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

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by snowspirit

I'm Canadian. I paid for my own birth control, our medical systems have more tiers of coverage. I did not opt on for prescriptions, as the basic medical was [color=gold] less than $50 per month.

Given that,
do you still feel that the $100 PER - D A Y penalty is still reasonable?

“For example, a charitable organization with 100 employees will have to pay the federal government $140,000 per year for the “privilege” of not underwriting medical
services it believes are immoral,” she added.

Congress Told HHS Mandate Fines Could Total $620,000
February 28, 2012

Mike Grouchy

edit on 15-3-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

This is the point in the discussion where something is very important to note here. In the State of Missouri, as of this past election by new Constitutional Amendment at the State level, major elements of Obamacare are illegal. The exchange system, for instance, is illegal to participate in or assist in the development of. Period. The only exception to this must come by a large majority of the statehouse changing it or a popular referendum. The Gov. tried the Statehouse and I believe I heard the laughter from down here. Not happening.

What makes this important to your point is that included in that amendment that my state passed is the provision protecting any resident of the State of Missouri from ANY penalty or sanction related to non-compliance with any provision of the Affordable Care Act. In short, Obama has a Federal vs. State fight and a BIG ONE to get past before anything goes into true effect. As a State Constitutional Amendment, this isn't something that can be ignored. It has to run the distance.

This was done in more than just Missouri but I'll stick with mine for the example. This was made possible by the Roberts Court decision on Obamacare which let stand the mandate as a tax......but ALSO gave the states the ability to completely opt out and refuse any level of participation WITHOUT SANCTION OR ADJUSTMENT OF OTHER FEDERAL AID IN RETALIATION. That last part is all that makes it viable vs. a nice statement with nothing meaningful to it.

So...Obama can just chew on that with his health care. he's got legal mountains yet to climb. No kidding on that.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Helious
Using some logic I have seen by the people who support the birth control allowance and in playing devils advocate in doing so I would say....... Why not, they don't just treat ED they increase blood flow and are used to increase vascular function.

edit on 15-3-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Sadly under the assumption of what you call just there I got you, my friend, actually you can not get cialis or viagra on the basis of wanting to perform sex, but under medicinal purposed you can under your employer insurance.

So yes, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy

just like you said and yes even Medicare part D covers for "limited" that is between doctor and patient male enhancement drugs.

Yeah, hypocrisy at its finest.

We are still in a very much male controlled world after all.

edit on 15-3-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

Well, I don't agree with that policy. I would think somebody who feels morally obligated to not provide birth control would feel equally obligated to not provide male sexual enhancement pills either. Shameful.

I do however still feel that ultimately, it is up to the employer to decide what benefits he will offer employees, that is the American way and one that is consistent with American ideals even though I personal find it reprehensible.

I can't say how much it's a "mans world" I see feminism very much alive and well throughout every facet of society but I may be the wrong guy to ask about that after two divorces and up to my ears in child support payments.

Well I have a couple thoughts on this. First last I heard insurance companies gave a monetary break to employers that did cover birth control because they know from experience that is cheaper to pay for contraceptives than pregnancies. So that destroys the argument about forcing employers to pay more for something they do not agree with.

Second we all know there are religious groups that do not believe in even administering aspirin (scientology) so what precedent is being set here. If you think that is just stupid now you know how we feel about the contraceptive issue.

Third if this gets turned around for those of you who are saying if employees do not like it they can leave then do not be complaining in that event because if the employer doesn’t like it he can sell and move to another country.

I agree with the posters who said that the employer should just put money into an insurance plan, with no knowledge of what that insurance will cover. It should be between the employee/patient, their doctor, and the insurance company if the specific procedure/medical cost is covered or not. If there is only so much money going into the policy, the insurance company will automatically refuse to cover things that aren't medically efficient, or necessary, like most cosmetic surgery, etc.

The insurance cost is just part of the salary package that an employee receives. Once an employer hands over a paycheck, it's no longer any of his/her business what the employee spends that money on. It should be the same with health insurance. The employer should not start having a say in what kind of medical treatment a person and their doctor decide is best. The whole point of health insurance is for a person to have affordable healthcare. If an employer starts dictating what kind of medical procedures are covered, it defeats the whole purpose of insurance.

The constitution guarantees that the employer, as a citizen, should not be forced to personally have an abortion or practice birth control, if it is against their religious belief. It does NOT guarantee that an employer has the right to say what an employee spends with his salary package/healthcare insurance.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Third if this gets turned around for those of you who are saying if employees do not like it they can leave then do not be complaining in that event because if the employer doesn’t like it he can sell and move to another country.

It doesn't work that way though. A company doesn't join an individual, an individual joins a company and in doing so voluntarily suffers the burden of having to leave when they do not agree with policy. Ignorance of companies moral values in the way that it is founded or on the principles that it runs by does not relieve the employee from having to adhere to company standard.

A person should research a company, how it was founded and why and dissect carefully what benefits (if any) are offered upon hire. Failure to do so and complain about it later is lazy and is an uninspired argument and furthermore smacks of an entitlement attitude.

A more careful and researched approach to seeking a job should be advised.

This reminds me of the guy who insisted on drinking Pepsi at lunch in the Coke factory he worked at.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

It sounds to me that under the umbrella of "devote", "religious" and "Christian" many of this corporate mobsters are getting away from providing their employees with needed health care

That is what i see behind the veil of anti contraception controversy nothing but an excuse.

It sounds to me like under the umbrella of socialistic entitlement many pizza employees are getting away with unrealistic expectations of what their employer is obligated to give them.

That is what i see behind the veil of arguing for rights of employees while trampling those of the employers. Don't like the insurance, don't like the company morals, don't like the policies, find another job. Asking the government to force employers to give you something you don't deserve is no different than panhandling.

This kind of sounds like you feel that pizza employees as you put it should expect less from their employer it seems like you are just calling them peons.

At least they are employed and holding down a job and do not forget that is a big company they have drivers accountants and probably a multitude of other positions that do more than just make pizza.

All employees have rights plus they are not just sitting at home collecting a check.

What is this idea people are getting that religion is being forced on anyone?
No where does the company require employees to follow certain tenants. No where do they require them to hold certain beliefs.

This is about a company being required to pay for something that would go against their moral beliefs. No one is being forced to work there. No one is saying the employees cannot buy the drugs with their own money.

Last I heard you can ask about the company's policies and healthcare before starting employment with them. You have the option to work any place you want to work that your skill level will allow. You have the right to buy whatever legal drugs your doctor prescribes to you and use them in the manner they are designed to be used as long as they are not affecting your work (i.e. meaning you are not affected in a manner that would make you unsafe to yourself or others because of the drug).

If the employer is not forcing employees to attend or be a member of their religion how is the lack of their willingness to buy a certain drug forcing their religious beliefs when the employee can still buy the drug with their own money?


As far as this being part of your benefits package, benefits are just that. They are extras to entice you to want to work for a company. Those who offer the most money or best benefits get the better employees (or at least that is the point of it). If you want better benefits find a different job.

Just so people know I am not catholic. My wife works for a catholic company (she is not catholic either) and we pay out of pocket for birth control. She is not forced to abide by any catholic tenants and is free to live as she wants as long as she pays for the stuff that goes against her company's beliefs out of her own money.

Raist

It's his business, so he has the right to do whatever he wants with it, as long he's not getting any federal funding whatsoever. Birth Control's versatility, men getting the special privelege of having their viagra covered, and the bible containing/not containing references to birth control is irrelevant to the legality of this decision.

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Third if this gets turned around for those of you who are saying if employees do not like it they can leave then do not be complaining in that event because if the employer doesn’t like it he can sell and move to another country.

It doesn't work that way though. A company doesn't join an individual, an individual joins a company and in doing so voluntarily suffers the burden of having to leave when they do not agree with policy. Ignorance of companies moral values in the way that it is founded or on the principles that it runs by does not relieve the employee from having to adhere to company standard.

A person should research a company, how it was founded and why and dissect carefully what benefits (if any) are offered upon hire. Failure to do so and complain about it later is lazy and is an uninspired argument and furthermore smacks of an entitlement attitude.

A more careful and researched approach to seeking a job should be advised.

This reminds me of the guy who insisted on drinking Pepsi at lunch in the Coke factory he worked at.

edit on 15-3-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Well if you can show me where the employees are stating that they are entitled to something here you may have a point otherwise your argument is misdirected.

This is a legal issue the plaintiffs are not the employees. And yes in this global economy if the owner does not like the decision the courts decide he has the right to take his business elsewhere.

Hey I would like to start a company getting rid of nuclear waste I will be dumping it in your back yard opps there are regulations against that maybe I will have to rethink my business model however there are countries that do not have such rules. The comparison is no different.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

It sounds to me that under the umbrella of "devote", "religious" and "Christian" many of this corporate mobsters are getting away from providing their employees with needed health care

That is what i see behind the veil of anti contraception controversy nothing but an excuse.

It sounds to me like under the umbrella of socialistic entitlement many pizza employees are getting away with unrealistic expectations of what their employer is obligated to give them.

That is what i see behind the veil of arguing for rights of employees while trampling those of the employers. Don't like the insurance, don't like the company morals, don't like the policies, find another job. Asking the government to force employers to give you something you don't deserve is no different than panhandling.

This kind of sounds like you feel that pizza employees as you put it should expect less from their employer it seems like you are just calling them peons.

At least they are employed and holding down a job and do not forget that is a big company they have drivers accountants and probably a multitude of other positions that do more than just make pizza.

All employees have rights plus they are not just sitting at home collecting a check.

Nope, I feel the same way about employees of any company doing any job. My feeling is that if you don't like what is being offered and are not ok with the benefits as outlined after research, then you do not apply to the company.

I have been a bartender my whole life, I have almost never been offered benefits and when I have, they have been total crap or cost too much but I knew that BEFORE I applied and accepted the job and never had any mis conceptions about what my employer was obligated to give me or had any want to ask the government to force my employer to give me something.

I choose the way I thought was best in the American spirit and consistent with my personal and political beliefs and I paid for my own policy.

reply to post by Raist

This is about a company being required to pay for something that would go against their moral beliefs.

They pay less for including it check two posts above yours.

So what is the other argument.


Also I believe it is the owner’s beliefs not the companies. I know some think corporations are people but until one goes to jail for their crimes I think not. Some are too big to prosecute such as HSBC. They are above the law.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Third if this gets turned around for those of you who are saying if employees do not like it they can leave then do not be complaining in that event because if the employer doesn’t like it he can sell and move to another country.

It doesn't work that way though. A company doesn't join an individual, an individual joins a company and in doing so voluntarily suffers the burden of having to leave when they do not agree with policy. Ignorance of companies moral values in the way that it is founded or on the principles that it runs by does not relieve the employee from having to adhere to company standard.

A person should research a company, how it was founded and why and dissect carefully what benefits (if any) are offered upon hire. Failure to do so and complain about it later is lazy and is an uninspired argument and furthermore smacks of an entitlement attitude.

A more careful and researched approach to seeking a job should be advised.

This reminds me of the guy who insisted on drinking Pepsi at lunch in the Coke factory he worked at.

edit on 15-3-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Well if you can show me where the employees are stating that they are entitled to something here you may have a point otherwise your argument is misdirected.

This is a legal issue the plaintiffs are not the employees. And yes in this global economy if the owner does not like the decision the courts decide he has the right to take his business elsewhere.

Hey I would like to start a company getting rid of nuclear waste I will be dumping it in your back yard opps there are regulations against that maybe I will have to rethink my business model however there are countries that do not have such rules. The comparison is no different.

Let me toss you a towel, your liberal is showing...........

Comparing nuclear waste dumping to justify socialistic benefit structure in America

reply to post by Raist


You people are stuck in the old mode of health insurance being an optional benefit. It is no longer optional. It is now just part of the compensation to an employee. You can't (legally) pay someone less than minimum wage, and you can't get out of providing health insurance. Just like you are also required to provide a reasonably safe working environment. A worker has certain rights. Without those rights, we would be just like the Chinese, who are known for treating their employees like slaves, with horrible working conditions, and only getting pennies a day. And don't tell me that no American employer would treat their employees like that, because they would in a heartbeat if they could legally get away with it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Yeah, as I said. you are free to check what they provide and pay before you get hired. Who is forcing you to work there? If they pay less to provide it they are basically making you pay for it. You either accept to pay for it yourself or get paid less and get it that way.

As long as you pay for what you want I don't have a problem with it.

As for this being against the company's moral beliefs, I am pretty sure the owner started it and has a set of beliefs he follows. At least that is how it is where my wife works. Only a few noncatholics work there. They are free to live their life as they see fit. The catholics company (again ran on the owners beliefs) will not pay for anything that is against their moral beliefs.

It seems pretty straight forward. I can go work anyplace in the U.S. that my skill level allows me to work. No one forces me to work anyplace I do not chose to work. If my workplace is no providing me with what I need I will go some place else. For instance, my sister did not have healthcare at her last job. She just found a job that provides healthcare so she quit the other job. She is free to move from job to job as she wants to and her skill set allows.

Raist

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by daryllyn

 

I think it is more immoral to deny birth control for people who might not be ready to have children.

I completely agree. My wife even uses it for other such purposes that you mentioned.

However, I also agree that an individual has a right to run his own business the way he sees fit, and that includes his own religious views without government mandating practices that are immoral in his religion. Up to the employees to either accept those concerns, or get such things elsewhere. And this is from a guy who hates organized religion, but respects the Constitution.

This issue raises many questions for me the more I think about it.

Are the employees paying for a portion of the coverage? If they are, what gives him the right to deny them medication that has many other uses besides the obvious one that he deems 'immoral'? Isn't he infringing their rights as well, since they are likely paying for a portion of their coverage?

I agree that the feds have zero business telling him how to run his business, but, on the other hand, I don't believe that he has the right to push his beliefs on his employees, especially since there are several other medical uses for this 'immoral' medication, if they are paying for the coverage.

These are only my opinions, of course. My view might be a little different than some others here being that I am a woman. It wouldn't be an issue for me, because, if it wasn't covered, I would just pay for it or go to a clinic.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Raist

 

You people are stuck in the old mode of health insurance being an optional benefit.

toooooo freakin' funny.

You can't (legally) pay someone less than minimum wage, and you can't get out of providing health insurance.

really ???
then i guess you intentionally excluded all the ppl that (lawfully) pay less than minimum wage to many hundreds of thousands of employees (see the service industry)

oh and, employers with less than 50 employees are getting out of providing health insurance

It is no longer optional.

it certainly is optional or this list wouldn't exist.

if it weren't optional, then why do employers with less than 50 employees automatically get excused from providing said benefit and avoid ALL penalities assessed to others for the same behavior ??

It is now just part of the compensation to an employee.

which is exactly the same as it has ever been

the rest is nonsense whining, would you like some free cheese too ?

reply to post by kaylaluv


No we are stuck in the free enterprise mind set. An employer should not be required to provide any benefits at all. One is rights the other is benefits.

A fire wage sure we will go with that, a safe working environment of course both of these are rights. Benefits though are meant to be incentive to better yourself and your work skills. The better jobs that require more work skills give better benefits.

Rights are one thing benefits are another. This issue is about the benefits a company owner is willing to pay for. You are asking the owner to pay for something that goes against their moral beliefs. In a way it would be like the government saying you had to donate a % of you check each week to be dispersed to all religions. This would likely be against your moral beliefs and you would want the religions to pay their own way. This owner wants his employees to buy their own BC.

Raist

reply to post by kozmo


I'm an anarchist so no, fail for you. I don't like government in my business, I don't like anyone in my business and that includes Mr. Bossman Sir! I know that you have graced the country by being a job creator and all so forgive my insolence as I respectfully tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Health benefits packages are part of an employee's compensation, correct? You don't get to determine how one's earnings are spent.

reply to post by daryllyn


Good points but there is a good amount of debate on the validity of the claim that birth control pills treat anything else effectively aside from it's sole purpose of birth control. Many studies have proved that birth control carries significant risk when taken regularly and other medication can be used to treat anything birth control is prescribed for without the convenient side effect of, well.... Birth control.

Also, most insurance companies include the "morning after" pill as birth control and in some instances has been said to be a part of what will be covered. As you may know already, there isn't any other purpose to that pill than the one it is taken for.

Let me toss you a towel, your liberal is showing...........

Comparing nuclear waste dumping to justify socialistic benefit structure in America

Guess you do not have anything else of substance to add.


You can’t come up with a logical argument instead you start labeling and calling people names.