employer amounts for "Pre-Tax Health Savings Account" (their match
for the amount I'm putting in my HSA), and "Long" and "Short Term Disability
Coverage".  Also Medicare, but all employers have to pay FHI if I remember
correctly.

Paul

On 07/01/2014 01:44 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:

I was hoping we could actually discuss your thinking without you playing
your predictable "why is everybody always picking on me" card to avoid
discussing statements you make that you want us to just blindly accept.  I
don't think pointing out the flaws, limitations, and obvious conclusions of
your thinking are personal insults, but I'm sorry if your sensitivities made
you feel as though they were because that wasn't my intention.

Just as, I assume, you weren't intending to personally insult those of us
with concerns about guns on campus by calling our concerns "irrational
fears," or a lot of other comments you've made that might have felt like
personal attacks if you were on the receiving end.  What's that saying?
Something about people in glass houses . . . 

So, let's try this one point again:

Paul wrote:

"It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer pays."

My response is that your statement is incorrect:

"The last time I checked, my husband and I paid 100% of the cost of my
health insurance through the UI, and that's the way it was for all state
employees the last time I checked.  That's been the trend, too, with private
sector employer-based health insurance for a number of years, as well as
eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for the employee.  Indeed, there
are more than a few employers who offer absolutely no health insurance
subsidy for employees - their position is that their "subsidy" is allowing
the employee the benefit of being a part of a larger group that gets a lower
rate."

What say you?

Saundra

From: Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Well, I was hoping we could discuss this without the personal insults. 

Paul

On 07/01/2014 12:21 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:

Paul wrote:

"It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer pays."

Boy, you sure are out of touch with how modern employer-based health
insurance is paid!  Keep current, Paul, rather than disseminate long
outdated sound bites.  

The last time I checked, my husband and I paid 100% of the cost of my health
insurance through the UI, and that's the way it was for all state employees
the last time I checked.  That's been the trend, too, with private sector
employer-based health insurance for a number of years, as well as eroding
the percentage of employer subsidy for the employee.  Indeed, there are more
than a few employers who offer absolutely no health insurance subsidy for
employees - their position is that their "subsidy" is allowing the employee
the benefit of being a part of a larger group that gets a lower rate.

Paul also wrote:

"I don't see a problem with a small group of "close-knit" people with
similar beliefs objecting to something they feel goes against their
religious beliefs."

Of course you don't, but it's good to know you belong in the "tyranny of the
bigots" category that thinks that anyone should be able to impose their
religious beliefs on those with different beliefs, which certainly
contradicts a lot of the positions you've stated on V2020.  I'm in the
category of thinking that people are free to believe whatever they want, but
they don't have the right to force their religious beliefs on me.

Too, why on earth should you care that about 90% of companies in America
responsible for employing approximately 52% of working Americans qualify as
"small closely-held" companies that can now use wholly false religious
bigotry to deny access to necessary health care for female employees and
employees with female family members?  That may be the America you want to
live in, but it isn't the one the majority of Americans want to live in.

Paul also wrote:

"Especially when the consequence is to pay for a specific contraceptive
yourself."

Once again, your gender ignorance and economic insensitivity would be
stunning had you not exhibited them so many times before.

Yes, the American way is to force female crime victims to bear the cost of
being raped by men, isn't it, Paul, and that religious American ideal should
be preserved at all costs, shouldn't it?  It's also the American way
relegate "immoral" women to forced breeder status when they have sex, isn't
it?

And, of course it's of no consequence to you that the cost of an IUD for
women for whom that form of birth control is most appropriate is about a
month's wage for lower paid employees without health insurance . . . or for
plans that exclude coverage for women.  That may be economically feasible
for you since you don't fall into that category, but here's a news flash for
you:  that is as financially impossible for many women, particularly women
who have children to feed & clothe.  Yet you find it appropriate for
religious bigots to punish women & children in an attempt to coerce "moral"
behavior out of those uppity women.

Of course, a viable alternative might have been to direct those women to
non-profit family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood where
contraceptives are more affordable.  At least, that might have been a viable
alternative before the Religious Right started its war on women.  Oops -
guess that's not a viable alternative for a lot of women anymore.

Saundra

Moscow, ID

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:05 AM
To: Sunil; vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Yes, you're right.  It's not free.  It's subsidized by everyone who pays
into it, plus what the employer pays.  I don't see a problem with a small
group of "close-knit" people with similar beliefs objecting to something
they feel goes against their religious beliefs.  Especially when the
consequence is to pay for a specific contraceptive yourself.  It's not like
they are objecting to open-heart surgery.

Is having the ability to get health care in general from your employer a
basic human right?  Is the ability to have your contraceptives in general or
the "morning after" pill in specific as a part of your health plan offered
at work a basic human right?

Paul

  _____  

From: Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
<mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> >
To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Paul,

Is your UI healthcare free or is it part of your employment compensation?

Sunil

  _____  

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:03:00 -0700
From: godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> ;
vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 

Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?

Paul

  _____  

From: Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
<mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> >
To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

I couldn't disagree more. 

Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates religious
rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights of flesh-and-blood
people. HL is not about restricting the power of government and it's naive
to think that's its objective. If the government were restricting birth
control, as it once did, this majority would have no objection to that
exercise of government power.

Sunil

  _____  

From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com <mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com> 
To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> ;
donaldrose at cpcinternet.com <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com> ;
vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see inconsistency in
rulings.  In both cases the rulings restricted the power of the government.

  _____  

From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com> ;
vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Great points, Rose, and I'm afraid I agree with your assessment.  Thank you
for pointing out the obvious even if it's uncomfortable some.

It's long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of ethics
federal judges must adhere to.

Saundra

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Rosemary Huskey
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Subject: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain
philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values that
we trust and hold dear.  In light of the  Supreme Court decision supporting
the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim
to be at odds with their religious beliefs,  I wondered if the court was
persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own religious affiliations.
Were any of the five male justices associated with religious groups that
uphold the doctrine of patriarchy,  i.e., do they attend churches that deny
women ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what?  Justice Roberts, Justice
Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic. 

In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in 1973
eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream Protestant
churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation between religion
affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned
gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the church
certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and bestows unique privilege
for male members.  And, what could possibly more be patriarchal than
controlling women's reproductive choices?

Rose Huskey

======================================================= List services made
available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/> 
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/> 
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140702/a282dde7/attachment-0001.html>