Hobby Lobby Hypocrisy

usernameconspiracy
reply to post by rickynews

 

So then your opinion is that NO insurance company should cover birth control, right? I guess you can shop until you drop to find the insurance that doesn't and sign up with them. I doubt you actually bother though. Like everyone else, you pick a plan (if your employer offers multiple plans to begin with) that has a premium, deductible, and co-pay which fits with your income.

let obama pay for it.

how about that?

at least if you get attacked by a turtle, you'll be covered.

windword
reply to post by rickynews

 

Your argument is utter and complete non-sense. Hobby Lobby has every Constitutional right and moral right Not to provide abortion inducing drugs and birth control to ANY of its employees.

No they don't, and they haven't had that right since December 2000. If they had a problem with the law, that would have been the time to protest. But now, they just look racist, judgmental, bigoted and hypocritical.

I will dance in the streets the day they shutter their doors!

what are you gonna do with all their employees that agree with them?

do you care? or just care about the % that want what obama is selling?

i'd cut them loose and have them find a job and abortion plan that suits them, or is it illegal now?

mOjOm

rickynews
You want birth control ? Then You pay for it. Quite simple.

Well, if it's ok to just pick and choose then why pay for anything. Why should anyone pay for anything that isn't going to be for themselves. Why should I pay for some guys prostate surgery or some woman's breast cancer or some kids heart pills or some old ladies kidney's or some soldiers ptsd meds or an officers whatever and so on and so on???

If we can arbitrarily pick and choose what we will or won't pay for, why would anyone pay for anything???

BTW, did you know that you're already paying for "Vacuum Erection Systems" for guys who can't get it up??? How do you feel about paying for some old guys "Boner Machine" while refusing to pay for some woman's birth control???

Seems like the more of one you have is all the more reason to have more of the other....

Almost forgot the link:
Dept. of Health and Human Services "Vacuum System Report"

edit on 4-4-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)

yeah, why pay for food and dinning out or movies?

i have my sights on a 100 acs and a nice old house, should i not have to pay for that?

i want a paycheck but don't want to work, oh wait...

yeah, where does it stop?

mOjOm
reply to post by rickynews

 

Almost, but birth control is also used for other things besides just stopping fertilization. Some other uses include: Lowering risk of Cancer, PMS and Period Pain Relief and Endometriosis relief. Apparently it can also be used to treat bad skin by lowering testosterone in women which lowers the oil producing or something like that.

yeah, already covered, dude.

by ins.

doctors orders. not over the counter.

let obama pay for your choices, he has more money than me.

windword

rickynews
You miss my point. If a woman has a medical condition, such as the conditions you described, then I have no problem with medications to treat said condition. However, if a woman chooses to practice birth control, for the intended purpose of preventing pregnancy, then that is her choice, and she is free to do so, at her own expense of course.

edit on 4-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)

Then so should men's erection meds. Also, if someone goes skiing and breaks their leg or neck, hey, it was their choice to ski. They should pay for any medical care they need at their own expense, right?

right!! or are you saying it should be paid for?

it's my right to blow off my own head too, after taking out a million $ life ins. policy. you think my family should be paid?

how many athletes have no skiing or dangerous things clauses, in their contracts?

no one needs to have sex. lol! men or women. need broken bones set tho. unless you break your leg having sex.

tsingtao
yeah, why pay for food and dinning out or movies?

i have my sights on a 100 acs and a nice old house, should i not have to pay for that?

i want a paycheck but don't want to work, oh wait...

yeah, where does it stop?

I mean why pay for anything Health related smart guy.

I'm guessing you already understood the context in which I said it and just chose to reply with that incredibly stupid post, but just in case I figured I'd answer it just to be sure.

tsingtao

yeah, already covered, dude.

by ins.

doctors orders. not over the counter.

let obama pay for your choices, he has more money than me.

Great dude.

So what's your point???

BTW, Nothing I said has anything to do with MY CHOICES.

tsingtao
right!! or are you saying it should be paid for?

it's my right to blow off my own head too, after taking out a million $ life ins. policy. you think my family should be paid?

how many athletes have no skiing or dangerous things clauses, in their contracts?

no one needs to have sex. lol! men or women. need broken bones set tho. unless you break your leg having sex.

Well, if you can find an insurance company to insure someone with a payout for Suicide then ya they should be paid if you blow your head off. That's probably why no insurance company has or would ever allow such a stupid policy in the first place.

reply to post by mOjOm


Some states don't recognize suicide so you still get paid... Happened to a coworker in MO's family.

I agree with you, in that if a male has a erectile dysfunction medical condition, then he should "pay to play" for his own treatment.
In such a case, there is no justifiable reason that the rest of society has a financial obligation to help him improve his choice or desire of improved sexual function. His choice is to either pay for his medications, or not receive the treatment benefits.

What this all comes down to is choices. Certain medical conditions are not a choice. Practicing or not practicing birth control is indeed a choice, and choices have both a financial and other consequences, desirable and undesirable. Society as a whole shouldn't be forced to finance, subsidize or pay for the sexual practices of all the other members of society.

reply to post by rickynews


Dude for all your "I shouldn't have to pay for that!" Type rants. Not once have I seen you adress the OP.... Cause if you shouldn't be paying for people's birth controles no matter how indirectly. Then hobby lobby shouldn't be paying for China's mandated abortions. They literally drag you out of the house and make you have one! And HL is by choice of profit paying billions (maybe millions :p) in taxes to them. So logic would dictate that the most likely reason they don't want their carrier to cover birth control and such is.....profit! It's cheaper for them in both cases so they act accordingly.

Buying products from China has absolutely no correlation with providing or not providing birth control benefits to employees. One
thing has nothing to do with the other.

reply to post by rickynews


Making your products in china. Making not buying. They own and run the factories. There not just buying stuff on the open market and it happens to come from china. The purposefully scouted china to build factories in. It's about profit for all these corps. The debate over where tax payer dollars are spent is fair. But HL isn't worried about principle in this specific case. It's about money.

reply to post by rickynews


Really as a corp. there using Christianity to save on there insurance premium... Not there premium is effecting there Christianity.

I think it's fair to say that Hobby Lobby is not alone when it comes to a great number of people who object to the notion that the U.S. Government can somehow dictate to a corporation, or an individual, what they must include in their insurance coverages, either as an employee, or as an employer. Birth Control and contraception is an elective benefit, and ACA is attempting to make it a mandatory benefit. That's why there is a growing ground swell of push back.

reply to post by rickynews


Well shouldn't that same logic apply
To there manufacture measures?

reply to post by rickynews

Control and contraception is an elective benefit, and ACA is attempting to make it a mandatory benefit.

YOU ARE WRONG!

Federal law has stipulated that birth control must be included in prescription drug coverage plans since the year 2000. If Hobby Lobby, or anyone else for that matter, had a problem with the law they should have said something before they provided it to their employees for 14 years, and then started complaining!

Nice try, but here is the Truth and the Facts...

Prior to ACA, there in fact was No Federal law which mandates prescription coverage for birth control or contraceptives.

There are various State laws, whereby some states mandated coverage, while other states offered "exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers", but the reality is that there was no Fed law prior to ACA's attempts to mandate coverage - and therein lies the battle with Hobby Lobby and many religious organizations. Note the last sentence in the article (below)..."Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage", and this is precisely what Hobby Lobby is doing - they are simply notifying their employees that they will not be providing birth control/ contraceptives in their insurance coverage. It is the Federal Government, through ACA that is attempting to force all 50 states, Hobby Lobby and countless other organizations to provide birth control/contraceptive coverage that they object to on religious freedom grounds, and which they never provided for their employees prior to ACA.

Here is some info which can be found on the National Conference of State Legislators website at:
(www.ncsl.org...)

State Laws and Insurance Coverage for Contraception

At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.

For more information, please see the State Policies in Brief on Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives by the Guttmacher Institute, which features a state chart of coverage mandates.

windword
reply to post by rickynews

 

Control and contraception is an elective benefit, and ACA is attempting to make it a mandatory benefit.

YOU ARE WRONG!

Federal law has stipulated that birth control must be included in prescription drug coverage plans since the year 2000. If Hobby Lobby, or anyone else for that matter, had a problem with the law they should have said something before they provided it to their employees for 14 years, and then started complaining!

edit on 5-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

I suspect a purely political motive IF they did infact supply this to their employees for over a decade. If that is the case they can kick my butt and I will play the violin for them

If they were aware of this investment, then it is indeed the finest form of hypocrisy and thereby crystal what their agenda is here in suing.

If they were not aware and have not yet divested and donated any penny of profit to children in need, then they're still hypocrites. Have they?

Wouldn't surprise me if they took this opportunity of healthcare change, to push their own agenda, like so many other companies did for various reasons. What a shock.