Companies Using SCOTUS Ruling To Eliminate All Birth Control In Their Health Care Plans...

a reply to: AboveBoard

Other things are already in play and could easily be amplified like the Hobby Lobby ruling.

The Amish exemption is one example. And they are "profitable" I believe, and there are Amish owned corporations.

here's a story with some examples....

‘Obamacare’ alternative: health-sharing ministries offered a way out

The Amish are exempt because they rely on a community ethic that prohibits government intervention. Their communities pay for the costs of their health care.

If The Amish Are Exempt From Obamacare Tax, Why Isn't My Religion?

I foresee thousands of new exemption claims now.

The law itself has painted itself into a corner.

Alright!

This is a victory to whomever receives the extra $250 a year women will now have to pay for birth control.

Somebody is winning.

a reply to: AboveBoard

They want to whine about it? THey should take it up with Sebelius ... or maybe the idiots who write the piece of crap law.

This mandate wasn't in this turkey when they voted it in or when Obama signed it. It was something that Sebelius decided would be good for EVERYBODY, and when they heard about it, religious groups everywhere begged her to find another way or to let well enough alone. But did she? No. She imposed her one-size-fits-all mandate on the whole country and everyone in it, and people objected and took recourse through the courts and they dealt out a b**** slap of epic proportions.

Oh, and btw, the Religious Restoration and Freedom Act that everyone in the Congress except for two Democrats and one Republican voted for and Clinton signed into law, you know, the one this SCOTUS cited in its ruling ...? Yeah, it was specifically crafted after a Scalia-led SCOTUS ruling stopping Native Americans from smoking peyote and claiming religious freedom ...

originally posted by: CB328
The catholics and protestants won't rest until everyone in America has ten kids and is poor as dirt.

You are aware that many Catholics and Protestants live in the inner cities and high crime areas right?

And guess who they vote for 90% of the time?

You should also note that many high profile Democrats are Catholic....

Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and many U.S. Senators and Congresspersons.

Such a dilemma.

And of course, nothing in the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling makes any birth control or abortion illegal. You understand that too right?

Why should birth control be covered by health insurance unless it is for a medical reason? Recreational sex is an enjoyable pass-time, but not a medical condition. A responsible individual should pay for their own birth control and not expect it to be paid through wealth redistribution. The pill was only about $9 at Walmart last time I checked and condoms are free if you look around hard enough.

a reply to: xuenchen

But what is the "replacement" for this? I went 10 years without any coverage due to the pre-existing clause because I had the misfortune of getting cancer at a young age. No follow ups. No tests to make sure I was ok. Couldn't afford it.
My kids both have pre-existing conditions. While the ACA is far from perfect, I'm still waiting to understand how those that oppose it will handle these issues.

Here is the crux of it for me: to have a job where five people (owners) get to control hundreds if not thousands (employees) in regard to their personal religious views on birth control does not seem like "freedom" to me - it seems like oppression by the moneyed few of the ones who need jobs. It does not seem fair.

It is also unfair to force people to do things against their religion. I totally get that and if the ACA was FORCING people to use birth control for themselves? You would have me shaking my fists and fighting to right that wrong.

Religious Freedom in the Constitution is guaranteed as a right, but I don't remember it putting one person (or a few people's) religious views ABOVE those of others. The Supreme Court seems to disagree...

peace,
AB

a reply to: smokingmonkey

Do you expect people to stop in the heat of the moment and go find free condoms if they can not afford them. For the record condoms are not cheap. About $1 and you have to buy at least 3 at convenient stores...that adds up quickly. Easily over a month's of rent per year for a sexually active male.

Reality is a lot different than an idealist's vision of this world.


Sex is primal. Poverty brings out people's primal urges.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Personally, I think it would have been easy to include people with verified (by insurance cancellation or denial etc etc) pre-existing conditions to be included in MediCare. Or, make a law to stop insurance companies from denying.

I know many States had high risk pools but those were very expensive and obviously not practical.

I know most company insurance did not discriminate either, but that would require holding the job in the first place, not easy for many pre-existing condition people.

Replacement for Obamacare? Don't know now.

It seems they butchered the whole process years ago. There may not be any single answer.

They should have just made one law at a time to address one flaw at a time.

Anything "forced" or "mandated" will never work. Too many conflicting laws.

"Religion" is a big conflict with laws.

a reply to: AboveBoard

But it is. Forcing people to pay for something they find abhorrent/immoral is the same as forcing them to use it. This is the same issue some people have with performing services to gay weddings - they're being forced to participate in it. You're making them an accessory; people can be tried for a crime when in this position, so the law considers you complicit. Doctors have legal protection against this; they can't be forced to provide services against their conscience.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: smokingmonkey

Do you expect people to stop in the heat of the moment and go find free condoms if they can not afford them. For the record condoms are not cheap. About $1 and you have to buy at least 3 at convenient stores...that adds up quickly. Easily over a month's of rent per year for a sexually active male.

Reality is a lot different than an idealist's vision of this world.


Sex is primal. Poverty brings out people's primal urges.

Funny, the years when my husband and I were most "primal" as you put it, we were dirt poor, and the realization that we were the last two people to be bringing another onto the earth also made sure that we always had contraception on hand despite being "joined at the hip" as all our friends put it. And believe me, we were poor as in picking up bottles to eat some nights poor.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I am all for birth control, but seriously grow up and get over it.

Buy your own birth control or be responsible for the sex you have.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

a reply to: xuenchen

Ah. But I think I have a simple and obvious solution:

If women opt out of health care from their employers BECAUSE they are not getting a complete health-care package they could be allowed to join in the state exchanges. Religious people are happy, and women who want it can obtain it through other means. Right now, my understanding is that you are not allowed to join an exchange unless there is no other option. This is a fairly easy fix. Of course it requires someone to do something - possibly Congress, in which case that might be a no-go.

a reply to: jrod

Yes being poor correlates to the amount of primal urges you have.

Totally. Totes bro.

a reply to: ketsuko

Because you were responsible do NOT expect the rest of the world to be the same. Unwanted pregnancies are a problem.

I am the kind of guy who will not have sex with a women unless I feel she will be a decent mother if conception happens. I know I am different that the average person and I know better than to expect the dumb masses to use anything but good judgement.

a reply to: ketsuko

I can truly understand people with deeply held, sincere beliefs not wanting to remotely participate in something that is outside the pale of their beliefs and constitutes a violation of those beliefs. I really do!

I also understand the anger people felt when the law pushed this onto them, not understanding how they would feel about it.

So - my solution - allow women to purchase low cost insurance through the health exchanges and forego their employer's health benefit. That would still feel unfair, as it is part of their personal compensation package, but at least they would have the option, whereas now I believe the law doesn't allow one to join an exchange if you have other options.

These are fixable problems.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: smokingmonkey
Why should birth control be covered by health insurance unless it is for a medical reason? Recreational sex is an enjoyable pass-time, but not a medical condition. A responsible individual should pay for their own birth control and not expect it to be paid through wealth redistribution. The pill was only about $9 at Walmart last time I checked and condoms are free if you look around hard enough.

Agreed SmokingMonkey. You can buy foams, sponges, etc. OTC if you can not afford birth control. Any health department from here until forever hands out condoms by the bagfuls to ANYBODY and EVERYBODY that comes through the door asking... Male or female. They will also perform pelvic exams and Pap smears on a sliding pay scale on what you can afford AND charge you by what you can afford for the birth control pill, IUD, depo shot, etc.

They have made to almost obscenely easy to protect yourself and others in these situations. If one is partaking in ones primal urges, one should be old enough to control those urges if there are no methods of birth control handy. Children do not need to be brought into this world simply because Johnny couldn't wait to play "whack a mole" safely.

This is why we can't have nice things.... Because we expect everyone else to give them to us with no effort on our part.

a reply to: AboveBoard
First thing i need to point out is why i am so pissed off. Scalia has steadily ruled on any case with a corporate defendant being sued by an individual or employee, and in 100% of these 34 cases since 1994 Injustice Scalia was the main winner. Of those 34 cases, only one succeeded, but Scalia was ill on the decision day. Scalia's used stalling and financial warfare

I apologize for the lack of all characteristics of coherency. My nighttime dose Ambien kicked in at the worst time possible, but honestly
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Even though, any situation that i know involving Scalia and Thomas on a platform issue. We are the public, demanding an investigation headed by a real federal attorney looking into the 9 justices. Also, is there a way to give Thomas a supervised exam, it decides if you are competent enough to get a job with the U.S. Federal Govt. How, W.s, Daddy came up with what had to be the lone black true Republican; I mean in early 2014, justice Thomas said like 7 words during a case, but those 7 were a quick joke and that was it. First joke in several years, i guess the joke "Ms. Hill i need you to follow me down here in the basement. Oh, i love that skirt, i just need for you to take the lovely skirt and panties off; sit down over there", as he broadly pointed to the chairs, books, and more that soon to be crime scene. The "Greatest Country on Earth" is not America if you ask anyone wise they will say that even that concept suggests a winner of a (date w/ me) pencil-knife.' The reason he got the nod is that he is secretly qualified as a mentally ill adult. Plus, whatever George & Jeb did to The Honorable Supreme Court Justice Associate Judge he will not only not comment. The 1st time it hit me I felt "called by the lord and savior Jesus Christ to open up my heart. If he will grace me with his omnipresence or find me not committed i have to go get him out of there then up to a facility with experience and discretion

a reply to: AboveBoard

Exactly. Simple solutions.

Instead of spending trillions on wars, use some of that money to subsidize cheap birth control for anybody who wants it.

This of course requires common sense, and the desire to actually fix problems.

TPTB want us arguing over dumb $hi+ like this so we don't focus on how hard they are r@p1ng us.

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: jrod

Yes being poor correlates to the amount of primal urges you have.

Totally. Totes bro.

To be such a serious discussion, this struck me completely off guard and had me giggling. You have a point!

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: AboveBoard

I am all for birth control, but seriously grow up and get over it.

Buy your own birth control or be responsible for the sex you have.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Hi Euphem,

If it were just about sex, that would be one thing, but women's birth control is also often a hormonal treatment that regulates other things for them, including those wild hormonal swings that drive everyone around us nuts.
That is one example. The actual "birth control" part of it is kind of a side-effect.

I am all for personal responsibility! I am personally, with regards to my own actions and life, far more conservative than one might believe by my posting history, as I often side more to the left than right. I do think people who get jobs with insurance benefits feel they ARE being responsible - and grown up.