It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court sends Obamacare case back to lower court

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: hounddoghowlie




like i said i never said word one about the case, just made the statement that dawnstar was wrong about a medical need.


Actually, she's not. A lot of women use "The Pill" for various health issues that have nothing to do with procreation. Even Nuns! Google it, if you don't believe me.

And, sex and birth control have nothing to with this case. It's about paper work.


And do you know that when you are prescribed the pill for actual health needs beyond elective contraception, almost every employer and policy covered it, even back in the "dark ages" before Obamacare because it was a need then, not elective.




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

again your slowness is showing. dawnstar was talking about getting pregnant. not other reasons.
go back and reread the posts and do try and keep up.

oops i forgot i wasn't going to reply to you and more



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




Why should they be regulated JUST because they are a religious group which is what this so-called special accommodation is?


They're not being regulated BECAUSE they're a religious group. They're being regulated because they're part of a society that has laws.

Did they file paper work for tax exemption? Of course they did! They're being hypocrites now, because they'll do the irreligious paper work as per regulation for money!


edit on 16-5-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
probably the majority of healthcare in america is done because people do things that they really didn't have to do to cause the health problem.
people smoke, get cancer, and the insurance covers cancer. they go riding on their motorcycles in crazy daredevil ways, and their broken bones are covered by insurance. they overeat and end up looking like a whale, and insurance pays for the heart attack when it comes. they kill their liver with alchohol.
but ya know what, a women who already has a few kids, is totally dependent on her husband when it comes to finances, I'm sorry, but I imagine it's easier for that alchoholic to refuse drinking that next drink that it is for her to anger her husband by saying no!



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

please your attempts to goad will not work, if your that slow read my posts to winword.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not hype babe. My husband and I are married 35 years. We're together since 1977prior to marriage.
Up down good times or bad our intimacy was always the most important thing to us. It still is and were old folk.
I can't comment as to your fertility .
Birth control is necessary and since it's a drug should be covered.
There is no moral issue here it's just drugs.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: hounddoghowlie




like i said i never said word one about the case, just made the statement that dawnstar was wrong about a medical need.


Actually, she's not. A lot of women use "The Pill" for various health issues that have nothing to do with procreation. Even Nuns! Google it, if you don't believe me.

And, sex and birth control have nothing to with this case. It's about paper work.


And do you know that when you are prescribed the pill for actual health needs beyond elective contraception, almost every employer and policy covered it, even back in the "dark ages" before Obamacare because it was a need then, not elective.


And......did you know that most Catholic institutions covered birth control all the way up till the ACA, when they withdrew its coverage from their employees?


edit on 16-5-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I bet the ones saying no birth control are also anti abortion.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

They are being forced to buy a policy they don't want same as everyone else. It covers things they wouldn't pay for in their prior policies.

Now, the so-called exemption forces them to justify themselves when previously they had to do none of this.

In short, they lost their policy which was what they needed, were forced to have one that violated their conscience and in order to get them to not violate it, they have to justify themselves.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ketsuko

Not hype babe. My husband and I are married 35 years. We're together since 1977prior to marriage.
Up down good times or bad our intimacy was always the most important thing to us. It still is and were old folk.
I can't comment as to your fertility .
Birth control is necessary and since it's a drug should be covered.
There is no moral issue here it's just drugs.


What is this with people not being literate today?

Did the ability to comprehend English just drop sharply? First dawnstar and now you?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




They are being forced to buy a policy they don't want same as everyone else.


No they aren't. You're mistaken.

SCOTUS ruled that organizations like theirs are exempt from the mandate. SCOTUS also ruled that their employees are covered anyway, under TITLE X. All the Little SIsters have to do is to alert the government as to their objection, and therefore, their exempt status. They're refusing to fill out the paper work.


edit on 16-5-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Aren't their employees all nuns?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonlover12

how was your husband's medical bills paid?? did the taxpayers pay for any of it? did insurance?
we are talking about insurance having to cover birth control here. so well, have to ask, why should have had to pay for his care? why should the women who is now laying in bed on bed rest because her employer refused to cover her birth control and is watching her two year old play in the street while she screams for her hubby to get him have to pay for anyone's else's healthcare of any kind? and why have health insurance at all if it's gonna nit pick over what should be covered and what shouldn't based on ancient biases and beliefs that were formed by a tribal society in primitive times when numbers meant power?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

first it's wasn't the inability to understand what you said. so you managed to avoid pregnancy all this time... lucky you!!! I had three kids in less than three years, first one I wanted, the other two were more because I couldn't take the pill any longer and what we tried just didn't work!! so I know for a fact that it doesn't always go the way it did for you!

oh and by the way, I also know for a fact that having kids that close together can cause some long lasting health problems. thus making birth control healthcare just as much healthcare as those other preventives tests and checkups that insurance covers.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

Aren't their employees all nuns?


I don't know. But there was a recent study on breast cancer among nuns, that found taking "The Pill" reduced the breast cancer rate among their "nunly" population.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

these are the cases that were consolidated into the case we are talking about..

Priests for Life v. Burwell
Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell
Geneva College v. Burwell
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell
East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell

so, what you think?? are they all just hiring nuns?? even the Baptist University? All of their employees are church going christians who would never, ever, use birth control, huh?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

Aren't their employees all nuns?


Here's more:




We have known for hundreds of years that nuns have a higher incidence of breast cancer when compared to other groups of women. The link with reproduction was long suspected but not really proved until a British study evaluated data from more than 150,000 women in 30 countries. The connection is, in fact, hormonal and related to fluctuations in estrogen levels during pregnancy and breastfeeding. For a long time doctors wondered why it was only breast and not cervical cancer, which is rare in nuns. The answer, now obvious, is that cervical cancer is not the result of hormonal fluctuation. Rather, it develops from the sexually transmitted human papillomaviruses.
parade.com...


Should Nuns Take the Pill to Prevent Cancer?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonlover12

Sorry. I love all of my husband too. Not just his penis and I didn't fall in love with that either. There are special circumstances in every issue. I'm sure you guys have found other ways to be intimate.
Before Viagra we had to get creative but if you care you manage to find ways.
I hope you have a long and happy marriage. It seems that you will.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

And insurance always covered birth control pills for contraception if you had prescription coverage.
Nothing new there.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

We paid for the deductible , and what the private insurance didn`t pay for. It was a fall injury, and he was in ICU for several days. Then step down for another week. The surgeon said he either wouldn`t live or would be in a nursing home for the rest of his life. I told him he did not know my husband... and I was right. He had broken all the ribs on one side and had a massive concussion. He had already had 4 heart attacks, so there were complications there too.

No, the tax payers didn`t pay a dime for his care. And he went back to work full time as a heavy equipment mechanic a month later ( no sick time, but we made it work. It`s what we do as responsible adults.)

I hope that answers your questions.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join