|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:14:15 GMT
"the ruling today did not prevent anyone from receiving a prescription for contraceptives at all"
A Fact I never once contested.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 23:16:21 GMT
"the ruling today did not prevent anyone from receiving a prescription for contraceptives at all" A Fact I never once contested. You contested availability, accessibility and cost. There are alternatives if you look.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 7:01:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 23:17:21 GMT
Are you a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50/hour and needs to access to Planned Parenthood and can't figure out how get there?
Rebelyelle...regardless of who pays for the prescription, a woman still requires a valid prescription from a doctor. Whether she goes to PP or her doctor...she still must obtain a prescription.
If a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50 an hour needs free contraception, she's still got to find a way to get the prescription...either at PP or at her doctor.
The ruling today has absolutely zero impact on a single mom's ability to get a prescription.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 23:18:42 GMT
And I recommend everyone check their meds to make sure they aren't overpaying for prescriptions when generics are available. Knowledge is power and if it can save you a few bucks, all the better....
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:20:27 GMT
"the ruling today did not prevent anyone from receiving a prescription for contraceptives at all" A Fact I never once contested. You contested availability, accessibility and cost. There are alternatives if you look. Yes, an availability, accessibility, and cost are REAL burdens that many women face, even with alternatives. I'm fortunate not to have to fight those battles, but many people aren't. Even here in a major metro area with a huge number of choices, it's still a challenge for low-income women to get access to birth control. You can't just walk into a CVS, Walgreens or Target and request BCP without a prescription. *Edited because I meant to say "without" a prescription.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:22:20 GMT
Are you a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50/hour and needs to access to Planned Parenthood and can't figure out how get there? Rebelyelle...regardless of who pays for the prescription, a woman still requires a valid prescription from a doctor. Whether she goes to PP or her doctor...she still must obtain a prescription. If a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50 an hour needs free contraception, she's still got to find a way to get the prescription...either at PP or at her doctor. The ruling today has absolutely zero impact on a single mom's ability to get a prescription. Yes, I know. Please read all of my posts, I've conceded those two points. My point was the "option" many have stated of "just go to planned parenthood!" isn't necessarily that simple or easy.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 23:23:32 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.
If women don't want to take responsibility for the reproductive system by going to the doctor and getting the prescription, that is a different issue entirely. But nothing stops them from grabbing a box of condoms for a few bucks and enforcing the use. It all comes down to personal responsibility, and the Supreme Court, President or Congress can't make anyone go get that prescription....They either will or they won't.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:26:23 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.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 23:29:12 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. And that has nothing to do with the ruling today and was just a point to flame an argument. Congratulations on spreading misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:32:38 GMT
I'm citing access to getting the prescription in the first place. THAT part isn't necessarily simple and easy. And that has nothing to do with the ruling today and was just a point to flame an argument. Congratulations on spreading misinformation. Please, PLEASE point out the post where I said any such nonsense. Here's a clue - you can't, because I never said, directly otherwise, that was the case or result of this ruling. I've stated two (separate) issues on this thread - (1) my discomfort that a corporation can be extended religious freedom protections and (2) that it's not always simple and easy to obtain access to a prescription for birth control.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:35:19 GMT
And just so I'm not misunderstood - as I said upthread, I was responding to those saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "Just go to Planned Parenthood, it's not a big deal". Simply pointing out that it's just not that easy. I'd like it to be, but it's not.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 23:37:40 GMT
And that has nothing to do with the ruling today and was just a point to flame an argument. Congratulations on spreading misinformation. Please, PLEASE point out the post where I said any such nonsense. Here's a clue - you can't, because I never said, directly otherwise, that was the case or result of this ruling. I've stated two (separate) issues on this thread - (1) my discomfort that a corporation can be extended religious freedom protections and (2) that it's not always simple and easy to obtain access to a prescription for birth control. Neither of which resulted from the ruling today. The corporation as an individual was decided during Campaign Finance Reform (look it up) and the issue regarding lack of access to care is one in which care isn't available or being utilized. Again - if you aren't on the pill or using a condom, that's on you - maybe you could wait a week til the doctor sees you or you have time to make it to the clinic. In either case, the Supreme Court did not issue any opinion on the two points you stated. The made an extremely narrow ruling that was partly put into place by a law passed during Bill Clinton presidency. That is the facts regarding the situations. I am fairly certain that many of us are not happy with the state of politics and health care in our country, but at the end of the day, personal responsibility has to creep in somewhere. And if I am without birth control and dont' want an unintended pregnancy, then maybe I just need to wait til I can get it. Why do I need to legislate personal responsibility for others?
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:40:18 GMT
Actually, the Supreme Court DID address the point of corporations being entitled to religious freedom protections. That's the whole point of the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 23:44:08 GMT
Actually, the Supreme Court DID address the point of corporations being entitled to religious freedom protections. That's the whole point of the ruling. Again, Campaign Finance reforms gave corporations the rights of individuals and Bill Clinton gave individuals the right to protect their religions freedoms from government. Nothing was new in this regard today that didn't already exist. The Supreme Court just shot down a mandate (law) that tried to infringe on rights already established. They did not make a new law. Edited to add - the Supreme Court interprets laws on the books. It does not make new law. It has to play by the laws that have been passed by Congress and he President within the framework of the Constitution. What it said today was the part of the ACA violated laws that were already on the books and struck down that part of the ACA. That doesn't mean they are good laws, but they are laws nonetheless...
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jun 30, 2014 23:47:05 GMT
I am not an attorney, so I lack the secret decoder ring that allows me to read the nuances of the law. So I base my opinion solely on what I think I understand.
At first blush, I am okay with the ruling. It doesn't appear that the company is restricting ALL birth control, but only those that go against their belief system-which is clearly stated in their mission statement:
Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.
Offering our customers an exceptional selection and value.
Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals, and nurture families.
Providing a return on the owners' investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.
We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.
So you know from the get go that they operate their business from a biblical perspective. They shouldn't be forced to pay for what they see as abortifacients as part of their health care bill as it could infringe on the rights of the owners to practice their religious tenets as they see fit.
Having said this though, you guys have raised some interesting points that I would like to give more than a passing thought to.
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jun 30, 2014 23:51:53 GMT
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. Hobby Lobby doesn't profit from their employees retirement accounts. This was beat to death months ago when the financial illiterate journalist first posted the very poor analogy. We could now segue into "socially responsible mutual funds" which will lead to discussions of the fiduciary duty of the plan administers. One thing is absolutely irrefutable - Hobby Lobby does not profit from their employees' retirement funds. One, if the company owners invest in the retirement plan alongside their employees they're profiting. I admit, I have no idea if they do or not. Two, it is my understanding that they pick and choose which companies are invested in as part of the retirement accounts. If they don't, they have the power to switch to an investment company which would invest differently. Thus, they are still supporting (in a manner of speaking) companies that provide these drugs.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 23:52:27 GMT
My understanding is that Citizens United solely expanded a corporations right to free speech. While the SC may not have necessarily made new law today, they certainly broadened it, by including religious protection to certain corporations, a right previously not granted.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 30, 2014 23:52:44 GMT
Are you a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50/hour and needs to access to Planned Parenthood and can't figure out how get there? Rebelyelle...regardless of who pays for the prescription, a woman still requires a valid prescription from a doctor. Whether she goes to PP or her doctor...she still must obtain a prescription. If a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50 an hour needs free contraception, she's still got to find a way to get the prescription...either at PP or at her doctor. The ruling today has absolutely zero impact on a single mom's ability to get a prescription. It isn't enough to Get the prescription. You also have to fill it, to paraphrase Seinfeld. So if you use public transportation, have an unreliable car, work hourly and have trouble taking time off, or don't have anyone to watch your existing kids while you are off getting the best priced contraceptives, you might have a problem. Sounds crazy-except we have quite a few people where I work who have some combination of those issues.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 23:56:01 GMT
Are you a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50/hour and needs to access to Planned Parenthood and can't figure out how get there? Rebelyelle...regardless of who pays for the prescription, a woman still requires a valid prescription from a doctor. Whether she goes to PP or her doctor...she still must obtain a prescription. If a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50 an hour needs free contraception, she's still got to find a way to get the prescription...either at PP or at her doctor. The ruling today has absolutely zero impact on a single mom's ability to get a prescription. Unless you use public transportation, have an unreliable car, work hourly and have trouble taking time off, or don't have anyone to watch your existing kids while you are off getting the best priced contraceptives. Sounds crazy-except we have quite a few people where I work who have some combination of those issues. --------- But nothing from today's ruling changed their struggles, and it is not really fair to compare the two. Their challenges existed yesterday, today and tomorrow and will continue to exist, regardless of what was decided today. It is an entirely different issue, and a very serious issue, but not an issue that the Supreme Court had anything to do with today. And as far as the issue of personal responsibility and maybe waiting until you can get your ducks in a row before you open youself up to a lifetime of responsibility? Well, I am not sure that issue will ever have a solution. There is a saying that you can lead a horse to water... no matter how accessible care is or how inexpensive prescriptions are, there will be people who don't get them. A perfect example is the UK - universal healthcare and free medicine, but still unintended pregnancies. Without personal responsibility, the problem will never totally go away.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2014 0:16:52 GMT
Except for the fact that if they are going to pay for it themselves-and this might be a moot point if the govt. decides to cover the cost-they are going to go to the very cheapest place, often planned parenthood. And sometimes the cheapest places are not accessible for all. So what the SC decided will indeed affect many lives. I think that it's perfectly fair to point that out. ETA-though many BC pills are available in generic, it is my understanding that not all are. And as far as this being a side issue and not what the court ruled today, we all live in the real world. Actions-and decisions-have real life consequences perhaps not easily seen by those with little or no exposure to poverty.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 1, 2014 0:30:03 GMT
Hobby Lobby doesn't profit from their employees retirement accounts. This was beat to death months ago when the financial illiterate journalist first posted the very poor analogy. We could now segue into "socially responsible mutual funds" which will lead to discussions of the fiduciary duty of the plan administers. One thing is absolutely irrefutable - Hobby Lobby does not profit from their employees' retirement funds. One, if the company owners invest in the retirement plan alongside their employees they're profiting. I admit, I have no idea if they do or not. Two, it is my understanding that they pick and choose which companies are invested in as part of the retirement accounts. If they don't, they have the power to switch to an investment company which would invest differently. Thus, they are still supporting (in a manner of speaking) companies that provide these drugs. They absolutely do not pick which companies are invested in - the individual companies are not even offered in the plan. These companies are included in MUTUAL funds that their employees choose to put their money in - the different investment company was discussed in detail on the original 2peas months ago with the associated problems with fiduciary duty, but irregardless again - anyone who claims hobby lobby profited is utterly and completely WRONG
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Jul 1, 2014 0:34:56 GMT
I'll probably be in the minority with this statement but: Great! I agree. It's only for the morning after pill and IUDs. When I was on birth control pills, they weren't covered at all. I had to buy my own.
|
|
|
Post by ingrid6 on Jul 1, 2014 0:55:13 GMT
nice try - own your own business? pay $35 grand for health insurance? I seriously doubt it. you're complaining about buses and metro rides… My husband owns his own business. Like I said - been there, done that. But go ahead, be the almighty health insurance martyr. Be my guest. Are you a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50/hour and needs to access to Planned Parenthood and can't figure out how get there? WHY does this have to be a pissing contest? It's bad for you, and it's bad for other people too. Yes, for some people, finding the money for a $12+ commute that takes 1.5 hours roundtrip, plus the time to see a doctor to get what you need, during your work hours, IS a huge struggle. It doesn't diminish the fact that YOU struggle too. Nobody's "winning" here. Nope, I'm not a single mom, and to my knowledge this isn't a single mom/married mom issue, I don't work 2 jobs but I work more than 60 hours per week at the one I have, I do have a car, I (fortunately) make more than $8.50 an hour. I'm not by any stretch the almighty health insurance martyr. We work very hard for what we have. All of that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
|
|
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 0:57:58 GMT
Have we ever met and shared a java or something, RS? You have no clue how I feel about anyone, especially those who most need our support. Wow please don't think you know my thoughts. It was in general, not specifically you. It's hypocritical to support one scenario and not the other.
|
|
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 1:01:28 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. They also don't have to pay for it. You can still get on your own, nobody is stopping you.
|
|
|
Post by dawndoll on Jul 1, 2014 1:03:13 GMT
Are you a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50/hour and needs to access to Planned Parenthood and can't figure out how get there? Rebelyelle...regardless of who pays for the prescription, a woman still requires a valid prescription from a doctor. Whether she goes to PP or her doctor...she still must obtain a prescription. If a single mom, working two jobs, without a car, who makes $8.50 an hour needs free contraception, she's still got to find a way to get the prescription...either at PP or at her doctor. The ruling today has absolutely zero impact on a single mom's ability to get a prescription. I'm not seeing how transportation to purchase the contraceptive is made any more difficult by this ruling. If the ruling hadn't been made, that same woman would still have to get to a store of some sort to purchase it even if insurance covered it.
|
|
|
Post by momofkandn on Jul 1, 2014 1:10:56 GMT
I'm very happy with today's decision. Employers have always had control over what plans were offered and what was covered. Today's decision actually upholds what has always been. Every employer I have ever worked for offered different levels of coverage. Some covered birth control, some didn't. Some covered laser eye surgery, some didn't. Some covered vasectomies, some didn't. I never thought that infringed on my rights. The employer has the right to choose what is covered because they are paying for it.
I'd be very happy to see all employer subsidized health insurance go away. I would rather buy insurance on a free market similar to car insurance. Then I have control over what plan I choose and I can get a plan that meets my needs.
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Jul 1, 2014 1:17:09 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. Awesome advise and if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jul 1, 2014 1:21:06 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.
|
|
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 1:22:10 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! Are they forcing them to pray or something?
|
|