Page 59 of 129 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169109 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 1290

Thread: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

  1. #581
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,769

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Poor women are covered by Medicaid, are they not? The ruling won't impact Medicaid. It impacts certain corporations only.
    Poor women working for HL would be covered by HL's insurance, as would be their dependents, some of them adults. They wouldn't have a Medicaid supplemental policy. It could be that for them and others denied coverage for religious reason that the regs for ACA will be changed to require insurers to offer contraceptives free of charge, but I read yesterday that some employers object to that arrangement, because they have to make a positive step to make that coverage available to their employees and they object to making that positive step.

    We'll see what happens, I guess, but I'm not sure what's hard about accepting that denying coverage for something by insurance has an effect on the 'access' to that denied product or service, especially by poor women. It's the whole point of these religious objections. If HL's denial of coverage in fact has no effect at all on contraceptive use or access, then they're expending an immense amount of effort on an empty gesture. It's possible that's all they're doing, but it seems completely irrational to me.

  2. #582
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,932
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Actually the ruling wasn't even based on the First Amendment. It was based on RFRA, which was signed into law by Clinton in 1993.
    Ah, I didn't realize that.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  3. #583
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Poor women working for HL would be covered by HL's insurance, as would be their dependents, some of them adults. They wouldn't have a Medicaid supplemental policy. It could be that for them and others denied coverage for religious reason that the regs for ACA will be changed to require insurers to offer contraceptives free of charge, but I read yesterday that some employers object to that arrangement, because they have to make a positive step to make that coverage available to their employees and they object to making that positive step.

    We'll see what happens, I guess, but I'm not sure what's hard about accepting that denying coverage for something by insurance has an effect on the 'access' to that denied product or service, especially by poor women. It's the whole point of these religious objections. If HL's denial of coverage in fact has no effect at all on contraceptive use or access, then they're expending an immense amount of effort on an empty gesture. It's possible that's all they're doing, but it seems completely irrational to me.
    Do you know how many poor women working for Hobby Lobby were impacted by this decision? Or how many HL employees by definition are poor?

    I don't think anything noteworthy will happen. Sure there will be appeals, but as long as the RFRA stays on the books, the case is closed. And most people will never feel any impact from this decision.

  4. #584
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Do you know how many poor women working for Hobby Lobby were impacted by this decision?
    If it's more than zero, then it's one too many.

  5. #585
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    If it's more than zero, then it's one too many.
    In other words, you don't know. Nor do we.

    I think if people are really worried about however many women are impacted by this decision, they should band together, pool their money, and buy them the 4 forms of BC that they were paying for for decades before the ACA anyway. Or of course the employees can find work at another retail store - there are plenty of those.

    The RFRA was a clear law. The ACA violated the RFRA. The HHS lawyers should have done a little research.

  6. #586
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,769

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Poor people are covered by Medicaid. This ruling doesn't impact poor people. In fact, it only impacts the HL employees.
    Yes you said that. I guess you understand that there are millions of working poor, and many of HL's hourly employees will be in that group. Furthermore, the ruling doesn't just apply to HL (which pays well above minimum wage) and the other named defendants - dozens of businesses have sued to not provide coverage and presumably dozens or perhaps thousands more private employers will elect to do so following the ruling.

    There are 16 forms of birth control still available to women who work at HL. Which of the 4 drugs that HL won't provide are prescribed for blood pressure and blood sugar? I'm diabetic, and know all about what meds are prescribed to maintain a healthy blood sugar level. The IUD isn't one of them.
    I've noticed you have a habit of apparently deliberately missing the point. Here's my response last night to an earlier question you posed to me. The part in bold is a direct quote to which I originally responded, and that's the issue at hand:

    2) "There is no reason whatsoever to make them [contraceptives] part of health insurance" - they're a basic part of healthcare for women, and an integral part. For some women, pregnancy can be life threatening because of medical conditions, and effective contraception is medically important. In those cases, and in cases where contraception is used for reasons other than pregnancy protection, they're as necessary to be covered by health insurance as antibiotics or drugs for blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. And that's if you don't accept prescription drugs/devices for pregnancy prevention and planning for pregnancies as a damn fine reason to include them as part of health insurance, like almost all other prescription drugs/devices.
    And, again, HL has agreed to provide 16. The ruling covers HL and all other similarly situated employers, some of whom will presumably cover 0 of the 20. At least that possibility is probable, not remote.

  7. #587
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That may be practically true, but the ruling didn't set any limits on who can file these claims. It certainly didn't specify any kind of 'closely held' test that anyone can identify. What if a Saudi buys 50.01% of Bank of America? Can it make a claim based on Sharia? Who knows?

    I believe there were some criteria laid out.
    And yes, if an employer meets the criteria then they would qualify.
    That's as it should be.
    You seem to agree with the Obama school of thought that if he believes something should be, and if laws & the Constitution are against it, and if Congress disagrees too, then that's what Executive Actions are for.
    This ruling doesn't in any way prevent the employee from getting whatever they need elsewhere.

  8. #588
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,640

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Poor women working for HL would be covered by HL's insurance, as would be their dependents, some of them adults. They wouldn't have a Medicaid supplemental policy. It could be that for them and others denied coverage for religious reason that the regs for ACA will be changed to require insurers to offer contraceptives free of charge, but I read yesterday that some employers object to that arrangement, because they have to make a positive step to make that coverage available to their employees and they object to making that positive step.

    We'll see what happens, I guess, but I'm not sure what's hard about accepting that denying coverage for something by insurance has an effect on the 'access' to that denied product or service, especially by poor women. It's the whole point of these religious objections. If HL's denial of coverage in fact has no effect at all on contraceptive use or access, then they're expending an immense amount of effort on an empty gesture. It's possible that's all they're doing, but it seems completely irrational to me.
    you keep using poor this is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

    they argued the RFRA which was passed by clinton.
    It did not pass the sniff test of the RFRA.

    the law required that all contraceptives be made available. for catholics that do not believe in birth control at all this is a major issue. for HL it was 4 forms of contraception that they had issues with.

    the SCOTUS simply said that the government cannot force companies to pay for birth control that violates there religious beliefs and it applies to contrasceptives and no other medical procedures.

    standing up for ones beliefs and freedoms is not irrational in fact it is fully rational.

  9. #589
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Yes you said that. I guess you understand that there are millions of working poor, and many of HL's hourly employees will be in that group. Furthermore, the ruling doesn't just apply to HL (which pays well above minimum wage) and the other named defendants - dozens of businesses have sued to not provide coverage and presumably dozens or perhaps thousands more private employers will elect to do so following the ruling.



    I've noticed you have a habit of apparently deliberately missing the point. Here's my response last night to an earlier question you posed to me. The part in bold is a direct quote to which I originally responded, and that's the issue at hand:



    And, again, HL has agreed to provide 16. The ruling covers HL and all other similarly situated employers, some of whom will presumably cover 0 of the 20. At least that possibility is probable, not remote.
    How many of the HL employees are poor? How many demanded these 4 drugs? If there is no data on that, we're discussing something that neither one of us knows about.

    The requirement of providing abortion-causing birth control violated the RFRA which is a law that has existed since 1993. If that's a bad law, then change it. The ACLU was one of the biggest advocates of the RFRA when Clinton signed it into law in 1993. The decision was very black and white here.

  10. #590
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    In other words, you don't know. Nor do we.
    It shouldn't impact anyone, even hypothetically.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •