• 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

Objective-J said:
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
Click to expand...

Based on the old standard of insurance, insurance covers the majors (rare/expensive diseases), you cover most of the minors.
You can elect to have minors covered, it would be an optional mandate.

Objective-J said:
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
Click to expand...

The prices for mental health care for most people are really affordable.
Counseling and medication, tend to be the most common methods of prescribed treatment.

Institutionalization, could possibly be a mandate, depending on the circumstances.

It's not total optional insurance, but a blend.
If the majors weren't covered, there's no point in having insurance at all.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Based on the old standard of insurance, insurance covers the majors (rare/expensive diseases), you cover most of the minors.
You can elect to have minors covered, it would be an optional mandate.



1.)The prices for mental health care for most people are really affordable.
Counseling and medication, tend to be the most common methods of prescribed treatment.

Institutionalization, could possibly be a mandate, depending on the circumstances.

It's not total optional insurance, but a blend.
2.)If the majors weren't covered, there's no point in having insurance at all.
Click to expand...

1.) but they wouldnt be if they became elective or if 90% of people didnt buy that insurance right?
2.) i agree but isnt that what you said you want, you are made you have to pay for stuff you dont need, or you think you dont need
 
Objective-J said:
1.) but they wouldnt be if they became elective or if 90% of people didnt buy that insurance right?
Click to expand...

I wasn't totally clear.
The blend is what I'm shooting for, I assumed that the majors would be covered, because that's the point of insurance.

The minors for most people would include regular doctors visits, contraceptives, mental health, pregnancy (not complications from pregnancy), etc.
Those I would have an optional mandates, meaning that the insurance provider has to offer them as optional services, for the insurance buyer.

Objective-J said:
2.) i agree but isnt that what you said you want, you are made you have to pay for stuff you dont need, or you think you dont need
Click to expand...

There are some things I can never use, 1 being female birth control and another being substance abuse treatment.
I can't use female birth control and I don't drink alcohol or use drugs.
 
iguanaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I painted myself in no such corner. Note I said generally is not subject to the requirements. For example under Title 7; Unless an employer is an exempt religious organization, the employer is required to reasonably accommodate its employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs in the workplace, unless such an accommodation would impose an undue burden on the employer’s business.

EEOC defines undue burden as: To prove undue hardship, the employer will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption a proposed accommodation would involve. An employer cannot rely on potential or hypothetical hardship when faced with a religious obligation that conflicts with scheduled work, but rather should rely on objective information. A mere assumption that many more people with the same religious practices as the individual being accommodated may also seek accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship.

Now people are fired all the time over their opinions (free speech) at work. Constitution does not apply to private companies.. So if your employer reads what you type on this forum and they don't like it.. you could be fired. Now go sit in a corner with your buddy.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
1.)I wasn't totally clear.
The blend is what I'm shooting for, I assumed that the majors would be covered, because that's the point of insurance.

The minors for most people would include regular doctors visits, contraceptives, mental health, pregnancy (not complications from pregnancy), etc.
Those I would have an optional mandates, meaning that the insurance provider has to offer them as optional services, for the insurance buyer.



There are some things I can never use, 1 being female birth control and another being substance abuse treatment.
I can't use female birth control and I don't drink alcohol or use drugs.
Click to expand...

1.)oooh my mistake maybe i misunderstood also

i can agree with this but im not sure id agree with whats majors and minors but no biggie

2.) i agree but this would be true for many people and many things, you could be one of the people that git instantly addicted to a pain killer? or a 100 other things.

in the case of insurance i just think its best to be pretty inclusive, i think its safer and overall more efficient as far as make sure people are covered and they can afford it.
 
Objective-J said:
1.)oooh my mistake maybe i misunderstood also

i can agree with this but im not sure id agree with whats majors and minors but no biggie
Click to expand...

That's cool.


Objective-J said:
2.) i agree but this would be true for many people and many things, you could be one of the people that git instantly addicted to a pain killer? or a 100 other things.

in the case of insurance i just think its best to be pretty inclusive, i think its safer and overall more efficient as far as make sure people are covered and they can afford it.
Click to expand...

I do have an addictive personality, that's why I refuse all pain meds, except Tylenol or Ibuprofen.
The last time I had surgery, I took none of the pain pills and just dealt with it.

Too much inclusiveness is what jacks prices up.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually what most sane people want is good care at reasonable costs. Providing birth control without a co-pay is simply one way of reducing costs. Data has shown that the costs of pregnancy and childbirth far outweigh the costs of providing the preventative service of contraceptive pills. It also reduces abortions.
A large part of the AHC is aimed at cost control and most of the preventative services are being implemented to REDUCE costs.
Of course being one of the "status quo mongers" you have no interest in cost savings. You love our health care system just the way it is .Twice as expensive as most other western nations with no better care


Providing no cost birth control can reduce unintended pregnancies, abortion rates in women
Click to expand...

The results are that we are still collectively getting worse. That our rates of what I will call "foolsih pregnancies", such as 'kids having kids', and 'out-of-wedlock' babies, keeps rising. Before any contraceptive pills, our rates for such were well less than half what they are now.

Building a bigger nanny state, which is what this government paid-for contraception is, will only expand those at the teat.
 
Objective-J said:
this makes ZERO sense?

in one case you are choosing to ALLOW the government in your bedroom and womb and in the other case government would be FORCING thier way in your bedroom and womb.
THis poster is an epic failure lol, whoever created it has no idea what hypocrisy means.
Click to expand...

You seem to have trouble discerning the difference between "demanding" and "allowing".

Sandra Fuxalot is well-suited to be the poster child for liberal hypocrisy on this issue !
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's cool.




I do have an addictive personality, that's why I refuse all pain meds, except Tylenol or Ibuprofen.
The last time I had surgery, I took none of the pain pills and just dealt with it.

Too much inclusiveness is what jacks prices up.
Click to expand...

I agree but i think too little can do the same for the individuals that want or need coverage

its a thin line and in this ONE instance i think its worth it overall
 
Eighty Deuce said:
You seem to have trouble discerning the difference between "demanding" and "allowing".

Sandra Fuxalot is well-suited to be the poster child for liberal hypocrisy on this issue !
Click to expand...

no not at all because that part is meaningless to the word hypocrisy


yes people are fighting for things to be covered but there would be no force by the government in one case and in the other there would be force


were minorities/women DEMANDING equal rights and and protections but at the same time hypocrites against others freedoms? of course not because that logic is broken and doent fit the definition of hypocrisy.

AGain like the other poster if you disagree by alll means shows us factual proof its hypocrisy.

no clue who Sandra Fuxalot but she is meaningless to the debate that the poster is factually inaccurate and illogical.
 
Oh thats ironic Hobby Lobby

24zbymd.jpg
 
The Man said:
I never heard of Hobby Lobby before this thread, and I still don't know where the merchandise that they sell is made. Do you?
Click to expand...

Yes i do. My mother owns several things from Hobby lobby. Mostly China made products.
 
danarhea said:
I have 2 statements to make here:

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...

Nobody is imposing their religious view on anybody else. If the employees don't like it they can get a job someplace else. Nobody has got a right to be given a job with health insurance. The employer should not be required to violate their conscience. The employer is not "imposing" on the employee in any way by offering only that insurance which it is religiously able to provide. Good for hobby lobby!

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Those fines are illegitimate. This is an infringement of their rights.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Nobody is imposing their religious view on anybody else. If the employees don't like it they can get a job someplace else. Nobody has got a right to be given a job with health insurance. The employer should not be required to violate their conscience. The employer is not "imposing" on the employee in any way by offering only that insurance which it is religiously able to provide. Good for hobby lobby!



Those fines are illegitimate. This is an infringement of their rights.
Click to expand...

It is not the company's right to break the law. No one is above the law.
 
falcata said:
It is not the company's right to break the law. No one is above the law.
Click to expand...

The law is illegitimate. The company is breaking that law in the same way that Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King broke the law.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The law is illegitimate. The company is breaking that law in the same way that Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King broke the law.
Click to expand...

no, by breaking the law they are infringing on their employers rights. The law is legit.
 
Objective-J said:
no, by breaking the law they are infringing on their employers rights. The law is legit.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that Jim Crow laws are "legit" also. You clearly have no problem with apartheid. What a terrible, disgusting point of view you are espousing.
 
Guy Incognito said:
So you are saying that Jim Crow laws are "legit" also. You clearly have no problem with apartheid. What a terrible, disgusting point of view you are espousing.
Click to expand...

nope not at all thats something you made up because you have nothing legitimate, truthful, logical or factual on your side.

Do you have anything relevant to the topic?
 
Guy Incognito said:
The law is illegitimate. The company is breaking that law in the same way that Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King broke the law.
Click to expand...

The law was put into action by congress, and considered constitutional by the Supreme Court. Considered immoral by some yes, but not illegitimte.

The Hobby Lobby in this case is more similar to the bus company that segregated its seats rather than the actual citizens that are inconvienced.

As the supplier of the health insurance if required by law they should have to supply the morning after pill (which for the record isnt at all similar to an aborton in ethics or procedure), it is up to the individual citizen to decide if they wish to use it or not.
 
Guy Incognito said:
So you are saying that Jim Crow laws are "legit" also. You clearly have no problem with apartheid. What a terrible, disgusting point of view you are espousing.
Click to expand...

You need to refrain from accusing him of being such immoral being in such a way.
 
falcata said:
You need to refrain from accusing him of being such immoral being in such a way.
Click to expand...

No worries here, some people arent interested in honesty, truth, facts or tact :shrug:
 
falcata said:
The law was put into action by congress, and considered constitutional by the Supreme Court. Considered immoral by some yes, but not illegitimte.
Click to expand...

No, the constitutional issue here has not yet gotten before the Supreme Court.

The Hobby Lobby in this case is more similar to the bus company that segregated its seats rather than the actual citizens that are inconvienced.
Click to expand...

No, it's Rosa Parks. The employees demanding abortion pills are the bus company.

As the supplier of the health insurance if required by law they should have to supply the morning after pill (which for the record isnt at all similar to an aborton in ethics or procedure), it is up to the individual citizen to decide if they wish to use it or not.
Click to expand...

I imagine you would have supported Jim Crow laws yourself. If not you are advocating a hypocritcal argument, because logically your argument entails support for apartheid or any other law infringing whatever else the government wants to infringe. So either you are advocating a disgusting viewpoint or a hypocritical viewpoint. Take your pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom