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 1, 2014 1:28:53 GMT
For those saying "just go to planned parenthood!". It's not that easy, even in bigger cities. I live in a major metropolitan city (Arlington, VA just outside of DC). Just out of curiosity, I looked up the closet PP. It would take me 2 buses and a ride on the metro (about 45 minutes one way, including time to walk to the bus stop) plus a fare of $6-$9 each way (peak times are more expensive) to get to the closest one. Even harder? They are closed on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday; one night a week they're open until 6:30, the other three days they close at 4. I can't imagine what a nightmare it would become if I were an hourly employee who need contraceptives to (a) afford the time to take off work to get to PP and (b) find it within my budget to both pay for transportation to PP, plus the cost of contraceptives. It is not other people's fault that you don't have much money, and it is not their responsibility to take care of you. Do you really want to be a ward of the state?
|
|
mely
Junior Member
Posts: 89
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:59 GMT
|
Post by mely on Jul 1, 2014 1:30:57 GMT
For those saying "just go to planned parenthood!". It's not that easy, even in bigger cities. I live in a major metropolitan city (Arlington, VA just outside of DC). Just out of curiosity, I looked up the closet PP. It would take me 2 buses and a ride on the metro (about 45 minutes one way, including time to walk to the bus stop) plus a fare of $6-$9 each way (peak times are more expensive) to get to the closest one. Even harder? They are closed on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday; one night a week they're open until 6:30, the other three days they close at 4. I can't imagine what a nightmare it would become if I were an hourly employee who need contraceptives to (a) afford the time to take off work to get to PP and (b) find it within my budget to both pay for transportation to PP, plus the cost of contraceptives. It is not other people's fault that you don't have much money, and it is not their responsibility to take care of you. Do you really want to be a ward of the state?And what about people who are prescribed these medications for non birth control reasons? What if this is what the doctor determines is the best treatment?
|
|
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 1, 2014 1:32:34 GMT
Yes, if you have a prescription, you can. You absolutely can. And you say "I want the generic on the cheap list" and you walk out 10 minutes later with a prescription filled. You are most likely referring to a situation where people refuse to go through the process of getting a prescription, and the ruling today has NOTHING to do with that. I'm citing access to getting the prescription in the first place. THAT part isn't necessarily simple and easy. Is there some rule that says others have to make it easy for you?
|
|
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 1, 2014 1:34:00 GMT
It is not other people's fault that you don't have much money, and it is not their responsibility to take care of you. Do you really want to be a ward of the state? And what about people who are prescribed these medications for non birth control reasons? What if this is what the doctor determines is the best treatment? Nobody is keeping you from buying it.
|
|
|
Post by gypsymama on Jul 1, 2014 1:34:47 GMT
why do you have to act like that, rainbow? is there some medication you need that would make you less hateful and obtuse, but your employer won't cover it?
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 1, 2014 1:41:22 GMT
This is not a decision about Abortion or Birth Control.!! It is about allowing a corporation to force their religious beliefs on their employees! Are they forcing them to pray or something?No they are being exempted from the law forcing their employees to bend to their religious beliefs!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:57:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 1:41:27 GMT
From Mely "And what about people who are prescribed these medications for non birth control reasons? What if this is what the doctor determines is the best treatment?"
For years, I've had to petition my insurance company when they refused to cover a certain medication. (usually my blood pressure medication) I had to have my doctor submit a request to them and tell them my "history" of the medications I've previously been on, why they didn't work, and why I needed the specific medication that the insurance company was squaking about.
It's a PITA to have to submit this every year, but the insurance company, who initially said "no...we're not going to cover that" have agreed to cover it. Now granted, I usually ended up paying a higher co-pay ($30 vs $8) but they covered it.
Always try this. Doctors know this. Doctors submit this kind of request to pharmacy providers ALL. THE. TIME.
If they don't cover it, you still have the option to pay for it on your own.
When I first started bc, no insurance covered it. I paid out of pocket month after month, year after year.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 1, 2014 1:41:27 GMT
It is not other people's fault that you don't have much money, and it is not their responsibility to take care of you. Do you really want to be a ward of the state? And what about people who are prescribed these medications for non birth control reasons? What if this is what the doctor determines is the best treatment? I don't know for sure, as I am long past the age of needing birth control protection, but back in my day the pill (which was the most common method then) was rarely covered by insurance. But....when it was used to treat some sort of medical issue, like irregular periods or very heavy bleeding, the insurance would pay for it. So if I were in that situation, I would talk to the dr about it and see what he/she advised.
|
|
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 1, 2014 1:55:40 GMT
why do you have to act like that, rainbow? is there some medication you need that would make you less hateful and obtuse, but your employer won't cover it? Act like what? That people should take responsibility for themselves? Glad that religious people finally have some rights and that others can't FORCE them to comply? What exactly?
|
|
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 1, 2014 1:56:47 GMT
Are they forcing them to pray or something? No they are being exempted from the law forcing their employees to bend to their religious beliefs! They aren't forcing their employees to do anything. If they want something not covered then they have to pay for it themselves. Happens all the time.
|
|
|
Post by formerpea on Jul 1, 2014 2:00:09 GMT
So glad to see that Rainbow made it here - keeps things lively at least
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 1, 2014 2:02:19 GMT
No they are being exempted from the law forcing their employees to bend to their religious beliefs! They aren't forcing their employees to do anything. If they want something not covered then they have to pay for it themselves. Happens all the time.They are seeking exemption from the LAW based on their religious convictions! FORCING their employees health choices to be based on their religion and not the employees own religion.
|
|
|
Post by Ryann on Jul 1, 2014 2:03:52 GMT
I don't agree with this decision at all. After reading Justice Ginsburg's 35 page dissent, I thought I'd share my favorite part (quoted from page 14):
"Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:57:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 2:08:00 GMT
I would say most (or at least MANY) still don't.
I know that's not what this thread is about, but the medical and insurance system in this country is a hot, steaming, stinking mess. The ACA really did nothing to change that.
|
|
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 1, 2014 2:16:46 GMT
They aren't forcing their employees to do anything. If they want something not covered then they have to pay for it themselves. Happens all the time. They are seeking exemption from the LAW based on their religious convictions! FORCING their employees health choices to be based on their religion and not the employees own religion.
Freedom OF, not freedom FROM. Things are exempted from insurance all the time. And this is the LAW. Again, they are not forcing their employees to do anything. All options are still open to them, just not the funding from other people. When it is their money then they have a say in it. And why would you want to FORCE people to do things that are against their beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 1, 2014 2:43:00 GMT
They aren't forcing their employees to do anything. If they want something not covered then they have to pay for it themselves. Happens all the time. They are seeking exemption from the LAW based on their religious convictions! FORCING their employees health choices to be based on their religion and not the employees own religion.
Ultimately, the Constitution is the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND. The 1st Amendment trumps ACA. Today's SCOTUS decision, though close, affirms that. If ACA was running contrary to the Constitution, it should be ruled as unconstitutional. That is the point of the Constitution- it protects law abiding citizens from the Federal Government infringing on our rights and liberties. And no, it does not force the employee to make health choices based on the religious belief of the employer. It allows the employer to operate his/her business based on his/her beliefs. If the employee has different beliefs, they are free to cover the costs of the contraceptive options that the employer doesn't believe in providing.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 1, 2014 2:51:04 GMT
Is there a way to ignore posters on this board?
found it...never mind!
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 1, 2014 2:56:52 GMT
Is there a way to ignore posters on this board? Didn't even take a week. Lol Gotta love the NSBR.
|
|
|
Post by tinafb on Jul 1, 2014 3:15:11 GMT
We have to do this too for dh's bp meds and ds' psych meds. My bipolar son went a week without meds while the insurance decided whether or not to now cover a med they had been paying for for months. That was a fun time.
But I don't think that's even an option here. If Hobby Lobby won't cover Mirena, like another person said was the best option their doctor suggested, no amount of lobbying the insurance is going to get it covered. The corporation gets to decide what's best for the patient, not the doctor.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 1, 2014 3:16:55 GMT
They are seeking exemption from the LAW based on their religious convictions! FORCING their employees health choices to be based on their religion and not the employees own religion.
Freedom OF, not freedom FROM. Things are exempted from insurance all the time. And this is the LAW. Again, they are not forcing their employees to do anything. All options are still open to them, just not the funding from other people. When it is their money then they have a say in it. And why would you want to FORCE people to do things that are against their beliefs?Exactly!!!!! The Freedom to practice your religion as you see fit... NO where in the Constitution does it guarantee you the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else!!! Which is what this ruling does!!
|
|
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 1, 2014 3:18:33 GMT
Freedom OF, not freedom FROM. Things are exempted from insurance all the time. And this is the LAW. Again, they are not forcing their employees to do anything. All options are still open to them, just not the funding from other people. When it is their money then they have a say in it. And why would you want to FORCE people to do things that are against their beliefs?Exactly!!!!! The Freedom to practice your religion as you see fit... NO where in the Constitution does it guarantee you the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else!!! Which is what this ruling does!! Are they forcing employees to pray or something?
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 1, 2014 3:37:40 GMT
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,393
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Jul 1, 2014 3:39:45 GMT
Is there a way to ignore posters on this board? found it...never mind! Can you share?
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 1, 2014 3:43:31 GMT
Click on the persons name, then on the little settings button. You can block them there.
|
|
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 1, 2014 3:52:52 GMT
Do you know about investing? People hire others to invest money for them? Sometimes they don't always know everything about every investment?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 1, 2014 4:00:14 GMT
They are seeking exemption from the LAW based on their religious convictions! FORCING their employees health choices to be based on their religion and not the employees own religion.
Freedom OF, not freedom FROM. Things are exempted from insurance all the time. And this is the LAW. Again, they are not forcing their employees to do anything. All options are still open to them, just not the funding from other people. When it is their money then they have a say in it. And why would you want to FORCE people to do things that are against their beliefs?What you are not considering is that many of these people actually pay for their medical care out of their wages. HL does not pay for 100% of their employee's insurance, it is pulled out of their checks (earnings) thus it is THEIR wages that is being spent NOT HL's.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 1, 2014 4:02:36 GMT
I would also like to know how this decision differs from the Christian photographer in Utah who refused to photograph a gay wedding based on her religious beliefs. She was sued by the gay couple and was lost, pretty much give a big F-You by the courts telling her that she could not use her religious beliefs as a reason not to photo the wedding. The photographer offered to snap pics of the couple, just not the actual marriage ceremony.
So how does this differ from the decision based on the claim of "religious beliefs" ?
|
|
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 1, 2014 4:28:01 GMT
Freedom OF, not freedom FROM. Things are exempted from insurance all the time. And this is the LAW. Again, they are not forcing their employees to do anything. All options are still open to them, just not the funding from other people. When it is their money then they have a say in it. And why would you want to FORCE people to do things that are against their beliefs? What you are not considering is that many of these people actually pay for their medical care out of their wages. HL does not pay for 100% of their employee's insurance, it is pulled out of their checks (earnings) thus it is THEIR wages that is being spent NOT HL's. If hobby lobby is paying for any of it, then they have a say in where their money is going.
|
|
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 1, 2014 4:29:29 GMT
How do I put this sprout badge in sig? I don't really want it in every post because it is being copied when quoted.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 1, 2014 4:32:15 GMT
I would also like to know how this decision differs from the Christian photographer in Utah who refused to photograph a gay wedding based on her religious beliefs. She was sued by the gay couple and was lost, pretty much give a big F-You by the courts telling her that she could not use her religious beliefs as a reason not to photo the wedding. The photographer offered to snap pics of the couple, just not the actual marriage ceremony. So how does this differ from the decision based on the claim of "religious beliefs" ? I'm not an expert, but I would think that since Hobby Lobby is not saying they will not employ people who use birth control, it isn't quite the same.
|
|