Hobby Lobby Triumphs over its minion workers

[Farm Boy]

Is that supposed to be some sort of apology for jerkishly trolling me?

No, it very much isn't one. Exaggeration intended. I've meant every word I've typed to you in this exchange.

 

[timtofly]

Is Joshua a book in the Koran?

Should the question be: "Is the "Koran" the third T?" ?

 

[onejayhawk]

Is that supposed to be some sort of apology for jerkishly trolling me?

Pot, meet Kettle.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

People like copays. They also encourage people to get check ups. Which helps them be healthier & saves us money. Win-win.

I know it often happens. And, in true win/win scenarios, those policies would end up being cheaper.

Also, we want people to sign up for Medicare Advantage when they hit 65. We do not want to pass people off to Medicare. We don't make money off of Medicare enrollees.

How much does it cost you if a customer gets a disease that's covered under Medicare? The point is that the money can be made off of premiums before they're enrollees, if their disease treatments get covered by someone else post-65

You skip check ups for a decade, you get a heart attack, you die. You can't buy an extra life.

How much does that heart attack cost if the customer qualified for Medicare when they get it? How about if they don't yet qualify?

Seriously. Isn't the cost of getting your kids vaccinated something like a one-time $150 cost? Cheap parents, wanting stuff covered. smh.

Not analogous. You cannot get much more 'preventative' than vaccines. Are policies that include vaccines for the kids cheaper than the ones that just provide care if the kid gets sick?

 

[RobAnybody]

I know it often happens. And, in true win/win scenarios, those policies would end up being cheaper.

They are. A policy that doesn't cover preventive medicine would be *more* expensive than one that doesn't. Not that such a thing exists.

Seriously. Go shop for one. Try to get a policy that doesn't cover preventive medicine, check-ups, vaccines, mammograms, etc. Please, try it. Go get a quote for a policy that does cover it vs. one that doesn't. Let me know your results. Link me to it.

How much does it cost you if a customer gets a disease that's covered under Medicare? The point is that the money can be made off of premiums before they're enrollees, if their disease treatments get covered by someone else post-65

How 'bout you make your point with data instead of just claiming it? You made the claim. Prove it.

I can explain to you how Medicare Advantage payments work, if you really want me to. We get reimbursements from the government based on the conditions of the patients we cover. With some being higher based on the conditions they have, some being lower, taking into account the hospitals they have available to them, how good their treatment is, etc. Adjusted for how many people have enrolled on our plan vs. our competitors plans & what we cover vs. what they cover.

I mean, I know all this, it's part of my job & whatnot. But I'd really, really like to see what you're basing your opinion on first, because that would be fun.

How much does that heart attack cost if the customer qualified for Medicare when they get it? How about if they don't yet qualify?

If they don't yet qualify for Medicare, then they aren't age 65+, for 99% of Medicare enrollees. I don't understand your question. If someone gets a heart attack at age 64 & 11/12 & they are covered by us, we cover the full cost. We can't pawn any of that cost onto Medicare. Do you think there are people who are under age 65 that we could somehow shunt off to Medicare if we wanted to? Please clarify what you are asking.

Not analogous. You cannot get much more 'preventative' than vaccines. Are policies that include vaccines for the kids cheaper than the ones that just provide care if the kid gets sick?

Yes they are. Or would be, if such a "no vaccines" policy even existed.

And this illustrates why you are just pontificating on a subject you obviously know very little about. You make assumptions with no data to back them up. Seriously, you're making claims that make no sense. Give me an example of a policy that doesn't cover vaccines that is cheaper than one that does.

Look, I don't mean to be harsh, but you're just wildly claiming stuff that isn't true. Give me some data & I'll analyze it. I'll admit it's true or try to refute it if I disagree. But I can't take butt-pulls like what you claim seriously without calling them out.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, it very much isn't one. Exaggeration intended. I've meant every word I've typed to you in this exchange.

I know. Just like you recently called someone else a bigot for merely expressing their opinions about your religion.

I have not ever explicitly called anybody a bigot or an Islamophobe in this forum, much less suggest they were the reincarnation of one of the most despicable people who has ever lived.

You continue to jerkishly troll with impunity in this forum, instead of even trying to discuss the real issues, merely because you happen to disagree with their opinions about your own religion.

 

[El_Machinae]

They are. A policy that doesn't cover preventive medicine would be *more* expensive than one that doesn't. Not that such a thing exists.

Right, I don't doubt that such efficiencies are already built in. Now, you're telling me that policies that include birth control are already cheaper? And that employers have to make a deliberate choice to exclude them and pay a higher price to do so?


I'm not making wild claims. Go back to the beginning, you'll see that I already suggested that policies with preventative medicine would be offered at lower prices if they were actually more efficient. My two contentions are that (a) providing low-cost services through insurance are more expensive (for those services) than not providing those services (this is excluding preventative efficiencies, which the insurance companies will already build into their pricing) and that post-Medicare complications are less expensive (vastly so) for the insurance company than pre-Medicare expenses.

If someone gets a heart attack at age 64 & 11/12 & they are covered by us, we cover the full cost. We can't pawn any of that cost onto Medicare. Do you think there are people who are under age 65 that we could somehow shunt off to Medicare if we wanted to? Please clarify what you are asking.

How does it affect your bottom line if a client gets a heart attack at 64.99 vs 65.01 years old? Or, more clearly, pre-Medicare and post-qualifying for Medicare?

 

[Farm Boy]

I know. Just like you recently called someone else a bigot for merely expressing their opinions about your religion.

I have not ever explicitly called anybody a bigot or an Islamophobe in this forum, much less suggest they were the reincarnation of one of the most despicable people who has ever lived.

You continue to jerkishly troll with impunity in this forum, instead of even trying to discuss the real issues, merely because you happen to disagree with their opinions about your own religion.

It is a bit McCarthyish. It gets the suspicion vibe right. It gets the profiling right. When you took offense to the degree you seemed to, I attempted to clarify the thought down to the suspicion and not the enforcement. Without which, Joseph wouldn't be "one of the most despicable people who has ever lived." Thus meaning you are not one of the most despicable people who has ever lived.

Regarding the bigotry part I'm just coming around to some of the things I've learned and refined through my participation here. We do not live in a post-racial society. Pulling the race card is appropriate sometimes. We do not live in a post-bigoted society either. Guns and flags and bibles, sadly, do not possess a monopoly on that trait either. I'm still working on mine, it's still there. Don't think I'll get all of it before I die, and I might pick up more to work on as I go along. But I'll think I'm obliged to keep trying.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is nothing of the sort. Christian terrorism in the form of abortion clinic bombings is very real, unlike Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt for virtually non-existent communists supposedly trying to subvert our government and enslave us all. Either you don't know much at all about the McCarthy era, or you are deliberately being disingenuous. But that doesn't explain your other recent personal attack on another poster in a similar fashion.

Again, why do you continue to jerkishly troll others merely because they are being honest about their own opinions, and which are merely contrary to your own? And you are doing so in a very hypocritical manner. Why don't you attack other conservatives in a similar fashion when they post comments which are clearly bigoted and smack of McCarthyism? Why do you continue to use similar tactics to those which McCarthy used himself?

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, Christian terrorism is real. Yet a young woman who happens to be politically active, Christian, and who owns firearms is not deserving of the potential-terrorist/mass killer linkage because of those things anymore than other targets of generalized suspicion. Drug peddling and street crime/violence are also a pestilence but young black men who dress in hoodies and spend time on the street shouldn't get that either.

 

[Antilogic]

I can't understand people being suspicious of another person that is, ya know, holding a gun in a picture while posing with a book or some documents. I mean, there's no reason to be suspicious of this fine patriotic American fella:

Spoiler American "Hero" Bashed by the Librul Media :

Okay, I'll go away now.

 

[illram]

I still get to roll my eyes at her for being a troll though.

 

[warpus]

Yes, Christian terrorism is real. Yet a young woman who happens to be politically active, Christian, and who owns firearms is not deserving of the potential-terrorist/mass killer linkage

She created that image by herself, didn't she? Whether it was meant to be a mockery or whatever, if you quack like a duck, people might just think you're a duck .. or at least call you one, even though they know you're not.

 

[Oruc]

She's a terrorist.

Oh? One of them is being the change she wants to see in the world and the other is holding a gun in front of the USA flag. Not that I have much of a problem with either.

 

[JollyRoger]

One wonders what she will shoot first - the flag or the bible.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh? One of them is being the change she wants to see in the world and the other is holding a gun in front of the USA flag. Not that I have much of a problem with either.

The point being that one of them is a clear and present danger to myself, my way of life, and my country's future. And the other one is only a suicide bomber.

 

[Quackers]

How can your values be so messed up that when somebody protests against abortifacients in healthcare plans it is worse than a suicide bomber? There is no American taliban.

 

[Cutlass]

There really is an American Taliban. And they are winning.

 

[Commodore]

How can your values be so messed up that when somebody protests against abortifacients in healthcare plans it is worse than a suicide bomber? There is no American taliban.

Except none of the contraceptives that were to be covered under the ACA were abortifacients. So really the protest is about contraceptives and recreational sex.

 

[timtofly]

Just because other corporations support suicide bombers, does not mean they all have to.