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

reply to post by daryllyn

I agree with your stance on the religious aspect of this. Where will the line be drawn? We could be heading down a dangerous path if others follow suit and start mandating medical coverage on the basis of faith.

No. The line isn't as blurry as it is trying to be made out to be. The difference is only two short points of interest.

1.) Drugs that are medically necessary and drugs that are not.

2.) Drugs taken voluntarily to alter, modify, enhance or otherwise affect the onset or outcome of sexual intercourse.

No rational argument could made for anything medically necessary. It would not pass and the argument that this ruling is somehow opening some kind of door is wildly speculative and without merit.

Drugs that could be included in this precedent are birth control measures in any form, sexual enhancement drugs such as Viagra and the many variants, female viagra and any other drug that is considered an "at will" drug that is used in conjunction without medical need for sex.

That is the only class of drugs that is discussed here. The assumption that this sets a precedent for anything else, such as blood transfusion or HIV medications is a joke.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Do you really have a problem with that? What I mean is are you going to work for a place like that? Do you really want the government stepping foot into every aspect of business? We already covered that I was fine with that, but I will explain why a bit more.

What will happen in cases like that is the business will never grow beyond a few people which likely will not have to provide insurance to begin with. The only people that are going to work at a business like that are those of like mind. As is I can ask about the health insurance and any other benefits before I start employment . I am not going to work for a place that does not give me benefits I like. I do not know anyone with a once of common sense that would work for a place that offers insurance that does not cover anything. What kind of medical insurance would not cover medical procedures anyway? What you are talking about is basically working for a small company exempt from providing medical insurance which we already have.

Really though, not trying to be snarky about it but ask yourself this. What medical insurance would be provided that does not cover medical procedures? If nothing else I could see a place asking for exemption for religious purposes and I am fine with that. There are already exemptions for place to not provide insurance to employees.

It is nothing more than a benefit anyway. It is only considered not a benefit right now because someone who has an entitled thought process put it into law. Medical insurance should be a benefit. If the government wants everyone to have it they need to up taxes and make their own. It is not the employers responsibility to make sure you are cared for it is your own. If you do not have medical insurance you should get a job that offers it or pay for it outside of your job if you want it. Entitlement has taken hold and it is causing private business owners to shut doors which hurts the now ex-employee even more.

Raist

reply to post by Grimpachi


I just seen your edit. This is not the Dominos pizza that is publicly traded. This is a private business Domino farms. He has little to no control over the pizza place anymore, this is only about Domino farms.

Raist

reply to post by Grimpachi

This needs to be clarified again. Insurance companies are NOT charging extra for BC coverage. Plans that have BC coverage cost the employer less because the INS companies realized that paying for BC costs them far less than paying for pregnancies. That extra savings he can either pocket or use it to expand his biasness. It is a win win situation financially for the employer.

I completely understand that fact and I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense. If I personally was an employer I would not have a problem with this but that is not the argument that I am making. I have said before in my own personal viewpoint the employer in this case would seem to me to be an ass hat but that does not negate his right to refuse to pay for birth control.

Incorrect again please look back in the thread there are a multitude of health reasons women require BC other than contraception.

No, I am not incorrect. I don't need to look back in the thread because I already know first hand. There is not a multitude of health reasons this would be prescribed, there is a tiny handful of reasons that it would be prescribed that are associated with medical reasons, none of which are not treatable by other medicines and in fact almost all of which are safer to treat with something else and do not include the inherent side effect of "the pill".

Doctors bundle other issues with patients that are taking the pill in that they say, well, I know your having this issue and I know you want a birth control measure, taking this could possibly help balance both. My oldest brother is a gynecologist and we had an hour long conversation about this last night. Aside from that, I have 5 children and have a very good knowledge of this particular issue, I'm not parroting from my backside.

By this you are saying that only Christian/catholic beliefs should be considered because all those other people’s beliefs are just crazy right. Please remove your head from your Santorum.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying medication that is taken for the purpose of preventing child birth is not something you can include and mandate an employer pay for in violation of this Constitutional rights. The employer in this situation is not asking or seeking to violate anyone's Constitutional rights, he is simply asking others to respect his.

I only know of Rick Santorum, I haven't heard anything he has said but if you wan't to play that game tell me to get my head out of my Paul.

reply to post by Raist


Honestly I would prefer universal healthcare for all I have traveled and lived in countries that had it and I believe it is a far better system than our own however we have a system built off of capitalism where the government has mandated a bare minimum that has to be covered by employee plans. I really do not consider setting a minimum as government interfering in every aspect of my life. I enjoy those standards with the food industry highway safety noise pollution water quality. For myself it does not really affect me I served my country for almost 15 years and my medical is covered by VA. Personally I love the VA system it could be used as a national model for everyone but as some have argued that is one of the perks you earn by serving your country.

With these minimum standards future employees need not worry about if they should take one job over another in case their medical plans not cover some procedure based on the corporate owner’s religious beliefs which I am sure that owner has much better coverage than he offers his or her employees. I can’t stand the fact that senators and congressmen have free healthcare while the rest of the country does not apteral they have 6 figure salaries they can afford to pay their own way.

But alas the world isn’t fair and our country is far from perfect but I agree with setting some standard of medical coverage in our country we are supposed to be role models to the world however we no longer are as we once were but these measures are a good start at returning us to that glory. We still have a ways to go but it is a step in the right direction.

reply to post by Raist


My apologies I misread then because it says right in the article

A federal judge has blocked the Obama administration from requiring Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan to provide mandatory contraception coverage to his employees under the federal health care law.

I didn’t realize the two were different entities. I will have to look into this.

reply to post by Helious


There a plenty of issues treated by hormonal birth control pills. As I have stated, ad nauseum. It's an extremely common practice.

Just because people are all hung up on the original intended purpose of hormonal birth control, doesn't invalidate the fact that hormonal birth control can, and does, effectively treat several problems.

Endometriosis.
Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome.
Premenstrual Syndrome.
Premenstrual Dysmorphic Disorder.
Dysmenorrhea.
Functional Ovarian Cysts.
Absent or Irregular Menstrual Cycles.

I think it's sad that people are willing to invalidate and minimize these problems based on their hang ups over the idea of birth control. BC should not be excluded from coverage based on religious beliefs.

I have seen several comments on this thread, some directed at me even, about how birth control is used so women can go out and whore around. I was even accused of wanting someone else to pay for my 'immoral' and 'irresponsible' behavior all because, of my effort to explain that hormonal birth control is an effective and commonly used treatment option for several afflictions that men would have no way of understanding.

It sounds to me like all of this could be solved if hormonal BC could be re-labelled for the off label uses. Brand X could be solely for the pregnancy prevention aspect, and Brand Y could be used for treatment purposes of the above mentioned issues.

Oh, and, Viagra can also be used to treat Pulmonary Hypertension. It is even marketed under a different brand name for this purpose. Just Sayin'..

reply to post by Grimpachi


See I see it as the government stepping too far into the private business.

As I said insurance has before now been a benefit (a privilege for work for this company verses another), better companies offer more than others. As I mentioned before my sister just got a new job that has always offered insurance (they offered it before the mandate) her previous job still does not have to offer it because it is a small business, it likely never will offer it. The benefit to changing jobs and using her skill else where was the insurance.

If I had to work someplace without insurance (I have in the past) I am not planning to stay with them regardless of pay. They will be a stepping stone until I get to the next place and I will be looking everyday until that comes. See as a free citizen I can change jobs at will. I can use my skills anyplace that will hire me. The places that want the best offer the best. The places that just want the bare minimum offer little to nothing. Those places will never get further than they are now.

There are always jobs needing to be filled. Granted not all of them are jobs one will stay at. This place at least offers some insurance. If it is not enough for employees they can find another job or drop the company insurance and get their own that covers what they want. After all don't insurance companies have to accept people now regardless of medical issues they might already have. That is part of Obamacare, if people do not get it they are fined. There is a chance they could get the insurance cheaper also than what they pay through their work, it would really depend on their needs they could be paying for coverage they will not use. In the end I believe it is each individuals responsibility to care for themselves depending on others will only let you down and cost you dearly. Sure I have insurance, some things are covered others not. If I did not have it I would find a place that did offer it or get it myself. I will make sure my needs are covered not wait for others to do it for me.

Raist

reply to post by Helious


As far as medical treatments go and the choice of medication to treat them should be left up to the doctor and the patient and no one else. The employer shouldn’t be involved there. There is both freedom of religion and freedom from religion the way it is set up so one person’s rights do not trample another’s. In this case I do not believe his rights are being violated but the opposite may not be true if he gets his way. He doesn’t pay extra so the monetary factor has been removed and no one is forcing him to take a medication personally. I don’t think that would work to well on him anyway.

There are some tricky things to this and obviously a judge felt there was enough of an issue for this to be heard in court. The legality of the issue will be examined once this does go to court and whatever the decision is I will respect it even if I do not agree. One side or another is going to lose and the other will win leaving happy and sad folk. Like I said before it doesn’t affect me in the slightest however I believe he is in the wrong.

I only know of Rick Santorum, I haven't heard anything he has said but if you want to play that game tell me to get my head out of my Paul.

I was hoping you would take in jest I was only mimicking you after you said get your head out of your Obama in the post I quoted from you.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Yeah it was down just a bit from that.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law against Monaghan and Domino’s Farms.

Raist

reply to post by daryllyn

There a plenty of issues treated by hormonal birth control pills. As I have stated, ad nauseum. It's an extremely common practice. Just because people are all hung up on the original intended purpose of hormonal birth control, doesn't invalidate the fact that hormonal birth control can, and does, effectively treat several problems. Endometriosis. Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome. Premenstrual Syndrome. Premenstrual Dysmorphic Disorder. Dysmenorrhea. Functional Ovarian Cysts. Absent or Irregular Menstrual Cycles.

Now, can you state even one of these conditions can not be effectively treated by other medication? Can you you state that one of these conditions is more effectively and more safely treated by the birth control pill?

That is the question.

reply to post by Helious

Now, can you state even one of these conditions that can not be effectively treated by other medication? Can you you state that one of these conditions is more effectively and more safely treated by the birth control pill? That is the question.

I didn't say that they couldn't.

But, why should that decision be up to anyone other than the patient and the doctor?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Helious

 

As far as medical treatments go and the choice of medication to treat them should be left up to the doctor and the patient and no one else. The employer shouldn’t be involved there. There is both freedom of religion and freedom from religion the way it is set up so one person’s rights do not trample another’s. In this case I do not believe his rights are being violated but the opposite may not be true if he gets his way. He doesn’t pay extra so the monetary factor has been removed and no one is forcing him to take a medication personally. I don’t think that would work to well on him anyway.

There are some tricky things to this and obviously a judge felt there was enough of an issue for this to be heard in court. The legality of the issue will be examined once this does go to court and whatever the decision is I will respect it even if I do not agree. One side or another is going to lose and the other will win leaving happy and sad folk. Like I said before it doesn’t affect me in the slightest however I believe he is in the wrong.

I only know of Rick Santorum, I haven't heard anything he has said but if you want to play that game tell me to get my head out of my Paul.

I was hoping you would take in jest I was only mimicking you after you said get your head out of your Obama in the post I quoted from you.

My point of contention is that the pill that is called "birth control" only truly treats one thing effectively and it does so with great risk. Any other medically necessarily condition can be treated just as effectively with another drug. If the argument is that doctors will prescribe it anyway for something other than birth control, then it should be an exclusion in the insurance plan and the employee will have to cover this out of pocket.

It is a simple argument without the need for convoluted explanation. There are many prescriptions that are not covered or only partially covered already. Should the need arise, somehow legitimately that this pill would need to be taken, it should have to fall on the shoulders of the employee to pay for. I'm not gonna make the argument I need a moths worth of Viagra for varicose veins. (I don't have any).

I know you were joking about Santorum and thanks for that, I'm gonna do some youtube searches to see what he has to say.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by Helious

 

Now, can you state even one of these conditions that can not be effectively treated by other medication? Can you you state that one of these conditions is more effectively and more safely treated by the birth control pill? That is the question.

I didn't say that they couldn't.

But, why should that decision be up to anyone other than the patient and the doctor?

The decision to treat any condition with any available medication is completely the the choice of the doctor and the patient.

The decision to pay for a medication that was developed, is prescribed for and used almost exclusively for the prevention of pregnancy is the choice of the employer offering the benefit plan.

reply to post by Helious

My point of contention is that the pill that is called "birth control"

If it was marketed under a different name for the off label uses, would it suit you?

Viagra is marketed under a different brand name for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension.

reply to post by daryllyn


Then it is simple. Get different insurance, tell your boss you do not want their insurance because it does not satisfy your needs or find a different place to work or pay for it out of your own pocket.

Why force someone to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs? Sure he could get cheaper insurance for letting it cover BC pills but as I understand it, it would be at the cost of his eternal soul. That might not mean anything to you or some others (do not know your religious beliefs nor do I care to know them as they are not part of the conversation), but this man according to his beliefs fear for his afterlife if he helps to pregnancy. They see it as child murder. Not saying I agree but that is his thing, his business, don't like it don't work there or take care of it yourself.

Yes the BC pill can work for things other than preventing pregnancy, but other things can work just as well also. The primary use for the BC pill is to prevent pregnancy thus the generic term used as its name. This man does not want to use his money to help even a little when it comes to the murder of children as his soul is at risk of being damned (the gist of his beliefs). I would rather he shut the place down and put everyone out of work than see him bend on his beliefs. If one cannot stand for their beliefs they cannot stand for anything. He has my respect for standing for his beliefs not for his beliefs.

Raist

reply to post by daryllyn


That would be on the employer. I suspect he would be fine with it but I cannot say. In my case I do not care what it is called or used for, I am not paying for it and it has nothing to do with my beliefs though.

It seems the premise of this is that the owner does not wish to prevent pregnancy so that anything called or used for birth control are out of the question.

Raist

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by Helious

 

My point of contention is that the pill that is called "birth control"

If it was marketed under a different name for the off label uses, would it suit you?

Viagra is marketed under a different brand name for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension.

Possibly it might and if it were shown to have exclusive medical benefits over other medications for use of the same aliments there could be a valid argument.

You can label Viagra as anything you want but there was medication for pulmonary hypertension before it and there is medication now that treats it just as well. Viagra is a male sexual enhancement drug and that is the sole purpose. The fact that the secondary effect would seem to benefit other medical conditions is nothing more than convenience and not necessity.

The same statement above can be applied to birth control.

reply to post by Raist


I don’t know what your experience has been in the past with jobs and for the past 5 years I have worked DOD jobs but I can remember looking here in Florida as a right to work state before there were any federal mandates on health insurance. From what I remember employers will pay as little as they can and provide as little as they have to in the way of benefits. If you have an upper level job which I did and work with the owner of the business you generally are better off but for anyone that is at lower level position these mandates are sorely needed. I have seen some of the scams (legal scams) proprietors of businesses pull and it is amazing to me that those loopholes were legal. They seem absolutely criminal.

Anyway I am not very sympathetic to most of the woe as me plights these owners are putting forth. Yes there are some legitimate gripes and as I said the system isn’t perfect but right now most things are on the owners and corporate side as far as legislation. As for providing healthcare for employees if I am supposed to feel sorry for them I am finding it extremely hard to do so. I will play the world’s smallest fiddle for them if that helps but to be honest I am on the side of the workers with this.

reply to post by Helious


Great post.

It would be great if all employers offered medical insurance. It would be great if it covered everything that needs or is desired to be covered. That is some sort of fantasy world though.

The government could have solved all of this by instead of mandating getting insurance from private firms just conducting their own federal plan. That will not happen though because it would be a tax increase, and in a way take from their pockets. This way that make a lot more money and can still screw people over with taxes "for other stuff" that way the only "bad people" will be the employers.

Raist