2 ms·

This 'correction' replaces a specific statement with a rather more general one, obscuring the point of the reply. "California doesn’t allow health insurance to

• kstrauser 5y ago
  You and I said the same thing. But the post I replied to was disingenuous. It made it sound like the law was that insurance purchasers have to pay for abortions, but that’s misleading. Don’t think so? Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. It’s technically true, but implies something more direct than the reality.
  • aethertron 5y ago
    If the point is responding to "there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions", a statement that doesn't mention abortion doesn't quite suffice. Apparently there's a place, California, where health-insurance-buyers (so, ideally, everyone, and presumably all Salesforce employees) all unavoidably fund abortions, this arrangement of things being upheld by force of law. > Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. Doesn't sound silly to me. If you're against insulin, then you have grounds to object against California's laws. "It’s technically true" So it's true. Will you bite the bullet with regard to the equivalent statement about abortion? Sure, it's an indirect arrangement of things. See my revised, hedged formulation above.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]