(CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees, ending its term with a narrow legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.
The owners of Hobby Lobby, furniture maker Conestoga Wood Specialties and Christian bookseller Mardel argued that the Affordable Care Act violates the First Amendment and other federal laws protecting religious freedom because it requires them to provide coverage for contraceptives like the "morning-after pill," which the companies consider tantamount to abortion.
The decision, which comes two years after the justices narrowly preserved the Affordable Care Act and its key funding provision, could serve as a primer for other pending challenges to the health law.
The issue before the justices was whether Obamacare can mandate contraception coverage specifically for certain businesses that object for religious reasons.
"This case isn't that practically important, except for the employees and businesses involved. There just aren't a huge number of those," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a Washington appellate attorney.
"But everyone can agree the social questions presented -- about when people can follow their religious convictions, and when people are entitled to contraception care -- are truly important," he said.
Contraception mandate
The section of law in dispute requires for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay.
A number of companies equate some of the covered drugs, such as the so-called "morning-after" pill, as causing abortion.
The specific question presented was whether these companies can refuse, on the sincere claim it would violate their owners' long-established moral beliefs.
The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
"How does a corporation exercise religion?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor at March's oral arguments, summarizing perhaps the key constitutional question at hand.
"This is a religious question and it's a moral question," added Justice Samuel Alito, suggesting the businesses have such a right. "You want us to provide a definitive secular answer."
Conestoga, Hobby Lobby
The justices have a good deal of discretion to frame the competing issues and could reach a limited "compromise" through narrow statutory interpretation.
They could conclude individual owners can make the religious freedom claim, bypassing the corporate rights argument, but still give female workers the flexibility to get covered drugs. The court weighed two related appeals from Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinet maker, and Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based retail giant that will have more than 700 arts-and-crafts stores nationwide by year's end.
Both corporations emphasized their desire to operate in harmony with biblical principles while competing in a secular marketplace. That includes their leaders' publicly stated opposition to abortion.
The case presented a complex mix of legal, regulatory, and constitutional concerns over such thorny issues as faith, abortion, corporate power, executive agency discretion, and congressional intent.
Health law impact
The political stakes are large, especially for the future effectiveness of the health law, which marks its fourth anniversary this year.
The botched rollout last fall of HealthCare.gov, the federal Obamacare website, has become another political flashpoint along with other issues that many Republicans say proves the law is unworkable.
They have made Obamacare a key campaign issue in their fight to overtake the Senate, and retain control of the House.
Supporters of the law fear a high court setback on the contraception mandate will lead to other healthcare challenges on religion grounds, such as do-not-resuscitate orders and vaccine coverage. More broadly, many worry giving corporations religious freedom rights could affect laws on employment, safety, and civil rights.
The abortion link
The Hahn family, owners of Conestoga, and the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, said some of the mandated contraception prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman's womb, which the plaintiffs equate with abortion.
That includes Plan B contraception, which some have called the "morning after" pill, and intrauterine devices or IUDs used by an estimated 2 million American women.
A key issue for the bench was interpreting a 1993 federal law requiring the government to seek the "least burdensome" and narrowly tailored means for any law that interferes with religious convictions.
Monday's decision comes two years after the justices allowed the law's "individual mandate" to go into effect.
That provision requires most Americans to get health insurance or pay a financial penalty. It is seen as the key funding mechanism to ensure near-universal health coverage.
Under the Affordable Care Act, financial penalties of up to $100 per day, per employee can be levied on firms that refuse to provide comprehensive health coverage. Hobby Lobby, which has about 13,000 workers, estimates the penalty could cost it $475 million a year. The church-state issue now in the spotlight involves rules negotiated between the Obama administration and various outside groups. Under the changes, churches and houses of worship are completely exempt from the contraception mandate.
Other nonprofit, religiously affiliated groups, such as church-run hospitals, parochial schools and charities must either offer coverage or have a third-party insurer provide separate benefits without the employer's direct involvement. Lawsuits in those cases are pending in several federal appeals courts.
Second generation
Monday's decision could signal how the court will approach other lawsuits against the health care law.
"We're now getting the second generation of challenges to Obamacare-- about the actual adoption of the statute, and its core provisions," said Goldstein. "We're probably going to see cases over the next five to ten years, as more and more details about the law get put into effect."
I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
I'm in the fence about it. I see both sides of the issue.
I know steady jobs are harder and harder to come by, but if your employer makes their health care plan decisions based on a book of fairy tales, maybe it's not the right place for you.
Your thread title remains extremely misleading, YTown...
Quote: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees
Big corporations which are publicly traded still must abide by the mandate.
Further discrimination against same-sex couples remains protected. This legislation will not allow small family corporations to refuse benefits against same-sex couples.
Why should everything be paid for by the employer?
At one point, insurance paid for the most devastating of medical bills. It covered the bills that would ruin a person financially.
However, generic birth control pills cost between $15-$20/month, and some can be had for a 3 month prescription for as low as $25. Planned Parenthood typically either sells them for less, or even gives them away. .
Many insurance companies have a $25 co-pay, and require the use of generic drugs where available.
How is this some truly devastating expense for women?
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
I have to agree with YTown. Why would it be up to the Company to provide birth control? That's a very personal decision and is best left up to the person. Why do some people think the Company owes them a living, when in reality, the Company is providing them with a living? You want the Company to live their life to?
Looks to me like they wanted single payer all along ( 1 plan , govt run ) .. Corp and Company's will get out of health insurance all together and the Left gets want it wants .. Of course the vast/vast/vast majority of Folks will be in the Fed Govt. Health system , Joy and good tidings !
Quote: Looks to me like they wanted single payer all along ( 1 plan , govt run ) .. Corp and Company's will get out of health insurance all together and the Left gets want it wants .. Of course the vast/vast/vast majority of Folks will be in the Fed Govt. Health system , Joy and good tidings !
I think company insurance will become a perk for those industries where benefits help entice the best of the best. In the end, it's the low wage,unskilled and blue collar workers who will end up on the ACA roles.
There are still so many people who don't seem to understand that it is not "free".
yea its left up to the person, but i dont see why they can't have it in their plan . some of the healthcare cost is being taken out of their paycheck regardless.
you're reaching. you want to say "you want the company to live their lives, too?", and then support this? this ruling supports the decision of some companies on how they want there employees to live their lives: like bible thumpers.
once again, i don't see the problem with it. the less women getting "accidently" pregnant, ranging from one night stands to rape, the less of a tax burden overall it us for the rest of us.
but i dunno, some of you guys opinions makes me think y'all liked that one dude, who said "a woman's body shuts down during a rape, and is incapable of being pregnant".
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
Why should women be treated differently than anyone else?
And this isn't actually about contraceptives. It was about abortifacient drugs, namely the drugs commonly referred to as the 'morning after pill' and it applies only to privately held companies.
What it does do, however, is lay the groundwork for individuals to opt out of having to pay for this - even if they are employed by a public company which is required to offer it under the federal law.
I wonder if Bart Stupak feels vindicated in any way? He shouldn't, but he might.
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
Why should women be treated differently than anyone else?
And this isn't actually about contraceptives. It was about abortifacient drugs, namely the drugs commonly referred to as the 'morning after pill' and it applies only to privately held companies.
What it does do, however, is lay the groundwork for individuals to opt out of having to pay for this - even if they are employed by a public company which is required to offer it under the federal law.
I wonder if Bart Stupak feels vindicated in any way? He shouldn't, but he might.
because guys can't get pregnant. look, i see the issue with both sides, but i already picked my side, especially since i have personal experience of it.
i still have to pay healthcare in the military, it comes out of my check i can't even see it, but part of that is birth control for my wife. lets say Tri-Care decided to take it out my paycheck straight up so i never see it. thats what, 30 a month?
compared to how much it will cost to raise another kid neither me and my wife wants? just because i have a bible thumping boss?
i think it should be included in healthcare cost. if you want to make the woman pay a bit extra for it, fine. but let it be included in the plan, that way she can go the pharmacy and pick up up whenever she needs to, instead of coming out of pocket, because she might be broke one day.
Quote: yea its left up to the person, but i dont see why they can't have it in their plan . some of the healthcare cost is being taken out of their paycheck regardless.
Exactly!!! This is why I should be able to choose my own level of health care. I don't need contraceptive coverage, no matter the size of the company. I will not have any more kids. I also don't need maternity, port wine stain, or any other coverage that goes with pregnancy, birth, or child care. All my kids are almost legal adults. All I need is maintenance care and catastrophic care, but due to obamacare and mandates I have to add all this extra crap, raising my insurance rates. I know what I need, but the government says I have to have everything else too.
Quote: yea its left up to the person, but i dont see why they can't have it in their plan . some of the healthcare cost is being taken out of their paycheck regardless.
Exactly!!! This is why I should be able to choose my own level of health care. I don't need contraceptive coverage, no matter the size of the company. I will not have any more kids. I also don't need maternity, port wine stain, or any other coverage that goes with pregnancy, birth, or child care. All my kids are almost legal adults. All I need is maintenance care and catastrophic care, but due to obamacare and mandates I have to add all this extra crap, raising my insurance rates. I know what I need, but the government says I have to have everything else too.
and thats part of the ACA i don't agree with. yea, why do you have all that when you don't even need it? and its not even "might need it one day" thing.
but thats just it. the ACA is a work in progress. NOTHING comes out the gate working perfectly when it comes to big programs, it takes years to make it work. i'm sure we will be able to select the type of coverage we need one day.
but right now, we need to be taking care of the women.
And neither can women without men. Has artificial sperm been created?
Your argument is ridiculous! Thank God folks like you don't get to decide these things. You'd have us mimicking the Soviet Union under Stalin's murderous reign.
I suggest that you find out what you're paying for with your insurance. You don't like your 'bible-thumping boss'? You're free to quit your job and not work for your employer and find one that thumps whatever book you want them to thump.
Personally, I find people that want this and expect everyone to submit to your whims offensive. Can we ban you?
Exactly!!! This is why I should be able to choose my own level of health care. I don't need contraceptive coverage, no matter the size of the company. I will not have any more kids. I also don't need maternity, port wine stain, or any other coverage that goes with pregnancy, birth, or child care. All my kids are almost legal adults. All I need is maintenance care and catastrophic care, but due to obamacare and mandates I have to add all this extra crap, raising my insurance rates. I know what I need, but the government says I have to have everything else too.
I don’t understand are you saying that you used to have health care insurance that let you pick only the items that you wanted and it reduced your rate? For example, cover me for a heart issues and colon cancer, but opt me out for lung cancer (because I don’t smoke) and maternity stuff (because I have children).
I never had or heard of an issuance where I could pick specific items I want.
Quote: And neither can women without men. Has artificial sperm been created?
Your argument is ridiculous! Thank God folks like you don't get to decide these things. You'd have us mimicking the Soviet Union under Stalin's murderous reign.
I suggest that you find out what you're paying for with your insurance. You don't like your 'bible-thumping boss'? You're free to quit your job and not work for your employer and find one that thumps whatever book you want them to thump.
Personally, I find people that want this and expect everyone to submit to your whims offensive. Can we ban you?
that went south real quick....thats how you debate?
Exactly!!! This is why I should be able to choose my own level of health care. I don't need contraceptive coverage, no matter the size of the company. I will not have any more kids. I also don't need maternity, port wine stain, or any other coverage that goes with pregnancy, birth, or child care. All my kids are almost legal adults. All I need is maintenance care and catastrophic care, but due to obamacare and mandates I have to add all this extra crap, raising my insurance rates. I know what I need, but the government says I have to have everything else too.
I don’t understand are you saying that you used to have health care insurance that let you pick only the items that you wanted and it reduced your rate? For example, cover me for a heart issues and colon cancer, but opt me out for lung cancer (because I don’t smoke) and maternity stuff (because I have children).
I never had or heard of an issuance where I could pick specific items I want.
you can sort of do that with car insurance already.
Quote: I don’t understand are you saying that you used to have health care insurance that let you pick only the items that you wanted and it reduced your rate? For example, cover me for a heart issues and colon cancer, but opt me out for lung cancer (because I don’t smoke) and maternity stuff (because I have children).
I never had or heard of an issuance where I could pick specific items I want.
As I said, I am at a place right now where I need maintenance (checkups, maintenance drugs like high blood pressure, and general services if something changes, sickness) and catastrophic care (cancer, accident, heart attack, things that require hospitalization). Right now, I am paying for maternity, birth defects, contraception, and other things I don't need. Some of these have been required by states and now the feds. My point is, I should be able to tailor my health insurance much like I do my auto insurance, even if I choose not to have it. If I don't have it, I get screwed. If I become a billionaire, why do I need insurance or have to pay a fine?
As for the auto insurance comparison, do I need comprehensive coverage if I'm driving a 10 year old car that's paid for? I can live with liability. I can always choose comprehensive, and I can also set my levels of coverage. I can purchase from any state (which I can't do with health insurance), and I can shop around with many companies. I don't get that with insurance that's mandated.
Most health insurance plans pay only, or more, for generic drugs.
My insurance, for example, will not pay for name brand drugs if any generic alternative is available. My doctor prescribed Neurontin, but I can only get the generic Gabapentin. I have Glucophage prescribed for diabetes, but can only get Metformin. I have other medications that my doctor does not feel are as effective in generic form ..... one of which I must take after food only because it loses effectiveness otherwise, while the name brand has no such issues.
However, if I want to buy the name brand drugs, I can. If I choose to do so, I have to pay 100% of the cost. The insurance will not pay for any of it.
Why should birth control be any different? Many generic birth control drugs can be purchased at many major drug store chains at a ridiculously low cost ......even below the $25 co-pay many insurance companies require.
Just doing a quick search, Giant Eagle charges $24 for a 90 day supply of Clomid (generic) Rite Aid allows for select generic oral contraceptives for $19.99.
Again, so how are women helped, or harmed, by the inclusion or exclusion of birth control coverage on their health insurance?
Further, many drug manufacturers offer assistance for people who cannot afford their prescriptions. I know this for a fact. I had a $300/month medication when I did not have insurance. The company had a program, and I got my medication for free. For women, there is also planned parenthood.
This whole birth control issue is one of trying to force society in a specific direction, and forcing those with religious beliefs to be forced to set aside those beliefs. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a couple using birth control to manage the size of their family. However, others do have a problem with it, and as an employer do not want to be forced into paying for something they disagree with on moral grounds. If an employee does not agree with their stand on this issue, they are perfectly free to find a different job. I know that it is not an easy task to find a job these days, but that really is the decision.
Quote: This whole birth control issue is one of trying to force society in a specific direction, and forcing those with religious beliefs to be forced to set aside those beliefs
As it should be.
You should have your religious freedoms, but the society as a whole shouldn't have to cater to such delusions.
Our laws should be based on logic and rationality.
Laws should not trample on the right to religious freedom either.
A person with a moral objection to something like this should not be forced into participating, any more than a doctor with a moral objection to abortion should be forced to perform one.
Quote: Laws should not trample on the right to religious freedom either.
A person with a moral objection to something like this should not be forced into participating, any more than a doctor with a moral objection to abortion should be forced to perform one.
How is public companies offering contraception coverage is trampling the rights of religious freedom?
You're not being forced to take contraceptives. It's just there for those who want it.
This is similar to the gay marriage debate. The religious aren't being affected, but the religious want to cry because they're not being included in the big picture decision making, and they shouldn't. They should be free to their beliefs, but their beliefs shouldn't be considered when forming laws.
Where you able to tailor your health insurance in the past? Let’s say when you had your children, did you keep pregnancy coverage but opt out of prostate cancer? (because usually prostate cancer is when your older)
We've had this same song and dance in Arizona with those who identify as LGBT being denied business. Even Brewer, a governor with head scratching decisions; she realized this path leads nothing to intolerance, hate, and trampling on the rights of all Americans.
If a religion believed a race was evil, unworthy of their service, and such things then, by your definition, it would be illegal to serve them. The courts already ruled segregation was unconstitutional...
Quote: How is public companies offering contraception coverage is trampling the rights of religious freedom?
You're not being forced to take contraceptives. It's just there for those who want it.
The big issue here (as brought out in the article) is the 'morning-after' pill. I do not believe you should force privately held companies (which essentially means an ownership group) to pay for what they believe to be murder.
They are not stopping their employees from going out and buying this pill themselves, but there is absolutely no way that they should be forced to pay for it.
Quote: How is public companies offering contraception coverage is trampling the rights of religious freedom?
You're not being forced to take contraceptives. It's just there for those who want it.
The big issue here (as brought out in the article) is the 'morning-after' pill. I do not believe you should force privately held companies (which essentially means an ownership group) to pay for what they believe to be murder.
They are not stopping their employees from going out and buying this pill themselves, but there is absolutely no way that they should be forced to pay for it.
And I agree.
I've said I agree with the ruling. It lets private companies hold their beliefs, but doesn't force it on the public.
While I do believe there should be some minimum standard guidelines regarding health care, and I do believe birth control should be included in this, the SCOTUS has ruled.
So now the working poor will probably have a higher birth rate and the very same people who stood up for this, can continue to complain about the rising cost of social programs.
The morning after pill is a different matter. I believe religious organizations should be able to opt out of that. But that really wasn't their only goal here.
Quote: How is public companies offering contraception coverage is trampling the rights of religious freedom?
You're not being forced to take contraceptives. It's just there for those who want it.
The big issue here (as brought out in the article) is the 'morning-after' pill. I do not believe you should force privately held companies (which essentially means an ownership group) to pay for what they believe to be murder.
They are not stopping their employees from going out and buying this pill themselves, but there is absolutely no way that they should be forced to pay for it.
And I agree.
I've said I agree with the ruling. It lets private companies hold their beliefs, but doesn't force it on the public.
went back through the thread. you mentioned 'fairy tales', 'delusions', and 'gay marriage' but never that you agreed with the ruling until this post. glad that you do.
also, there is valid scientific reasoning & logic to stating that life begins when sperm enters the egg. you may disagree with it, but there has to be a line somewhere to determine where life begins (something SCOTUS seems to want no part of in a discussion for obvious reasons).
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
How does it take away from an employee's first amendment rights? I'm just trying to follow your train of thought.
Yeah, I had a response to Rocket Optimist in which I said the clarifications he pointed out kind of took me off the fence...just noticed it open in another tab, and hadn't sent it.
But I will stand by the other stuff...I'm really tired of the religious wanting laws to based on an ancient book of fairy tales where a snake tells people to do bad things, a virgin gives birth, a man rises from the dead, etc., and act like persecution when they're not.
They're free to have their beliefs, but don't expect a seat at the adult table when it comes to societal law and policy.
As a nation, we've catered to such nonsense for too long, and frankly I'm glad we're moving away from it.
Quote: While I do believe there should be some minimum standard guidelines regarding health care, and I do believe birth control should be included in this, the SCOTUS has ruled.
Once again, I'm about 50, and I will not be having any more kids. Why should I be mandated to pay birth control in any way, shape, or form?
Why not just make it an option that the insured can opt in for at an extra cost. While maintaining the same primary cost to the company.
(Of course the overall costs will be spread out so everyone is actually paying a little bit for everything for everyone, but in technical terms to the company, they are not paying)
Just like if I want dental insurance, I get pay extra, if I want vision insurance I pay extra, if I want accident insurance I pay extra. It's all available to me through our company plan, but they are not part of the primary product, they are add-ons paid for by me.
Quote: While I do believe there should be some minimum standard guidelines regarding health care, and I do believe birth control should be included in this, the SCOTUS has ruled.
Once again, I'm about 50, and I will not be having any more kids. Why should I be mandated to pay birth control in any way, shape, or form?
I agree with the birth control mandate but not for the reason you mention. If you take that logic to its end, you would have everyone paying ala carte for their services. I could say I dont need to help pay for STD testing because I don't sleep around or I don't need to help pay for ultrasound testing because I'm not a woman.
Most agree that medical care is outright expensive, and for most of the country, if they got the bad dice roll and got something like diabetes or cancer, then simply put they will need more care than someone who is healthy. And I have no problem with throwing in my 2 cents for subsidized health care so that if I'm 50 and get something terrible, I'm not stuck to just die from it.
I don't agree with subsidizing birth control because it's readily available and a commodity, but that's a general failure of the ACA bill to me, not a religious issue.
Quote: I agree with the birth control mandate but not for the reason you mention. If you take that logic to its end, you would have everyone paying ala carte for their services. I could say I dont need to help pay for STD testing because I don't sleep around or I don't need to help pay for ultrasound testing because I'm not a woman.
Most agree that medical care is outright expensive, and for most of the country, if they got the bad dice roll and got something like diabetes or cancer, then simply put they will need more care than someone who is healthy. And I have no problem with throwing in my 2 cents for subsidized health care so that if I'm 50 and get something terrible, I'm not stuck to just die from it.
I don't agree with subsidizing birth control because it's readily available and a commodity, but that's a general failure of the ACA bill to me, not a religious issue.
Once again, I can assure you I don't need maternity care of any kind. Why should I pay for that? Maternity care is quite expensive, as are births. If I decide not to have that in my plan, I guess I have to pay out of pocket. If a person decides to save all the money on kids at an early age, and has themselves sterilized, or if they are born sterile, why should they pay? If I can package a plan tailored to me, both by knowing my family history and from my own past medical history, why should I not be able to save as much money as I can. As I said before, a general wellness plan, and a catastrophic plan, should be what most people need. If I can buy that on the free market, it should be rather cheap.
However, generic birth control pills cost between $15-$20/month, and some can be had for a 3 month prescription for as low as $25. Planned Parenthood typically either sells them for less, or even gives them away. .
Planned Parenthood is facing horrible deficits due to abortion laws destroying their funding. It's truly a shame for people to have their life dictated by some congressman who doesn't understand the issue.
Quote: Why not just make it an option that the insured can opt in for at an extra cost. While maintaining the same primary cost to the company.
(Of course the overall costs will be spread out so everyone is actually paying a little bit for everything for everyone, but in technical terms to the company, they are not paying)
Just like if I want dental insurance, I get pay extra, if I want vision insurance I pay extra, if I want accident insurance I pay extra. It's all available to me through our company plan, but they are not part of the primary product, they are add-ons paid for by me.
My point was more that it should be an option or required in all health insurance policies as one of the minimum requirements for health care. Under your scenario it would be an option. I really don't see a problem with that.
And one thing I've heard, but haven't seen, is that such programs cost more. If I were a health insurance company, I believe it would be far cheaper to provide birth control coverage. With the cost of pregnancies and child birth, I believe it would most certainly be cheaper to provide the birth control and keep pregnancies lower.
The real question from what I've seen, is that religious businesses, not just Churches, wish to refuse this coverage on religious moral grounds. Places such as Hobby Lobby. The wages here would be low enough to make it hard for employees to be able to afford it and it just seems this is helping to inflict the religious views of the employer upon the employees.
While it's an opinion that I do not agree with, there are people that do hold such an opinion. I don't see anything wrong with you stating your opinion and I wouldn't want people to object to me stating mine.
Quote: Laws should not trample on the right to religious freedom either.
A person with a moral objection to something like this should not be forced into participating, any more than a doctor with a moral objection to abortion should be forced to perform one.
How is public companies offering contraception coverage is trampling the rights of religious freedom?
You're not being forced to take contraceptives. It's just there for those who want it.
This is similar to the gay marriage debate. The religious aren't being affected, but the religious want to cry because they're not being included in the big picture decision making, and they shouldn't. They should be free to their beliefs, but their beliefs shouldn't be considered when forming laws.
Frankly, I don't see it as a really important benefit to offer people. The cost for someone to purchase birth control without insurance is not much higher, if at all higher, then without. (for generics ,,,,, which is what insurance is going to cover anyway)
Public companies have shareholders, who ought be able to set their own policies, based on the best interests of their company.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions and beliefs.
And I don't go knocking on people's door spreading mine, but when you expect that kind of stuff to be taken seriously in terms of law and policy, expect to have someone point out how ridiculous it is.
While we disagree about the belief of God, we do agree that government policy and religious beliefs should be separate from each other. I don't believe in attempting to force my belief system upon others.
Quote: We've had this same song and dance in Arizona with those who identify as LGBT being denied business. Even Brewer, a governor with head scratching decisions; she realized this path leads nothing to intolerance, hate, and trampling on the rights of all Americans.
If a religion believed a race was evil, unworthy of their service, and such things then, by your definition, it would be illegal to serve them. The courts already ruled segregation was unconstitutional...
There is no discrimination taking place here though. No protected class is being deprived of their rights.
Quote: And neither can women without men. Has artificial sperm been created?
Your argument is ridiculous! Thank God folks like you don't get to decide these things. You'd have us mimicking the Soviet Union under Stalin's murderous reign.
I suggest that you find out what you're paying for with your insurance. You don't like your 'bible-thumping boss'? You're free to quit your job and not work for your employer and find one that thumps whatever book you want them to thump.
Personally, I find people that want this and expect everyone to submit to your whims offensive. Can we ban you?
that went south real quick....thats how you debate?
What? That women can't get pregnant without a man?
Everything after that was a confrontation with your basic ideology. I tied it in with the 'being offended' society that we live in. So, I'm offended by your ideology (and those that share your ideology). Since I am, you must change your thinking. Isn't that how it works?
As a woman, I don't have a problem with this. I don't see why birth control should be treated any differently than any other prescribed Med. Also I don't feel it's an employers job to keep employees from getting pregnant.
As a woman, I don't have a problem with this. I don't see why birth control should be treated any differently than any other prescribed Med. Also I don't feel it's an employers job to keep employees from getting pregnant.
The question would be then, I would take it, that my employer should be required to supply me with condoms (as many as I need - maybe my second job could be as a gigolo ) and they would be obliged. Otherwise, as I see it, this is a clear violation of the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment.
Quote: Your employer shouldn't be required to give you anything except a paycheck which you can use to go buy some condoms.
I have to say that I disagree. My employer shouldn't even be required to give me a job, much less a paycheck - but I think I know what you meant. As long as he employs me, it should be all that he's required to give me.
Quote: I'm in the fence about it. I see both sides of the issue.
100% exactly my thoughts. Too hard to say a for sure yes/no, yay/nay - tough one... glad I didn't have to make the decision. I see the pros and cons and there isn't a "big factor" to sway my thought pattern. So with that said... yeah lol
Privately held companies should be allowed to provide bennies as they see fit, or none at all if they so choose, just like the workers can change employers as they see fit.
Quote: I agree with the birth control mandate but not for the reason you mention. If you take that logic to its end, you would have everyone paying ala carte for their services. I could say I dont need to help pay for STD testing because I don't sleep around or I don't need to help pay for ultrasound testing because I'm not a woman.
Most agree that medical care is outright expensive, and for most of the country, if they got the bad dice roll and got something like diabetes or cancer, then simply put they will need more care than someone who is healthy. And I have no problem with throwing in my 2 cents for subsidized health care so that if I'm 50 and get something terrible, I'm not stuck to just die from it.
I don't agree with subsidizing birth control because it's readily available and a commodity, but that's a general failure of the ACA bill to me, not a religious issue.
Once again, I can assure you I don't need maternity care of any kind. Why should I pay for that? Maternity care is quite expensive, as are births. If I decide not to have that in my plan, I guess I have to pay out of pocket. If a person decides to save all the money on kids at an early age, and has themselves sterilized, or if they are born sterile, why should they pay? If I can package a plan tailored to me, both by knowing my family history and from my own past medical history, why should I not be able to save as much money as I can. As I said before, a general wellness plan, and a catastrophic plan, should be what most people need. If I can buy that on the free market, it should be rather cheap.
The big problem with ala carte is how you get enough money in the system to cover the "whales." Cancer is one of the biggest ones and it doesn't take long before cancer care costs 25k to 150k in initial costs alone, not to mention the thousands a year in continuation coverage. If people don't opt in to the high end treatments due to cost then the overall cost gets much higher and then the only people who can even pay for cancer treatment are the very wealthy. The way insurance works is through subsidization. Ala carte is more expensive than all inclusive, period.
If your grand plan is to say "if you didn't tick a box for that life threatening treatment, you gotta die" then I don't know what to say except it's a good thing you aren't the person in charge of this
Quote: I'm in the fence about it. I see both sides of the issue.
I know steady jobs are harder and harder to come by, but if your employer makes their health care plan decisions based on a book of fairy tales, maybe it's not the right place for you.
I like you Phil, I really do, I have learned from you.
That said, if some single cell organism was discovered on Mars, you would be one of the first to proclaim life on Mars.
Sorry my man, if that is considered life, then a beating heart baby is also considered life.
Science defines life across the universe, then tosses it aside when it comes to human life.
Quote: I'm in the fence about it. I see both sides of the issue.
I know steady jobs are harder and harder to come by, but if your employer makes their health care plan decisions based on a book of fairy tales, maybe it's not the right place for you.
I like you Phil, I really do, I have learned from you.
That said, if some single cell organism was discovered on Mars, you would be one of the first to proclaim life on Mars.
Sorry my man, if that is considered life, then a beating heart baby is also considered life.
Science defines life across the universe, then tosses it aside when it comes to human life.
Why is that??
1.) "Science" has nothing to do with it. Science is a philosophical idea based around probing the unknown with the end goal of coming up with concrete answers. Abortion is a moral or ethical issue, and therefore not something that can be definitively answered by the scientific method.
2.) No one who holds the belief that abortion is legal and right would say that an embryo isn't life, or that a fetus with a beating heart isn't alive. They would probably say that developing organism can't feel pain, isn't self aware or conscious of its surrounds so abortion isn't murder and is not something in the same vein as killing a walking talking human like me or you. Let me ask you this. How many pregnancies go undetected because the embryo doesn't implant in the uterus properly and normal menstruation occurs? Somewhere between 30-70% depending on the study you look at. If you consider other data that includes early development miscarries and later still births, you're looking at numbers closer to 50-70% of all eggs that are fertilized that end up being terminating through because they couldn't hack it biologically. In 2013, roughly 4 million babies were born. Using these numbers, that means another 4-6 million were actually conceived, but never made it to term. If nature is willing to provide that horrible a rate of pregnancy, and that little regard for human life, I have little issue with a handful of women (relatively speaking) choosing to terminate their own pregnancies based on their choice.
Quote: No one who holds the belief that abortion is legal and right would say that an embryo isn't life, or that a fetus with a beating heart isn't alive. They would probably say that developing organism can't feel pain, isn't self aware or conscious of its surrounds so abortion isn't murder and is not something in the same vein as killing a walking talking human like me or you.
So by that logic, they must also argue that killing a temporarily paralyzed and comatose child wouldn't be murder.
Quote: No one who holds the belief that abortion is legal and right would say that an embryo isn't life, or that a fetus with a beating heart isn't alive. They would probably say that developing organism can't feel pain, isn't self aware or conscious of its surrounds so abortion isn't murder and is not something in the same vein as killing a walking talking human like me or you.
So by that logic, they must also argue that killing a temporarily paralyzed and comatose child wouldn't be murder.
Look, I'm not saying it's a water-tight, be-all-end-all description of the thought process behind those that are pro-choice. Again, this is a moral and ethical issue and I think you hit on a decent question. I could hook them up to an EEG and show their brain processing said stimulatory input as pain, I could also show by those same read outs what their brain is doing at that time. And, I should point out, that it is ok in some circumstances to pull the plug on someone that is comatose. That's not murder legally speaking, yet it's an example where it's ok to take for one person to take someone else's life without ramification.
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
How does it take away from an employee's first amendment rights? I'm just trying to follow your train of thought.
Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
Let's be real here, if these were Islamist religions people would be lining the streets in mass riots here in America. We are NOT a Christian nation. It's making me sick to my stomach, as a Christian, all these politicians making policies based off religion when there a tons of Americans who don't believe.
So yes, this ruling affects non-believers to such an extent that they have to now abide by a non Christian establishment just because the owner is one. It's ass backwards. They just gave rights to one group and took away another's.
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
LMFAO I could be wrong but didn't you stand up for places of employment who could fire people because they were smokers? or refuse to hire them them if they smoked?
Quote: Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
You don't have to work for a religious person. I interview a company as much as they interview me when I'm job hunting. If I don't like the company, I don't accept the job. If I accept the job, I also accept the views of my employer. If my employer is a hard core liberal, I would have be sure it was a good job before working there.
Quote: but thats just it. the ACA is a work in progress. NOTHING comes out the gate working perfectly when it comes to big programs, it takes years to make it work. i'm sure we will be able to select the type of coverage we need one day.
That's why welfare works so much better than it used to? or subsidized housing? or social security? or the governments ability to acquire your private information? or the governments ability to control immigration?... sorry, things the government gets involved with generally do not get better over time, they just get bigger, less efficient, more controlling, and more and more expensive.
As far as the ruling, I think it's the correct decision but I understand why some don't. I just saw the women with the stupid signs about keeping the court or the corporation out of their bedroom.. what does that even mean as it relates to this? Do whatever the hell you want in your bedroom with whomever the hell you want, just don't expect your company to subsidize it. Birth control (most of the time) is not a medical necessity any more than erection pills or botox (most of the time)... it's a choice and isn't that what they want? the freedom to choose? Well if you CHOOSE to have sex, then you can CHOOSE to do it safely
It's not like Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A or most of the companies that have come under fire are covert about their beliefs... if you don't like their beliefs, go work somewhere else because you knew the day you took the job what their beliefs are...
Quote: Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
You don't have to work for a religious person. I interview a company as much as they interview me when I'm job hunting. If I don't like the company, I don't accept the job. If I accept the job, I also accept the views of my employer. If my employer is a hard core liberal, I would have be sure it was a good job before working there.
Except you don't. First off, I live in Oklahoma now, and I go to hobby lobby regularly. Hell, just went yesterday to get my daughter supplies. The lady I see there regularly didn't even KNOW dude was a hardcore religious guy. Because there are a lot of Christian owners not pulling this crap that he hobby lobby owner is.
And don't have to work for? Stop, cause you'll be the same guy in a different thread saying how the economy sucks and there are no jobs.
Quote: Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
You don't have to work for a religious person. I interview a company as much as they interview me when I'm job hunting. If I don't like the company, I don't accept the job. If I accept the job, I also accept the views of my employer. If my employer is a hard core liberal, I would have be sure it was a good job before working there.
Except you don't. First off, I live in Oklahoma now, and I go to hobby lobby regularly. Hell, just went yesterday to get my daughter supplies. The lady I see there regularly didn't even KNOW dude was a hardcore religious guy. Because there are a lot of Christian owners not pulling this crap that he hobby lobby owner is.
And don't have to work for? Stop, cause you'll be the same guy in a different thread saying how the economy sucks and there are no jobs.
I'll give you an example.
My younger brother's ex-wife used to work for a company that was overtly religious. As a condition of employment, she had to sign a morality clause that stated that she would not do anything that was immoral (drugs, adultery, etc.) She had an affair with one of her co-workers (her boss) and she was fired.
She knew, going into and accepting the job, what the conditions of employment were and she violated them.
Quote: Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
You don't have to work for a religious person. I interview a company as much as they interview me when I'm job hunting. If I don't like the company, I don't accept the job. If I accept the job, I also accept the views of my employer. If my employer is a hard core liberal, I would have be sure it was a good job before working there.
Except you don't. First off, I live in Oklahoma now, and I go to hobby lobby regularly. Hell, just went yesterday to get my daughter supplies. The lady I see there regularly didn't even KNOW dude was a hardcore religious guy. Because there are a lot of Christian owners not pulling this crap that he hobby lobby owner is.
And don't have to work for? Stop, cause you'll be the same guy in a different thread saying how the economy sucks and there are no jobs.
Time to wave the BS flag. Unless you live under a rock, or just got here from Mexico, if you live in Oklahoma you know how religious Hobby Lobby is. They are one of the few retail chains that still close on Sundays.
But I don't. See, I'm military here at ft sill. I, from Ohio and was stationed in Germany the last 5 years. So I DONT know how religious hobby lobby is. The women that work there? A lot of them are military spouses. So put your BS flag away and save it for another thread. I'm not a Oklahoma native.
Quote: Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
You don't have to work for a religious person. I interview a company as much as they interview me when I'm job hunting. If I don't like the company, I don't accept the job. If I accept the job, I also accept the views of my employer. If my employer is a hard core liberal, I would have be sure it was a good job before working there.
Except you don't. First off, I live in Oklahoma now, and I go to hobby lobby regularly. Hell, just went yesterday to get my daughter supplies. The lady I see there regularly didn't even KNOW dude was a hardcore religious guy. Because there are a lot of Christian owners not pulling this crap that he hobby lobby owner is.
And don't have to work for? Stop, cause you'll be the same guy in a different thread saying how the economy sucks and there are no jobs.
I'll give you an example.
My younger brother's ex-wife used to work for a company that was overtly religious. As a condition of employment, she had to sign a morality clause that stated that she would not do anything that was immoral (drugs, adultery, etc.) She had an affair with one of her co-workers (her boss) and she was fired.
She knew, going into and accepting the job, what the conditions of employment were and she violated them.
That's fine Anarch. Except that isn't the same situation.
Hobby lobby has already been providing other forms of birth control, right? Now they decided they didn't want to provide specific form of birth control. Nobody at hobby lobby signed a clauses stating that before the suit like your example.
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
How does it take away from an employee's first amendment rights? I'm just trying to follow your train of thought.
Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
Let's be real here, if these were Islamist religions people would be lining the streets in mass riots here in America. We are NOT a Christian nation. It's making me sick to my stomach, as a Christian, all these politicians making policies based off religion when there a tons of Americans who don't believe.
So yes, this ruling affects non-believers to such an extent that they have to now abide by a non Christian establishment just because the owner is one. It's ass backwards. They just gave rights to one group and took away another's.
I disagree with that logic, but perhaps we're having two different conversations. The First Amendment doesn't and never has applied in an employer to employee relationship. This ruling is basically saying the government "can't tread" on a private company's freedom of religion. However, outside of blatant discrimination (e.g. "No Muslims may work here"), companies may make rules and policies that are inconvenient to one's religion.
Switching gears to a comparison, the government "can't tread" on a private company's freedom of speech, but I sure as hell haven't worked for any private company where I was free to say what I wanted without repercussions.
The "Our Company" section of their website, and most likely in the employee handbook. Most people don't read those handbooks, but then that is their own fault for not knowing things then, and/or not looking at the compny you're going to work for.
At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to: Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles. Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market. Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families. Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community. store front imageWe believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.
Hobby Lobby is THE place to shop with everyday Super Selections and Super Savings! Store hours are Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and all Hobby Lobby stores are closed on Sunday.
Our other affiliated companies headquartered in Oklahoma City include Mardel and Hemispheres.
Quote: The "Our Company" section of their website, and most likely in the employee handbook. Most people don't read those handbooks, but then that is their own fault for not knowing things then, and/or not looking at the compny you're going to work for.
At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to: Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles. Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market. Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families. Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community. store front imageWe believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.
Hobby Lobby is THE place to shop with everyday Super Selections and Super Savings! Store hours are Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and all Hobby Lobby stores are closed on Sunday.
Our other affiliated companies headquartered in Oklahoma City include Mardel and Hemispheres.
And that's cool. So I concede to your point. I'm simply telling Tulsa that a lot of people here in Lawton aren't from Oklahoma, so nobody cares or pays attention to what hey do, they just want a job.
Quote: I definitely disagree with this decision. Birth control should be included for women. This ruling basically says it's ok for companies to have first amendment rights but not their employees.
This is why I have a very strong hatred toward issues like this. We wanna be about stopping abortions, but not using preventive measures in the first place. That's one thing imma miss about the military: my wife gets birth control for free through out greatly are. As it should be.
How does it take away from an employee's first amendment rights? I'm just trying to follow your train of thought.
Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.
Let's be real here, if these were Islamist religions people would be lining the streets in mass riots here in America. We are NOT a Christian nation. It's making me sick to my stomach, as a Christian, all these politicians making policies based off religion when there a tons of Americans who don't believe.
So yes, this ruling affects non-believers to such an extent that they have to now abide by a non Christian establishment just because the owner is one. It's ass backwards. They just gave rights to one group and took away another's.
I disagree with that logic, but perhaps we're having two different conversations. The First Amendment doesn't and never has applied in an employer to employee relationship. This ruling is basically saying the government "can't tread" on a private company's freedom of religion. However, outside of blatant discrimination (e.g. "No Muslims may work here"), companies may make rules and policies that are inconvenient to one's religion.
Switching gears to a comparison, the government "can't tread" on a private company's freedom of speech, but I sure as hell haven't worked for any private company where I was free to say what I wanted without repercussions.
I'm just simply saying that's where I stand on this issue. I believe all forms of birth control should be provided under the ACA. I feel that by doing that, we can start to cut some federal benefits people receive because there is no excuse to get pregnant if it wasn't planned. I understand stuff happens, I just feel that providing birth control to women will save tax payers money overall.
Quote: But I don't. See, I'm military here at ft sill. I, from Ohio and was stationed in Germany the last 5 years. So I DONT know how religious hobby lobby is. The women that work there? A lot of them are military spouses. So put your BS flag away and save it for another thread. I'm not a Oklahoma native.
From their website:
At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to: •Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles. •Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market. •Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families. •Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.
We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.
Hobby Lobby is THE place to shop with everyday Super Selections and Super Savings! Store hours are Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and all Hobby Lobby stores are closed on Sunday.
Our other affiliated companies headquartered in Oklahoma City include Mardel and Hemispheres.
It's not like they're hiding it. That would be like a muslim going to work for a pork producer, then complaining about the pigs.
Quote: Sorry, I just do not believe your story about the person working there and not knowing this companies views. It's BS and the flag is still waving.
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection
So it may be reasonable that people don't know where Hobby Lobby stands on the issue, as most people who don't believe in contraceptives don't invest in it.
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection
So it may be reasonable that people don't know where Hobby Lobby stands on the issue, as most people who don't believe in contraceptives don't invest in it.
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection
So it may be reasonable that people don't know where Hobby Lobby stands on the issue, as most people who don't believe in contraceptives don't invest in it.
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection
So it may be reasonable that people don't know where Hobby Lobby stands on the issue, as most people who don't believe in contraceptives don't invest in it.
[ Insert eating popcorn gif ]
That's what I was thinking. Who's gonna be the first one to bite on this...
Quote: I'm just simply saying that's where I stand on this issue. I believe all forms of birth control should be provided under the ACA. I feel that by doing that, we can start to cut some federal benefits people receive because there is no excuse to get pregnant if it wasn't planned. I understand stuff happens, I just feel that providing birth control to women will save tax payers money overall.
People that don't care enough to get/use any form of birth control to begin with will not get/use birth control even if the government provides it. The problem is abject laziness, not lack of access. A box of condoms is still the cheapest option, and people still don't use them.
Speaking of this, does anyone want to start up a lawsuit? The government is providing female contraception, but not male contraception. This is a discriminatory practice.
I just want to post a part Justice Ginsburg's dissent about the future that this decision could lead to. "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
Quote: I just want to post a part Justice Ginsburg's dissent about the future that this decision could lead to. "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
I would suggest you don't work for a company that won't provide you the insurance/medical care you would like. I actually worked for a small company that didn't provide maternity care. Before I took the job, I told the company owner that my wife was pregnant. As he made the agreement to hire me, and he was false in his belief that he provided maternity care, he secured that care for me and my wife. If he would have correctly informed me that he was saving money by not having maternity on his insurance (of which he paid 100%), I wouldn't have taken the job. You must interview your company as much as they interview you. Do you take a job without knowing what your benefits package contains? If you do, you're a fool.
Quote: So unemployed people should just turn down work because of medical insurance? Good to know.
Would you go work for a hard core conservative and all your fellow future coworkers are hard core conservatives? A place where they only work on conservative driven projects, and they hold a daily morning prayer in the atrium of the building?
Quote: So unemployed people should just turn down work because of medical insurance? Good to know.
Would you go work for a hard core conservative and all your fellow future coworkers are hard core conservatives? A place where they only work on conservative driven projects, and they hold a daily morning prayer in the atrium of the building?
I would shovel cow crap to feed my family even though I have a MBA.
Would you go to work for a company that didn't offer parts of a health insurance plan that you wanted? Let's say it's a small company, like the one I worked for, that didn't offer certain health care options (you can pick), as they are paying 100% of your insurance?
In my defense, when I went to work for that company, I did tell the owner that my wife was pregnant. He should have told me right then that he didn't offer maternity. That was his screw up, not mine. I disclosed to him in the interview that I would need at least a week off for the birth.
Would you go to work for a company that didn't offer parts of a health insurance plan that you wanted? Let's say it's a small company, like the one I worked for, that didn't offer certain health care options (you can pick), as they are paying 100% of your insurance?
In my defense, when I went to work for that company, I did tell the owner that my wife was pregnant. He should have told me right then that he didn't offer maternity. That was his screw up, not mine. I disclosed to him in the interview that I would need at least a week off for the birth.
Would you go to work for a company that didn't offer parts of a health insurance plan that you wanted? Let's say it's a small company, like the one I worked for, that didn't offer certain health care options (you can pick), as they are paying 100% of your insurance?
In my defense, when I went to work for that company, I did tell the owner that my wife was pregnant. He should have told me right then that he didn't offer maternity. That was his screw up, not mine. I disclosed to him in the interview that I would need at least a week off for the birth.
Why wouldn't I?
Then why are you against companies who's standards are already set, and have been set for a long time. They were forced to change with the implementation of obummercare.
They weren't forced to change. They changed because they wanted to. No one in the government put a gun to their head and made them pay for healthcare and other services.
I understand that completely. Choice is what the government took away from religious employers, to make them provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs. Maternity leave is the time an employee can take after the birth of a baby, as designated by the company and employee works for and agreed to by the employee.
They didn't force anyone who didn't want to. Maternity leave is what you said with an exception, it's strictly for the mother. Hence the name "Maternity".
Quote: I'm just simply saying that's where I stand on this issue. I believe all forms of birth control should be provided under the ACA. I feel that by doing that, we can start to cut some federal benefits people receive because there is no excuse to get pregnant if it wasn't planned. I understand stuff happens, I just feel that providing birth control to women will save tax payers money overall.
According to a health website I just looked at, in using the pill, 8 out of 100 women will still get pregnant... in using an IUD, 1 out of 100 women will still get pregnant... and Hobby Lobby still covers IUDs because it prevents fertilization and that is their argument, they don't want the egg killed after fertilization... so the single most effective form of birth control on the list (other than abstinence obviously), according to this website, is still covered if they are really concerned about getting pregnant. The second most effective way, at 3 out of 100, is the shot and I have to admit that I don't know if that's one that Hobby Lobby objects to or not.
Quote: Sorry, I just do not believe your story about the person working there and not knowing this companies views. It's BS and the flag is still waving.
They may not know but it would seem it is their fault. My guess is that most know, they just didn't think it would affect them.
One thing I haven't heard is an outcry from the employees over this... what is the feeling among employees?
I posed this question in another venue and haven't gotten an answer yet...
These women enjoy sex, good for them... they want to be more responsible, good for them... Now there are other ways to get your sexual jollies without vaginal penetration or ejaculation but that is the preferred way by most men and women most of the time.. so in an effort to support this responsible choice, the company should be forced by the government to pay for it... even though the act of having sex, the manner in which you have it, and the precaution you want to use are all voluntary choices...
I like to drink beer, good for me... I want to be responsible in the way I drink beer, good for me... Now there are ways to drink beer, like on my own couch or with a designated driver but the preferred way by many is on the way home from work alone, in a bar, with a group of other guys and a bunch of TVs with sports on... so in an effort to support my responsible choice, should the government mandate that my company pay for my cab ride home, since the decision to drink beer, and the location and manner in which I choose to do it are all voluntary choices that I'm making simply so I can partake of something that I enjoy?
I posed this question in another venue and haven't gotten an answer yet...
These women enjoy sex, good for them... they want to be more responsible, good for them... Now there are other ways to get your sexual jollies without vaginal penetration or ejaculation but that is the preferred way by most men and women most of the time.. so in an effort to support this responsible choice, the company should be forced by the government to pay for it... even though the act of having sex, the manner in which you have it, and the precaution you want to use are all voluntary choices...
I like to drink beer, good for me... I want to be responsible in the way I drink beer, good for me... Now there are ways to drink beer, like on my own couch or with a designated driver but the preferred way by many is on the way home from work alone, in a bar, with a group of other guys and a bunch of TVs with sports on... so in an effort to support my responsible choice, should the government mandate that my company pay for my cab ride home, since the decision to drink beer, and the location and manner in which I choose to do it are all voluntary choices that I'm making simply so I can partake of something that I enjoy?
I'm glad I read this twice, because my initial reaction to your post was gonna be bad. Straight up, you sound like a holier than thou person right now.
Because nobody on this board has ever had a drunken one night stand. Or made any bad decision when it comes to sex.
A bad decision shouldn't be led to a 9 month pregnancy and at least 18 years of drama after that. You comparing getting pregnant to drinking alcohol is at best a silly reach.
And that's the problem. People are acting like sex is some mythic land of unicorns and fairies. People are acting like they weren't horny teenagers, and if you're a male, you know damn well you was trying to get some in high school or college.
I think birth control should be supplied. Just like I think condoms should too. That way, if it happens between willing parties, it's on them, and they shouldn't receive government assistance.
Quote: That said, if some single cell organism was discovered on Mars, you would be one of the first to proclaim life on Mars.
Sorry my man, if that is considered life, then a beating heart baby is also considered life.
Science defines life across the universe, then tosses it aside when it comes to human life.
As I've said for years, I have no opinion one way or the other on abortion.
As it pertains to it's legality, our laws aren't necessarily based on the moral or the scientific, but rather the practical.
It's a population control issue, to an extent. Not only would an abortion ban lead to a huge increase in wards of the state, but it wouldn't stop women from getting them done in the proverbial back alley.
Not saying that's right or wrong, just calling it like it is. Don't expect the laws to change on that front.
My biggest issue with the debate is the folks who get all bleeding heart about the sanctity of life are more often than not the first people to recommend bombing the Middle East into a parking lot, or shrugging when we bomb a civilian area and saying 'hey, that's just the unintended consequence' when innocent people die.
There is an important side issue at stake here- one that hasn't (to my knowledge) been explored in this thread:
Doctors routinely prescribe birth control pills to women for reasons other than contraception. For many women, hormonal imbalances are debilitating enough to impact their daily lives. Heavy menses, irregular periods, dysmenorrhea are all controlled with regular hormone therapy- and in many cases, that means "the pill".
I'd like to know HL's stance on the unnecessary suffering that could be experienced by some of their employees... employees who may or may not even care about the contraception side of this issue.
Would Jesus ignore the suffering of "one of the least of us?"
From the article "Every time you buy a decorative platter from Hobby Lobby with a Bible verse stamped across it, you have funded the company's fight against the HHS contraception mandate. But you're also sending a chunk of change to a country that forces people to abort their children, flouts basic standards of workplace dignity, and denies more than a billion people the right to worship."
Quote: Because nobody on this board has ever had a drunken one night stand. Or made any bad decision when it comes to sex.
I've made bad decisions when it comes to having sex.. I've also made bad decisions when it comes to driving after drinking..
Quote: A bad decision shouldn't be led to a 9 month pregnancy and at least 18 years of drama after that. You comparing getting pregnant to drinking alcohol is at best a silly reach.
I'm not comparing drinking some alcohol to getting pregnant.. that would be comparing the action of one with the consequences of the other.... I'm comparing choosing to drink alcohol with choosing to have sex (both are voluntary actions).... two things most people in this age demographic choose to do, both of which they do for fun, both of which can have serious consequences if not done responsibly... so let's say I'm comparing the act of drinking with the act of having sex.. and I'm comparing getting pregnant with killing somebody as I drive home.
Quote: And that's the problem. People are acting like sex is some mythic land of unicorns and fairies. People are acting like they weren't horny teenagers, and if you're a male, you know damn well you was trying to get some in high school or college.
No, you are acting like sex is the only decision people make that the government needs to protect us from the consequences of... and I want to know why. I was a horny teenager, then a horny college student, now I'm a horny old man... so what? I was also a borderline drunk in college and nobody was complaining that the government wasn't forcing somebody to pay for me to do it responsibly. I just want to know why the government protecting us from the consequences of sex is on some pedestal above all of the other things we choose to do which can have serious consequences if done irresponsibly.. is it because the prevention comes in a little packet from the pharmacy? Is that why it's different? If there was a drug that prevented you from making bad decisions after drinking or getting high should health insurance have to cover that too?
Quote: They didn't force anyone who didn't want to. Maternity leave is what you said with an exception, it's strictly for the mother. Hence the name "Maternity".
Yes the government did force. The owners of Hobby Lobby already provided 16 forms of birth control to their employees. They provided everything but abortive drugs. The federal mandate would have forced them to provide coverage for the abortive drugs against their religious beliefs. As for your other statement, if I had meant someone other than the mother, as in the father, I would have said paternity leave. I thought it obvious the word maternity explained that all by itself.
Quote: A bad decision shouldn't be led to a 9 month pregnancy and at least 18 years of drama after that. You comparing getting pregnant to drinking alcohol is at best a silly reach.
no, he was comparing the entertainment choice of drinking to the entertainment choice of sex.
the potential consequence of a DUI (and possible vehicular manslaughter) to the potential consequence of pregnancy.
which one is more tragic? and, does that mean we should pay to avoid the more tragic situation (i.e. the cab fare)?
Thanks for the clarification. (I liked the info that was in the article, but could have done without all the 'left-bashing.' Those types of 'slants' generally turn me off, no matter which 'side' is being represented.) National Review, Daily Kos... it takes WORK to glean the info from the editorializing.
____________________
I would hope that they (HL) would reconsider their position in the narrowly-defined circumstance of incest or rape... at least on an individual basis. Who knows? Perhaps there is already some other viable medical service that is covered in their plan.
Quote: " the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions."
Quote: " the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions."
Its kinda hard to argue you are against something but you financially invest in it. Thats like saying Rob Ford leading the war on drugs.
let's not act like this isn't a tricky thing to navigate. all that is saying above is that their 401K plan includes a pharmaceutical company as pretty much all of them include such.
now, perhaps that this is brought to light they remove such policies as options from their plans. it may be they hadn't considered it before.
it's not like Hobby Lobby was going out of their way to invest in them. it was part of the 401K plan that intentionally is spread as broad as possible across as many companies as possible. honestly, I am not sure if the financial firms will allow them to allocate their monies w/o including pharmaceuticals.
According to the forbes 3/4 of their entire 401k portfolio was invested, which was 73 million. It doesn't make logical sense that a company will invest 73 million out of 100 million into 401ks that they have not vetted, researched, and thought highly of.
Quote: " the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions."
Its kinda hard to argue you are against something but you financially invest in it. Thats like saying Rob Ford leading the war on drugs.
Yes. And no.
You do know what a "mutual fund" is, right? You're intelligent, so of course you do.
I would guess there are hundreds of mutual funds that have money in tobacco, and, for example, many hospitals may be invested in those funds. That doesn't mean the hospital is providing cigarettes to their employees though, right? Just an example.
Or, how about Jon Doe that hates alcohol...........he's got money invested in a mutual fund that has, as part of that fund, money invested in AB. Does that mean he supports AB?
I would guess that even GreenPeace has money in mutual funds of which some part of that fund is invested in oil. I don't know that - but I would guess that to be true. Would that mean Green Peace supports "big oil"?
But, I'm diverting from the topic. The topic is Hobby Lobby includes contraception in their health insurance. HL does not include "morning after" pills, etc. So, yes, you may have a point.
Are you invested in any mutual funds? Personally, or through work? If so, my guess is there are things in that fund you may not know about or be happy that you're "supporting".......
I pay taxes. Some of that money goes towards abortions somewhere, somehow. Does that mean I support abortion?
I have mutual funds that I have absolutely NO clue on what they are invested in - does that mean I support those things? (if they exist?)
I just can't believe what they are saying. If abortifacients are that important to you, that you are willing to take this to federal court, based on your own moral code. Your moral code will not allow you to pick investments that go agaisnt your morals especially when you have the means to choose. Common folks like me and you, we may know nothing about our 401k, a multi-billion dollar company, knows exactly where every penny of their money is going. (which is the reason why they are a billion dollar company) (not sure if they are a billion dollar company but you get my point)
from forbes
Quote: To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.
Quote: According to the forbes 3/4 of their entire 401k portfolio was invested, which was 73 million. It doesn't make logical sense that a company will invest 73 million out of 100 million into 401ks that they have not vetted, researched, and thought highly of.
It's just not logical. I am not buying that.
3/4 of their entire 401K portfolio was in funds that included pharmeceutical companies like Bayer. almost ANY fund is going to include such companies. it is not 75% of the actual money going to invest in those companies. a small fraction of that 75%.
not that it matters. if they want to take this stance, then they should do what they can to remove those companies from their 401K plan, but I'm willing to grant them some leniency for not thinking of this path intially. these are muddy waters we live in and you have to do your best, adjust, and keep moving forward.
I believe the answer to your question is basic and logical. While it may not be a good one, I believe it about covers it.
In many, many cases, it's the taxpayers who wind up paying for these bad decisions. Via food stamp programs, Medicaid and a lifetime of government funded programs. If you get a DUI? Not so much.
Many of the jobs that won't be covered will be jobs that people will work, but still qualify for government subsidies. And I guess that's really my main issue with this lies.
Many people who wish to promote not mandating birth control, are some of those who want to cut government spending and cut back on social programs. The fact is, young people make mistakes and it's often times the tax payer who foots the bill in the case of unwanted pregnancies.
So we can pay a little now, or a lot for 18 years. The fact is, such pregnancies are going to occur without birth control. And the fact is, either the taxpayers will foot the bill for those mistakes, or children will starve and not get health care by the scores.
I just don't see there being a more logical conclusion. To me it's a choice between birth control or skyrocketing social program costs. While people can stand on their moral and religious beliefs, in order to do that, the bill will come due.
This is really a small loss for Obama in his war on Christian values and his ambition to have government dictate every phase of your personal life. Hobby Lobby better watch out for the Justice Department and the IRS.
Quote: I believe the answer to your question is basic and logical. While it may not be a good one, I believe it about covers it.
In many, many cases, it's the taxpayers who wind up paying for these bad decisions. Via food stamp programs, Medicaid and a lifetime of government funded programs. If you get a DUI? Not so much.
Many of the jobs that won't be covered will be jobs that people will work, but still qualify for government subsidies. And I guess that's really my main issue with this lies.
Many people who wish to promote not mandating birth control, are some of those who want to cut government spending and cut back on social programs. The fact is, young people make mistakes and it's often times the tax payer who foots the bill in the case of unwanted pregnancies.
So we can pay a little now, or a lot for 18 years. The fact is, such pregnancies are going to occur without birth control. And the fact is, either the taxpayers will foot the bill for those mistakes, or children will starve and not get health care by the scores.
I just don't see there being a more logical conclusion. To me it's a choice between birth control or skyrocketing social program costs. While people can stand on their moral and religious beliefs, in order to do that, the bill will come due.
You sound like you've given up pit.
The answer isn't getting more "free stuff". Birth control is available - cheap! $9 for the pill for a month! What's a pack of condoms cost?
People need moral responsibility, instead of relying on gov't. See, THAT is the problem.
Personal note: At 18, (19 when he was born) I became a father. I took responsibility. I even married the mother. I worked in college, got a degree in 4 years. Got divorced. Paid child support for the next 10. Son lived in a terrible situation with his mom, and at age 13 - scared to go back to his mom's house - we petitioned the court (not sure if that's the right word), and he moved in with us.
His mom didn't pay child support for years......no biggie. Anytime she did, I put the money away for his college. My boy is now a degreed RN. At age 26, he's making real nice money.
Being burdened with all of that, at such a "young" age - it sucked. But I made it - he made it. Due to? Doing the right thing. I know that attitude is lacking in our society now - at least in many "parts".
Birth control IS available - from H.L. OR from the pharmacy, and it doesn't cost much at all.
Personal responsibility is what's lacking. And there isn't a pill in the world that will take care of that.
I'm sure that if anyone cares to look, the info is out there in other places, too... good luck finding it on any of the biased "news" sites, however.
What contraception IS covered for Hobby Lobby employees?
Male condoms Female condoms Diaphragms with spermicide Sponges with spermicide Cervical caps with spermicide Spermicide alone Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill) Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill) Birth control pills (extended/continuous use) Contraceptive patches Contraceptive rings Progestin injections Implantable rods Vasectomies Female sterilization surgeries Female sterilization implants
What this ruling means is NOT covered: Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”) Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”) Copper Intra-Uterine Device IUD with progestin
I'm sure that if anyone cares to look, the info is out there in other places, too... good luck finding it on any of the biased "news" sites, however.
What contraception IS covered for Hobby Lobby employees?
Male condoms Female condoms Diaphragms with spermicide Sponges with spermicide Cervical caps with spermicide Spermicide alone Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill) Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill) Birth control pills (extended/continuous use) Contraceptive patches Contraceptive rings Progestin injections Implantable rods Vasectomies Female sterilization surgeries Female sterilization implants
What this ruling means is NOT covered: Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”) Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”) Copper Intra-Uterine Device IUD with progestin
So much rhetoric. So few facts.
"God Bless the Internet" -Socrates
Again, highlighting this for those that only get their news from places that want controversy.
The 'birth control' that ObamaDoesn'tCare wanted to thrust upon Hobby Lobby are abortifacients, which aren't like other contraceptives.
Truth is, you want someone to bend to YOUR ideas and anyone that opposes it is problematic for you.
Get over yourself, kid. Life is tough enough for you. If you feel so strongly, then you should encourage like-minded women from accepting jobs at Hobby Lobby.
Hobby Lobby wasn't required by law to provide them under an insurance plan either until Obama and his minions (yes, I would include you among them) tried to force ObamaDoesn'tCare down our throats.
Also, how do you know that nobody at Hobby Lobby has signed such an agreement? Have you ever worked there? Have you been offered a job there? Unless either of these statements are answered affirmatively, then the truth is that you really don't know.
I'm sure that if anyone cares to look, the info is out there in other places, too... good luck finding it on any of the biased "news" sites, however.
What contraception IS covered for Hobby Lobby employees?
Male condoms Female condoms Diaphragms with spermicide Sponges with spermicide Cervical caps with spermicide Spermicide alone Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill) Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill) Birth control pills (extended/continuous use) Contraceptive patches Contraceptive rings Progestin injections Implantable rods Vasectomies Female sterilization surgeries Female sterilization implants
What this ruling means is NOT covered: Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”) Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”) Copper Intra-Uterine Device IUD with progestin
So much rhetoric. So few facts.
"God Bless the Internet" -Socrates
Again, highlighting this for those that only get their news from places that want controversy.
Let me ask you this Swish. If it was legal to work for a company that that could kill 3 month old babies, and you had to work beside fellow employes who had murdered 3 month old babies would you still work for that company?
mifepristone is the only known abortifacient that can be administered under FDA guidlines. IUDs work by making the uterus inhospitable for conception and therefore are contraceptives.
mifepristone is the only known abortifacient that can be administered under FDA guidlines. IUDs work by making the uterus inhospitable for conception and therefore are contraceptives.
But according to most Christians and many other religions, life begins at conception, not implantation, so you still have a religious problem on your hands.
But if the concern is over implantation, why is the pill okay? After all, there can be breakthrough ovulation that occurs while on the pill, but due to the thin uteral lining, doesn't implant and therefore the zygote dies. Statistically speaking, if you have 100 women on the pill and are sexually active in a calendar year, 2 zygotes will be flushed out because of this situation. The pill largely acts as a way to prevent egg release but it does have an `abortifacient` backup in place when this breakthrough occurs too.
I'm probably overthinking this because I don't think those in charge of the Hobby Lobby medical plan thought too hard about this either...
Quote: But if the concern is over implantation, why is the pill okay? After all, there can be breakthrough ovulation that occurs while on the pill, but due to the thin uteral lining, doesn't implant and therefore the zygote dies. Statistically speaking, if you have 100 women on the pill and are sexually active in a calendar year, 2 zygotes will be flushed out because of this situation. The pill largely acts as a way to prevent egg release but it does have an `abortifacient` backup in place when this breakthrough occurs too.
I'm probably overthinking this because I don't think those in charge of the Hobby Lobby medical plan thought too hard about this either...
By that line of logic, you may have made a case for them to have opted out of providing ALL birth control. Certainly there are some Christians who believe birth control is wrong. I guess it depends on HL's history and specific beliefs. The 4 they objected to I don't think anyone denies are specifically designed for use when there is a possibility that fertilization has taken place. I also don't think anyone can deny that it has been an oft stated belief that life starts at conception (fertilization) for many Christians. So I think their issue with these 4 is pretty clear cut.
Why didn't they try to opt out of the other 16? Who knows. Maybe they are just "progressive" enough to condone it? Maybe they are fine with it on the basis that there are uses for birth control pills i.e. hormone treatment/therapy? Or maybe they just felt that they only had a strong enough case for those 4. It would be interesting to hear HL's reasoning for the 16 others
Quote: The pill largely acts as a way to prevent egg release but it does have an `abortifacient` backup in place when this breakthrough occurs too.
This is what I don't get either. All birth control pills could be argued to be abortofacients because of this very thing. The pill not only prevents egg maturation, but also stimulates the endometrial wall's sloughing off of the uterus. Any egg that implants would be flushed out with everything else. I worry that this ruling will end up being extended to all birth control because of this.
Having had his omnipotence chipped away at last week, President Obama has - seemingly - been pushed too far by the Supreme Court's decision on contraception and Obamacare this morning: The White House stated...
•SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE JEOPARDIZES HEALTH OF WOMEN EMPLOYED BY THESE COMPANIES •WILL WORK WITH CONGRESS TO MAKE SURE WOMEN AFFECTED BY RULING WILL HAVE SAME ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION •WILL CONSIDER WHETHER PRESIDENT CAN ACT ON HIS OWN TO MITIGATE EFFECT OF SUPREME COURT RULING Totalitarian? You decide... One wonders if the phrase "do you know who I am?" was uttered this morning? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-30...bamacare-ruling
At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to: Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles. Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market. Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families. Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community. store front imageWe believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.
Hobby Lobby is THE place to shop with everyday Super Selections and Super Savings! Store hours are Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and all Hobby Lobby stores are closed on Sunday.
Our other affiliated companies headquartered in Oklahoma City include Mardel and Hemispheres.
This company is obviously sick and disillusioned by the principles of fairy tales and needs to be shutdown, ASAP.
Quote: Birth control IS available - from H.L. OR from the pharmacy, and it doesn't cost much at all.
Personal responsibility is what's lacking. And there isn't a pill in the world that will take care of that.
I have a similar story but won't get into all of the details. My daughter was born when I was 19 and she was provided for well without the government.
And I don't disagree with what you are saying. The problem is you can't legislate responsibility.
And I'm not even upset with what Hobby Lobby wanted. They are still providing birth control. What it does however, is open the door wide open for the Catholic church, who are huge employers, to opt out of all birth control coverage because that is their religious beliefs.
No matter how much we wished everyone was responsible and would and could support their children, that's simply not the reality in which we live.
So it's not that I've given up Arch. It's that I understand the bottom line and the reality of the situation. Like you said, there isn't a pill for personal responsibility. But there is a pill to help keep the lack of that trait from being taught to yet another generation.
Just wondering out loud here ... Should private companies be forced to pay for psychological treatments for turning a gay person straight if a person wanted that covered? I mean if we're going to force the government's moral beliefs on everyone, I wonder how people would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?
Quote: Just wondering out loud here ... Should private companies be forced to pay for psychological treatments for turning a gay person straight if a person wanted that covered? I mean if we're going to force the government's moral beliefs on everyone, I wonder how people would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?
Exactly. I mean if they believe that being gay is some kind of affliction, I wonder why they don't cover that?
The thing is, I don't believe that's the governments belief. However, I do believe there is a part of Christian Religions that seem to support that view. So if they are standing on the religious ground they shouldn't cover what they don't believe in, maybe they should be required to cover what they do believe in?
Why do businesses have to cover anything?? People get a paycheck, why do businesses have to babysit them and buy their medical coverage for them too? Are we not grown-up enough that we can't take care of ourselves? Can't people act like big boys and girls and get their own medical coverage? Then you can get coverage for whatever weird personal beliefs you have.
I can see why the left is so bothered by this though, it offends their two core principles: 1) You shouldn't be held personally responsible for anything. 2) Somebody else should pay for it.
Quote: Why do businesses have to cover anything?? People get a paycheck, why do businesses have to babysit them and buy their medical coverage for them too? Are we not grown-up enough that we can't take care of ourselves? Can't people act like big boys and girls and get their own medical coverage? Then you can get coverage for whatever weird personal beliefs you have.
I can see why the left is so bothered by this though, it offends their two core principles: 1) You shouldn't be held personally responsible for anything. 2) Somebody else should pay for it.
It boggles my mind how the debate can rage on about birth control in this instance without the central piece of the debate being who writes the darned check.
No birth control options have been outlawed here - but that's exactly how the argument sounds.
The SCOTUS simply stated that one cannot be forced to provide another with something that goes against their constitutional right. How could that not have been a unanimous decision?
Are there veins of bigger issues from the ruling? Sure there are...it's not an easy issue...however, forcing one person to provide for another is bad enough...forcing someone to do something against their constitutional right is the focus.
Quote: Why do businesses have to cover anything?? People get a paycheck, why do businesses have to babysit them and buy their medical coverage for them too? Are we not grown-up enough that we can't take care of ourselves? Can't people act like big boys and girls and get their own medical coverage? Then you can get coverage for whatever weird personal beliefs you have.
I can see why the left is so bothered by this though, it offends their two core principles: 1) You shouldn't be held personally responsible for anything. 2) Somebody else should pay for it.
Part of it stems from the tradition that businesses used incentives like health insurance to entice people to work for them. The better the plan, the more attractive an option it would be to some people. Since the infrastructure was already there, I think the government felt this was the best route to go since it required the least amount of change (as compared to other options). Personally, I think a governments investment into keeping it's citizens healthy and educated is the best way to help that country progress and thrive in a global economy, so I'm all for a universal healthcare. That being said, I think the way we have it right now is about as inefficient an implementation of that ideal as possible. I agree, healthcare insurance shouldn't be provided by businesses. But, I also think how health insurance has been applied in the past and even a bit now is a essentially a scam.
Oh they shouldn't have to. We should have much of our population with no health care and dying in the streets.
Every person who can not succeed to the level of being able to afford skyrocketing health care costs now and before the mandate should be subject to a slow and agonizing death if that situation occurs.
Quote: The pill largely acts as a way to prevent egg release but it does have an `abortifacient` backup in place when this breakthrough occurs too.
This is what I don't get either. All birth control pills could be argued to be abortofacients because of this very thing. The pill not only prevents egg maturation, but also stimulates the endometrial wall's sloughing off of the uterus. Any egg that implants would be flushed out with everything else. I worry that this ruling will end up being extended to all birth control because of this.
I believe the argument is "intent" The intent of the birth control pill is never to have the egg fertilized. It is a possibility and brings up grave concerns. Everyone has a line in the sand somewhere.
Quote: Can't have that ... people might start dying in the streets.
Or they could go to the ER who can't refuse treatment which drives up everyone's health care more than anything has. That's the point to all of this. No matter how you go about it, everyone pays the bill for the uninsured. It's been that way for a very long time.
So you can try to make everyone pay in some to help defray that cost, or you can simply go back to paying it the other way. You're health care costs were skyrocketing before Obamacare. My deductibles and co pays increased every year along with rising premiums.
Some of the same people who complained about it then, are the one's still complaining now.
Like I said before, I didn't think purple was necessary in my previous post because it was satire.
There will always be a way for people to get health care. And everyone will pay for it no matter which form it comes in. I didn't make that up. That's just how it is.
Quote: The pill largely acts as a way to prevent egg release but it does have an `abortifacient` backup in place when this breakthrough occurs too.
This is what I don't get either. All birth control pills could be argued to be abortofacients because of this very thing. The pill not only prevents egg maturation, but also stimulates the endometrial wall's sloughing off of the uterus. Any egg that implants would be flushed out with everything else. I worry that this ruling will end up being extended to all birth control because of this.
I believe the argument is "intent" The intent of the birth control pill is never to have the egg fertilized. It is a possibility and brings up grave concerns. Everyone has a line in the sand somewhere.
Fair enough. That being said I still feel like this could be the first step toward litigating this to include all birth control.
Quote: I believe the argument is "intent" The intent of the birth control pill is never to have the egg fertilized. It is a possibility and brings up grave concerns. Everyone has a line in the sand somewhere.
The intent of IUDs is to prevent fertilization as well. The copper ones especially do a fine job of it. I think they are either not showing knowledge on the subject or are subjugating peoples lack of knowledge to work toward a total ban at some point.
Quote: Hobby Lobby Is Already Creating New Religious Demands on Obama Faith leaders friendly to the administration are asking for an exemption from a forthcoming gay-rights order. MOLLY BALLJUL 2 2014, 1:05 PM ET Tweet More
Reuters This week, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious employer could not be required to provide employees with certain types of contraception. That decision is beginning to reverberate: A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action.
Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion.
"We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states.
The Hobby Lobby decision has been welcomed by religious-right groups who accuse Obama of waging a war on religion. But Tuesday's letter is different: It comes from a group of faith leaders who are generally friendly to the administration, many of whom have closely advised the White House on issues like immigration reform. The letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the Obama White House and directed faith outreach for the president's 2012 campaign. Signers include two members of Catholics for Obama and three former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
"This is not an antagonistic letter by any means," Wear told me. But in the wake of Hobby Lobby, he said, "the administration does have a decision to make whether they want to recalibrate their approach to some of these issues."
Last week, the administration announced it would issue an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a reform long sought by gay-rights groups. Such an order would essentially impose on contractors the provisions of the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which passed the Senate but hasn't been taken up by the House.
But the text of the order has not yet been released, so it is not known whether it will include a religious exemption. (A White House spokesman declined to discuss the order.) ENDA, the proposed federal legislation, does include such an exemption: It specifically does not apply to a broad array of faith-based organizations, from churches to religious-service groups to religious newspapers, meaning those groups could still decline to hire gay or transgender people if they believe it conflicts with their faith. The exemption was included despite fears from some LGBT activists that it could constitute a license to discriminate.
Balancing religious freedom with other concerns, be they gay rights or health-care mandates, is difficult, said Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University and a signatory to the letter. The faith community simply wants to make sure its side is heard and respected as the administration tries to thread this delicate needle.
"It would be nice if we had just a little bit more leverage," said Schneck, a onetime cochair of Catholics for Obama. "I am a very strong supporter of LGBT rights, and I am really excited about the prospect of extending provisions against discrimination in federal contracts. But I am also aware that this is an issue that provokes real differences among some of the most important religious organization on the front lines of providing care for the poorest and most vulnerable." Those groups, he said, need to be allowed to work with the government while following the dictates of their faith.
To these religious leaders, Hobby Lobby ought to prompt the White House to reexamine the way it weights religious rights against other priorities. Liberals opposed to the decision, on the other hand, argue it creates a slippery slope to more and more carve-outs from important legislation for claims based on faith. This executive order could be the next battleground for those competing points of view.
Well the Bible also says taking the Lords name in vain is a capital sin (Lev 24:16), and anyone who has been eunuch'd can't be in the congregation of the Lord (Deut 23:1) and if you're child is rebellious, to kill them with stones (Deut 21:18-21)
So I suppose compared to that, some good ol' slavery or gay bashing is just no big deal (tm)
The Old Testament Laws were fulfilled by the perfect life of Jesus Christ. He lived his life in perfect accord with the law, and when he sacrificed himself on the cross, he gave us (Christians) the benefit of his perfect life.
When a Christian stands before God's judgement, essentially God sees Jesus' perfect life, instead of the one we lived. The Law is no longer binding upon us. The Old Testament fills in the history of the Jewish faith, leading up to the arrival of the Messiah. The New Testament tells us of the life of the Messiah, and His instruction going forward. The New Testament tells us that Faith is the path to heaven, and life eternal. According to (my) Christian beliefs, the day of judgement offers 2 possibilities. One, that we each face God's judgement, using the Old Testament as the guide used for judgement, and even one sin brings a verdict of guilty. The second is that we stand before God, but behind Jesus, and Jesus, having lived a perfect and sin free life in our stead, is what God chooses to see because of our Faith in Him.
The New Testament does address sex and sexual sin. The New Testament tells us that the Christian body is to be a temple for the Holy Spirit, and that it should be kept clean, and treated in a respectful manner. Christians can choose to be celibate, devoting all of their energy to Christ ..... however, the Bible also allows that this is not the path for all people. For those who cannot control their urges to that degree, we are instructed to take one wife, and to be only with her. This seems to exclude the appropriateness of a homosexual relationship (since you brought the matter up) and/or marriage in the eyes of God. I have found nothing in the New testament what would legitimize such relationships in the eyes of God. (again, since you brought the issue up)
While I do believe that no one (except Jesus) ever has, or can live a perfect life, I do think that Christians have to be really careful not to think that God allows us to just do whatever we want because we have professed Faith in Jesus Christ, and repented our sins. I think that we have to do our best to move away from sinful behavior. We will fail, and that is why we have been given Grace, but I do not think that Grace gives us license to go do whatever we want in violation of what God expects from us as Christians. How can I, for example, be a Christian, and ask God for forgiveness of my sins, yet continue to live in sin with a woman? (As an example, No one could put up with me 24/7 with my back int he shape it's in now. lol) How much repentance of that sin is there if i ask for forgiveness, yet continue to commit the same sin willfully?
I think that these are questions that each Christian must answer for themselves, in their own hearts, and ones that I struggle with myself.. We ought not judge others for their actions ..... but that does not mean that we should approve of behavior that the Bible says are contrary to God's will. I think that giving that kind of approval, while believing that it could lead a person to eternal damnation, would be the truly hateful act.
I hope I this post made some sense ........... because I am really beat.
Quote: Well the Bible also says taking the Lords name in vain is a capital sin (Lev 24:16), and anyone who has been eunuch'd can't be in the congregation of the Lord (Deut 23:1) and if you're child is rebellious, to kill them with stones (Deut 21:18-21)
So I suppose compared to that, some good ol' slavery or gay bashing is just no big deal (tm)
Maybe someone more adept at it can chime in. Where is PastorDawg when you need him?
One solution is for Hobby Lobby to just cancel their insurance plan and pay the fines, and then let the government have them and they can give them anything they want.
If a company is providing health care options, then they should be free to choose what they offer. If the people don't like it they can choose to to join into the government option. The government is the only one who seems to be forcing healthcare onto people.
Quote: The Old Testament Laws were fulfilled by the perfect life of Jesus Christ. He lived his life in perfect accord with the law, and when he sacrificed himself on the cross, he gave us (Christians) the benefit of his perfect life.
Hey YTown!
I am definitely familiar with Jesus fulfilling the requirements of salvation in the old testament. In the new testament you didn't see people sacrificing animals because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. My parents are fundamentalist baptist, and as their child I went to church during my time in their household. I also went to a baptist school until 9th grade. I don't read the Bible that much anymore but I have read it about a dozen times from Genesis to Revelations.
When I posted those examples of scripture, it wasn't an attempt to bash the Bible but how I feel there is a logical fallacy in how many approach it. In a fundamentalist christian religion, the Bible is to be taken literally because it is the Word of God. But when you have troublesome scripture like this, it is then cast aside as not to be taken literally. Either it's the "old testament" and we don't do that anymore, or God really meant (some vague concept) instead of the literal case. Its a big problem I have with fundamentalism, not with the Bible.
When I was in seventh grade, the baptist school really turned on the jets in science. We were taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that Darwin was an agent of Satan and Evolution is the devils trick. Of course most of these kids bought it, when an agent of authority tells you something, especially a teacher, you are taught to believe it. I think my only saving grace was my parents having an encyclopedia at home that I liked reading alot (yes I'm a nerd).
I see the same logical fallacy here in claiming these birth control methods are somehow giving women dozens of abortions over their use. If they truly feel this way, they should push for a total ban on birth control supplements, not cherry pick. Does religion teach people to cherry pick what we like and don't like?
I recently joined the United Methodist Church. (after a long and winding road, examining different denominations and visiting a number of different churches in my area. I have always believed, as Methodists do, that God gave man brains for many reasons, and among those reasons is so that man can learn about the world around him. That is a big reason why I decided upon the United Methodist Church when I went looking for a Church. They best fit my understanding of God and the world, and how man fits into the world, and should interact with the world. .
Here is a little bit about Methodism. (Not too long, and far more at the link ..... including a stance on some social issues that may surprise some. I cannot say that I am 100% in absolute agreement with all of the Church's positions, but I respect them, and do agree with the vast majority of them.
The United Methodist Church is a Protestant movement and traces its roots back to John Wesley, an Anglican priest in the Church of England in the 1700s. John and his brother, Charles, intended to revitalize the Church of England by forming societies of "Methodists"– so called because the members followed a daily routine of religious observance and social work. Methodism first spread to Ireland and then to America where it officially became its own denomination in 1784. Today United Methodist membership stands at nearly 10 million worldwide (more than 1 million are outside of the United States).
Part of the mark of being a United Methodist is that we hold a wide range of theological beliefs. John Wesley said, "As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think." In general, we agree on the major aspects of theology. We believe in a Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in God’s love and forgiveness of all people. We believe in the mystery of salvation through Jesus Christ. And we believe in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.
For United Methodists, social consciousness has always gone hand in hand with faith. We believe, with John Wesley, "that the world is our parish." Hence, we support mission and justice work locally, regionally and around the world. We cherish an ecumenical tradition and seek to work together with other Christian denominations as well as other religions. We believe in the dignity of each person and the practice of total democracy in our church’s life.
John Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. United Methodists today follow four main guidelines that help us understand our faith. Scripture, Tradition, Experience, & Reason:
Scripture - United Methodists share with other Christians the conviction that Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine. Through Scripture the living Christ meets us in the experience of redeeming grace. We are convinced that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God in our midst whom we trust in life and death.
Tradition - The story of the church reflects the most basic sense of tradition, the continuing activity of God's Spirit transforming human life. Tradition is the history of that continuing environment of grace in and by which all Christians live, God's self-giving love in Jesus Christ. As such, tradition transcends the story of particular traditions.
Experience - Some facets of human experience tax our theological understanding. Many of God's people live in terror, hunger, loneliness, and degradation. Everyday experiences of birth and death, of growth and life in the created world, and an awareness of wider social relations also belong to serious theological reflection. A new awareness of such experiences can inform our appropriation of scriptural truths and sharpen our appreciation of the good news of the kingdom of God.
Reason - Although we recognize that God’s revelation and our experiences of God’s grace continually surpass the scope of human language and reason, we also believe that any disciplined theological work calls for the careful use of reason. By reason we read and interpret Scripture. By reason we determine whether our Christian witness is clear. By reason we ask questions of faith and seek to understand God’s action and will.
I actually worked with a Methodist church in Akron helping a couple of their pastors understand climate change. They came in with an open mind, asked questions until they understood arguments for and against climate change and walked away trying to figure out how to make their church more energy independent. Good people. If I had a grown up in the Methodist church, I may not have walked away from religion so easily.
I've been going to a Methodist church pretty much all of my life and it has always seemed like a very nice place to be. Maybe that's why I don't understand when people talk about these very bad church experiences they have had because I've never had one.
Quote: I actually worked with a Methodist church in Akron helping a couple of their pastors understand climate change. They came in with an open mind, asked questions until they understood arguments for and against climate change and walked away trying to figure out how to make their church more energy independent. Good people. If I had a grown up in the Methodist church, I may not have walked away from religion so easily.
It's never too late to walk back in.
I walked back in at 51. I believed in God ..... but I wasn't one for religion. I decided that I wanted to find a church though, especially since my back limits what I can do. I figured it would give me an activity, and something to keep me on some sort of schedule. I went to several churches, and was really looking for one with a somewhat younger congregation.
I wound up in a church with a much older congregation, for the most part. However, the first sermon I heard in that church really touched me.I went back, and enjoyed the 2nd sermon even more. Then the 3rd ..... a 4th Sunday ... then a 5th ......
I joined the church, officially, this past Sunday. It wasn't what I thought I was looking for at first, but it was what I wanted to find.
Because then nobody will have an excuse. I think all forms of birth control should be covered, that way certain social benefits an be cut.
In the end, the tax payer will pay less.
This is incorrect. The tax payer will pay in other ways. Stores will need to increase their prices to pay and cover everything that is mandated. The more money they need to spend on coverage, the less money they'll have to use in other more useful ventures such as investment or innovation.
Because then nobody will have an excuse. I think all forms of birth control should be covered, that way certain social benefits an be cut.
In the end, the tax payer will pay less.
This is incorrect. The tax payer will pay in other ways. Stores will need to increase their prices to pay and cover everything that is mandated. The more money they need to spend on coverage, the less money they'll have to use in other more useful ventures such as investment or innovation.
Covering a few more birth control methods would not lead to any of this. The theory is right if the abortifactants were so costly that they were destroying places like Hobby Lobby, but that's not the case at all.
Because then nobody will have an excuse. I think all forms of birth control should be covered, that way certain social benefits an be cut.
In the end, the tax payer will pay less.
This is incorrect. The tax payer will pay in other ways. Stores will need to increase their prices to pay and cover everything that is mandated. The more money they need to spend on coverage, the less money they'll have to use in other more useful ventures such as investment or innovation.
Covering a few more birth control methods would not lead to any of this. The theory is right if the abortifactants were so costly that they were destroying places like Hobby Lobby, but that's not the case at all.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily liberals rationalize the forced spending of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
Quote: It never ceases to amaze me that John McCain always wants to send other families young men to die in other countries.
Yeah...that insensitive *** has no idea what it's like to be in a war. He just willy-nilly wants our young men put in danger and for no good reason. How would HE like it if he went to war and was captured by the enemy?
The fact he experienced it, dealt with everything that involves being a POW and still wants to send people into every conflict in the world dumbfounds me.
Quote: The fact he experienced it, dealt with everything that involves being a POW and still wants to send people into every conflict in the world dumbfounds me.
Every conflict in the world? Really? Every darned one? How about no.
McCain is one of the few Congressmen we have who truly understands the consequences of conflict...engaging in it or deciding not to.
You are dumbfounded because he believes in something that you do not. He has his reasons...he understands the consequences...you are against engaging in other country's problems (but favor telling others how they should spend their money on birth control).
You may be the correct one here regarding conflict...but it's very easy to see why you are dumbfounded by his stance. He sees your point of view...but you do not see his. To be fair, you (and I) do not have access to the level of information that he has to form his stance. (BTW, that doesn't make him right or you wrong.)
Maybe that's because he's one of the few left that understands what it took to not only found this Country but to keep it this way. Just because you think we should just sit back and pretend everythings hunky-dory does not mean that everybody else does the samething.
YTown, I could write a book about what you said, but I'll spare us all and just give you a big A man after my own heart. Good Job Man.
Quote: It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives use hyperbole to scare people then get mad when they get called out on it.
You call it 'hyperole' I call it the facts of the matter. You know...those pesky little things that liberals refuse to see. (Such as...Who is writing the check?) You call it 'scare', I call it seeing through the elitist BS of 'fairness'.
McCain is doing the job he was elected to do. Obama is doing the opposite of what the POTUS is elected (primarily) to do.
Quote: It never ceases to amaze me how easily liberals rationalize the forced spending of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
Because it's OTHER PEOPLE'S money. If it was their money being discussed, they have none of this. If they actually thought about the cost of things and had to pay for it themselves, they'd be conservatives.
Truth is, they don't consider what the cost is because they don't care. They don't see that they're paying for it.
Quote: It never ceases to amaze me how easily liberals rationalize the forced spending of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
Because it's OTHER PEOPLE'S money. If it was their money being discussed, they have none of this. If they actually thought about the cost of things and had to pay for it themselves, they'd be conservatives.
Truth is, they don't consider what the cost is because they don't care. They don't see that they're paying for it.
It consistently amazes me how conservictims believe they're the only ones with wallets and their beliefs trump justice. The SCOUTS decided corporations are people and women are breeders, yet there's an incessant whine from the right that people are taking THEIR money.
They probably also believe people at airports want to steal their luggage.
Paranoid narcissistic symptoms of victimization grandeur.
Quote: It never ceases to amaze me how easily liberals rationalize the forced spending of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
Because it's OTHER PEOPLE'S money. If it was their money being discussed, they have none of this. If they actually thought about the cost of things and had to pay for it themselves, they'd be conservatives.
Truth is, they don't consider what the cost is because they don't care. They don't see that they're paying for it.
It consistently amazes me how conservictims believe they're the only ones with wallets and their beliefs trump justice. The SCOUTS decided corporations are people and women are breeders, yet there's an incessant whine from the right that people are taking THEIR money.
They probably also believe people at airports want to steal their luggage.
Paranoid narcissistic symptoms of victimization grandeur.
When did birth control become a right to be provided by the government? Hobby Lobby was already providing 16 forms of birth control before the department of health and human services mandated it. The obummercare law left open provisions for HHS to add new mandates, and sebilius added this one without consulting anyone, and without even checking on constitutionality. Why should the rest of us be forced to pay for someone else's birth control? I always took care of mine and my wife's without government intervention.
Because then nobody will have an excuse. I think all forms of birth control should be covered, that way certain social benefits an be cut.
In the end, the tax payer will pay less.
This is incorrect. The tax payer will pay in other ways. Stores will need to increase their prices to pay and cover everything that is mandated. The more money they need to spend on coverage, the less money they'll have to use in other more useful ventures such as investment or innovation.
Covering a few more birth control methods would not lead to any of this. The theory is right if the abortifactants were so costly that they were destroying places like Hobby Lobby, but that's not the case at all.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily liberals rationalize the forced spending of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
y'all keep saying the cost will rise if this and that happens...but it hasn't.
Since when did it become a specific right to exclude by a religious group? How come THEY have that government provided right especially when considering their tax exemption is stealing our money?
Who is writing the check? You ignore the entire basis of the argument. Higher costs? Lower costs? Same costs? The person writing the check should be able to decide what to cover.
If the government insists on forcing a law onto someone, then they should be forced to follow their own (other) existing laws. Oh the horror.
Also, if you think health care and insurance costs aren't going up, you must not be paying for 100% of your care & insurance. It's easy to talk about costs when you are covered by insurance paid for by someone else (employer, military, parents, etc.)
Who is writing the check? You ignore the entire basis of the argument. Higher costs? Lower costs? Same costs? The person writing the check should be able to decide what to cover.
If the government insists on forcing a law onto someone, then they should be forced to follow their own (other) existing laws. Oh the horror.
Also, if you think health care and insurance costs aren't going up, you must not be paying for 100% of your care & insurance. It's easy to talk about costs when you are covered by insurance paid for by someone else (employer, military, parents, etc.)
take a look at your comments in the Target thread. you're against Target asking gun owners to leave their guns.
they are a business, so you support business with birth control but nut weapons?
double standard much? at least me and CHS are constant with our logic.
Who is writing the check? You ignore the entire basis of the argument. Higher costs? Lower costs? Same costs? The person writing the check should be able to decide what to cover.
If the government insists on forcing a law onto someone, then they should be forced to follow their own (other) existing laws. Oh the horror.
Also, if you think health care and insurance costs aren't going up, you must not be paying for 100% of your care & insurance. It's easy to talk about costs when you are covered by insurance paid for by someone else (employer, military, parents, etc.)
I'm not ignoring anything. Your "facts" were blown out of proportion and weren't credible. Do you realize that with the US's privatized health care system that we are spending the most on health care in the world? Why do you think that is considering UHC systems are a lot less expensive than ours?
Quote: One solution is for Hobby Lobby to just cancel their insurance plan and pay the fines, and then let the government have them and they can give them anything they want.
If a company is providing health care options, then they should be free to choose what they offer. If the people don't like it they can choose to to join into the government option. The government is the only one who seems to be forcing healthcare onto people.
I agree for the most part. I like parts of ObamaCare, but the mandate is one piece that I don't like at all.
Compromises watered the ACA down. Mandates, vouchers, premium support, private industry marketplace are all more GOP-centered than Liberal. Much of that is in there to get the final votes and protect the moderate Democrats that voted on this.
I'd prefer leaving the private market alone and offering a Gov't Plan that doesn't involve mandates or marketplaces. Simply expand Medicaid and offer some help to the poor that don't have insurance options. I'm sure most on the Left would as well. But to get the Bill through, it had to be some pseudo-free-market, mix. Hence, why RepubliCare and the Paul Ryan Medicare Plan is basically ObamaCare with a little less subsidy and more protection for the industry (tort reform and removing profit caps).
Because then nobody will have an excuse. I think all forms of birth control should be covered, that way certain social benefits an be cut.
In the end, the tax payer will pay less.
This is incorrect. The tax payer will pay in other ways. Stores will need to increase their prices to pay and cover everything that is mandated. The more money they need to spend on coverage, the less money they'll have to use in other more useful ventures such as investment or innovation.
Covering a few more birth control methods would not lead to any of this. The theory is right if the abortifactants were so costly that they were destroying places like Hobby Lobby, but that's not the case at all.
I'm not thinking about just Hobby Lobby. I'm thinking about the precedent and consequences a ruling like this would have on different businesses over time.
Once you start examining ALL of the different parties a policy change such as this would harm, you really start to see the full effect. You can't just dismiss that providing mandated goods cost money out of the companies pockets and that has to be raised somehow. It doesn't just magically appear. Now a company like Hobby Lobby might not have a touch of a time paying for mandated policy like other smaller businesses.
The fact of the matter is, when you don't have enough cash on hand to cover what is mandated, then you're forced to make cuts to other parts of the business. This may mean hiring less workers (because every worker is that much more expensive besides regular benefits + the mandated items). And because paying for these mandates costs more, it hurts the bottom line profits, unless of course you do something else.
And you may think I'm old school or have a classic economics type of view, but let's say this ruling went the other way. If more items are mandated in the future and it becomes the norm and profits are lowered with small businesses having to pay boatloads of money towards mandates, why would I ever have the incentive to start my own business?
You wouldn't. Which is exactly why this shouldn't be in the hand of businesses, but in the hands of the government. But you're right, if this gets too crazy and they start mandating extremely costly programs and over a decent enough of time (few years or decades), but again, by then, hopefully we have a government ran system.
I'm still waiting to hear/see a Constitutional based argument that would support forcing HL to pay for those 4 additional forms of birth control. My guess is I won't because there isn't. On the other hand the Constitutional basis for the actual ruling is quite clear.
Ruling in favor of HL is not a ruling in favor of "discrimination". Refusing to pay for those things isn't treating women any different than anyone else, its not treating them as a lesser employee. That claim is absolutely bunk.
Quote: You wouldn't. Which is exactly why this shouldn't be in the hand of businesses, but in the hands of the government. But you're right, if this gets too crazy and they start mandating extremely costly programs and over a decent enough of time (few years or decades), but again, by then, hopefully we have a government ran system.
You want government-run health care. I can't imagine any possibility where that would be a success. The government needs to keep their hands OUT of the healthcare system. Their limited involvement should be in fostering competition and research and development.
The only government-run operations that make any sense are our armed forces and NASA. Look at the people (generally) who run those operations. It's no surprise those operations function like they do.
Quote: Which is exactly why this shouldn't be in the hand of businesses, but in the hands of the government.
I guess I'm slow. This makes no sense what so ever to me. Why would you want the Gov. involved in anything? Business Owners already have to contend with a lot of red tape, which just drives up the cost of doing business, and much of it is not necessary, most of this red tape is Gov. sponsored and enforced and you want the Gov. involved in Health Care? Why?
All these Obama liberals on here begging for more "big government" are going to make me puke. If Obama had his way he would burn the Constitution and write his own. The sad part is you have more and more leftwingers agreeing with him.
I don't thin HL took this to the Supreme Court because of the costs. They didn't want to provide the "day after pill", which they see as a form of abortion. So this was a case of Moral/Religious Standards to trump existing law.
I'm curious to see what the next company in line to challenge this will be...
Quote: All these Obama liberals on here begging for more "big government" are going to make me puke. If Obama had his way he would burn the Constitution and write his own. The sad part is you have more and more leftwingers agreeing with him.
You do realize that everything the republicans want is opposite of small government right?
Quote: So this was a case of Moral/Religious Standards to trump existing law.
Actually it was a case of an old existing law, the religious free exercise clause of the constitution, being used in a way it had not previously been used, to trump the new law, which is a mandate to provide health insurance.
Quote: That's the one thing that baffles me about people who vote Republican.
I think as long as the candidate/elected official says 'I'm against big government, I want small government', that's enough for them.
There are precious few politicians who actually want smaller government any more... not really enough to make a difference. At this point it's not about bigger government or smaller government, it's the aspects of their lives (and other people's lives) that they want controlled and those they want left alone.
Quote: You wouldn't. Which is exactly why this shouldn't be in the hand of businesses, but in the hands of the government. But you're right, if this gets too crazy and they start mandating extremely costly programs and over a decent enough of time (few years or decades), but again, by then, hopefully we have a government ran system.
You want government-run health care. I can't imagine any possibility where that would be a success. The government needs to keep their hands OUT of the healthcare system. Their limited involvement should be in fostering competition and research and development.
Right? Because its not like veterans have died waiting months to be seen by doctors? And that's if they weren't on the lists of vets that they had no intention of setting appointments up for. This isn't even about Obama or Bush. This is a fully government run health care system that has failed miserably with tragic consequences. I have no idea why people somehow think that gov't run healthcare via Obamacare won't turn out the same way? The VA is proof that gov't is incapable of running something like healthcare.
Quote: You wouldn't. Which is exactly why this shouldn't be in the hand of businesses, but in the hands of the government. But you're right, if this gets too crazy and they start mandating extremely costly programs and over a decent enough of time (few years or decades), but again, by then, hopefully we have a government ran system.
You want government-run health care. I can't imagine any possibility where that would be a success. The government needs to keep their hands OUT of the healthcare system. Their limited involvement should be in fostering competition and research and development.
The only government-run operations that make any sense are our armed forces and NASA. Look at the people (generally) who run those operations. It's no surprise those operations function like they do.
Look at Europe then look back at us. It's pretty easy to spot who the losers are in health care. Also R&D will be lacking? That's what the government does best, because they can run in the red. That's the great thing about the government. They don't have "debt" like Corporations have debt.*
*To some extent, most of the debt is owed to the people who won't/cannot collect it, the problem is when we have foreign debt.
Quote: Look at Europe then look back at us. It's pretty easy to spot who the losers are in health care. Also R&D will be lacking? That's what the government does best, because they can run in the red. That's the great thing about the government. They don't have "debt" like Corporations have debt.*
*To some extent, most of the debt is owed to the people who won't/cannot collect it, the problem is when we have foreign debt.
Except for the fact that government can have a debt and never produce anything. Corporations have to make a profit, so they will work harder at resolving the problem, especially in the R&D department.
Quote: Except that's not true at all. Evident because most major innovation comes from government sponsored places or the government themselves.
While I will accept a government contractor will innovate, as they can lose their contract, when does government invent anything but more government? I'd love an example, other than a nuclear bomb.
You're using it right now. I'm almost so confident that the government created most things, that if you look around you and start naming things, I'm sure that I could find how the government helped create it or an early predecessor.
You mean companies like AT&T that set up telegraph and telephone lines across the country? Maybe companies like Cisco and others that created router technology? Banks that wanted transport protocols that would check data integrity at each router (X.25)? Maybe all those coders that allow you to use smiley faces and other graphics on sites like this?
The government had a need to interconnect computers, and turned the job over to contractors that made it happen. If those contractors were unable to produce over a certain period of time, they would have been fired. Government creates nothing but more government.
Quote: So are we just going to feign ignorance now?
There's the strange logic again. Actually, it's my business, and I've been doing it a long time. I was there when the government got off of sneakernet, because I installed ARPANET. The government didn't create that. In fact, the government held up the development of the internet for years, as they tried to keep it private for them. I was on the internet in the days of 2400 baud modems and CompuServe. I watched the US Navy refuse to use Windows for years, because of the ability of Windows to report back to Microsoft. Ignorance? Not on this end of the conversation.
Quote: You're using it right now. I'm almost so confident that the government created most things, that if you look around you and start naming things, I'm sure that I could find how the government helped create it or an early predecessor.
Your assumption is that those things that were invented with some level of government funding would not have been invented without it.
If you had an innovative solar panel idea and knew that you could either find investors and plunk down a big chunk of your own money and take the risk to try to develop it or you could apply for a big chunk of government money and you still get to keep all of the profits, what would you do? Yea, me too.
Yes, but how much further down the road are we talking? The whole point of research and development is to get to the point quickly, not save up enough money so in 30 years you can test a prototype.
Quote: Yes, but how much further down the road are we talking? The whole point of research and development is to get to the point quickly, not save up enough money so in 30 years you can test a prototype.
That's true but how much quicker might people be if they were doing it on their own dime?
I'm actually not against government research funding the way some are.. I also draw a distinction between things which were invented to meet a government need, usually things funded out of the defense department or NASA which were then adapted for civilian use... and the other things the government spends a lot of money on which seem far less practical.
Quote: If you've been doing it long enough you would know what ARPA stood for
Actually, I'd have to look it up. I'm sure most people would have to look up 50 year old acronyms. I also find that after using an acronym for about 5 years I can explain what it means better than what the exact acronym means.
The government held up the release of the potential of the internet for public use for about 30 years. For the longest time, it was for government, scientific, and certain business usage only. It was once the government got out of the way that the internet took off.
Quote: If you've been doing it long enough you would know what ARPA stood for
Actually, I'd have to look it up. I'm sure most people would have to look up 50 year old acronyms. I also find that after using an acronym for about 5 years I can explain what it means better than what the exact acronym means.
The government held up the release of the potential of the internet for public use for about 30 years. For the longest time, it was for government, scientific, and certain business usage only. It was once the government got out of the way that the internet took off.
None of that changes the fact that the government created the internet.
Quote: If you've been doing it long enough you would know what ARPA stood for
Actually, I'd have to look it up. I'm sure most people would have to look up 50 year old acronyms. I also find that after using an acronym for about 5 years I can explain what it means better than what the exact acronym means.
The government held up the release of the potential of the internet for public use for about 30 years. For the longest time, it was for government, scientific, and certain business usage only. It was once the government got out of the way that the internet took off.
None of that changes the fact that the government created the internet.
The government funded the creation of the internet. If that means created, then I want licensing and patent rights on every company I own stock in and the products they created.
Except that the government not only created the internet, it also funded most advances as well. ARPA (Now known as DARPA) is a research facility operated by the DoD and surprisingly they created the thing known as "ARPA". So that begs the question, if a government program creates something by itself does that mean that the private sector invented it? Well, I'm not sure. I should let the geniuses figure that one out.
The first version of the invented came from the government in 1969, called ARPANET.
also, nasa developed modern Semi trucks for aerodynamics, that's why they look like space shuttles if you have noticed, happened when president Nixon ask for ideas during the energy crisis. Also developed by the government?
GPS, that little device some of you can't live without driving into a ditch.
Also, what people don't realize, a thing called the accelerometer, used originally for guiding missiles.
Now found in Nintendo wii and used to deploy airbags on impact in cars.
Also, the microchip, the government funded what is known now as Intel. Ya know, the very microchip some of you are using to argue that government ran programs never work.
Once again, the government doesn't create these things, the government throws money at private corporations. Space X is a great example. Yes, they have government contracts, but they are a private company that is able to do what the government did for years. They do it cheaper, better, and will be doing it privately for a long time.
Correct. Only correct for the internal combustion engine as there were very inefficient cars started before that, that were government created. Depends. The person who created the flush toilet was the God Son of the Queen at the time, but can we consider someone in the Monarchy/Queen's Court as part of the government or part of a company. It gets fuzzy.
Quote: Some inventions come when the government wants to do something that is impossible and then asks the private sector for help.
That is where almost everything comes from.. which is why I'm not 100% against government funded research like some are...
I wouldn't go that far. It is only some of them. Most useful inventions are born out of the necessity for someone needing to do something of their own and coming up with a to solve it.
There are, however, some inventions that come about with an impossible government specification that must be met... and which eventually is. The government couldn't create the product but made the demands of private contractors.
If there was a government demand for an elevator to the moon, you can bet your ass that it would be a private contractor to come up with the solution. When (not if) space travel becomes a standard event, it will be a private venture that leads the way, not a government one.
Quote: Most useful inventions are born out of the necessity for someone needing to do something of their own and coming up with a to solve it.
Most useful inventions are merely adapting things already invented to a new purpose or combining existing things for a new purpose... or they were a total accident. So it depends on what you consider the "invention"... Teflon, for example, from a documentary I saw was invented by accident by DuPont a century ago... it had some interesting characteristics... then the government got ahold of it and found all kinds of practical applications for it in aerospace and invested a ton of money into developing those uses... now DuPont puts it almost everything... so who gets credit for the "invention"? I suppose the guy at DuPont does technically but would it be what it is today without the government finding all kinds of needs for it? Hard to say...
Quote: When (not if) space travel becomes a standard event, it will be a private venture that leads the way, not a government one.
Maybe but this is where the problem lies... the private venture that leads the way will be using all of the technology for rocket propulsion, living weightlessly, maintaining an environment, storing food, disposing of waste, etc... all brought about by the government. All the private entity is really doing is adding passengers to a technology that already existed. And if that space travel happens to be to Mars or some other place, you can bet that it will only happen after the government got there first and proved it could be done and how to do it.
If all it has to do is gather some people with a goal and throw money at it, the gov't can accomplish great things because in those instances the gov't itself is not what is in control. It feeds the funding and gets out of the way.
That is how D/ARPA, NASA, Manhatten Project, etc.. all were quite successful. It is when the project crosses that invisible line from being gov't funded to being a full-blown gov't entity and gets swallowed by the bureaucracy that all efficacy and efficiency dies.
Of significant note is that in every case, the gov't merely paid people to do jobs where they discovered these things. It was the private sector, however, that found public uses and brought these things to the masses. The gov't cannot do that, even if it tried (or was permitted).
Very well put, which is why it is such a complex issue.... Some large percentage (I won't even begin to speculate on how large) of the most essential inventions have the governments fingerprints on them, usually through funding... and that is kind of how this whole debate started, it was about government funding of research.. the recipient of that funding is generally a private firm or a non-profit group.
And that was my point all along, not that the government is great at inventing stuff, rather that the government is pretty good at facilitating the invention of stuff, either by creating the need (as in military or NASA) applications.. or by funding.. or both.
I think the government should offer health insurance to all for at least basic medical and catastrophic needs. The premiums for it should be based on income. South Korea does this and has way better health coverage than we do.
Then companies can offer supplemental insurance to cover things not included by government insurance. This allows businesses to keep their healthcare cost affordable and be competitive in a world market where most other businesses don't have to pay for health insurance.
South Korea also has a strict limit to how much you can sue a doctor for as well. That helps to GREATLY lower the cost of going to a doctor. It was cheaper for me to see a doctor in South Korea with no health insurance at all than it was for me to go to an off network doctor in the USA.
...................................
For all that to do about birth control being covered or not. I really don't see where its the government's or a business's responsibility to cover for your sex life. The only time it should be is in the case of rape because women should not be forced to have children from a crime.
That being said, if you want to have sex then take care of the necessities yourself. You having sex is a choice. Your choice in dealing with the repercussion is on you too. Can't afford birth control? Can't afford condoms? Then WTF are you doing an action that will create children for?! That's on you. Keep your darn pants on. If you can't keep your pants on then don't complain to me that I should have to pay for your condoms and birth control. That's ridiculous.
It's not even a religious issue. It's an issue of taking responsibility for your own bodies and actions. Like my father also told me,"Son if you can't afford to have children then don't have sex without a rubber. If you can't afford a rubber then you got no business having sex." If you can't keep your pants on then YOU deal with what comes afterward yourself. Leave me and uncle Sam out of it.
These last 2 posts (PPE & DC) pretty well summarize my views.
I also think this thread's last 2 posts dovetail nicely with the discussion about solar roads/sidewalks.
Our history has shown that there's almost NOTHING that can't be accomplished with the correct ratio (and role) of gov't AND private sector. The problem always seems to rise during the preliminary debates about how best to start.
I really don't mind seeing the Prez (any Prez) challenge his citizens to innovate, explore, discover... and I really have little trouble seeing congress release some seed money for r&d- as long as they then step back to let that natural ingenuity and drive come from those who decide to step up to the challenge.
It's always worked well for us in the past... and I see no reason it can't continue to work in the future.
"The Answer" has never been all one at the expense of the other.
Quote: Most useful inventions are born out of the necessity for someone needing to do something of their own and coming up with a to solve it.
Most useful inventions are merely adapting things already invented to a new purpose or combining existing things for a new purpose... or they were a total accident. So it depends on what you consider the "invention"... Teflon, for example, from a documentary I saw was invented by accident by DuPont a century ago... it had some interesting characteristics... then the government got ahold of it and found all kinds of practical applications for it in aerospace and invested a ton of money into developing those uses... now DuPont puts it almost everything... so who gets credit for the "invention"? I suppose the guy at DuPont does technically but would it be what it is today without the government finding all kinds of needs for it? Hard to say...
Quote: When (not if) space travel becomes a standard event, it will be a private venture that leads the way, not a government one.
Maybe but this is where the problem lies... the private venture that leads the way will be using all of the technology for rocket propulsion, living weightlessly, maintaining an environment, storing food, disposing of waste, etc... all brought about by the government. All the private entity is really doing is adding passengers to a technology that already existed. And if that space travel happens to be to Mars or some other place, you can bet that it will only happen after the government got there first and proved it could be done and how to do it.
Teflon was a development of DuPont, but the uses required by the government weren't produced by the government. They were requirements, nothing more. A private firm was tasked with doing the job, but it was the private firm that made use of Teflon and Velcro and so on.
And, in your example, you use rocketry. It was a development of a man, not a government. Nazi Germany used it, but it was a development long before then. If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Even if you were to take the use of it on the scale that the Nazis had done - it was under contracts with private firms, not in government labs or factories.
Quote: If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Little has changed between ancient Chinese fireworks and landing on the moon?
Quote: If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Little has changed between ancient Chinese fireworks and landing on the moon?
Quote: If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Little has changed between ancient Chinese fireworks and landing on the moon?
No, between Chinese fireworks, centuries ago and today's fireworks.
But, realistically, between rocket tech circa 1945 and rocket tech circa 2014, not much has really changed. Electronic components have changed, but as far as rocket tech goes, not nearly as much as you'd think.
We have gotten very far off track... I'll just go back to my original point, the current rocket technology is where it is, in large part due to government investment...
Quote: We have gotten very far off track... I'll just go back to my original point, the current rocket technology is where it is, in large part due to government investment...
Investment? I suppose that's one way to look at it.
) and they would be obliged. Otherwise, as I see it, this is a clear violation of the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment.
