|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 30, 2014 19:33:30 GMT
a dangerous decision, considering the fact that this could lead to ignorant decisions regarding blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc. It's a domino effect that I would venture many have not considered. I am going with this for now. I think that this was a very dangerous ruling today. It is going to open up for other companies to cease other types of refusal to provide. It will be smokers, weight loss, medicines that have dual use but could be considered "not approved by the company". This ruling is allowing the companies now to dictate what care we can receive via insurance (before it was insurance companies being the doctors as to what they would and would not pay) This is a bad move--and not necessarily just on the merits of contraceptives, but what it has opened itself up to (see Ruth Ginsburg's comments)
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 30, 2014 19:35:34 GMT
HA! to Hobby Lobby! When I clicked on this link, all the ads on the side bar were for JoAnn Fabric!!! LMAO
|
|
|
Post by rumplesnat on Jun 30, 2014 19:36:12 GMT
Viagra and Cialis don't terminate a pregnancy, thereby killing an unborn baby. Big difference. But they can be used to achieve that big erection needed to cheat on your spouse, and that would be a sin, which is the basis of HL's battle cry...is it not? I can assume this scenario, just like HL can assume I need the morning after pill because I'm an irresponsible slut, rather than a victim of a brutal rape.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 30, 2014 19:37:39 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." This is exactly what I was speaking of in a previous post. THANK YOU Kelpea
|
|
|
Post by Patter on Jun 30, 2014 19:42:58 GMT
I'll probably be in the minority with this statement but: Great! So very awesome!
|
|
|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 19:46:28 GMT
a dangerous decision, considering the fact that this could lead to ignorant decisions regarding blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc. It's a domino effect that I would venture many have not considered. I am going with this for now. I think that this was a very dangerous ruling today. It is going to open up for other companies to cease other types of refusal to provide. It will be smokers, weight loss, medicines that have dual use but could be considered "not approved by the company". This ruling is allowing the companies now to dictate what care we can receive via insurance (before it was insurance companies being the doctors as to what they would and would not pay) This is a bad move--and not necessarily just on the merits of contraceptives, but what it has opened itself up to (see Ruth Ginsburg's comments) Personally, I think this could be promising if this type of scenario happened. Why? Because then Americans would stand up and demand real healthcare reform where we own our plans and make our own decisions. Not our company or worthless bureaucrats.
|
|
|
Post by ingrid6 on Jun 30, 2014 19:47:53 GMT
I think part of the problem is that so many people feel like insurance should make it so that nothing or little to nothing has to come out of pocket. I'm fairly certain that if we didn't rely on insurance to pay for everything the cost of (1) tylenol or advil at the hospital wouldn't be billed at $20.00. A good friend of mine was in physical therapy. She had a $10.00 co-pay and did nothing but moan and groan about how stinking high it was. Such a rip off, how can they charge $10.00 etc. I needed pt and paid out of pocket. Did I like it? heck no, but if it wasn't covered and I needed it, then we budgeted for it.
Dh and I own our own business. Non of our employees choose to be on our insurance so this is just about our family. We were paying $1300.00 per month w/a $4,000.00 deductible. Some, but not many of my high blood pressure meds were covered. No dental, no eye coverage. Got our renewal notice back in March. Our premium jumped to $2,900.00 per month with the same $4,000 deductible, no dental, etc. When I was paying $1300 - I thought it was ridiculously high, but this new premium was outrageous. (it did not jump because of anything we did - it was an increase across the board) I don't know about you, but we don't have $35,000.00 a year in our back pocket for crappy insurance. We moved to a Christian based 'insurance'. Every month we put the $ difference from what we were paying to what we pay now, in savings account and it is our catostropic fund. I hope we never have to use it. Prior to our switching, I had made an appointment for a mammogram - now that we self pay, I called with some questions. Amazingly, that exact same mammogram is close to $800.00 less than it was when they could bill the insurance company. We live in an area where the are many, many small businesses and everyone has the same story. This year insurance rates have skyrocketed. Not many mom and pop type of stores can afford the insurance rates that are out there. It's a sad state of affairs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:08:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 19:50:58 GMT
This tweet sums it up for me. An illustrated guide to American personhood:
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 30, 2014 19:51:18 GMT
In 2012 there were over one million abortions in this country. 25,000 of them were due to rape. That's 2 1/2 percent. Abortions following rape are a tiny portion of abortions performed and should not form the basis of whether or not abortions are funded by insurance or paid for ny employers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by denda on Jun 30, 2014 19:51:16 GMT
yea!
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jun 30, 2014 19:53:07 GMT
Oh Ingrid! That's awful! It's so sad that your story and situation are a reflection of what is happening to millions of citizens just trying to keep their families insured. Those premiums just keep going up and the entire ACA has only worsened that trend rather than rectified it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:08:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 19:56:07 GMT
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. There are not-for-profit groups such as Rape Crisis that will not only pay for your Plan B, but also your hospital bills after you report your rape to your local police. They will not even try to charge your insurance or you.
There are those of us who have experienced this directly and honestly that was very insensitive.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jun 30, 2014 19:56:34 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.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jun 30, 2014 19:58:06 GMT
this shows a complete lack of knowledge/understanding of what it means to be a Christian. A Christian answers to God over an earthly lawmaker.
If they are the ones in the business making the rules etc, they will have to account for those decisions if they go against God's rules. The beliefs of a Christian are not just 'personal' beliefs that can be put into a compartment, tucked away as an inconvenience.
Would you think it ok if your dh had an affair during work hours? ... as long as it wasn't during 'private time' ?
And in this country there is that line about - 'congress shall make no law...' in our constitution.
|
|
|
Post by fruitysuet on Jun 30, 2014 19:58:15 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 am sure that if a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness were to preclude blood transfusions for example, members of other faiths would be up in arms (as I have seen posts previously decrying JW parents who won't allowing their dying children to have a blood transfusion).
ETA I also meant to comment on the hyprocrysy regarding Hobby Lobby's retirement fund.
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.
|
|
|
Post by rumplesnat on Jun 30, 2014 20:00:27 GMT
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. There are not-for-profit groups such as Rape Crisis that will not only pay for your Plan B, but also your hospital bills after you report your rape to your local police. They will not even try to charge your insurance or you.
There are those of us who have experienced this directly and honestly that was very insensitive.
And you're assuming I haven't? Who's insensitive??? I don't even see how you could possibly make my statement out to be insensitive to a rape victim. Who PLANS to be raped??? My point exactly.
|
|
|
Post by ingrid6 on Jun 30, 2014 20:00:35 GMT
Oh Ingrid! That's awful! It's so sad that your story and situation are a reflection of what is happening to millions of citizens just trying to keep their families insured. Those premiums just keep going up and the entire ACA has only worsened that trend rather than rectified it. Thanks - You're so right, it is awful. And unfortunately, we are not alone
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:08:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 20:03:36 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. Over and over, extremely conservative factions in this country do indeed seek to create a country that reflects that illustration. Is it exactly true? Of course not. But many conservative policies seem to want it to be so.
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jun 30, 2014 20:07:20 GMT
this shows a complete lack of knowledge/understanding of what it means to be a Christian. A Christian answers to God over an earthly lawmaker.
If they are the ones in the business making the rules etc, they will have to account for those decisions if they go against God's rules. The beliefs of a Christian are not just 'personal' beliefs that can be put into a compartment, tucked away as an inconvenience.
Yet HL seems to have no problem profiting from the companies who make these drugs and provides them to the women who do use them, as per their retirement plan investments. Seems to me like they're picking and choosing. It's hypocrisy to refuse to pay for these drugs and yet invest in the companies that provide them at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:08:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 20:13:28 GMT
"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—By a 5–4 vote on Monday, the United States Supreme Court settled a dispute that Justice Samuel Alito said was “at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.”
"Writing for the majority, Justice Alito wrote, “It is the duty of this Court, whenever it sees that the rights of people are being threatened, to do our best to safeguard those rights. In this case, it is clear that people’s rights were being threatened by women.”
Acknowledging that some women “might argue that they, too, have some claim to being people,” Justice Alito wrote, “That is an interesting question for another day.”
While the Court’s decision caused an uproar across the country, it received a big thumbs-up from one of the Justices who voted with the majority, Antonin Scalia.
“This has been a crappy year or so around here, what with all that gay-marriage stuff, but at least we finished strong,” he said."
This was a statement I read from the Borowitz Report. This the entire article I'm not sure how to post the link here so I copied the entire statement.
I'm not quite sure how to take this. I especially don't liked his statement that "some women might argue that they too have some claim to being people". You think! Or "Its clear people's rights were being threatened by women".
I'm was on the fence about this ruling until I read Alito's statement. If this is how the "majority" looked at this case then I think women have big problems as far as this court goes.
But you got to love Scalia's statement......
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:08:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 20:19:55 GMT
Krazy, Borowitz is a satirist.
|
|
mely
Junior Member
Posts: 89
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:59 GMT
|
Post by mely on Jun 30, 2014 20:30:25 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. Mirena is what my doctor wanted me to use. She felt it was the best choice to treat menorrhagia. I already tried the mini pill and the ring and neither worked. The next step was Mirena, the step after Mirena is the ablation and then a hysterectomy. As this is a serious health issue that is causing me issues with my iron levels and is lowering my work productivity and quality of life, I don't understand why my boss should be able to say that this is against his religious beliefs.
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,535
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Jun 30, 2014 20:33:45 GMT
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. In so many ways, THIS! Not just about this particular issue, but about a thousand others. This is a problem that bothers me about our society in general.
|
|
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 20:36:11 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.Why is that choice is only allowed when it benefits the liberal side of the conversation? Just to clarify, are you saying that a company in a similar situation as HL but Jehovah Witness should be forced to cover blood transfusions? FTR, again, this liberal agrees with this particular SCOTUS decision, but I also think that it will necessarily apply across the board.
|
|
joycekb
Shy Member
Posts: 18
Jun 30, 2014 20:14:03 GMT
|
Post by joycekb on Jun 30, 2014 20:36:26 GMT
A word of advice for all job seekers: During your job interview be sure to ask what religion the corporation you are applying to is.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:08:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 20:38:41 GMT
Corporations are not people and therefore can't have religiously beliefs! the SCotUS does not agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 20:39:37 GMT
Krazy, Borowitz is a satirist. Like 1,000,000 times if I could. I think the whole problem with the sad state of affairs regarding this discussion is the perpetuation of misinformation, which, when called out, then falls into name calling, hate-mongering and out-right bullying. There are two sides of the story -truth usually falls in between but no one cares to look (at reputable sources, anyway - try an overseas newspaper/news service if interested)! No wonder the rest of the world does not understand America - but it makes for very good entertainment, just like this thread!
|
|
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 20:39:50 GMT
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. At $40-50, it probably wouldn't be worth opening a separate account.
|
|
mely
Junior Member
Posts: 89
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:59 GMT
|
Post by mely on Jun 30, 2014 20:42:28 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. What if I don't want a permanent solution? I don't want an ablation or hysterectomy. If I had any condition where the treatment didn't involve a form of "birth control" then should insurance cover it? I expect they would. And really, I think the iud is cheaper than paying for surgery in this case. My issue is separate and is related to the horrific transition from triwest to Uhc last year and referrals that got lost and being sent all over town to try to get something set up until I finally gave up trying because I didn't want to waste any more of my sacred pto on doctor visits but I completely sympathize with anyone who is having issues accessing the care their doctor feels is best.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jun 30, 2014 20:46:03 GMT
This is not a decision about Abortion or Birth Control.!!
It is about allowing a corporation to force their religious beliefs on their employees!
|
|