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

maquiscat · Dec 31, 2012

Mathematician said:
I'm waiting for Athiest Chick-fil-A employees to start complaining about being closed on Sundays. :roll:

I like that they do that. Not because I am supporting that businesses should be closed on Sundays. I am against blue laws. To me that is freedom in action.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
1.)I think the law should have some protections (against rescission, premium jacking and pre existing conditions) for the insured, but should largely leave a lot of things optional like, mental health, alcohol and drug treatment, etc.

One of the main reasons insurance is so expensive is, because a lot of people have too much coverage and pay little out of pocket (for medical services).

2.)Most of the people who need help with this, would of been helped anyway, via medicaid or were already helped through local departments of health.
Even the medicaid co pays were tiny, in my state (Georgia) medicaid co pays were between $.50 and $2.

3.)Upper and middle income people, are already the most likely to be insured and use birth control.
Lower income women, are the least likely to be insured or use BC.

4.)The point of insurance, is to cover unforeseen events like, cancer, heart attack, stroke, severe accidents, etc.
Covering those things, makes the most sense.

5.)Oh, believe me, I have more than one criticism, in regards to legislation and insurance.
It's against all parties involved, state, federal and lobby groups.

1.) i agree in ways but what about the back end? as far as BC goes or maternity insurance if births go up and they arent aborted dont we end up paying for it anyway? longer and more?
2.) this maybe true but im not sure why this matters, if this is true how much will costs actually go up if the need is so little?

3.)again likely i agree but not an absolutely and also see above, it will get paid for one way or another

<insert group here> is much more likely to do <inset item here>

4.) i agree those should be universal givens but i have no problem with other things being covered especial things that "could" impact other costs to society, abuse, neglect, population, education, crime etc etc etc

5.) well this we definitely agree with

austrianecon · Dec 31, 2012

danarhea said:
Those who practice "religion" are claiming that "contraception", as a morning after pill, is abortion, and is against their religion. That is the reason Hobby Lobby is defying the Supreme Court ruling.

A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment. Now go sit in the corner and think about that.

digsbe · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.) no not really if both are based on SOLELY religious beliefs :shrug:

There is a difference between refusing employment and not extending a benefit. Since the owner has religious freedom as their constitutional right I think it's within that right to not provide benefits that conflict with what they believe.

2.) he is not forced to use BC if he doesnt want to, his rights are intact. Its a public realm, dont like the public realm stay out of it, its really that simply.
how many things could an employer deny based on religious belifs if we let them? where does it stop and who gets to decided what acceptable?

But it's also his business and his money, that money does not belong to the employees nor do they run the business. They work for the business. A private employer should have full freedom to do what they want within the boundaries of the Constitution. I believe the constitution is violated and the religious beliefs of the owner are infringed upon when they are forced to pay for something they think is wrong. If it was the owner somehow forcing employees to not spend their money on BC then that's one thing, but forcing the owner to spend their money on things they think is wrong is religious discrimination.

3.) If that decision is based solely on religion it 100% is because you are discriminated against based on your beliefs vs theirs, the employee will be FORCED to do something above and beyond based on the employors religions beliefs, thats forcing views.

And if their decision was based on a belief that BC is icky does that somehow make it different? Again, the employee is not being forced to do anything, they can do whatever they want with their money. The only thing being forced here is the employer being forced to use their money in a way that violates their religious beliefs.

vendur · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.) no not really if both are based on SOLELY religious beliefs :shrug:

2.) he is not forced to use BC if he doesnt want to, his rights are intact. Its a public realm, dont like the public realm stay out of it, its really that simply.
how many things could an employer deny based on religious belifs if we let them? where does it stop and who gets to decided what acceptable?

What is this "public" nonsense you are babbling about? I'm pretty sure they are a private institution, not a public one.

Objective-J said:
3.) If that decision is based solely on religion it 100% is because you are discriminated against based on your beliefs vs theirs, the employee will be FORCED to do something above and beyond based on the employors religions beliefs, thats forcing views.

The employee isn't forced to do anything. They can find a different employer. Duh.

Harry Guerrilla · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.) i agree in ways but what about the back end? as far as BC goes or maternity insurance if births go up and they arent aborted dont we end up paying for it anyway? longer and more?

My opinion, is that there won't be anymore or less births, than there already were in the groups already covered by insurance.

Objective-J said:
2.) this maybe true but im not sure why this matters, if this is true how much will costs actually go up if the need is so little?

It's shifting the costs from people who paid out of pocket, to all of the insured.
Now the per item, per person cost may be little, but that's the whole problem.

All these little incremental costs add up to, one big cost, the rising premium.

Objective-J said:
3.)again likely i agree but not an absolutely and also see above, it will get paid for one way or another

<insert group here> is much more likely to do <inset item here>

Yea, but they effect the behavior of the individual.
I think health insurance should move back to a life insurance pay out system.
People will want to shop around, ask for prices, etc.

Costs are so high, partially because there is no clear pricing standard and people don't ask.

Objective-J said:
4.) i agree those should be universal givens but i have no problem with other things being covered especial things that "could" impact other costs to society, abuse, neglect, population, education, crime etc etc etc

True.
I just personally hate the idea that, I'm covered for mental health (which I don't need), substance abuse (when I don't drink or use drugs), pregnancy (when it's impossible for me to get pregnant), female birth control (which I can never use), etc.
I don't need any of these things, yet I'm required to have and pay for them.

Objective-J said:
5.) well this we definitely agree with

People really don't understand the amount of legislation, that has altered our health insurance market, it's crazy.

digsbe · Dec 31, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
People really don't understand the amount of legislation, that has altered our health insurance market, it's crazy.

Not only is it crazy, but it's also expensive.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

digsbe said:
1.)There is a difference between refusing employment and not extending a benefit. Since the owner has religious freedom as their constitutional right I think it's within that right to not provide benefits that conflict with what they believe.

But it's also his business and his money, that money does not belong to the employees nor do they run the business. They work for the business. A private employer should have full freedom to do what they want within the boundaries of the Constitution. I believe the constitution is violated and the religious beliefs of the owner are infringed upon when they are forced to pay for something they think is wrong. If it was the owner somehow forcing employees to not spend their money on BC then that's one thing, but forcing the owner to spend their money on things they think is wrong is religious discrimination.

And if their decision was based on a belief that BC is icky does that somehow make it different? Again, the employee is not being forced to do anything, they can do whatever they want with their money. The only thing being forced here is the employer being forced to use their money in a way that violates their religious beliefs.

1.) again not if its solely based on religion, where would YOU draw the line? what if the employers religion didnt want to offer any maternal care to a baby out of wedlock? allow a wife to come to a work party because the boss doesnt view her as a true wife? etc

sorry digs if its admitted to be based on religion or can be proven its discrimination of the employee

2.) so what? its a public business so he has to play by public rules, i agree within the boundaries of constitution and rights etc etc and the supreme courts seems to think they are not :shrug:

its not discrimination as already proven by the examples above, if the owner doesnt want to play by public rules dont open a business.

i dont want to pay for a womans bathroom because my religion views them as lessers? is that ok?
Ill hire them but im not buy extra stuff

3.) yes it 100% does, if they can make up a legit reason that would imply discrimination they would be ok :shrug:
the employee is 100% being forced, the employer is not because they choose to open a public business where NOBODY is allowed to discriminate or violate rights

seems you only support this if it fits your views and not others

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

vendur said:
1.)What is this "public" nonsense you are babbling about? I'm pretty sure they are a private institution, not a public one.

2.)The employee isn't forced to do anything. They can find a different employer. Duh.

1.)yes privately own but a public business so they have to play by public rules, its common sense :shrug:

2.) this is broken logci apply it to an employer not having handicap accessibility or not hiring latins or woman

they cant work else where right?

tell me that duh line again because its wrong.

iguanaman · Dec 31, 2012

austrianecon said:
A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment. Now go sit in the corner and think about that.

You need to get out of that corner you painted yourself into.
Religious Discrimination is as illegal as any other type of discrimination and private companies are not immune from prosecution for it.

apdst · Dec 31, 2012

danarhea said:
No, they DON'T have the right to refuse it. It is LAW, so far upheld by the Supreme Court, although this case is going to be on the docket later this year.

It isn't just their right, but also their patritoic duty as Americans to defy any law that not only violate the Constitution, but the basic principles that this great nation was founded on.

I can't wait to see the government wet it's pants when large corporations like Hobby Lobby splinter into hundreds of individual 49 person corporations, making them totally immune from ANY of the requirements of Obamacare. That's going to be hillarious!

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
1.)My opinion, is that there won't be anymore or less births, than there already were in the groups already covered by insurance.

2.)It's shifting the costs from people who paid out of pocket, to all of the insured.
Now the per item, per person cost may be little, but that's the whole problem.

All these little incremental costs add up to, one big cost, the rising premium.

3.)Yea, but they effect the behavior of the individual.
I think health insurance should move back to a life insurance pay out system.
People will want to shop around, ask for prices, etc.

Costs are so high, partially because there is no clear pricing standard and people don't ask.

True.
I just personally hate the idea that, I'm covered for mental health (which I don't need), substance abuse (when I don't drink or use drugs), pregnancy (when it's impossible for me to get pregnant), female birth control (which I can never use), etc.
I don't need any of these things, yet I'm required to have and pay for them.

People really don't understand the amount of legislation, that has altered our health insurance market, it's crazy.

1.) this may be very true, i dont agree but you could be right but thats not a good reason to not insure it.
2.) I agree costs do add up but again vs all the other costs? i dont see the trade off or benefit of not covering it in this case, thats just my opinion but im just saying
3.) well i agree it be awesome if there was a shop around ability, that be great create a REAL competition and REAL standards
4.) but one day you might (mental health) isnt that what insurance is for?

and again if everything was a check list i think that would make it worse not better unless we even had more regulation of the insurance companies because in the end you would STILL pay for stuff.

what would happen is 90% of americans didnt pay for mental health and the only way to offer that insurance to the 10% that wanted it was to make it coast 2K a month?

now what? **** em?

no matter what the costs are going to be spread out thats the only way the system works.

wouldn't your system just make the things that people held little value you in crazy expensive and they simply get screwed?

vendur · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.)yes privately own but a public business so they have to play by public rules, its common sense :shrug:

AKA You don't know the difference between public and private. Well that explains your confusion and rambling posts that don't seem to make any logical sense whatsoever, at least.

Objective-J said:
2.) this is broken logci apply it to an employer not having handicap accessibility or not hiring latins or woman

No. There are specifics laws that have been enacted regarding things like racial/sexual/disability discrimination. None of them force employers to provide birth control to their employees.

apdst · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.)yes privately own but a public business so they have to play by public rules, its common sense :shrug:

You didn't really post that. Right?

2.) this is broken logci apply it to an employer not having handicap accessibility or not hiring latins or woman

they cant work else where right?

tell me that duh line again because its wrong.

Those laws are stupid, too.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

vendur said:
1.)AKA You don't know the difference between public and private. Well that explains your confusion and rambling posts that don't seem to make any logical sense whatsoever, at least.

No. There are specifics laws that have been enacted regarding things like racial/sexual/disability discrimination. None of them force employers to provide birth control to their employees.

1.) wrong again, they are privately own and they operate on PUBLIC rules aka the constitution
2.) yes you are right and the supreme court decided this is also discrimination :shrug: thanks LMAO

if you disagree plese show me where they do not have to play by public rules, thanks

Harry Guerrilla · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.) this may be very true, i dont agree but you could be right but thats not a good reason to not insure it.

It's a good reason to not mandate it.
Having it as an optional mandate, no problem for me.

Objective-J said:
2.) I agree costs do add up but again vs all the other costs? i dont see the trade off or benefit of not covering it in this case, thats just my opinion but im just saying

What I'm getting at is, there likely isn't much, if any benefit of covering BC, at least not like this.
Birth control is pretty cheap for the individual, Orthotricyclen is about $30 a month retail.

Objective-J said:
3.) well i agree it be awesome if there was a shop around ability, that be great create a REAL competition and REAL standards

That's largely what I want.

Objective-J said:
4.) but one day you might (mental health) isnt that what insurance is for?

and again if everything was a check list i think that would make it worse not better unless we even had more regulation of the insurance companies because in the end you would STILL pay for stuff.

now what? **** em?

what would happen is 90% of americans didnt pay for mental health and the only way to offer that insurance to the 10% that wanted it was to make it coast 2K a month?

I'd pay out of pocket, I assume the greater risk and put cash away for future health expenses.
Plus, at least for me personally, I have supplemental plans for my regular insurance policy, that pay cash.

Mental health care, is probably the one, that's pretty affordable uninsured.
With the exception of institutionalization, but most plans limit that a lot already.

Objective-J said:
no matter what the costs are going to be spread out thats the only way the system works.

wouldn't your system just make the things that people held little value you in crazy expensive and they simply get screwed?

It's supposed to spread the costs to a specific risk group.
Constantly broadening the risk group, may temporarily lower prices, but in the future, could cause them to increase, especially if you broaden benefits.
Without a good cost sharing system, costs go up and away.

I don't believe it would.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

apdst said:
1.)You didn't really post that. Right?

2.)Those laws are stupid, too.

1.)sure did because its true :shrug:
constitution and discrimination laws etc are public rules, this is common sense and a fact
2.) you are free to have that opinion but they are the law :shrug:

i like the idea of my government protecting people from discriminaiton

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
1.)It's a good reason to not mandate it.
Having it as an optional mandate, no problem for me.

2.)What I'm getting at is, there likely isn't much, if any benefit of covering BC, at least not like this.
Birth control is pretty cheap for the individual, Orthotricyclen is about $30 a month retail.

3.)I'd pay out of pocket, I assume the greater risk and put cash away for future health expenses.
Plus, at least for me personally, I have supplemental plans for my regular insurance policy, that pay cash.

Mental health care, is probably the one, that's pretty affordable uninsured.
With the exception of institutionalization, but most plans limit that a lot already.

4.)It's supposed to spread the costs to a specific risk group.
Constantly broadening the risk group, may temporarily lower prices, but in the future, could cause them to increase, especially if you broaden benefits.
Without a good cost sharing system, costs go up and away.

I don't believe it would.

1.) i may agree with this but in this case im ok with because of the opinion i have of saving it "might" provide, but i could be admittedly I could be wrong about those savings
2.) for me 30$ a month isnt a big deal, i cant speak for everyone else

also thats if that women can actually use that type of BC

3.) how would you know you are going to need this mental health care to put away for it?????
how many people can afford to do what you are doing?

when i was in between jobs i shopped around for health care the cheapest i could get that actually offered protection (and it still sucked) for me and my daughter was 585 a month.

4.) I agree cost are going to get spread and go up no matter what but in your system i see a possible of health providers of simply not carrying things or the cost skyrocketing in that one group. I wouldnt want that.

Harry Guerrilla · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.) i may agree with this but in this case im ok with because of the opinion i have of saving it "might" provide, but i could be admittedly I could be wrong about those savings

Once it makes it to the legislative process, we need to be certain, it will be more cost efficient.

Objective-J said:
2.) for me 30$ a month isnt a big deal, i cant speak for everyone else

also thats if that women can actually use that type of BC

That's true, but when you look at most individuals/families costs of living, it's marginal at best.
The most expensive birth control, besides sterilization is the IUD, which is around $1000, iirc.
It's effective for 5 years.

That's more cost effective, but has a higher, up front price.

Objective-J said:
3.) how would you know you are going to need this mental health care to put away for it?????
how many people can afford to do what you are doing?

I don't, that why I save for it.
I put away $10 a week, sometimes surpluses from working overtime.
My company puts in $500 a year, to encourage me to use that plan, plus I get a lower premium.

Now I'm covered for limited mental services, but my plan has a high deductible and overall larger cost sharing, except for the most expensive medical stuff (cancer, heart attack, etc.)

Over all, it's partial self insurance on my part.
It's tax deductible too.

If you start young, it's not a problem for most people.

Objective-J said:
when i was in between jobs i shopped around for health care the cheapest i could get that actually offered protection (and it still sucked) for me and my daughter was 585 a month.

If we made revisions to the PPACA, you would be covered by Medicaid, until you became employed again.

Objective-J said:
4.) I agree cost are going to get spread and go up no matter what but in your system i see a possible of health providers of simply not carrying things or the cost skyrocketing in that one group. I wouldnt want that.

Of course, that can largely be offset by keeping and (some what) broadening government medical coverage for people with incurable, lifelong and costly diseases.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
1.)Once it makes it to the legislative process, we need to be certain, it will be more cost efficient.

2.)That's true, but when you look at most individuals/families costs of living, it's marginal at best.
The most expensive birth control, besides sterilization is the IUD, which is around $1000, iirc.
It's effective for 5 years.

That's more cost effective, but has a higher, up front price.

3.)I don't, that why I save for it.
I put away $10 a week, sometimes surpluses from working overtime.
My company puts in $500 a year, to encourage me to use that plan, plus I get a lower premium.

Now I'm covered for limited mental services, but my plan has a high deductible and overall larger cost sharing, except for the most expensive medical stuff (cancer, heart attack, etc.)

Over all, it's partial self insurance on my part.
It's tax deductible too.

If you start young, it's not a problem for most people.

4.)If we made revisions to the PPACA, you would be covered by Medicaid, until you became employed again.

Of course, that can largely be offset by keeping and (some what) broadening government medical coverage for people with incurable, lifelong and costly diseases.

1.) i agree but we can only dream that government works this way one day

2.) well just saying 30$ or more a month could be out of the range of people, especially we are talking about lower income according to you
3.) so you suggest that people just save for all the things that might go wrong with them? again who can do this?
and this is based on you GUESSING you know what it might cost a person

im sorry but i think thats unrealistic when talking about elective healthcare, ok you save for mental health but not degenerative spinal disorder? now what? or not some rare eye tumor not covered? now what?

4.) that be great but i was just pointing out the cost that are in place now and how its unrealistic to think people can just cover themselves

5.) agreed but basically you want lots of changes (i do to) but im not going to attack this without other changes being made first.

i do like some of your suggestion though for sure and i have them myself.

apdst · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.)sure did because its true :shrug:
constitution and discrimination laws etc are public rules, this is common sense and a fact
2.) you are free to have that opinion but they are the law :shrug:

i like the idea of my government protecting people from discriminaiton

You don't know what "public company" means. Do you?

I like the idea of the government protecting everyone from racial descrimination, however racial quotas are stupid.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

apdst said:
1.)You don't know what "public company" means. Do you?

I like the idea of the government protecting everyone from racial discrimination, however racial quotas are stupid.

1.)yep i do and good thin i never called it a public company i said public realm, public rules, public business practice etc.
but either way this changes NOTHING i said or makes it inaccurate, they do in fact have to play by public rules whether they are privately owned or not :shrug:

2.) good thing quotas are illegal then and not law

Harry Guerrilla · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.) i agree but we can only dream that government works this way one day

Yea I doubt any of this will happen in my lifetime or that of my kids/future grand kids.

Objective-J said:
2.) well just saying 30$ or more a month could be out of the range of people, especially we are talking about lower income according to you

Lower income people will be covered by Medicaid, so it's no worry for them.

Objective-J said:
3.) so you suggest that people just save for all the things that might go wrong with them? again who can do this?
and this is based on you GUESSING you know what it might cost a person

im sorry but i think thats unrealistic when talking about elective healthcare, ok you save for mental health but not degenerative spinal disorder? now what? or not some rare eye tumor not covered? now what?

Not at all, insurance still exists.
You save for the common stuff, like basic meds, regular visits and some of the other cost sharing things.

Insurance would still exist to cover the major stuff (degenerative spinal disorders, cancer, etc.)

Objective-J said:
4.) that be great but i was just pointing out the cost that are in place now and how its unrealistic to think people can just cover themselves

Not in total, no.
People would pay for the minor stuff, insurance pays for the major.

Objective-J said:
5.) agreed but basically you want lots of changes (i do to) but im not going to attack this without other changes being made first.

i do like some of your suggestion though for sure and i have them myself.

Some already exist like (Medicaid for poor people, at least starting this year, iirc) others need to be revised, like optional mandates.

apdst · Dec 31, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.)yep i do and good thin i never called it a public company i said public realm, public rules, public business practice etc.
but either way this changes NOTHING i said or makes it inaccurate, they do in fact have to play by public rules whether they are privately owned or not :shrug:

Now you're learning. :rofl

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea I doubt any of this will happen in my lifetime or that of my kids/future grand kids.

Lower income people will be covered by Medicaid, so it's no worry for them.

1.)Not at all, insurance still exists.
You save for the common stuff, like basic meds, regular visits and some of the other cost sharing things.

Insurance would still exist to cover the major stuff (degenerative spinal disorders, cancer, etc.)

2.)Not in total, no.
People would pay for the minor stuff, insurance pays for the major.

Some already exist like (Medicaid for poor people, at least starting this year, iirc) others need to be revised, like optional mandates.

1.) in the system we've been talking about a person like yourself may choose not to pay for mental health or rare eye cancer or insurance companies could drop this coverage because they cant afforded it, how to you cover people and not spread it out.

2.)again not in the system you want, not everybody paying for stuff they dont want, so by default to be covered everybody would have to pay for it all or buy extra to pay for the other big stuff

what im addressing is what you want, if you dont pay for mental health and those costs arent passed to you anyway that means the people that want that have to pay crazy prices

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

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

austrianecon

digsbe

Truth will set you free

vendur

Harry Guerrilla

digsbe

Truth will set you free

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

iguanaman

apdst

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

vendur

apdst

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Harry Guerrilla

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Harry Guerrilla

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

apdst

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Harry Guerrilla

apdst

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"