Judge: Feds Can’t Make Domino’s Founder Offer Birth Control

reply to post by Honor93


So from your statement if my employer is a Jehovah’s Witness even though I am not and I wind up in the hospital for some reason and if my life depends on a blood transfusion it will be denied because my employers religion says that it is immoral and is not covered by my insurance plan.


Well I am glad that this is being fought in court and I hope that your idea of what an employer has a say in is ruled to be unlawful.


If this doesn’t make sense to you then please go back and read what I have already said and things will make sense to you then.

reply to post by Grimpachi


You're being obtuse.

If your company is small they most likely wouldn't offer heath care.

If the company is owned by someone with a religious preference that you don't agree with, why would you work for them.

I don't see a big company being able to avoid health care but perhaps they would opt out.

In any case, the company wouldn't be making a decision about what you can or can not do with regard to your health care. They would be making a decision on what they are willing to pay for.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The close to 2014 and full implementation will be a wild ride.

yes it will be and our FL governor Scott is already feeling the pressure of this slow-cooker.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Honor93

 

You choose to focus on birth control rather than what the judge made a decision about.

Have fun.

it's all the same but i'm staying within the Topic, "feds can't make Domino's founder offer Birth Control"

why is that so difficult for you at this point ?
your prior posts seem to agree, why change now ?

reply to post by Grimpachi



Great.

Okay, now out of that list give me a list of businesses that are orientated toward their religion not providing medical treatments.

So far the only thing that has come up is whether or not a business owner (and possibly a few others) should pay for BC. Not saying other cases will not come up but again that goes back to my first statement that the employee can always leave to go someplace else.

As for if they should be allowed to by law I will say it like this, maybe then you will understand.

If a business owner is running their business according to their religious beliefs I have no problem with their rights being protected under the law of discrimination. Meaning that yes any of those businesses could have it to where their insurance does not cover something that is against their religious beliefs.

Having said that I am not saying I agree with him just his right to his religious beliefs. The pill is cheap and can be free in many cases, so I would not even bother worrying about that with my job as my wife has not let it bother her with hers (remember she works for catholics and they do not provide her with the pill, she has worked for them for over a decade). Now if there were some other thing my job was not covering that I thought needed to be covered I would find another place to work as would anyone else with common sense. If the benefits are not good enough for me I will not stay. The only benefit that keeps me at my current job for instance is the vacation benefits. If those were to leave or be reduced I would leave. Benefits, which are what insurance coverage paid buy an employer is, are meant to be an incentive to want to work for the company. Without employees a company cannot survive.

You could say they will hire illegal immigrants to do the job Americans won't, but then you need to ask your elected officials why they are not tougher on those who hire illegal immigrants. You could also say that all places could start to claim religious beliefs for not doing something, but labor unions would spring up so fast they would not know what hit them. After all the labor unions of the past helped to make work places the way they are today in terms of pay and safety.

The point is I can research and find out what benefits the company has to offer me before I start working there. If they do not have what I want I will not work for them. If I am already working there and they change their benefits to no longer suit me I will find a place better suited for me. Having good skilled workers might be worth benefits but only on the owners' choice. No one should be forced to run their business like that. If that is the case all business should be government run.

Raist

reply to post by Grimpachi

my first question would be "does your policy cover transfusions" ??
if not, well then, i guess you should have bought a better policy, or chose a different employer huh?

your employer doesn't decide what is covered AFTER an injury

actually, your employer doesn't decide what is covered at all ... the under-writer does, the employer can accept or deny the plan offered, as can you.

i hope you don't think repeating mistakes leads to progress

reply to post by Honor93

I’ve read all your posts ... and, there is this neat little link under your avatar that permits me to view those i may have missed.

guess what ? i haven't missed any of them but you keep insisting that employer's are PRESCRIBING medication and that is wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

so, carry on, you'll be as wrong 10 posts from now as you were the first time you said it.

If you can show me where I said employers are prescribing thing I appreciate it. I think you are a bit confussed on that issue I have said that employers shouldn’t have the right to exclude medical treatment from their plans based on their faith.

correction, assigning PENALITIES for not providing said benefit based on religious preference is PERSECUTION worthy of a legal battle and it's coming now that this decision stands firm.

Where do you see that it is a penalty based on religion? This is a cost benefit analysis and nothing more on the insurance company’s part. It is no different than an insurance company giving someone a break on their homeowner policy for having a security system in their home. Their pricing is based on their projected amount they will have to pay out in either instance and nothing more.

reply to post by Honor93


I understand that the initial issue is forcing a business owner to do something that violates his religious beliefs. In this case it is offering a health plan with BC benefits.

The basis of the decision was not about BC it was about the government imposing a restriction on a business that violates the owners religious beliefs. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. So there is a conflict between Obamacare and the free exercise of religion. The court went with the Constitution on this one.

My main point with that post was that there are many other medical uses for the birth control pill aside from the obvious use of pregnancy prevention. Ovarian cysts, for example, can be treated with short term use of the pill.

reply to post by daryllyn

Yes, and if the doctor prescribes such pills for that, I certainly have no problem with that. It's all in the intended use, that the issue becomes a problem. I hate to compare it to guns, but since they're in the news today, I will. Guns can be used to protect oneself and ones family and I support that. They can also be used for nefarious deeds, which of course, I don't.
I apologize if I came across too vindictive, and I should not have brought you personally into the issue.
I strongly believe that the government, at every level, has been delving into things that they should leave to the individual. We could have had a very simple universal health care bill, that respected people's beliefs, but allowed everyone access to basic and life-saving medical care. What we got was 2,700 pages, and now over 30,000 pages of regulations, written by lobbyists, politicians, and insurance companies, and no medical personnel.
Again, let me personally apologize for making an assumption. (DiNozzo head slap to self)

reply to post by Rastus3663


I am suggesting that the government not tell a business owner they have to go against their religious beliefs.

The owner does not wish to pay for BC because they see it as murder by their religion. They are not saying the employees cannot take it just that he is not going to pay for it. Allowing the government to tell businesses how to run every aspect of their business goes against the free will we are born with. It also sets it up to where everything might as well be run by the government.

If I were the business owner and given the choice of (how I understand it) being damned eternally for helping to murder babies or shutting down the business and putting you out of a job I guess you and I are both looking for another job.

Raist

Originally posted by jibeho
One small victory at a time.... Next come the attack dogs to have this judge's decision over turned.....

Short lived..

How is it a victory?

Do you not realize just how bad the overpopulation problem is?

Free/cheap contraception is SUCH A POSITIVE solution to a problem that will alternatively require drastic unethical measures if left alone.

reply to post by Ghost375


Free/cheap BC is already covered here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no reason anyone in the U.S. cannot get BC if they try to get it. The health department will give you free condoms if you ask for them, and if you do not have a job or get paid very little you can get free or cheap pills. Even a script of the generics at Walmart can be had for a few dollars pretty much.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


So are you OK with employers crafting medical plans based on their religion for their employees.

I am not arguing whether or not employers should be required to provide medical I am arguing whether or not their religious beliefs can dictate what will be covered. Blood transfusions, dehydration, antidepressants, insulin, etc., etc.

I do not believe employers should have the right to say what medications I can and cannot be prescribed through the medical plan. Limitations being unnecessary treatments like Botox and such but for many women birth control medication is being taken to reduce cancer risk and abundance of other reasons besides unwanted pregnancies. I consider Viagra as a frivolous medication unnecessary for a healthy life but it is covered. Birth control has far many ore benefits for women other than preventing pregnancies.

I see it no different than antidepressants or insulin. Incidentally there are religions that those things are against. Do feel an employer can deny coverage to employs based on their beliefs

reply to post by Grimpachi

well ok, the word you used is "dictate"
here's a few ...

The laws state employers should provide medical

and they are so what's the problem ?

it is a matter of whether the employer can dictate what medical prescriptions can be prescribed

employers don't prescribe or dictate prescription writing.

and repeated in a following post ...

it is a matter of whether the employer can dictate what medical prescriptions can be prescribed.

employers are not dictating which RXs you can receive, they are deciding which ones they'll pay for ... you want it, fine, pay for it yourself.

If you believe that employers should have the right to dictate what treatments and medications can be prescribed

they always have, why shouldn't they now ?

they should not be able to dictate what prescriptions are offered.

they aren't but they sure should decide what they are willing to PAY for, as would you.

it will be denied because my employers religion says that it is immoral and is not covered by my insurance plan

if you weren't aware of what's covered BEFORE you accepted employment, how is that our problem or fault for that matter ?

Where do you see that it is a penalty based on religion?

when employers who refuse to provide said coverage are charged more for their plans, that is persecution based on a religious preference.

cost benefit anaylsis my arse.
that analysis is presented when the plan is accepted or denied, not after the fact.

yes it's quite different.
was the security system in place when you bought/built the home or installed later ?
if you home resides in an area that is deemed a superfund site, why does your insurance co have the right to REFUSE to cover ya ??

why do homeowner policies REFUSE to cover homes built before a certain year ?

your comparison is failing worse than your argument.
care to try again ?

reply to post by Grimpachi


If you have a problem with their medical plan do not work for them. I certainly would not work with a company that did not provide me with the benefits I require. Why would anyone with common sense work for a company that does not provide them with what they require? If they cannot keep staff they will either close up or change their benefits plans. It really is that simple.

So yes I guess an employer should be allowed to choose their medical plan for their employees. To my knowledge they already do this. Mine recently started something new in fact. I can either go to the doctor and get compliant by doing tests or I have to pay about a grand more a year. If they stop providing me with the benefits I require I will go to a place that offers the benefits I require. It is pretty simple.

Do you think the government should run every aspect of the private businesses in the U.S.?

What exactly am I missing that is forcing these people to work for him?


Edit to add: Prescription plans do not cover all medications. There are a number of medications that are not covered by my medical insurance. I have no problem with this. If I need it I will buy it. If I do not need it I will not. If I do not feel my job is providing what I need I will leave.

Raist

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Honor93

 

I understand that the initial issue is forcing a business owner to do something that violates his religious beliefs. In this case it is offering a health plan with BC benefits.

The basis of the decision was not about BC it was about the government imposing a restriction on a business that violates the owners religious beliefs. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. So there is a conflict between Obamacare and the free exercise of religion. The court went with the Constitution on this one.

yeah, how is that different than the discussion occurring in this thread ?

you can separate BC all you want but it is still inclusive of the decision and it is the single propellant of the brief argued so i really don't follow your admonishment of BC as an integral part of the court's decision.

So, if I work for a company that offers me no medical coverage whatsoever, are they then violating my rights by not offering me access to birth control?

reply to post by Raist

If I were the business owner and given the choice of (how I understand it) being damned eternally for helping to murder babies or shutting down the business and putting you out of a job I guess you and I are both looking for another job.

'Going Galt' is what a number of them are calling it as they absolutely are doing just that. Some may say it's selfish or wrong or lacks decency and perhaps they'd have a point there. However, we can't outlaw a man shutting down his business and just pulling the plug entirely.

I can tell you that the trucking company I was driving a leased truck on with for the last 5+ years of my career, employed several hundred people and was a national line that everyone here living in the U.S. and on Interstates has seen and probably never even thought about. It's just a reefer/produce company. Not a pumpkin or banana for being memorable but all over the place. The owner had said about a year before I got off the road in a safety meeting that under no uncertain terms, he would shut the company down and close the doors....not sell it, close it....if forced to supply medical that he was against. The owner is self-insured, a devout Christian and good man.

That's what it's come to I guess.... Salvation or Regulation. Not a hard choice to the religious. Not even a choice, really. Not to the actual Believers and as opposed to the 'religious in name only".

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


As a man of strong personal faith and religion, he is already living in two worlds.

He should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto god what is gods.

In business, we err on the side of what is best and / or safest for most. Ergo - he has no right to determine what his insurance pays for vis'a'vis his employees. That is between his employees and their doctor.

If his faith prohibits contraception, he is free to not use contraception. That's the part he owes to god.

It's in the book.

The Domino's founder is quite frankly infringing up on the rights of others.

Since when is a corporate product(birth control pills) a right of the people?

Not only is it a corporate product people act like they would die if they did not get to take it reproductive abilities is a natural ability anyone can alright most people can.

Hoorah for the support of corporate fascism/crony capitalism, and the big win for big pharma just imagine how many billions of dollars the pro birth control crowd makes them so they get out of paying taxes on it.

Meh I am with the Dominos founders and against all those who think corporate products are "human rights".

Meh