Page 95 of 129 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105 ... LastLast
Results 941 to 950 of 1290

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

  1. #941
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,419

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I'm not too interested in getting into a big discussion, but I am curious and don't feel up to reading through all the pages here...

    I've read a couple of op-eds from people to the left who claim that this ruiling is taking away rights from women.

    So, then I wonder.. Did women not have rights prior to obamacare? Aftrerall, prior to Obamacare businesses were not required to purchase BC.

    Then I also wonder.. What right was taken away. Women can still purchase as much BC as they want, they can even see a doctor to get a prescription. The only thing that has changed, as far as I can see, is who will pay for it.

    I really don't want to get too into it, but I am curious about those questions... and the opeds I read didn't seem to get into specifics as to what right they thought was being removed.


    At my previous job after I had my baby, I got an IUD good for 5 years because I knew I didn't want another baby for atleast 5 more years and it's extremely convenient. It was prior to Obamacare and my insurance at the time covered it in full. Then recently after the 5 years was over and Obamacare was inforce, I learned my insurance at my new job did not cover the IUD or to have it removed. They were grandfathered into a clause that exempts them from the contraceptive mandate. So I shopped around to many doctors and clinics and the cheapest one was over $1,000.00 up front for a new one. So I just paid out of pocket to have it removed and got on the insurance approved pill with a copay each month. Now to me, no rights per say have been taken away so much as I feel like my company is trying to make decisions for me. The actual insurance provider, Coventry, does provide IUD's with copays but my employer elected out of them. If I pay my insurance premiums each month, shouldn't I be able to have the available prescriptions or contraceptives I want that are provided from the insurance company not what my employer thinks or believes is best for me due to personal religious beliefs?

    At the end it doesn't really matter, I am not going to find another job or not take one because they don't insure IUD's but it would be nice if they would. I mean how awkward would it be if I was at an interview and I asked if the company insured IUD's and they check the slut box before ushering me out to the nearest church to save my immoral soul?
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  2. #942
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,878

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Does your employer also pay into your plan? IMHO insurance shouldn't be there to cover standard visits or meds. It should be there to cover the catastrophic costs.

    For instance, your auto insurance doesn't cover the costs of your oil change, or tires does it?

    This is no different.
    Well, yeah, it is different, because if your car dies, you can get another car.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  3. #943
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    My reading is straightforward - the words of the ruling are crystal clear, the "contraception mandate" not a list, not a reference to abortifacients, which they didn't spend one second analysing. And three of those orders were sustaining lower court rulings that the Catholic plaintiffs won, and in all three they won the right to exempt themselves from ALL contraception options. There is no further review necessary by any court - the court proceedings are done.

    If you disagree, quote me something or link to something.

    And yes, not all will try, and I assume some that try might be denied.
    That's not what we were talking about
    .

    Yes it is.

    The cases sent back for review were for Catholic plaintiffs.

    This is the last time I'm going to say this because your insincerity (there's an internet word for it but I won't use it) is tiring.
    HL won their case which was brought because of the mandated abortifacient coverage.
    If any other business objects to any particular mandated coverage & can satisfy the guidelines in the ruling then they will & should be given relief.
    Period.
    End of story.
    And that's the way it is.
    The Judicial system.
    The thread can be closed now.

  4. #944
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Yes, the extremists who demand that women be able to choose whatever they want and demand that somebody else pay for it just as glibly want to deny others different choices. Why is Citizen A's right to choose what is right for him/her superior to Citizen B's right to choose what is right for him/her if in conflict with what Citizen A wants? Most especially if Citizen B is paying for it and Citizen A is not?

    The SCOTUS ruling I believe does open the door to more choice. I can see scenarios in which Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, Christian Scientists could refuses to pay for innoculations, Orthodox Jews could refuse to pay for any medications derived from pork, and we could continue down a very long list.

    Apart from the dishonest and incompetent way it was put together and sold to the people, and the unsustainable expense of it, the most galling part of Obamacare for me is the idea that government is dictating to insurance companies what product they are required to sell if they sell any product, dictating to employers the product they are required to offer their employees, and the people are dictated what product they are required to buy or be fined/taxed.

    In an extremely limited way, SCOTUS, whether intentionally or coincidentally, has restored a tiny smidgeon of choice to we the people.
    And rather than write a Law that is explicit they left the dirty details to a bunch of bureaucrats at HHS (Kathleen Sebelius fer crissake) to come up with their mandated list of subjective dream coverage items.

    Anyone with any sense should at this point realize that we wouldn't be going through any of this if Obama had kept his promise about keeping your coverage and had instead focused on covering the un-covered.
    As a liar, the man is very proficient and slick.

  5. #945
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The purpose of the ACA is to make healthcare available to more people for the purpose of improving health. Pregnancy, healthy kids, are, as I'm sure you'll agree, a big part of "healthcare" for women. So is family planning, which improves the odds mothers are ready to have and adequately care for children. In other cases preventing pregnancy is a medical necessity because pregnancy risks death for some women. Other women take contraceptives for reasons other than pregnancy prevention and the drugs have a direct effect on health like all other prescription drugs. For all these reasons, the medical community recommends contraceptives as part of a comprehensive health insurance package, along with other services like checkups and wellness visits.

    BTW, you saying the government has no responsibility (technically true as an opinion, one of many I guess) doesn't mean much, because it's a goal, reducing unwanted pregnancies, that is shared by people across the political spectrum, many of whom believe government at all levels SHOULD play a role. If you disagree, we should just ignore the number of abortions and babies born to teen mothers, etc. that's GREAT! I disagree as do most people I'd imagine.

    The purpose of ACA was to insure what Obama said was 40 plus million uninsured AMERICANS and reduce the costs at the same time. It did neither and those here that continue to spout that rhetoric have the same credibility as Obama.

    I have seen nothing in this ruling that prevents women from getting contraception as if the previous 50 years contraception was unavailable and Obama saved women from unwanted pregnancies. Guess some people will always be gullible and buy what they read and are told rather than doing their own research to verify the rhetoric.

  6. #946
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Hey, you forgot to use quotes, bubba.

    The Green's didn't seem to have a problem practicing their religion and providing insurance coverage for emergency contraceptives before the ACA.....


    "....The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan...."
    Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them | Red Dirt Report


    I don't know where the Green's get their contraceptive information from but it doesn't seem to jive with the FDA or the doctors.....

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723822

    Ulipristal acetate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us...es.html?ref=us


    Here's Scalia in 1990......

    Burwell v. Hobby Lobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Congress seems to have passed the 1993 RFRA law because of and for the SCOTUS. But it doesn't appear that the judges applied the 'strict scrutiny' of the law in the HL case considering that the four birth control methods are not abortificants and that the Greens were exercising their religion freedom and
    providing the same emergency contraceptives they now object to 'before" the ACA was passed
    .
    Yes ... and they claim they weren't aware the abortifacients had been in the coverage.

  7. #947
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,614

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    At my previous job after I had my baby, I got an IUD good for 5 years because I knew I didn't want another baby for atleast 5 more years and it's extremely convenient. It was prior to Obamacare and my insurance at the time covered it in full. Then recently after the 5 years was over and Obamacare was inforce, I learned my insurance at my new job did not cover the IUD or to have it removed. They were grandfathered into a clause that exempts them from the contraceptive mandate. So I shopped around to many doctors and clinics and the cheapest one was over $1,000.00 up front for a new one. So I just paid out of pocket to have it removed and got on the insurance approved pill with a copay each month. Now to me, no rights per say have been taken away so much as I feel like my company is trying to make decisions for me. The actual insurance provider, Coventry, does provide IUD's with copays but my employer elected out of them. If I pay my insurance premiums each month, shouldn't I be able to have the available prescriptions or contraceptives I want that are provided from the insurance company not what my employer thinks or believes is best for me due to personal religious beliefs?

    At the end it doesn't really matter, I am not going to find another job or not take one because they don't insure IUD's but it would be nice if they would. I mean how awkward would it be if I was at an interview and I asked if the company insured IUD's and they check the slut box before ushering me out to the nearest church to save my immoral soul?
    your insurance is through your company. the company is the holder of the policy not you so they define what the policy will entail.
    they didn't stop you from getting an IUD. if you would have had the 1000's or you could have worked out a payment plan you could have gotten another IUD.

    they didn't stop you from getting what you wanted.

    your company probably didn't want to pay the added cost of adding IUD's to their insurance coverage. it might have been more than what they were wanting to spend.

  8. #948
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,419

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    your insurance is through your company. the company is the holder of the policy not you so they define what the policy will entail.
    they didn't stop you from getting an IUD. if you would have had the 1000's or you could have worked out a payment plan you could have gotten another IUD.

    they didn't stop you from getting what you wanted.

    your company probably didn't want to pay the added cost of adding IUD's to their insurance coverage. it might have been more than what they were wanting to spend.

    One month supply of pills $15.00 x 60 mnths ( 5 yrs) = $900.00. Not that big of a difference but like you said it's their decision and I can either deal with it, like I do, or find another job if that IUD is so important to me ( which it's not). Also no place I contacted would do a reasonable payment plan that would fit my budget. I asked a few places because normally I do find most healthcare places to be flexible when it comes to that but they all said no they needed half at time the appointment is made and the other half at insertion. If I really really wanted one I could save up but like I said in the end it's not that big of a deal.
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  9. #949
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,838
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The purpose of ACA was to insure what Obama said was 40 plus million uninsured AMERICANS and reduce the costs at the same time. It did neither and those here that continue to spout that rhetoric have the same credibility as Obama.

    I have seen nothing in this ruling that prevents women from getting contraception as if the previous 50 years contraception was unavailable and Obama saved women from unwanted pregnancies. Guess some people will always be gullible and buy what they read and are told rather than doing their own research to verify the rhetoric.
    I'd have to agree. ObamaCare, as of yet, has not lived up to any of the promises it was sold on, such as 'you can keep your plan' and 'you can keep your doctor'; the reality being is that you probably can't keep either.

    The same 'sales' job is going on with the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision.
    No, it doesn't not cut off contraceptives from the Hobby Lobby employees (16 of 20 contraception medications are still provided, just the 4 abortion inducing ones are not).
    No, it doesn't eliminate women's healthcare.
    No, it doesn't formalize gender discrimination.
    No, it won't prevent the sun from rising.
    No, it doesn't do a lot of things that the Biased Lame Stream Media are all reporting that it does.

    It does something far, far worse: It give employers, at least some employers, the ability not to be forced to support and pay for something they have a religious and moral objection too. It takes away the power of government to force an employer to support and pay for something the have a religious and moral objection too. It strikes at the heart of liberal / progressive doctrine and their delusional self-image of omnipotence in that they know what's best for everyone.

    !! Inexcusable !! Impermissible !!

    As you can see with the fire rhetoric (lies, distortions and propaganda) from the left as well as their leftist allies in the Biased Main Stream Media.

    What it does do, and this'll be an interesting point to observe the development of, is open the door to this and similar scenarios: A Jehovah's Witness owned businesses can now exclude blood transfusions from their employees medical coverage on religious grounds?
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  10. #950
    Sage
    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Twinsburg Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    5,943

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    "....The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan. Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs......"

    See more at: Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them | Red Dirt Report


    See No. 54, 55 at bottom of p. 14.....

    http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content...nt-stamped.pdf
    if that is correct...let me ask you a question

    do you think that every owner of every company across the USA knows what coverage is in his/her insurance that is given to their employees?

    i would bet you thousands of dollars they dont or didnt....

    And when the ACA passed, a lot more got interested, because NOW the government is mandating something....it is no longer a choice, but the owners were being told they MUST do this and that

    So like HL, we took a real good look at what our company had to provide

    My owner didnt have an issue with anything, but he could have.....and we could have been part of the same lawsuit

    The only reason a lot of owners looked, was now they were being forced to do something.....

    You may not think so, but that in itself, is enough to make some people hate the law
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

Page 95 of 129 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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