Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 4:37:02 GMT
Do we get birth control covered in Canada? If you use oral contraceptives for osteoporosis prevention like a friend of mine does she gets it covered with a note of special authority. An IUD isn't covered, or anything else I don't think. It never used to be. Sterilization is covered though as is abortion. But birth control is not covered.
In a perfect world it should be universal coverage. However in reality, if a company doesn't want to pay for it they shouldn't have to. My medical doesn't pay for Lyrica. I wish it would but it does not.
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jul 1, 2014 4:37:58 GMT
I think the decision is great.
|
|
|
Post by smokeynspike on Jul 1, 2014 4:39:45 GMT
I really thought this would go the other way. However, I think that the decision they made is just fine. Birth control can be pretty cheap and people don't HAVE to work for Hobby Lobby. If it is really important to their employees, they are always free to choose another place of employment or pay out of pocket for birth control.
Melissa
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 1, 2014 5:23:44 GMT
Do you know about investing? People hire others to invest money for them? Sometimes they don't always know everything about every investment? The last time I had a company sponsored investment plan, we were given a prospectus that included details of the mutual funds and what companies were included. You're implying that the information was unavailable to Hobby Lobby after they chose a company to manage these investments, which is not the case. If the media could figure it out, so could the owners of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed. If they do any corporate matching of the 401k plan, they ARE investing in abortion and contraception, however indirectly.
|
|
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 5:31:00 GMT
Do you know about investing? People hire others to invest money for them? Sometimes they don't always know everything about every investment? The last time I had a company sponsored investment plan, we were given a prospectus that included details of the mutual funds and what companies were included. You're implying that the information was unavailable to Hobby Lobby after they chose a company to manage these investments, which is not the case. If the media could figure it out, so could the owners of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed. If they do any corporate matching of the 401k plan, they ARE investing in abortion and contraception, however indirectly. If the media could figure it out? They are like a dog with a bone and determined to make mountains out of molehills. Is hobby lobby still doing that investment? And now that I'm sure they know about their investments are they still doing the same thing? Have they changed investments?
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 6:12:52 GMT
Do you know about investing? People hire others to invest money for them? Sometimes they don't always know everything about every investment? The last time I had a company sponsored investment plan, we were given a prospectus that included details of the mutual funds and what companies were included. You're implying that the information was unavailable to Hobby Lobby after they chose a company to manage these investments, which is not the case. If the media could figure it out, so could the owners of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby is going to use religion and moral objections with regards to the details of their insurance plan, they have a moral obligation to do the same with how the rest of their company's assets are managed. If they do any corporate matching of the 401k plan, they ARE investing in abortion and contraception, however indirectly. Umm, many of the companies that make the medications you are pointing out also make many medications that save lives, and are VERY good investments if you actually want to create a return on your money in the grand scheme of retirement accounts. If you were presented investment options without pharmaceuticals in there, your investment portfolio would have under performed vs others that had. And lets face it, if you want to play the moral card when investing, there would be very little left to invest in, as Oil and Power would be out, Clothing and Manufacturing would be out (sweatshops), Tech would be out (most tech produced is in sweatshop like conditions), many commodities would be out due to poor labor conditions for workers and environments destruction due to poor farming methods, Defense Industries would be out... the list could go on and on. And again, the issue is moot because it really has no relevance to the case that was decided upon today. Throwing up "oh yeah, what ifs" with unrelated issues only further points out that most people don't understand what was really being decided on today, and if they don't like the decision, how to go about changing it. The reality, at the heart of this issue, the decision to recognize corporations as individuals when it came to free speech opened this can of worms.. It is like a geometry proof. Since Corporations are recognized as individuals in regards to free speech, and since individuals are protected from laws being passed by government infringing on their beliefs by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act --> therefore, corporations should be protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. What the Court did was say you can't pick and choose which individuals are protected by law. What precipitated this event with the law recognizing Corporations as individuals in regards to Free Speech. This is where the real issue lies and where the vitriol should be directed. Without this, today's Court case would not have a legal leg to stand on....
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 6:47:12 GMT
This is true, but if HL is so concerned with their religious rights about specific forms of BC, shouldn't they apply the same feelings towards companies who produce those drugs, at least when it comes to where they put their money? Somehow taking a strong stand against BC, and citing religious freedom to choose not to pay for it, and then investing in companies that produce the drugs they are opposed to, seems like a double standard to me.
|
|
|
Post by ametallichick on Jul 1, 2014 6:56:00 GMT
I believe that as a business, they have a right to construct their benefit package any way that they wish. If you need those items covered, go work for someone who will. I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 7:08:04 GMT
Yes, that's a two way street. Hobby Lobby is claiming freedom of religion, but the constitution also protects citizens from religion. As it stands the employees of HL are being subjected to the religious beliefs of their employer, and the court is allowing it.
All the chatter about 'why can't they just pay for it themselves' or 'if you don't like it, don't work for HL' are irrelevant. The ACA requires companies to provide coverage for BC. The court sided with HL, based on freedom of religion...but what about the rights of the employees to be free from religion? They are currently being denied coverage that is available, by law, to employees of companies who don't choose to impose their religious beliefs on the system. Saying 'well go work somewhere else' is not the point, that's just sweeping the issue under the rug. The real issue is whose rights trump those of another, and the court, in my opinion, has chosen poorly.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 7:40:24 GMT
Yes, that's a two way street. Hobby Lobby is claiming freedom of religion, but the constitution also protects citizens from religion. As it stands the employees of HL are being subjected to the religious beliefs of their employer, and the court is allowing it. All the chatter about 'why can't they just pay for it themselves' or 'if you don't like it, don't work for HL' are irrelevant. The ACA requires companies to provide coverage for BC. The court sided with HL, based on freedom of religion...but what about the rights of the employees to be free from religion? They are currently being denied coverage that is available, by law, to employees of companies who don't choose to impose their religious beliefs on the system. Saying 'well go work somewhere else' is not the point, that's just sweeping the issue under the rug. The real issue is whose rights trump those of another, and the court, in my opinion, has chosen poorly. Everyone has equal rights. Meaning, they are not obligated to pay for something they don't believe in. You are entitled to pay for something you believe in. Equal rights - different outcome. It comes down to money. Who is paying the lion's share is the one who decides where the money can be spent. This is why as long as someone else is funding the majority of your health care, you will never truly have freedom of care. This is a real reason why Americans can not make the difficult decisions regarding the cost of healthcare. Most have been shielded from the true cost of care as they have NO idea what it actually costs to insure them. If healthcare was removed from the employment benefit package and became something like auto insurance, then true health care reform would exist as it truly would be a market driven plan. But, this is such a change in the way business is done now, and to be honest with you, I don't think people are really interested in paying for their own insurance because then the reality of how out of control health care spending is would slap them in the face... To be honest with you, I don't believe contraception should be paid for unless it is being prescribed for a medical condition. It is a voluntary prescription, and to me, voluntary or requested prescriptions costs should not be shouldered by anyone but the requester. For those on restricted incomes, there is access to extremely inexpensive birth control prescriptions that would cost the same as a copay (at supermarkets, big box retailers and pharmacies) or free if they want to be inconvenienced a bit.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 8:03:45 GMT
And, for those who are concerned about the people that were affected by the ruling, the current administration had already put a plan in place to protect their right to contraception - www.bbc.com/news/28093756The administration was already expecting to lose the court case and put in a work around for a small aspect of their law that they knew would be stricken by the Supreme Court. If this doesn't tell you something....
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Jul 1, 2014 8:03:55 GMT
“One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability,” he writes. “Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.“ taken from the Think Progress link. I really am astounded that a company can be seen to have religious beliefs, regardless of who/how many people own it. I also echo the comments that this is dangerous as it could allow for many other privately owned companies to insert such clauses within their own insurance policies based on religious beliefs. ... I don't think that the argument should be about people paying for things themselves, rather than the legal ramifications of allowing a company to assume the persona of the owners whilst allowing them the protection of corporate law when it comes to liability. To me it's just another case of the 'big boy's getting everything their own way and screw anyone else (no pun intended).
Thankfully I don't have to get all hot under the collar about this applying to me because I am in the UK and don't have to worry about such things.I agree. Personally I don't support abortion on religious grounds but as a lawyer I cannot agree with a decision that rules that Hobby Lobby as a corporate body takes on the persona of its shareholders/owners and is entitled to exercise their religious freedoms. A company is a separate legal entity, no matter whether it has 1 or 1 million shareholders. In New Zealand at least there are very limited grounds on which the 'corporate veil' can be lifted - basically only when someone is trying to use a corporate structure to evade legal responsibilities or conceal assets - and there are very good reasons for this. I think this is a very dangerous decision because from what I can see it wasn't made on a principled basis. As a disclaimer I should probably say I don't know much about US constitutional law and the thought of healthcare and insurance being tied to your employer is completely alien to me. It's not perfect by any means but we have a taxpayer funded public health system, free hospital care, subsidised doctors visits (free for kids) and subsidised medications (free for those on very low incomes). Your employer might pay the cost of a private insurance premium as part of your salary package but they certainly wouldn't know what you're being prescribed or claiming. That's between you and the insurer.
|
|
|
Post by DinCA on Jul 1, 2014 8:53:30 GMT
I really didn't think that the court would rule in Hobby Lobby's favor. Now that it has, I really don't know how I feel about it. On the one hand, I am happy that this is a win for religious beliefs. However, the litigious side of me sees this as a huge can of worms.
I don't know, I guess time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2014 10:02:21 GMT
This is true, but if HL is so concerned with their religious rights about specific forms of BC, shouldn't they apply the same feelings towards companies who produce those drugs, at least when it comes to where they put their money? Somehow taking a strong stand against BC, and citing religious freedom to choose not to pay for it, and then investing in companies that produce the drugs they are opposed to, seems like a double standard to me. it does seem hypocritical to be opposed to offering employees certain forms of BC based on their religious beliefs, yet being willing to make money from those same companies. Perfectly legal of course, but I agree with Imagine about the double standard.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 10:29:05 GMT
The morning after pill is not a form of Birth Control/contraception and should never be used as such. There have also been studies,one from Princeton University, that the IUD can be an effective emergency form of action following unprotected sex.
Refusing to cover medication that might be needed if someone has taken the " risk" of ending up with an unplanned pregnancy isn't the same as refusing to offer Birth Control medication,which HL from what I have read,is still including in their insurance benefits.
Why do people insist that this is an affront on women's rights? They can still have their birth control medication. What they can't have is the expectation that their employer will pay for their lack of forethought to the consequence of having unprotected sex!
You can't expect an employer to pay to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted!
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2014 10:29:08 GMT
And I have a question; any lawyers out there? I read this on Andrew Sullivan's blog; it is part of a comment from a reader. But I have read the same thing in several places, and I would like to know what the Peas make of it:
"But if that’s the way that so-called conservative jurisprudence wants to go, they also need to consider this: If there’s no separation between the individual religious beliefs of business owners/controllers and their operations, why should there be any separation of liability. I’d like to see the legal logic that says you can have one without forfeiting the other."
Is this plausible?
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 10:48:34 GMT
And I have a question; any lawyers out there? I read this on Andrew Sullivan's blog; it is part of a comment from a reader. But I have read the same thing in several places, and I would like to know what the Peas make of it: "But if that’s the way that so-called conservative jurisprudence wants to go, they also need to consider this: If there’s no separation between the individual religious beliefs of business owners/controllers and their operations, why should there be any separation of liability. I’d like to see the legal logic that says you can have one without forfeiting the other." Is this plausible? That was my first thought when I heard the ruling....OK, a corporation is now an individual, so if I trip over something a HL employee left in the aisle, and I want to sure HL, shouldn't I be able to name everyone of the owners as individuals in the suit? Why should HL owners have the protection of a corporation, from being sued personally, yet have their personal views be recognized as a corporation?
|
|
Country Ham
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,314
Jun 25, 2014 19:32:08 GMT
|
Post by Country Ham on Jul 1, 2014 11:10:59 GMT
No they are being exempted from the law forcing their employees to bend to their religious beliefs! So if our health insurance packages do not provide coverage for something then it's against the law to receive that treatment? We are forced to adopt their religious beliefs? They are not saying their employees can't be ON birth control are they?
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 11:20:32 GMT
I wasn't suggesting that 'closely held' had anything to do with the number of employees, other than to point out that HL doesn't qualify as a small business (under 100 employees) I don't wish to go read Publication 542, but with regard to who holds the stock.....100% of the WalMart stock is owned by the Walton Family. 55% of the stock of U-haul is owned by the Shoen Family. I'm sure if they wanted to challenge a law they could make sure that stock was in the names of 5 or fewer individuals.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 11:33:25 GMT
I wasn't suggesting that 'closely held' had anything to do with the number of employees, other than to point out that HL doesn't qualify as a small business (under 100 employees) I don't wish to go read Publication 542, but with regard to who holds the stock.....100% of the WalMart stock is owned by the Walton Family. 55% of the stock of U-haul is owned by the Shoen Family. I'm sure if they wanted to challenge a law they could make sure that stock was in the names of 5 or fewer individuals. You do not understand what a publicly held or private, close hold company is. Walmart and Uhaul are publicly traded companies. Please google the difference between publicly traded and private corporate ownership before you share falsehoods . You can look up who owns the stock of both Walmart and Uhaul - it is public information. Uhaul only has about 27% of stock publicly traded, but in addition to the insider trades I have seen plus the publicly owned stock, they are not eligible for this ruling, either... Never let the truth get in the way of a good soundbite... While I abhor Walmart and don't shop there, I always love how they are usually the first or second company to be thrown under the proverbial bus when people want to complain about sticking it to the man. They were never a part of this lawsuit and the ruling will not apply to them, but gosh darn it, they should have their name drug through the mud anyway!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 11:53:37 GMT
I wasn't suggesting that 'closely held' had anything to do with the number of employees, other than to point out that HL doesn't qualify as a small business (under 100 employees) I don't wish to go read Publication 542, but with regard to who holds the stock.....100% of the WalMart stock is owned by the Walton Family. 55% of the stock of U-haul is owned by the Shoen Family. I'm sure if they wanted to challenge a law they could make sure that stock was in the names of 5 or fewer individuals. Whether or not HL qualifies as a small business is completely irrelevant to this topic. Walmart stock is NOT owned exclusively by the Waltons. nasdaq for Walmart and it wouldn't matter if it was. Family has nothing to do with "closely held." I also plugged U-Haul into nasdaq. I didn't do the math, but it doesn't appear as if any one family or entity owns 55% of its stock just by looking at the first pages of owners. nasdaq for U-Haul**ETA: links don't appear to work, here is the url www.nasdaq.com/symbol/wmt/institutional-holdings
|
|
|
Post by AR Scrapper on Jul 1, 2014 11:54:24 GMT
Government should not mandate something that goes against deeply held consistant religious beliefs. I will drive further to shop at Hobby Lobby. I agree with this! I would much rather have individual corporations make decisions like this about their employees than having the federal government step in a decide for them. If you don't like hobby lobbies stance it's a lot easier to not shop there/get a different job than it is to get away from the decisions of the government!
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 12:16:04 GMT
OMG, let me throw myself off a cliff....y'all are right, the Waltons only own 50% of the stock these days. I didn't say that U-haul's stock was owned by one family, well, it is, by the 'Shoen Family' but there are many families within that realm and I didn't go look up what each one owned...as far as using the word family, in the same sentence as closely held, and small business... I was responding to a variety of things that have been said about the HL issue, news reports have used the same words, but if you break it down to its purely legal form, closely held does not mean family. The small business reference goes back to post someone else made about this ruling only effecting small business...HL is not a small business.
JustKellie.....was I condescending in any of my posts where I quoted you? I don't think I was, I try to be fairly balanced in my comments and not make personal attacks on anyone. I don't mind being told I have something incorrect, I honestly don't spend my entire day researching facts in order to post on a forum, and I'm more than happy to be corrected, IF it's done nicely. So please, skip the b*tch act and chose your words a little more carefully, otherwise it's no fun having a discussion....and this thread IS a discussion not a lecture. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by AR Scrapper on Jul 1, 2014 12:16:30 GMT
Certainly I cannot be the only one old enough to remember when birth control (any form) wasn't even covered under health insurance. Guess what? I still used birth control, even when it wasn't covered under my insurance. I just paid for it. And even as a young newlywed, we could afford it. (and I didn't even attempt to go to Planned Parenthood or the local health department, who I'm certain could've provided my pills to me much cheaper than my local pharmacy) This is not a war on women. As a woman, I'm offended at the pundits that will make that claim. I agree! I'm only 36 but we have had insurance with several different companies over the years and have always paid out of pocket for birth control. It was just the way it was and I didn't feel like it was about any kind of war on women!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 12:17:05 GMT
Do they have to cover it if there is medical need, like to control bleeding issues? Or is it no contraception coverage at all? I believe it's none at all. And it's only for 'closely held' companies. At least that's the wording of the decision. In haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this was covered already... Facts are stubborn. FACT: HL already provides 16 common forms of birth control. FACT: they were only objecting to paying for 4 drugs considered abortifacients. The morning/week after pills and some IUDS. The sky is not falling, and the "huge" Jehovah's Witness and orthodox Jewish business community is not going to start refusing to pay for transfusions and organ transplants, or banning employees from using electricity. If women working for HL must have one of those four not covered drugs, they are perfectly free to PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES. they are not denied access. At all. Those drugs can be had for less than $50. If they really want an IUD, one can be had now for around $500, and most doctors will take payments. And let's get right down to it: if you can't afford to pay for your own BC, you most certainly can't pay for a kid, so you shouldn't be having sex in the first place. And if coming up with that $50 is too much, don't let me catch you smoking, drinking, going out to eat or using a cell phone, because you can surely scrape it together if you can afford those things.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 12:19:24 GMT
Women's right to sex and reproductive chooses does not translate into someone else paying for those chooses. Period. I don't understand the idea some of you have that women are "entitled" to have prescription meds to prevent pregnancy or to terminate it paid for by someone other than their spouses/SOs. With choice comes responsibility and one of the responsibilities is paying for your choices. ETA...IMO, the whole "war on women" is a bogus claim by liberals to try to rally female voters to Democrat candidates. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by AR Scrapper on Jul 1, 2014 12:20:56 GMT
Busypea, that illustration is untrue. The woman is still considered a person. So are the people who run the corporation. We still disregard the first group in your photos- as long as abortion is legal, a growing fetus is not considered a person in this country. The woman has the right to get that abortion or any contraception she wants- but the SCOTUS has decided the the Federal Government can't force a private corporation to fund every type of contraception out there. Women still very much have the right to choose. And so does her employer. The baby still has no choice and no legal protection. This bears repeating!
|
|
|
Post by AR Scrapper on Jul 1, 2014 12:37:55 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. While getting a prescription may be difficult that has NOTHING to do with the ruling!!!
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 12:42:00 GMT
I have come to the conclusion (and it only took 11 pages!) that there are two entirely different things going on here. One group is happy with the decision and feels like the SCOTUS ruling is all about whether HL still offers a variety of BC options, and are happy that the ruling was based on a religious conviction. So any argument is met with a let them eat cake attitude.
On the other side of the fence are those arguing that this decision is wrong, NOT because HL won the right to deny 4 methods of BC, but about the far reaching implications of this ruling. While it's probably true that ' "huge" Jehovah's Witness and orthodox Jewish business community is not going to start refusing to pay for transfusions and organ transplants, or banning employees from using electricity.' but they could certainly use this argument as precedence. Also that disturbing 'corporations are people' issue...not just on the basis of religion, but what that means to the corporate veil as it stands...and finally that a corporation has been allowed to use religion to gain exclusion from a federal law, while other companies, who do not have HL's money to pursue a lawsuit, are going to be forced to offer plans that provide BC whether they want to or not. And what's to stop a company from claiming they have religious beliefs that don't allow transfusions or whatever, because they don't want to pay?
The door has been opened for all kinds of issues...that's my major concern....of focused concern is that employees of HL are now going to be denied coverage for what employees of other companies will be getting under the ACA...based on religious convictions of the owners. Saying if employees don't like it, they shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out....is about as irrelevant as saying, well, if HL doesn't like the law that other companies have to adhere to, then let them close there stores.
|
|
|
Post by AR Scrapper on Jul 1, 2014 12:55:57 GMT
Ok this might be going off on a tangent, but it is 2peas afterall... what I don't understand in the argument that this is a bad ruling is why do all companies gave to offer the same insurance coverage. What happened to the days of pay and benefits being things that were looked at and weighed out when taking a job. Over the last few years we have had some jobs that paid well and offered crappy insurance and others that paid really badly but offered horrible insurance. Now because Obama care is the law of the land we feel that all companies have to offer similar insurance plans and must all offer the same benefits?! What is next are we going to stop allowing companies to determine their own salaries and raises? It just seems like while we want freedom of choice we want everything to be the same / fair for everyone. (Hope that was all coherent I still haven't finished my first cup of coffee this am)
|
|