|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 17:46:34 GMT
Hey, look....5 pages into this controversial subject and we haven't pissed each other off. Haha!!
|
|
|
Post by Anna*Banana on Jun 30, 2014 17:51:16 GMT
hmm...5-4 vote. Pretty dang close... Doesn't matter. It's still the law now... The law.
|
|
|
Post by Anna*Banana on Jun 30, 2014 17:51:50 GMT
Hey, look....5 pages into this controversial subject and we haven't pissed each other off. Haha!! It's early. These pages have less posts. lol
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 17:52:36 GMT
hmm...5-4 vote. Pretty dang close...
5-4 vote also upheld Obamacare in 2012. Close vote today. Close vote back in 2012.
Just for the record.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 17:54:35 GMT
Will they cover tubal ligation? Not sure but probably. Their issue is NOT contraception. The issue is how the contraception works. If it allows a sperm and egg to unite then it kills the cells; they are against that. If it prevents the egg and sperm from uniting in the first place they are ok with that. A vasectomy prevents sperm/egg union as does a tubal ligation.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jun 30, 2014 17:54:39 GMT
I fail to see where providing birth control infringes on anyones freedom of religion.
If birth control is against your religion.. DON"T USE IT.
What I see is Hobby Lobby is forcing their religion on their employees!!
Does that mean an Islamic company can force women to wear a hijab? Is it not part of their religious freedom not to see women walking around without their head covered?
Corporations are not people and therefore can't have religiously beliefs!
|
|
|
Post by eebud on Jun 30, 2014 18:04:21 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? I think Hobby Lobby is a self-insured company. Most large companies are. If they are self-insured, then the money for claims is coming from them. Most self-insured companies hire a third party administrator so they don't usually write the check to the doctor, hospital, pharmacy, etc. They also might have some sort of insurance to guarantee they won't pay out more than a certain amount per year. My company is self insured and United Healthcare is the third party administrator.
|
|
|
Post by lilacgal on Jun 30, 2014 18:06:28 GMT
I can't believe I'm posting this on a thread this like. I too agree with freebird. I work for someone who provides absolutely zero birth control. I agree with their reasons why. When I needed it for reasons other than pregnancy prevention (I suffer from chronic migraines) I paid for it out of pocket. Generic was $9 a month.
|
|
|
Post by Anna*Banana on Jun 30, 2014 18:06:31 GMT
Justice Ginsburg dissent states 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." I think she is spot ON!! I guess time will tell. The bottom line is that the procedures are not illegal and still readily available, just not paid through insurance with this company. The discussion will continue to rage on about whether it's everyone's responsibility to pay for it or not. And for the record, I've never been in favor of Viagra or Cialis or any of the sexual performance meds being part of an insurance plan. But I'm also not in favor of paying for abortions, unless medically necessary to save a life. And not some trumped up medically enhanced wording to make others pay.
|
|
|
Post by keriwest on Jun 30, 2014 18:18:23 GMT
I just don't understand why anyone would think that any company should be responsible for paying for some man's Viagra or Cialis. I don't see Hobby Lobby filing lawsuits over that. Even pro-lifers like erections! LOL
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 30, 2014 18:20:18 GMT
I just don't understand why anyone would think that any company should be held responsible for paying for your morning after pill. It's not that I think a company should be held responsible for specific medications; it's that I don't think companies should be inserting themselves into their employees' medical decisions at all. Telling a doctor what they may or may not prescribe for a patient is completely inappropriate.And yes, I realize you (general you) will come back with "they can just pay for their own birth control." I paid for my own in college ... it was $8/mo. Even way back then, it didn't amount to much money. Women who work for places like Hobby Lobby today (minimum wage or not much more) are in a particularly bad position to be expected to pay $50, $75, even $100/mo for birth control, and yes, it CAN run that high, especially if you have medical conditions that limit your choices. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is one of the single most intelligent and productive things our society can do to improve the lot of women, girls, poor people, taxpayers, ALL of us. Yet here we are placing stumbling blocks in the way of birth control, rather than encouraging it as a societal good. SMH ETA to say I have no idea why some of the type in this post is a different size.
|
|
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 18:24:40 GMT
Does that mean we can't discuss it? I was pointing out the hyperbole of the original statements made at 2 peas when there was grumbling about the ACA ruling... Pffft - if we don't disect these things to death, I ask, what kind of peas are we? ETA* because I haven't said so yet, I do agree with the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Anna*Banana on Jun 30, 2014 18:27:11 GMT
I was pointing out the hyperbole of the original statements made at 2 peas when there was grumbling about the ACA ruling... Pffft - if we don't disect these things to death, I ask, what kind of peas are we? We would be no peas at all!!! Bwahahahaha
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jun 30, 2014 18:29:05 GMT
I just don't understand why anyone would think that any company should be held responsible for paying for your morning after pill. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is one of the single most intelligent and productive things our society can do to improve the lot of women, girls, poor people, taxpayers, ALL of us. Yet here we are placing stumbling blocks in the way of birth control, rather than encouraging it as a societal good. SMH PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies was never something Hobby Lobby had an issue with. In the cases of the few kinds of birth control options they wanted to exclude from their plans, it wasn't a PREVENTATIVE method, but an abortifacient. There is the difference.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 18:31:09 GMT
PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies was never something Hobby Lobby had an issue with. In the cases of the few kinds of birth control options they wanted to exclude from their plans, it wasn't a PREVENTATIVE method, but an abortifacient. There is the difference.
Worth repeating...a hundred times.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 18:33:48 GMT
HL has never provided those 4!!! drugs. Their employees can pay for those drugs, just like all along.
Companies have chosen what they cover on health insurance for generations, which is exactly what HL has done since its inception. If it wasn't for the idiotic mandate, this wouldn't even be an issue.
HL isn't forcing their religion on anyone. They are simply operating their business the way they always have.
This is an issue I take very personally because as I've stated on the board, my dad was a business owner with some of those very same beliefs.
Some of the comments on this thread are taking away from the relief & happiness I'm feeling, so I won't be back.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 18:34:08 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. Totally agree with this!
|
|
|
Post by cannes on Jun 30, 2014 18:39:56 GMT
Hobby Lobby isn't inserting themselves into the health of an employee and they are not telling an employee's health care provider what they can, and cannot, prescribe to them.
They are not providing funding for 4 birth control options. Big difference.
I don't understand when we became a society that expected others to pay for our life choices and, if they refused, it meant that our rights and liberties were being trampled.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 30, 2014 18:43:50 GMT
I fail to see where providing birth control infringes on anyones freedom of religion. If birth control is against your religion.. DON"T USE IT. What I see is Hobby Lobby is forcing their religion on their employees!! Does that mean an Islamic company can force women to wear a hijab? Is it not part of their religious freedom not to see women walking around without their head covered? Corporations are not people and therefore can't have religiously beliefs! They aren"t forcing women not to use birth control, their insurance wont cover it
|
|
|
Post by swtpeasmom on Jun 30, 2014 18:43:54 GMT
Corporations are not people!! I can't wait until this comes back on them....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 18:49:37 GMT
Birth control is inexpensive. No matter if you're using it for daily contraceptive or "morning after". If you're employer doesn't pay for it, go buy it yourself. Hobby Lobby is not now, nor have they ever, kept a single employee from doing just that. They are NOT invading the privacy of an employee because they don't want to cover these drugs.
And to compare it blood transfusions and the like? Come on people, dial back the hyperbole and rhetoric. They are not comparable conversations. Taking or not taking traditional bc or "morning after" meds is CHOICE. And you have the CHOICE to work for an employer who pays for it through their Rx coverage or you have the choice to work for an employer who does not. I'm positive the wherever there is a HL in this country, there are MANY other opportunities for employment for anyone who doesn't want to work for them.
Why is that choice is only allowed when it benefits the liberal side of the conversation?
For the record, MANY companies exclude drugs from their insurance programs for a whole host of reasons. I truly believe this case is ONLY being held to a higher standard because of the desire to squelch religious liberties in this country. I don't say it often, but this is so very clear to me. I don't ask you to like my choices. I don't force you to live my choices. I do ask you allow me and others like me the same freedom of choice you demand is so many other areas.
|
|
Pinky Zebra
Full Member
I love Daryl Dixon. I want to lick his face and have his babies.
Posts: 169
Location: West Texas
Jun 26, 2014 5:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Pinky Zebra on Jun 30, 2014 18:52:23 GMT
And to compare it blood transfusions and the like? Come on people, dial back the hyperbole and rhetoric. They are not comparable conversations. Taking or not taking traditional bc or "morning after" meds is CHOICE. And you have the CHOICE to work for an employer who pays for it through their Rx coverage or you have the choice to work for an employer who does not. I'm positive the wherever there is a HL in this country, there are MANY other opportunities for employment for anyone who doesn't want to work for them. I agree with you. But Ginsberg noted it in her dissent. That's why it's being brought up.
|
|
mely
Junior Member
Posts: 89
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:59 GMT
|
Post by mely on Jun 30, 2014 18:52:43 GMT
I had a horrific experience trying to get an iud to deal with what I affectionately refer to as the month csi scene in my pants. I finally gave up. The problem is that it's $800 for the iud and the company doesn't want to pay it. I don't have $800 hanging around right now - but my doctor felt that was the best option to help reduce the issue. I'm not having more kids, my husband has been fixed. Why should my boss be able to decide not to provide a treatment based on their belief of how the treatment works?
Slippery slope - can a company refuse to cover category c or d or x medications to pregnant women? Can they refuse to cover these medications to women who may become pregnant because they could cause a miscarriage? I wondered about that - will my treatment options be reduced because I possess a uterus that could potentially sustain life?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 18:54:31 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. I think this is a truly important clarification and must be repeated until it's actually heard.
|
|
|
Post by farmdpea on Jun 30, 2014 18:55:09 GMT
I just don't understand why anyone would think that any company should be held responsible for paying for your morning after pill. It's not that I think a company should be held responsible for specific medications; it's that I don't think companies should be inserting themselves into their employees' medical decisions at all. Telling a doctor what they may or may not prescribe for a patient is completely But this is the case for virtually every class of medication. For example: I have been trying to help a pt get her Lyrica covered. She has 2 insurances. One won't pay for the med ad all; that plan wants her to use generic gabapentin. Her second plan pays for 2 capsules a day instead of 3 per day as her dr wants her to take. It's not uncommon for a dr to write for a new blood pressure med, and the insurance denies it, requesting proof that the pt has tried an failed a cheaper alternative. All that to say, very few (if any?) insurance plans give you free rein to have any med that your dr writes. There are pathways, however, to get a particular med covered for patients in certain circumstances. That's where women who take OCP for dysmenorrhea, etc. may be allowed to have it covered.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jun 30, 2014 18:56:07 GMT
I had a horrific experience trying to get an iud to deal with what I affectionately refer to as the month csi scene in my pants. I finally gave up. The problem is that it's $800 for the iud and the company doesn't want to pay it. I don't have $800 hanging around right now - but my doctor felt that was the best option to help reduce the issue. I'm not having more kids, my husband has been fixed. Why should my boss be able to decide not to provide a treatment based on their belief of how the treatment works? Slippery slope - can a company refuse to cover category c or d or x medications to pregnant women? Can they refuse to cover these medications to women who may become pregnant because they could cause a miscarriage? I wondered about that - will my treatment options be reduced because I possess a uterus that could potentially sustain life? Would your insurance cover a more permanent option than an IUD? Couldn't you work out a payment plan so that you don't have to fork over $800 at once? I'm sorry for your csi scene issue. That sucks big time. However, I don't believe it's the responsibility of your employer to pay for an IUD.
|
|
|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 19:04:14 GMT
Companies have chosen what they cover on health insurance for generations, which is exactly what HL has done since its inception. If it wasn't for the idiotic mandate, this wouldn't even be an issue. This is spot on!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:37:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 19:05:40 GMT
It's not that I think a company should be held responsible for specific medications; it's that I don't think companies should be inserting themselves into their employees' medical decisions at all. Telling a doctor what they may or may not prescribe for a patient is completely inappropriate. I think a large part of the issue is that the employer IS highly involved due to the fact that they choose and often pay for at least a part of the health insurance coverage-- if they are self-insured, they are pay 100% of the claims up to a stop-loss point. Over the years, congress has chosen certain benefits that MUST be covered under an employer based plan. Unfortunately when it came time for ACA, the HHS secretary made a very large list of "essential minimum benefits" that overrode a lot of what employer were willing to provide. To this day, I think that is the largest mistake that ACA implementation made.
If the gov't wants specific drugs and procedures covered and is going to fine an employer daily, then HL's only choice was to sue to get it changed.
I too wish like others that Health insurance would separate itself from employment and each person should choose how much and what coverage to buy with some reasonable basic amount that helps cover those uninsured or uninsurable at reasonable rates.
|
|
|
Post by rumplesnat on Jun 30, 2014 19:31:15 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. Or be a responsible person and plan accordingly for these types of possibilities. Plan accordingly to pay out of pocket for Plan B in case I am impregnated as a result of a brutal rape. Got it. I'll start a separate savings account just for that.
|
|
skippet
Junior Member
Pea #417158 - Member since 2009 & only managed 17 posts
Posts: 97
Jun 30, 2014 1:12:49 GMT
|
Post by skippet on Jun 30, 2014 19:31:25 GMT
I fail to see where providing birth control infringes on anyones freedom of religion. If birth control is against your religion.. DON"T USE IT. What I see is Hobby Lobby is forcing their religion on their employees!! Does that mean an Islamic company can force women to wear a hijab? Is it not part of their religious freedom not to see women walking around without their head covered? Corporations are not people and therefore can't have religiously beliefs! I agree, but it is more common than one would think. Not long ago, I worked for a closed, family held company whose fundamentally religious owner was very biased and judgmental. They had over 250 employees & provided free medical care for their employees and employees' families. They did have some unusual ideas such as the refusal to cover any injury that resulted from participation in any sports or sports-like activity, so if you were playing tennis or running to answer your phone & tripped injuring your ankle, neither would not be covered under the plan. They also refused to cover any medical treatment related to HIV or AIDS because of the owner's perception of the moral values of anyone who contracted the disease which he assumed involved sexual contact. The company was sued over this, so they simply changed their policy to limit coverage for HIV or AIDS treatment to a lifetime maximum of $50,000 which apparently was within the law. They also refused to provide contraceptive coverage because it was against their religious beliefs. They held "voluntary" prayer breakfasts and the attitude was their beliefs were theirs and they owned the company so their values were reflected in it's corporate values and policies thus the corporation was entitled to impose religious tenets on it's employees. The company was bought out by a sane corporation shortly after I left.
|
|