DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Supreme Court Rules Against Obamacare on Birth Control

Quote:

---

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. .

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

How exactly is is trolling to say that a book full of fantastical impossibilities is a book of fairy tales?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How exactly is is trolling to say that a book full of fantastical impossibilities is a book of fairy tales?

---

Are we talking about 'The Bible' (and its analogs), or things like 'A Brief History of Time', and 'On the Origin of Species'?

On more than a few levels, I'm sure they all qualify quite easily for your description.

---

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...

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You'd have us mimicking the Soviet Union under Stalin's murderous reign.

---

Hyperbole, much?

---

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? Besides, aren't you literally Stalin's off-spring, 2 generations removed?

Quote:

---

Jc

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:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How exactly is is trolling to say that a book full of fantastical impossibilities is a book of fairy tales?

---

Are we talking about 'The Bible' (and its analogs), or things like 'A Brief History of Time', and 'On the Origin of Species'?

On more than a few levels, I'm sure they all qualify quite easily for your description.

---

I wouldn't base law or policy on any of those texts.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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??

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

How exactly is is trolling to say that a book full of fantastical impossibilities is a book of fairy tales?

---

Quote:

---

Simple. By voting for an owner to have first amendment rights, you just took the employees away.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

---