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

I think currently, if you want to join an exchange rather than use your company health plan, you may do so.
www.healthcare.gov...
a reply to: AboveBoard

a reply to: AboveBoard

Wasn't Hobby Lobby okay with 16/20 birth control options? They just didn't agree with a few that they felt was killing a human being.

I am an atheist, but can respect that.

originally posted by: Euphem
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.

We agree on this!!!

Start with simple solutions, especially ones that can smooth over all this partisanship. I don't like playing those games, myself.

originally posted by: gwynnhwyfar
I think currently, if you want to join an exchange rather than use your company health plan, you may do so.
www.healthcare.gov...
a reply to: AboveBoard

That is good to know. I had an insurance professional tell me otherwise, so thus my confusion.
The problem has an outside solution, and women have recourse to obtain healthcare, and their workplace won't penalize them for "not obeying the company policy" or some such control measure, then, well, let's move forward.

It's strange then, that the SCOTUS implied Title X could cover the birth control - that makes little sense - I would think they would have simply mentioned the exchanges. Although it is more expensive, perhaps?? I don't know...

Thanks!

EDIT TO ADD:

Here is the problem I was thinking of from the health.gov site...

If you have coverage from a job (or a family member’s job), you're considered covered and won’t have to pay the fee that uninsured people must pay.

You may be able to change to Marketplace coverage, but you might not qualify for lower costs on your premiums based on your income. This will depend on the type and cost of insurance the employer provides.

It may not give subsidies for women who have a company health care plan available to them - THAT is the fix that needs to be made - in other words, IF there company is limiting their access to birth control and they want that access then they should be able to obtain subsidized insurance the same as someone who did not have access to a company policy...

_ AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

My girlfriend is on BC primarily as a hormone regulator. She has a medical condition and without those tiny doses of hormones every day will experience hirsutism.

Birth control is much cheaper than welfare. Our tax dollars are already being used to care for millions of children on welfare and more become dependent welfare everyday.

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: AboveBoard

Wasn't Hobby Lobby okay with 16/20 birth control options? They just didn't agree with a few that they felt was killing a human being.

I am an atheist, but can respect that.

Yes. And for many women at Hobby Lobby that might work just fine.

I started this thread because there are companies now using that same ruling to completely deny birth control coverage - they are using the fact that the ruling made the entire Mandate exempt.

I think the other issue is whether or not this will expand into other things, but we will have to wait and see what happens in that regard...

a reply to: jrod


jrod - I totally hear this and am aware that women like your girlfriend need BC because of a medical condition that has nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

I also agree that education people about birth control and giving access to it is the BEST way to promote responsible behavior and PREVENT unwanted pregnancy, along with unwanted children, potential neglect and abuse, welfare costs and more. You are right - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say!

- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

I don't agree with making the entire mandate exempt. That is just ignorant. I think that businesses who have an obviously strong religious belief should be able to limit birth control they believe to be murder.

Seriously, why force someone to think they are providing the means to killing other human beings? This is honestly what they think. It may be stupid, but it truly anguishes them.

Again, I am an atheist, and believe in all form of BC according to current science.

Whether or not I agree with them on what constitutes a living being is not the point. I think what they were fighting for was fair.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Birth control is not a health issue. True, some insurance companies cover it, but it is not a health issue, more of a convenience or life-style issue. The good news, half of the adult population (men) don't need it. That should cause policy rates to go down (or not up).

a reply to: Aliensun

I hope you realize that Viagra is covered by their insurance policy.

Sexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

Hobby Lobby, soon to be out of business.

I still think the overall solution would have been the dreaded socialized medicine. Next best would have been the ACA with a public option. Neither of those things happened. It's a shame.

a reply to: Aliensun

Hm. Well it IS a health issue for women - as I've posted before. 1) women can be prescribed birth control for other medical reasons than pregnancy prevention - it is a form of hormonal treatment that has cycle regulation and birth control as a side effect, 2) pregnancy IS a health issue (a very expensive one, I might add) and contraception falls under the category of preventative care.

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: AboveBoard

I don't agree with making the entire mandate exempt. That is just ignorant. I think that businesses who have an obviously strong religious belief should be able to limit birth control they believe to be murder.

Seriously, why force someone to think they are providing the means to killing other human beings? This is honestly what they think. It may be stupid, but it truly anguishes them.

Again, I am an atheist, and believe in all form of BC according to current science.

Whether or not I agree with them on what constitutes a living being is not the point. I think what they were fighting for was fair.

Let me say that I respect that a lot. Seriously. I know my respect is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but I offer it for your comments on this. If we could all meet halfway, we could all find a way to get to the middle of what we all want IMO.

We all need to understand that the world is not Burger King and we can't all have it our way. Myself included. I freely admit there are some things I had not thought about budging on, but seeing your post makes me reconsider.

Everyone refusing to budge an inch either way is what will finish this country off. It may not happen in our generation, but as we stand now... It will happen.

Thank you for this post.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I really appreciate you making this post! I agree that Euphem's attitude and understanding is wise and very helpful in such a polarized issue.

My view has broadened from what started as an emotional reaction and disbelief to learning about both sides of the issue (in between the bickering) and I have to say there are ways through this where everyone wins, as long as we are willing to understand each other, and empathize, even if we have different beliefs.

I appreciate learning from all of you here.

- AB

a reply to: jrod

I don't see the correlation between Viagra and Birth Control. I heard a lot of the MSM pundits saying this over the past few days, but it is an ignorant comparison.

Viagra is used for a man who has difficulty getting, and keeping an erection which is a basic function of sex. There are many causes but lack of blood flow to the penis is the overall reason for someone using it.

How is someone that can't have sex similar to someone who can have sex but doesn't want to get pregnant?

They are complete opposites.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: St Udio
the short reply is that finally...there is some semblance of awareness that Religious oriented appeals actually have status & merit...

instead of everything Muslim being given a elevated status ...above any other (western) spiritual worldview..
but just wait till Pelosi gets her teeth into the SCOTUS decision...all hell fire will make the 4th of July fireworks a tame thing

And that introduces yet another dilemma for the Democrats.

Pelosi is a Catholic. So is Joe Biden. And so are many Democrat Senators and Congressmen.

This is splitting hairs, but to many Catholics in my family, being Democrat and Catholic are interchangeable since JFK.
From my experience of being raised by a massive Democrat/Catholic family, they are Democrats first, and following the church doctrine is further down the line.
This is just from my personal experience.

a reply to: Euphem

Thank you.

My google function does not work on my computing device so that was quite enlightening. Explains why all the men in their commercials have such big smiles.

A women can not have sex without great risk being impregnated.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I really appreciate you making this post! I agree that Euphem's attitude and understanding is wise and very helpful in such a polarized issue.

My view has broadened from what started as an emotional reaction and disbelief to learning about both sides of the issue (in between the bickering) and I have to say there are ways through this where everyone wins, as long as we are willing to understand each other, and empathize, even if we have different beliefs.

I appreciate learning from all of you here.

- AB

It's hard to not post on emotional reactions when we feel very strongly about something. I do it, and if others are honest they will admit they do it as well.

Sometimes it feels like we are losing so much (both sides) , that we feel a ferocious need to cling to the things we hold most dear. That is usually our religion, our families, friends, etc. When it seems that those last things are also threatened (no matter how slight) we can get pretty nasty... Like a mama bear so to speak.

We do learn more when we can overcome those first reactions and I wish it were easier to do that all of the time.

Long story longer?? I enjoy learning from everyone here as well. It exposes me to many people, beliefs, and information I would otherwise never really pay that much attention to.

a reply to: Euphem

Hm. It is a bit of a stretch from BC to Viagra.

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, it has the underlying assumption that the ruling punishes women, but not men. Men are encouraged to have sex, and women are forced to deal with the consequences. There is a feeling that women who use BC are "sinful" or doing something against God and there is also a feeling that many are shamed for their sexuality by the same forces that are imposing the removal of BC from the health insurance policy - it all gets wrapped up and people get angry. I think there is something to the FEELING behind it - that the "slut shaming" is a real thing and that this is about men deciding what's ok for women, whether they agree or not. That is the crux of it, I think - I could be wrong, of course, but that is what I've gathered.

But the one to one comparison, you are correct in stating, does not really match up. A good, caring husband might need this as he gets older, and his wife might want him to have it!

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Your respect does matter to many people on ATS, and to me as well.

I truly appreciate your comment.

As small as this revelation on an internet forum between people with differing views is concerned, I consider it very significant.

This issue is emotionally charged and blinds people to any real altruism. Similar to religion, these topics create a very violent atmosphere that doesn't allow for any logical debate.

Thank you for seeing that there is a middle ground to this issue, and I believe almost every other issue. We just need to think outside the box, and understand not everyone's paradigm is the same.