• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

iguanaman said:
Unlike contraception coverage, dental and vision coverage would cost quite a bit more but if you say it needs to be covered I won't argue. Maybe next year.
Click to expand...

Great idea!

Why not have employers pay food and rent as well? Like all costs they'll probably just absorb the expense rather than passing it along to the consumer.
 
clownboy said:
See post #34.
Click to expand...

Yet pretty much every company offers both dental and vision coverage. In both cases, coverage comes at a higher cost, which is not the case with contraceptives.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The company is providing health care, and I don't know any religion that considers health care a violation.
Click to expand...

I recall back in the day the Amish putting up a huge stink about the government requiring their buggies have a triangle relfector on the back of them so that cars could see them better. The Amish were pissed about that because they claimed that if they died from their buggy being hit by a car it was God's will. Basically making the claim that the reflector was interfering with their religious beliefs. Now buggies, by law, have a reflector on them... so the religous angle didn't work there either.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
As a rely to the bolded part of your question: It is mandated by PPACA to be at "no out of pocket cost to the patient", in other words, directly, and fully, funded by the employer; the personal choice of "abortion pill" use, by the PPACA insured, is thus covered totally by the employer's contribution. Had the employee decided to use only their own funds for that purpose, the employer has no direct knowldge or control over that choice, any more than if the employee gave part of their pay to a satanic cult.
Click to expand...

Nope that does not make any sense either. HC coverage is a benefit of being employed, the same as a salary is. The employee is working for those benefits, they are not gifts from the employer.
 
clownboy said:
Cool, I want the government to pay for my medical marijuana too. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Why not? As long as they are mandating coverage for elective things.
 
Cephus said:
Yet pretty much every company offers both dental and vision coverage. In both cases, coverage comes at a higher cost, which is not the case with contraceptives.
Click to expand...

However, the government doesn't require it, and it is at the company's option to offer it to their employees. Unlike the funding of employee's private sexual activity.
 
Cephus said:
Yet pretty much every company offers both dental and vision coverage. In both cases, coverage comes at a higher cost, which is not the case with contraceptives.
Click to expand...

PPACA exchange mandated policies do not, so the point was valid. Also PPACA mandates that gov't selected benefits be paid "at no out of pocket cost" to the insured, thus these services are paid for by all policy holders not only those that use them. This is a huge difference from what was once an optional policy feature.
 
clownboy said:
However, the government doesn't require it, and it is at the company's option to offer it to their employees. Unlike the funding of employee's private sexual activity.
Click to expand...

Then I'm sure you'll support companies being able to remove cancer treatment from their insurance plans, why should they have to pay for their employee's private smoking, drinking and other lifestyle choices?
 
iguanaman said:
Nope that does not make any sense either. HC coverage is a benefit of being employed, the same as a salary is. The employee is working for those benefits, they are not gifts from the employer.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps an alternative might be to give the employees the extra cash involved and leave the personal decisions up to the employee.
 
Cephus said:
They're not being compelled to provide it, the plan that is offered simply includes it and they are making a big deal of insisting it is removed from the plan offered by the insurance company.
Click to expand...

The insurance companies were compelled to cover it. Clearly the problem with Hobby Lobby is that they want to pick a plan they agree with which before the mandate they could do.
 
iguanaman said:
Because they don't work. None of the "aids" have over a 10% success rate. Can you imagine a birth control method that unreliable?
Oh wait... that would be the "rhythm method"
Click to expand...

I've heard Chantix works well. IDK.
 
IMO... if companies don't want these so-called conflicts of interest to their religious beliefs regarding this healthcare law, then they should strongly back a medicaid for all bill that would pull healthcare completely out of the hands of companies. Voila, we get the healthcare coverage and companies can go about their biz without being concerned about it.
 
iguanaman said:
Nope that does not make any sense either. HC coverage is a benefit of being employed, the same as a salary is. The employee is working for those benefits, they are not gifts from the employer.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Health care is not the same as taxable income offered in exchange for labor, and HC used to be voluntary prior to PPACA. The only alternative for the employer is to pay a fine, instead of continuing this gov't altered employee benefit (or adding it). The employer is thus forced to do something new, and against their relgious teachings/beliefs, in this case.
 
Cephus said:
Then I'm sure you'll support companies being able to remove cancer treatment from their insurance plans, why should they have to pay for their employee's private smoking, drinking and other lifestyle choices?
Click to expand...

They already can somewhat. Companies can require their employees to be non-smoking and can even restrict by contract "extreme" activities. Insurance policies certainly can already. Actuaries have been doing this forever.

Just wait until you're 55 and you get your first car insurance bill.
 
poweRob said:
IMO... if companies don't want these so-called conflicts of interest to their religious beliefs regarding this healthcare law, then they should strongly back a medicaid for all bill that would pull healthcare completely out of the hands of companies. Voila, we get the healthcare coverage and companies can go about their biz without being concerned about it.
Click to expand...

So basically we go from mandating people cover peoples asses to paying for their ass. Yeah, that is just a horrible compromise.
 
Henrin said:
So basically we go from mandating people cover peoples asses to paying for their ass. Yeah, that is just a horrible compromise.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you see the improvment of the health of your country as an abomination.
 
danarhea said:
1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.
Click to expand...
So, you want me to forgo my religion by supporting something that I find unethical and morally repugnant so you can have your religion enforced. Got it.

That's the problem with statements like that... "You <whatever> ends where my <whatever> begins"... they assume there is a distinct and defined boundary separating the two, when in fact there is overlap. Yet we expect our side of the overlap to take precedence. Hypocrisy.
 
Cephus said:
But they don't. Deal with it. These are the plans that are available. Pick one. An employer should no more be able to pick and choose whether contraceptive coverage is available than they should be able to cover whether lung cancer treatment is available.
Click to expand...

You provide your labor and as a result you get paid for such labor.

Where does healthcare come into the equation there? Did I miss a step? Why are they obligated to cover any of that stuff?
 
poweRob said:
I'm sorry you see the improvment of the health of your country as an abomination.
Click to expand...

Yawn..

I see no justification for force here.
 
Grant said:
Don't people own that corporation? Are there those still trying to sell the idea that corporations aren't made up of people?
Click to expand...

I'd say Corporations are people but most of the people have no say in corporate policy. Corporations are not people in that it is some communal organization where all get a vote. Armies are people however privates are rarely asked their opinion. ;)

I see the religion dodge as bogus, The CEO isn't providing anything past a health plan. He doesn't dole out Preg-not like a Priest at Communion. He doesn't have to force his family to use it. I don't think he would want to know what a secret poll of his employees would say.

The law of our land says many things an employer has fought hard against. From an 8 hour day to safety mats in doorways. There is a difference between religious beliefs and secular law. Sects of the Mormon Church practice a form of Pedophilia, multiple wives, and welfare fraud... their religious beliefs don't trump secular law.

Let 'em stay 'true' to their beliefs, just pay the fines.
 
Henrin said:
Yawn..

I see no justification for force here.
Click to expand...

Your argument of calling taxes and such as "force" has long been debunked. Which is where there is this thing called Social Security and stuff.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm an atheist and as such I find nothing more despicable than the government enforcing religious principles. However, the exact opposite is happening here. The government is using the threat of violence to force private citizens to comply with a law that directly violates their religion. That I find disgusting.


So just because it's a law, that also makes it just? If they made a law that the president gets to bang your wife, would you be cool with that? I mean, it would be law.
Click to expand...

Great, I think it's a terrible law that allows the banksters to receive million dollar bonuses from the government, after they ran their banks into the ground. So I think I'll go out and rob a bank. Or, instead, I can realize that we are a nation of laws, even if I don't happen to like some of them.
 
digsbe said:
They are a private employer, they have ever right to deny the morning after pill being on covered insurance plans. If having birth control coverage is a make or break deal then find another job or purchase your own plan. If not, keep $50 in your account to pay for Plan B if you ever need it.

This whole issue of mandated birth control coverage makes me sick and is completely medically unethical.
Click to expand...

First off, saying "just find another job" in this economy is an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to do.

Secondly, it is ridiculous to claim that it is medically unethical.
 
The morning after pill doesn't even cause abortions; it prevents the egg from being fertilized. It's contraception...
 
We interrupt this discussion..............

To mention the fact that DanaRhea finally posted something in breaking news that wasn't as old as the dinosaurs, already posted by someone else, or was not breaking news in a myriad number of other ways...........

We now return you to the discussion. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom