|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
I wish that this would have been something other than a 5-4 decision ..... but I do believe that it is the right decision based on the Constitution. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_t1(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."
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
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.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
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.
Last edited by RocketOptimist; 06/30/14 11:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
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?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
Quote:
Your thread title remains extremely misleading, YTown...
I took the title directly from CNN. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with them. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
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.
So should condoms be covered as well?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
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?
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
Sure. Why not?
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.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,429 Likes: 15
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,429 Likes: 15 |
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 !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
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".
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
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".
but hey, thats none of my business though.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
Quote:
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.
Last edited by Swish; 06/30/14 12:30 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
Quote:
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.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
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? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041 |
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
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?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
Quote:
Quote:
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.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041 |
You can kinda opt out coverages for car insurance but you still have to have the state minimum coverage that is mandated by each states.
Last edited by Lurker; 06/30/14 12:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
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.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
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.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
 Quote:
You'd have us mimicking the Soviet Union under Stalin's murderous reign.
Hyperbole, much?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
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.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,041 |
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
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.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,971 Likes: 1360
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,971 Likes: 1360 |
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.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
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).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,811 Likes: 634
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,811 Likes: 634 |
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.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
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.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
Quote:
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.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
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.
“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.” -AOC
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Supreme Court Rules Against
Obamacare on Birth Control
|
|
