RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,535
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Jun 30, 2014 15:50:47 GMT
I'm not sure I agree with the ruling, and I am a Catholic and 99% anti-abortion. (In other words, completely anti- but am willing to weigh medical merits in certain cases.) I think I understand where they're coming from, in that due to this specific set of circumstances, the beliefs of the owners are pretty directly translated into the corporate culture and policies. However, it is a for-profit company, not a charity or religious organization per se. It is not an entity that exists for the purpose of its religious values - it exists to make money in a way that honors their religious values. I don't think it's the same thing. While I think I'm morally glad of this, and it's kind of the way it "should" be, I don't think that legally, this is correct. (And of course, we know that my legal understanding is vastly superior to that of the Supreme Court Justices, lol.) This having been said, I never felt that ACA should require coverage of anything that wasn't documented as medically necessary. I don't think Viagra should have to be covered. I don't think BC should have to be covered except when documented as medically necessary. I don't think vanity cosmetic surgery should have to be covered (don't know if it is, in fairness). You get the idea. But again, they didn't consult this armchair expert.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:58:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 15:54:34 GMT
I think they just opened up a can of worms. I will not be surprised if a whole bunch of other companies suddenly become religious. I am also dismayed, as a lot of people use birth control for reasons other than birth control. :/. I guess those people will be SOL and will have to pay out of pocket for those meds. If I'm not mistaken, if you can prove you need the BC for medical reasons, then they will cover it. They're opposed to covering it for birth control. What bothers me is that before they filed this suit HL DID cover birth control. After the ACA went into effect, they decided to drop it and claim religious beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:58:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 15:59:05 GMT
I see that someone asked about the cost of contraception earlier in the thread, but couldn't see any answers - so, roughly, how much would it cost monthly? We get the pill etc free on the NHS over here, so it's hard for me to take a guess at the expense. [which I know is not the point of the discussion as such, but I honestly don't know if we're talking a few $ or a lot]. Before I had my tubes tied, my insurance wouldn't cover monthly birth control methods (pill, patch, ring), only long term methods (tied, IUD, shot). I was against the shot, the last IUD I had caused an infection, so I was faced with monthly or permanent. The monthly methods ranged from $30 to $50 a month.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:58:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 16:01:07 GMT
I think they just opened up a can of worms. I will not be surprised if a whole bunch of other companies suddenly become religious. I am also dismayed, as a lot of people use birth control for reasons other than birth control. :/. I guess those people will be SOL and will have to pay out of pocket for those meds. If I'm not mistaken, if you can prove you need the BC for medical reasons, then they will cover it. They're opposed to covering it for birth control. What bothers me is that before they filed this suit HL DID cover birth control. After the ACA went into effect, they decided to drop it and claim religious beliefs. You are mistaken. They have always covered birth control; they never dropped it due to the ACA.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Jun 30, 2014 16:01:11 GMT
Thanks, dknitter!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:58:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 16:01:35 GMT
That's too bad. I think it's a bad decision.
|
|
|
Post by Mary_K on Jun 30, 2014 16:04:34 GMT
I'm in the camp that Hobby Lobby should be able to make that decision.
Mary K
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:58:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 16:08:06 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, if you can prove you need the BC for medical reasons, then they will cover it. They're opposed to covering it for birth control. What bothers me is that before they filed this suit HL DID cover birth control. After the ACA went into effect, they decided to drop it and claim religious beliefs. You are mistaken. They have always covered birth control; they never dropped it due to the ACA. Most of the articles I read said they dropped their coverage. I had to search for something that actually said what they didn't want to cover. Most news stations were being broad and saying they stopped covering all methods. I stand corrected.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:58:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 16:08:47 GMT
What happens when the owners of a company don'tt believe in modern medical treatment? Do they not have to provide coverage for chemo, anti-depressants, etc?
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,535
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Jun 30, 2014 16:08:48 GMT
Just as an FYI, it's only certain IUDs that would not be covered. Some still would. (Different types work in different ways.) There are only 2 types of IUD, unless there are some new ones in the last couple of months. The Mierna, which has a small amount of hormones released along with the T device, and the copper/paraguard which is just the T device and no hormone and a small amount of copper. So neither are covered. You are correct, although there are some variations, like Skyla. I was thinking of different brands, etc. I haven't been able to locate exactly what IUDs Hobby Lobby is arguing against, so I may well be wrong and it could equate to Hobby Lobby covering no IUDs, period. Although it isn't its primary mode of effectiveness, the copper IUD can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, so I can certainly understand protesting that it doesn't comply with religious beliefs. I *think* a progesterone type can do that, but there are so many other ways it works that it effectively never allows the fertilization to occur in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 16:09:01 GMT
From my limited understanding of what I watched this morning the "religious beliefs" argument only applies to privately held companies. And those privately held companies are owned by a small number of people. If your company is public than this decision doesn't affect it.
|
|
|
Post by rumplesnat on Jun 30, 2014 16:10:32 GMT
Here's a question that just popped into my head and I really don't know the answer. I'm sure someone here does.
Folks keep saying that Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to "pay" for these types of contraceptives.
My question is, does Hobby Lobby actually have to pay an extra fee/insurance premium to provide the contraceptives? Will they receive a discount on that premium now moving forward by NOT offering these contraceptives?
Example: Prior to today's ruling, say they paid $100 gazillion a month for employee health care coverage, but now they will only have to pay $80 gazillion a month since they aren't covering these contraceptives. OR are they still paying the same exact premium, just not having to offer the contraceptives?
I understand their "moral" reasoning, but were they really being forced to "pay" extra or is that the term being used to increase shock value?
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jun 30, 2014 16:13:16 GMT
Go Justice Ginsburg!
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would...deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
|
|
|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 16:14:45 GMT
What happens when the owners of a company don'tt believe in modern medical treatment? Do they not have to provide coverage for chemo, anti-depressants, etc? Honestly, I don't think a company believing some contraceptions can cause an abortion & not wanting to provide coverage is in the same argument as not covering chemo or anti-depressants. When my husbands former company was purchased by another company based out of NC we lost all of our Autism coverage for our 11 yr old son. Does it suck? Hell, yes, it does because therapy is extremely expensive. We are the parents and we are responsible for our child and we have had to figure out how to pay for it privately. If a woman wants to use these type of contraceptions and doesn't have insurance coverage for them then pay for it yourself. Or like someone already suggested, go to Planned Parenthood. Enough our taxes pay for this organization so it should be a good alternative.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 30, 2014 16:16:32 GMT
I think they just opened up a can of worms. I will not be surprised if a whole bunch of other companies suddenly become religious. I am also dismayed, as a lot of people use birth control for reasons other than birth control. :/. I guess those people will be SOL and will have to pay out of pocket for those meds. If I'm not mistaken, if you can prove you need the BC for medical reasons, then they will cover it. They're opposed to covering it for birth control. What bothers me is that before they filed this suit HL DID cover birth control. After the ACA went into effect, they decided to drop it and claim religious beliefs. Agreed. This was an f-you Obamacare
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 30, 2014 16:18:16 GMT
The same "slippery slope" arguments being used here are the same as the slippery slope arguments made by those opposed to gay rights.
Both arguments are specious.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,447
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Jun 30, 2014 16:19:18 GMT
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another part that bothers me. If another religious group (not Christian) comes forth with a similar and equally valid claim, are we willing to honor that, too? I have a feeling that many people who are applauding this decision would change their mind if the claim was brought forward by Muslims...
|
|
|
Post by austnscrapaddict on Jun 30, 2014 16:21:40 GMT
I agree with it for the most part, and there are ways around with legal loop holes. I haven't read it extensively, but, the ruling seems to say they aren't REQUIRED to pay for birth control, it doesn't say they CAN"T pay for it,,, if a physician writes the order for a medical, legitmate reason, such as bleeding, etc, they can cover it. I used to work in a catholic hospital with insurance coverage thru them, They refused to perform Sterilizations and I needed an ablation with sterilization, we found a way around it. I had it done at a "stand Alone" surgical center that was set up for this purpose. and they paid for it. HL isn't out to prevent anyone from life saving treatment, only to abide by their moral values. So I agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by Scarlet Ohana on Jun 30, 2014 16:22:04 GMT
I'm so glad a company's religious freedom is more important than their employee's health insurance. This is a scary precedent to set.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,447
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Jun 30, 2014 16:22:34 GMT
The same "slippery slope" arguments being used here are the same as the slippery slope arguments made by those opposed to gay rights. Both arguments are specious. I agree. I generally think slippery slope arguments are silly. But we have to apply the law equally to everyone, and we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. If something like that does happen...
|
|
paget
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,009
Jun 25, 2014 21:16:39 GMT
|
Post by paget on Jun 30, 2014 16:23:48 GMT
I don't believe companies should be required to provide that no matter what their religious beliefs. So count me in as another "great."
|
|
|
Post by cannes on Jun 30, 2014 16:26:52 GMT
Kind of like the OJ trial. I don't like it, but legally I think it's the right thing. Chele :-) I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:58:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 16:28:08 GMT
I actually wasn't intending my question to be a slippery slope argument, it was sincere because I DO know people who have religious beliefs that preclude the use of modern medicine. I don't see how that's a slippery slope, it's the exact same thing.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jun 30, 2014 16:31:18 GMT
What happens when the owners of a company don'tt believe in modern medical treatment? Do they not have to provide coverage for chemo, anti-depressants, etc? Honestly, I don't think a company believing some contraceptions can cause an abortion & not wanting to provide coverage is in the same argument as not covering chemo or anti-depressants. I'm curious why you think there would be a distinction. If a company were against antidepressants or, let's say vaccinations, for religious reasons, why should that be treated any differently than being against contraceptives? ETA* I agree with Ashley - it isn't a slippery slope argument. Those examples should be seen on equal footing.
|
|
stellalou
Junior Member
Refupea #389
Posts: 75
Jun 25, 2014 23:42:56 GMT
|
Post by stellalou on Jun 30, 2014 16:33:48 GMT
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by ingrid6 on Jun 30, 2014 16:34:41 GMT
I'm sitting on the same bench as Freebird. Can you make some room for me - I'm sitting right there with 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 Jun 30, 2014 16:35:34 GMT
"If you need those items covered, go work for someone who will." Many people in retail (and other job markets) don't have the financial luxury of quitting their jobs with our current economic situation... They can suck it up. Just like pharmacists who don't dispense those same drugs, many think they should up and quit and do something else. They can't afford to either. But then, you didn't care about the situation then, did you?
|
|
|
Post by Amelia Bedelia on Jun 30, 2014 16:36:17 GMT
I actually wasn't intending my question to be a slippery slope argument, it was sincere because I DO know people who have religious beliefs that preclude the use of modern medicine. I don't see how that's a slippery slope, it's the exact same thing. I agree. It seems like, right now, one particular religious belief is being allowed to dictate medical insurance decisions. Why just that one? I completely disagree with the decision, but I don't understand how it can't be applied equally to all religious beliefs. Other than because right now, at this moment, someone said "because I said so." Otherwise it seems we're elevating one religion over others, which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed either.
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jun 30, 2014 16:38:15 GMT
I have mixed emotions as well, in large part due to the misinformation provided by the media which made it appear that companies wanted to provide NO birth control whatsoever. From what I have read, HL and the other companies were suing to avoid paying for Mirena (IUD w/ hormones), Paraguard (IUD w/out hormones), the morning-after pill, and something called ella (no clue what it is). Their coverage would still include 16 other required types of birth control. Their objection was to any kind of birth control that actually occurred after the fertilization of an egg, which to some is technically an abortion.
I think that the decision is an acceptable compromise on this subject for most. But I also I agree with Justice Ginsberg in her concern that it opens the door for other problems in other areas. "Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision."
I think the ACA is going to keep facing legal challenges until it's either repealed or replaced with a simpler, less-controversial, universal plan.
|
|
sheepea
Junior Member
Posts: 85
Jun 26, 2014 14:27:58 GMT
|
Post by sheepea on Jun 30, 2014 16:40:16 GMT
So did HL's policy ever cover these drugs before or not? If an already established company hasn't challenged any provisions of Obamacare at this point, are they allowed to change their minds and challenge them at a later date? I would think since Obamacare is already in place we are most likely not going to see any company deciding later to challenge it, but was wondering how long they have to do so.
|
|