|
Post by moveablefeast on Jul 4, 2014 22:58:32 GMT
I think part of the problem is they want to exclude IUDs, which are the primary option for reliable long term contraception for women who cannot take the hormones in te pill. Their insertion is rather expensive ($350-500) and not necessarily in range for many women. So - yes, I can go down to walmart and get the pill for $9 a month, but that assumes I can take it. But now we are getting into medical decision making, which should be done by doctors and patients.
NIH did an aggregate study on IUDs in which they found that there was not a significantly increased rate of embryonic demise in IUD users over non users, meaning that the IUD is not an active abortifacient.
Therefore Hobby lobby wants to make a moral judgment call for all women earning their health insurance as a job benefit, which by my prior argument I still consider inappropriate.
Further, they are making an argument that is being used by organizations who don't want to provide any contraceptive coverage at all.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 4, 2014 23:13:31 GMT
A benefits package such as insurance is typically offered in lieu of higher wages. Maybe instead of asking companies to pay directly for insurance, we should require them to pay higher wages that would allow us to pick and choose our own insurance in accordance with our personal belief systems. I would rather do that as well. I wish we could buy health insurance much as we purchase other insurances. If you want full coverage, you can get it...if you just want minimal, you can get that too. If you're of childbearing age, you can add benefits addressing that (maternity, BC, etc), but people like me wouldn't have to. And so on. I do that. I have private insurance, even while working. I had to sign something with HR that stated that I declined their company insurance, but I kept my policy for the whole time I worked at my previous job. Of course, I did not get paid a higher wage to compensate, but I had the insurance policy that I wanted, with the benefits I preferred.
|
|
ingrid
Full Member
Posts: 490
Jun 26, 2014 0:52:41 GMT
|
Post by ingrid on Jul 4, 2014 23:29:47 GMT
Where I think the slippery slope will stop is that these organizations are trying to get out of covering ANY forms of birth control. Under strict scrutiny, that's not going to pass the "least restrictive means" test. I know the door has been opened for these cases, I don't see these corporations getting anywhere with them.
|
|
craftchickapowpow
Full Member
My Circus My Monkeys
Posts: 206
Jun 26, 2014 16:12:18 GMT
|
Post by craftchickapowpow on Jul 4, 2014 23:39:08 GMT
:blush:sorry Lucy, I didn't see this thread and did a dup above. Off to delete mine. No big. Gave me the opportunity to poke you a little. And to all the rest of you ... I was expecting to be beaten all to hell when I came back this morning. I was really half-asleep when I posted the OP last night and wasn't even sure if it made any sense. So thanks for leaving me out of it. We'll there goes my only shot of being the OP of a 5 pager LOL
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 14:23:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 0:03:07 GMT
The employees at HL are being generously compensated for the work that they do, compared to most other companies. Part time workers start at almost $3 over minimum wage, with full time workers starting at about double minimum wage.
I am thinking about working part time and I know this first hand, because if I have to work weekends, not working on Sundays is attractive to me, so I talked directly to a HL employee, who said she loved working there and told me the starting pay rates.
My sister was flabbergasted when I told her, because she has worked in doctor's offices for 10+ years, and the full-time workers make almost as much as her starting out.
So I don't think the HL workers are being under-compensated in any way by HL not offering those four drugs, when they are making far more than there counterparts in other corporations every single day.
Thanks for replying I-95!
|
|
craftchickapowpow
Full Member
My Circus My Monkeys
Posts: 206
Jun 26, 2014 16:12:18 GMT
|
Post by craftchickapowpow on Jul 5, 2014 0:03:50 GMT
If you expect corporations to be out of your health care decisions, you should also stop expecting them to pay for it. A benefits package such as insurance is typically offered in lieu of higher wages. Maybe instead of asking companies to pay directly for insurance, we should require them to pay higher wages that would allow us to pick and choose our own insurance in accordance with our personal belief systems. Word that would solve all this nonsense - offer a $ amount and let the employee choose - a cafeteria plan
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 5, 2014 0:31:59 GMT
Don't you just hate it when they spend all that money on lawyers, take up the time of the Supreme Court, when if they'd just come to you, they would have had the answer Actually, I'm serious, that's a really good solution and it makes me wonder why they didn't do that. Except....would people actually buy the insurance with their extra funds? Then we'd be back to square one with people going to the ER because they don't have insurance. Lol! Sometimes I'm too smart for my own good. Maybe instead of the ACA mandating employers to provide coverage, we could have it mandate that people purchase insurance with a certain minimum level of coverage. The alternative to purchasing your own insurance would be to face penalties that are sufficiently harsh to motivate people to comply. Unfortunately, it seems when money is involved people respond more quickly to a hammer than a carrot.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 5, 2014 0:40:30 GMT
Or how about stop the mandates entirely for citizens to be forced to purchase anything and work on restructuring the healthcare, drug companies, and insurance companies to allow individuals to shop for plans they want to cover what they need while reducing the costs of those things to make them actually affordable.make it do people don't HAVE to rely on employers for insurance. Have hospitals and clinics to be up front about their services and pricing so consumers can shop around. If you don't buy insurance, you set up a payment plan to pay for the services you receive. Oh yeah, that would mean people would actually have to have some personal responsibility. Nevermind, that will never work.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 5, 2014 1:41:34 GMT
Don't you just hate it when they spend all that money on lawyers, take up the time of the Supreme Court, when if they'd just come to you, they would have had the answer Actually, I'm serious, that's a really good solution and it makes me wonder why they didn't do that. Except....would people actually buy the insurance with their extra funds? Then we'd be back to square one with people going to the ER because they don't have insurance. Around here it's not the uninsured people going to the ER...they know they're going to have to pay for it. But we have a very large segment of our population on Medicaid, and many of them are regulars in the ER. They don't have to worry about a copay or billing.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 5, 2014 1:59:55 GMT
Or how about stop the mandates entirely for citizens to be forced to purchase anything and work on restructuring the healthcare, drug companies, and insurance companies to allow individuals to.. < snip for space > Oh yeah, that would mean people would actually have to have some personal responsibility. Nevermind, that will never work. I was nodding my head until the personal responsibility part. <insert sound of skidding brakes> I've responded to this absence of "personal responsibility" implication once in the thread, but the continued allusions rankle. It's been used to describe both those who support prescription contraception coverage and those who disagree with the SCOTUS rulings. Are you saying that we would be unwilling to investigate further health care reform because we eschew the notion of personal responsibility - in our lives and others? My problem with this discussion theme is that it draws a straight line between two things that are not mutually exclusive. Your other implication - that I would benefit from putting a top on - is spot-on, though.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 5, 2014 2:42:28 GMT
Or how about stop the mandates entirely for citizens to be forced to purchase anything and work on restructuring the healthcare, drug companies, and insurance companies to allow individuals to.. < snip for space > Oh yeah, that would mean people would actually have to have some personal responsibility. Nevermind, that will never work. I was nodding my head until the personal responsibility part. <insert sound of skidding brakes> I've responded to this absence of "personal responsibility" implication once in the thread, but the continued allusions rankle. It's been used to describe both those who support prescription contraception coverage and those who disagree with the SCOTUS rulings. Are you saying that we would be unwilling to investigate further health care reform because we eschew the notion of personal responsibility - in our lives and others? My problem with this discussion theme is that it draws a straight line between two things that are not mutually exclusive. Your other implication - that I would benefit from putting a top on - is spot-on, though. Amelia, I was serious about what I wrote in top and quite tongue in cheek with the part about personal responsibility. I do feel that, given a more open market with better managed prices on drugs and procedural costs, we could reduce the amount of crazy government mandates on healthcare. But I also know the reality is that many people will not do the responsible thing and purchase some sort if insurance or invest in a personal health savings account regardless of any carrot incentives. Until we deal with the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants pouring into our country, we can't deal with some if the very issues that drive health care costs up. We expect humans to do what is right even when there are loopholes to escape responsibility. I want less government entanglement. I think the ACA overtly defies Constitutional boundaries meant to allow Americans to live their lives free of a tyrannous federal government. All other "slippery slopes" that come out of any ACA ruling exist because the government has crossed the line. I realize that was not how 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices felt, but as we know, historically the SCOTUS hadn't always gotten things right the first time.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 5, 2014 2:59:35 GMT
Where I think the slippery slope will stop is that these organizations are trying to get out of covering ANY forms of birth control. Under strict scrutiny, that's not going to pass the "least restrictive means" test. I know the door has been opened for these cases, I don't see these corporations getting anywhere with them. Isn't that exactly what just happened with Wheaton College?
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 5, 2014 3:14:42 GMT
Where I think the slippery slope will stop is that these organizations are trying to get out of covering ANY forms of birth control. Under strict scrutiny, that's not going to pass the "least restrictive means" test. I know the door has been opened for these cases, I don't see these corporations getting anywhere with them. Isn't that exactly what just happened with Wheaton College? I believe that Wheaton was *already* excused from the mandate. What they were objecting to at this point was the work-around that the government had come up with, where they were supposed to sign something giving their insurance company the right to provide birth control. They did not want to have to sign anything, basically saying that they didn't want to be involved in any way, shape, or form. How that affects things going forward, I don't know. To be honest, this issue was a little confusing to me. But the HL decision did not determine whether or not they had to provide BC...they already did not.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 5, 2014 3:23:08 GMT
So how was Wheaten excused from the mandate already?
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 5, 2014 3:26:02 GMT
I think the government had already come up with some compromise for the non-profits....,Catholic hospitals and such? But it was not extended to for profit businesses.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 5, 2014 3:32:56 GMT
So how was Wheaten excused from the mandate already? From the article in the OP...
The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.
“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”
The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.”
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 5, 2014 3:34:00 GMT
Just the beginning.And they are making the most of it ... the latest HL sale email I received was very in-your-face religious, complete with a link to download a bible version. Crowing and emboldened were what came to mind. I choose not to give them my business any more. I thought they always sent out special holiday ads at Christmas, Easter, 4th of July, Thanksgiving. They take out a full page ad in the Sunday paper, with a religious theme, and religious links. I assume the email ad is the same? Yeah, I am totally at a loss how you consider this some new in your face thing. That's been the way the store has operated for a very long time now. One of the main reasons this ruling was made was because the government did not do all that it could to see that women were given these 4 specific forms of birth control at no cost any other way than by trying to force Hobby Lobby to provide them. This was contra the religious freedom laws we already have. That ANYBODY gets on TV and claims this means that HL is against ALL birth control and every other such nonsense that intelligent people are believing is troubling. I'm WAY behind reading this thread. I apologize if this has already been mentioned. I missed the other thread, and I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents while I could.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 14:23:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 3:45:08 GMT
^^^They've been doing that for years and years like lefty said. So your assessment is completely wrong.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 5, 2014 4:32:29 GMT
Rainbow, there is no arguing with statistics. The number of people who report being a member of a religious group continues to remain the same, the number of people who actually show up at services has been dropping for decades. People lie. The number of agnostics and atheists continues to increase. The more educated people become the more they leave organized religion and for good reason. This country has become progressively liberal and progressive for 300 years and will continue to do so. Great news, blacks and women can vote now, gays can marry, and people are allowed to say tuck. It will not go backward, only more forward. Sorry, you're backing the wrong horse. Still the numbers game? Didn't you already play that card?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 5, 2014 4:55:11 GMT
Rainbow, there is no arguing with statistics. Statistics can show anything you want them to, all you have to do is ask the right people.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 5, 2014 11:16:05 GMT
Has anyone seen this? scotusblogThis is from a few days ago, but it does look like this is not going to be a narrow interpretation at all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 14:23:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 11:59:16 GMT
Premise one that you have no clue about, lynlam: corporations are not evil in the sense that they are violating any moral order. The exist to make profit, not to pray, take up collections for the poor, or ordain priests. They provide products and services that consumers can choose to purchase or not. It is neither here nor there if a certain product is desired and they supply it, whether it is abortion or beanie babies. It is HUMAN BEINGS and their value systems that support private enterprise. An unsavory human May head corporations, but consumers will drive the success or failure. No, corporations are not people, no matter how you want to twist it and defer responsibility. It is only ever individuals humans that make decisions together or singly that are morally held responsible for outcomes, whether in business or politics. You know, I tried making sense of this, but it made my head hurt. Coherency is not your strong suit. And since it seems that you are saying that businesses should provide or sell anything an everything that people desire, because consumers will drive the success or failure, and it's their rights that matter and not the business owners...then you will fight to make sure every business sells or provides firearms, right? Corporations are people. You can't have a corporation without a person starting it. Just like you can't have a person without conception.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 5, 2014 12:51:00 GMT
They apparently are now, but that was not the case prior to this ruling. The very reason for incorporating is to have a thing, not a person. The biggest reason for setting one up is to protect the personal assets of the person who started it. It becomes a separate tax entity, it can be sued, not the person who started it. It is not a person.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 5, 2014 13:53:47 GMT
Has anyone seen this? scotusblogThis is from a few days ago, but it does look like this is not going to be a narrow interpretation at all. I'm getting an error page from your link?
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 5, 2014 14:54:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 14:23:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 16:43:33 GMT
Ran across this quote on Twitter and kind of sums what happened with the HL ruling.
"Women please accept your boss' religious belief that it should cost you more to have the health care and sex lives men take for granted. "
|
|