cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 1, 2014 22:22:57 GMT
Can I ask a question? Does your employer pay for all of your health insurance, or just part of it? If it's only part, why can't you designate that your part is the one paying for the contraception? To be honest though, I've never understood why an employer should be paying for health insurance anyway. Also, has anyone read this? More food for thought. InsuranceIt depends on the company. Some employer pay 100%, other pay a portion and the balance is taken out of the employees paycheck. Perhaps the concept is foreign to you because you have Universal Healthcare. At least in Canada, under Universal Healthcare, there are only certain things that are covered 100%; other things will fall under 'extended benefits,' and will be covered at a certain percentage (and sometimes with the extended employer benefits, you will get 100%, sometimes no). Would love it if another Canadian poster could help me think of a concrete example. I'm drawing a blank.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 1, 2014 22:34:08 GMT
To my mind it isn't just a question of profit. The fact is, by putting their money in, they are supporting companies that are producing products that they claim to be against their religious beliefs. The same beliefs they use to justify excluding coverage of these same products in their insurance plan. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Jul 1, 2014 23:05:16 GMT
And to me, that makes you a true supporter of women's rights. You are looking to empower them rather than make them dependent on others. Exactly. To me, the true "hypocrites" are those who demand both of these things. I agree with the right to choose. Should one choose to engage in a dangerous activity like skiing, and the logical consequence is a broken leg, why should I have to cover that through higher insurance premiums? Or how about, I believe sloth and gluttony are sins and therefore it is against my religious belief to support them. So if I'm the employer, it's okay for me to tell my employees that their health benefits won't cover any complications related to these two grievous sins-no diabetes coverage, no knee replacements, no heart attack treatment. If my employees choose to sin, then they should plan ahead and save money so when they are faced with the logical consequences of their choices, they can pay out of pocket. It wouldn't fly with anything but sex and birth control. Birth control requires a prescription from a doctor, therefore it is health care, and people pay for health insurance so it will cover their health care needs.
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Jul 1, 2014 23:12:18 GMT
Another question…Is it the Supreme Courts job to look at the"slippery slope" and rule based on what could happen down the road? Or does the SC rule on the issue in front of them based on laws already on the books? I'm a New Zealand lawyer so not entirely sure of the Supreme Court's lawmaking function, but how it usually works is a court must rule on the issue or question in front of them, based on the facts of that particular case. If it's a lower court, then it's bound to follow previous decisions on the same issues (based on similar facts) which a superior court has made. Lawyers of course love to argue why particular rulings shouldn't be binding because they should be distinguished, based on different factual circumstances. However, when it's a superior court (and in this case the Supreme Court) then they are usually ruling on an issue of general importance and application which will be binding on all lower courts and so the precedent effect of their ruling should be at the front of their minds. Is the ruling going to have broad or narrow application? Should it be restricted to particular factual circumstances only? What are the potential ways this ruling could be applied in the future? Superior courts are not just applying existing laws, they are often making new law and so they need to give some thought to the 'slippery slope'.
|
|
|
Post by lbp on Jul 1, 2014 23:21:07 GMT
I don't understand why people think insurance should pay for everything. I am older than most of you but when I first got insurance it did not pay birth control, I always paid for that myself. It never crossed my mind to blame them. When we were considering fertility treatments and the medications that I would have to take, insurance didn't cover that either. It was my decision to have a baby so I paid for the medication. I think it's just another instance of entitlement that so many people have. Somebody else should pay for my decisions. Just wondering, does Hobby Lobby pay for their employees insurance or any part of it, or is it completely paid by the employee?
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jul 1, 2014 23:50:24 GMT
I believe the issue is that an employer doesn't have the right to make medical decisions for its employees, especially when the reasons are "religious." Everyone has different beliefs. If I start a company tomorrow and say that my religious belief doesn't allow me to ingest red dye, can I say that all medications that include red dye are to be excluded from my employees' insurance plans just because my sincerely-held religious belief is that red dye is evil and wrong? (sorry for the run-on)
My doctor, who is pro-life, told me that she believed 100% that a Mirena IUD is not an abortifacient or else she wouldn't insert them. I didn't need it for contraceptive reasons but for medical reasons. However, even though I am pro-choice, I still didn't want something that would prevent implantation. My personal belief for me, is that I wouldn't want a drug like that. I wouldn't want my employer to make that decision for me. It is no business of theirs.
By the way, the new thinking behind hormone IUDs like Mirena is that they thicken cervical mucus so the sperm can't even penetrate, and also prevent ovulation as well as prevent the sperm from even reaching an egg if one is ever released. Therefore it is not an abortifacient.
Also, I heard that HL was covering these forms of BC before the ACA. If that's already been answered in the thread, forgive me. Does anyone know if this is true?
|
|
|
Post by molove on Jul 1, 2014 23:52:58 GMT
We still have choice. We can vote with our feet. Not spend a penny there. Ever. For the employees, find another job. Get outta there.
The former is easier than the latter, but still.....it is a choice.
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jul 2, 2014 0:20:28 GMT
You're right, Molove. I stopped going there when all of this started and I won't be going there ever again.
|
|
|
Post by molove on Jul 2, 2014 0:24:09 GMT
A real bummer for me is that they are opening a new Hobby Lobby less than 1 mile from my house. Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 2, 2014 0:58:40 GMT
Provide a link please. I have never seen evidence to support this claim. Is your Google finger broken? Hobby Lobby admitted that in their original complaint.....the information is out there and easy to find. If I remember how it worked in the past, you make a statement, it's on YOU to back it up. Not on others to google and find out if you're blowing smoke out your ass.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:39:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 1:12:21 GMT
We still have choice. We can vote with our feet. Not spend a penny there. Ever. For the employees, find another job. Get outta there. The former is easier than the latter, but still.....it is a choice. Because we care so much about these tens of women who work for HL and would be affected by this ruling so much, that we will boycott their company until they are forced totally out of their jobs, that incidentally pay almost twice the federal minimum wage, and end up on welfare and Medicaid and then can have their morning after pill paid for. Because it's too much of a burden for them to pay $45 for something that is a "right" and should be provided for free by an employer that they voluntarily work for but shouldn't have a say about Their personal choices despite the fact that they foot the bill for it. Do I have that about right?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2014 1:33:29 GMT
We still have choice. We can vote with our feet. Not spend a penny there. Ever. For the employees, find another job. Get outta there. The former is easier than the latter, but still.....it is a choice. Because we care so much about these tens of women who work for HL and would be affected by this ruling so much, that we will boycott their company until they are forced totally out of their jobs, that incidentally pay almost twice the federal minimum wage, and end up on welfare and Medicaid and then can have their morning after pill paid for. Because it's too much of a burden for them to pay $45 for something that is a "right" and should be provided for free by an employer that they voluntarily work for but shouldn't have a say about Their personal choices despite the fact that they foot the bill for it. Do I have that about right? No, not exactly. You totally missed the effects that this ruling now opens up for other businesses (read what Justice Ginsburg wrote).
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 2, 2014 1:54:14 GMT
We still have choice. We can vote with our feet. Not spend a penny there. Ever. For the employees, find another job. Get outta there. The former is easier than the latter, but still.....it is a choice. Because we care so much about these tens of women who work for HL and would be affected by this ruling so much, that we will boycott their company until they are forced totally out of their jobs, that incidentally pay almost twice the federal minimum wage, and end up on welfare and Medicaid and then can have their morning after pill paid for. Because it's too much of a burden for them to pay $45 for something that is a "right" and should be provided for free by an employer that they voluntarily work for but shouldn't have a say about Their personal choices despite the fact that they foot the bill for it. Do I have that about right? I wouldn't worry about that. Conservative crafters will no doubt be flocking there. It's the new Chik-fil-a!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:39:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 2:00:38 GMT
You do realize that sperm can survive in the fallopian tubes for up to five days don't you? and during those 5 days there is a possibility of fertilization.
IUD's work immediately after they are inserted in the uterus. There is scientific evidence out there that confirms that an IUD inserted as an emergency " morning after" treatment WILL prevent eggs that have fertilized at any time during those five days from implanting in the uterus. So using it as a " morning after" device would make it an abortifacient for anyone that believes life starts from fertilization of the egg with the sperm.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Jul 2, 2014 4:42:58 GMT
I think the reason that this doesn't bother me is because I worked in the medical insurance industry and I saw just how staggeringly different one medical plan could be from another. Even within the same company, there might be a half dozen plans available to employees depending on what your position in the company was. I would view some plans and be blown away by how amazing they were, while others made my jaw drop at how awful they were. The ones where you would think "Why even bother to offer a plan at all?". Something else that I recall is how many companies choose not to offer dental & vision plans. Dental & vision needs are extremely important, and yet many companies didn't offer them. So I am very used to seeing different companies and different plans cover and not cover a variety of things. And this is still true, even under ACA - I work in health insurance and I'm still seeing this with all the plans I see on a daily basis. From last year to this year my company had a change in employee plans from a BCBS PPO plan to a Aetna QHDHP plan with a $3200 deductible. I am continually staggered by the things excluded under my new plan that used to be covered under the old plan. And Viagra/Cialis are excluded coverage under my new plan. And there are lots of plans that exclude coverage for this. It really comes down to the individual plan. Some of the ACA plans are seriously crappy (effectively catastrophic) plans.
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jul 2, 2014 5:48:03 GMT
You do realize that sperm can survive in the fallopian tubes for up to five days don't you? and during those 5 days there is a possibility of fertilization. IUD's work immediately after they are inserted in the uterus. There is scientific evidence out there that confirms that an IUD inserted as an emergency " morning after" treatment I was talking about Mirena, not copper coils. Mirena is not to be used as emergency contraception.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 7:58:30 GMT
Oh Lynlam.....this is not about women demanding that someone else pay for their choices, or about personal responsibility, it's about the fact that under the ACA BC, and the 4 drugs that HL is whining about, is covered in the basic package. It's the LAW. Women don't have to demand anything. It's irrelevant whether anybody paid for their own BC under their old insurance, or whether 30 years ago nobody covered it. This is not even about birth control pills. This lawsuit was about HL wanting to be excluded from a law, that all other companies have to abide by, on religious grounds. The only people it effects, right now, are the 13,000 who work for HL and are having their right to freedom from religion, violated. That could change with this court ruling.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 8:12:03 GMT
Mmm, the photographer didn't have the financial means to hire a slew of lawyers and take her case to the Supreme Court?
No, if HL refused to serve a gay couple buying their wedding supplies at HL then they could be sued and the gay couple would win. This case was about the insurance package employees must provide their employee, by Federal law. HL was suing to get around that law, based on religious beliefs. It's not the same thing as discriminating against a protected class.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 8:17:28 GMT
Well, I didn't make the statement in the first place, and I agree if you make a statement about some obscure thing, then back it up, but this particular issue takes less time to Google than asking for a link to the information. That bit of info has been in the news for ages, it's not obscure or new, and it's just as easy for you to find. Just because you never heard it before doesn't mean anybody is blowing smoke out their ass.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:39:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 8:39:39 GMT
You do realize that sperm can survive in the fallopian tubes for up to five days don't you? and during those 5 days there is a possibility of fertilization. IUD's work immediately after they are inserted in the uterus. There is scientific evidence out there that confirms that an IUD inserted as an emergency " morning after" treatment I was talking about Mirena, not copper coils. Mirena is not to be used as emergency contraception. But it can be, Who says it is not to be used? It works in exactly the same way as a copper IUD. Rather than having copper it had a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone it it. To say that it has the possibility of stopping sperm getting through the cervix is irrelevant when you need emergency contraception......the horse has already left the stable! All contraceptive coils work in the same way whether they have copper in them or progesterone as in the Mirena......which is to prevent the womb wall from thickening,therefore preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself. The same way that it's used to regulate and prevent heavy periods. the wall of the womb isn't so thick, therefore there's less to come away each month. So I can understand why they've included the IUD/IUS. There is the possibility that there could be a fertilized egg, not yet attached to the lining of the womb when someone needs emergency contraception.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 8:50:37 GMT
Oh Lynlam.....this is not about women demanding that someone else pay for their choices, or about personal responsibility, it's about the fact that under the ACA BC, and the 4 drugs that HL is whining about, is covered in the basic package. It's the LAW. Women don't have to demand anything. It's irrelevant whether anybody paid for their own BC under their old insurance, or whether 30 years ago nobody covered it. This is not even about birth control pills. This lawsuit was about HL wanting to be excluded from a law, that all other companies have to abide by, on religious grounds. The only people it effects, right now, are the 13,000 who work for HL and are having their right to freedom from religion, violated. That could change with this court ruling. Our Constitution provides Americans with Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion. That one word makes a big difference in meaning. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of religion by banning Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion and from prohibiting people from freely exercising their religion. You cannot be free from religion in our country - that's not how it works in this country. The ACA basically put in a mandate that the HL folks claimed infringed upon their beliefs and prevented them from freely exercising their religious beliefs. As I said before, the President has already put a workaround in place for the women that may be affected by this decision mostly likely because the administration knew the mandate would not hold up to a Constitutional challenge. For those interested in what Freedom of Religion really means, I think site spells it out pretty well... www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/religion.php
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 9:23:56 GMT
I have to ask, are you an American living abroad, or are you a native of another country?
Is there any way for you to post something that isn't so freaking condescending? Do you imagine that I/we are ignorant of our own Constitution? Do you imagine that we haven't hashed out every little nuance of the First Amendment? Please don't feel the need to copy and paste from Wikipedia to point the difference between freedom of and freedom from religion. When it comes to politics, freedom from religion means being "free from" any government imposition of religion. I did not say we had a Constitutional right to freedom from religion, although that's what some say America was based on....the freedom FROM the religious demands of a particular religion, and the freedom OF religion to practice anything we wanted to. That's why we have a separation of Church and State so that no religion can make/influence our laws...some of us believe that just happened.
You don't know that the Administration *knew* they would lose, however, it's a smart Administration that hedges its bets, just in case.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 2, 2014 9:25:36 GMT
The idea that there is no freedom FROM religion in this country is a fantasy cultivated by some members of the religious right. Of course we have freedom FROM religion, and of course it is protected by the first amendment. Please don't insult our intelligence with that one. It's right up there with the War on Christmas. @@ I'll go with you head to head on web site authorities. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has much to say on this subject. ffrf.org
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 9:29:53 GMT
I have to ask, are you an American living abroad, or are you a native of another country? Is there any way for you to post something that isn't so freaking condescending? Do you imagine that I/we are ignorant of our own Constitution? Do you imagine that we haven't hashed out every little nuance of the First Amendment? Please don't feel the need to copy and paste from Wikipedia to point the difference between freedom of and freedom from religion. When it comes to politics, freedom from religion means being "free from" any government imposition of religion. I did not say we had a Constitutional right to freedom from religion, although that's what some say America was based on....the freedom FROM the religious demands of a particular religion, and the freedom OF religion to practice anything we wanted to. That's why we have a separation of Church and State so that no religion can make/influence our laws...some of us believe that just happened. You don't know that the Administration *knew* they would lose, however, it's a smart Administration that hedges its bets, just in case. You are interpreting a factual statement as condescending? Sensitive much? As for who I am or where I live or what citizenship I possess, what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that would change my right to speak on the situation or that I would not be allowed to address what I perceive to be misleading, non-factual or outright false information? You are the one on the attack, not me. I just address incorrect or misleading statements as I see them. Sorry that ruffles your feathers.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 2, 2014 9:39:03 GMT
JustKallie said: "You are interpreting a factual statement as condescending?"
oh, she's not the only one. I just read the last six pages of this thread in one sitting, and it wasn't easy. I haven't seen such a smug attitude or such patronizing condescension at the pod in years. Did you ever tell us what your 2peas name was?
And I will add that you yourself stated earlier in the thread that you do not live in the U.S. It is natural, when you've been waving around your vast knowledge of the history and legal traditions of the U.S. as you have been, that someone might question where you do live and/or if you are a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 9:43:19 GMT
The idea that there is no freedom FROM religion in this country is a fantasy cultivated by some members of the religious right. Of course we have freedom FROM religion, and of course it is protected by the first amendment. Please don't insult our intelligence with that one. It's right up there with the War on Christmas. @@ I'll go with you head to head on web site authorities. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has much to say on this subject. ffrf.orgThe Freedom from Religion is not a Constitutional right - federal and state laws can be passed to limit the exercise of rituals or actions - ie, no prayer in school - but the reason that prayer in school was struck down was because schools are government entities and to allow schools to pray would give the impression that the government supports a particular religion. You cannot be free from religion- that would mean you would have the right to not even see religion - in action, display or otherwise, and that is certainly not the case. You cannot stop a church from displaying a cross on its building - you cannot stop people from standing in front of there house and praying a rosary for all to see. You can't stop a Muslim woman from wearing a hijab. You can't stop a group of people practicing Falun Gong in public area. You can't sue to change the name of the St. Patrick's Day parade. You can't ban a nun from wearing a religious habit or a preacher from wearing a collar. You can't ban orchestras from playing religious music or the expression "God Bless You". If you wanted to live in a world free from religion, religion would have to be eliminated - and that was happened in the Soviet Union. There was no religion in the Soviet Union - they banned all expressions of faith with the intent of replacing it with atheism.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:39:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 9:48:00 GMT
I should have known that I couldn't stay away from this thread.
First, if the Obama administration was not trying to dictate to Christian businesses what they MUST cover on the health insurance they offer, this wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.
Since employers started offering insurance to employees, some employers have been willing to cover some things while others don't. So HL was just wanting to retain the rights that they've always had to determine what they're willing to cover without government interference.
So, in my book, by trying to force HL to offer drugs that they had a moral objection to offer, the Obama Administration forced the lawsuit, and therefore is responsible for the supposed "Pandora's Box" that's been opened.
And the lawsuit wasn't based on the 1st Amendment, but rather the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which ironically was voted into law by Democrats at the time.
So IMO if you're looking for someone to blame for the "Pandora's Box" it shouldn't be Hobby Lobby. It should be the Obama Administration for trying to force HL to offer drugs that they had a moral objection to and the Democrat controlled Congress of 1993 for passing the RFRA.
And second, for those of you saying that Hobby Lobby should follow the ACA law, the birth control mandate was not part of the law. Rather, it was simply a regulation handed down by Health and Human Services, originally under Sebelius.
So HL wasn't fighting the ACA passed by Congress. Rather, they were fighting a regulation imposed by HHS. Two completely different things.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 2, 2014 9:49:40 GMT
JustKallie: let me repeat myself. That is a construct invented by the right. Freedom from religion does not mean what you think it means, no matter how many words you use to try to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 9:50:32 GMT
JustKallie said: "You are interpreting a factual statement as condescending?"oh, she's not the only one. I just read the last six pages of this thread in one sitting, and it wasn't easy. I haven't seen such a smug attitude or such patronizing condescension at the pod in years. Did you ever tell us what your 2peas name was? And I will add that you yourself stated earlier in the thread that you do not live in the U.S. It is natural, when you've been waving around your vast knowledge of the history and legal traditions of the U.S. as you have been, that someone might question where you do live and/or if you are a citizen. Smug? No. Confident in my knowledge and interpretation of the Consitution? Yes. Confident in who I am and what I stand for? Yes? Knowledgeable about US and World Events? You betcha? Willing and able to express my opinions in the face of name-calling? Absolutely. Again - what does my citizenship have to do with anything? Does that give me less of a right to express my opinion? That would be discrimination, wouldn't it? And why would I need to have a 2peas name? Is this forum only open to people who were a part of the original forum or are new people not allowed? I didn't get that the memo.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 9:51:59 GMT
JustKallie: let me repeat myself. That is a construct invented by the right. Freedom from religion does not mean what you think it means, no matter how many words you use to try to convince me. You and I have a different interpretation of the Consitution - but the only one that really matters is the Supreme Court's interpretation - and well, they interpreted, didn't they?
|
|