Supreme Court To Take Up Controversial Birth Control Cases

windword

ACA is a boondoggle, and dismantling it piece by piece is an acceptable methodolgy to me if we are unable to have it overturned outright.

Personally, I find it unacceptable to attempt to undermine a law by attacking and oppressing the reproductive rights of women, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, to assert an agenda of religious moral high ground, and to push the "Pro-life" political agenda.

In the end, this strategy will only lead to chaos, as everyone has their own opinion of what the moral high ground is. There will be no firm legal standard, except what each individual corporate boss thinks is moral and what isn't moral for their employees.

It is an employee benefit, not a compensation. Same as vacation time, which the employee also cannot choose how to execute. There are caveats to it, as well. And the employer (at least in Texas) is not required to buy out unused PTO/vacation time.

Okay, now you're just thumb wrestling.

Employers of choice provide a comprehensive employee benefits package to attract and retain employees. In addition to a competitive salary, an employee benefits package is a standard – and expected - part of an employee total compensation package.

Health Insurance Is the Foundation of a Comprehensive Employee Benefits Package Provide Health Insurance as the Most Desired and Needed Employee Benefit

Health insurance is the foundation of a comprehensive employee benefits package. Health insurance is the preferred employee benefit of the majority of people who work.
humanresources.about.com...

An employer has no say how an employee spends their vacation time. In addition, there are times when personal days, due to all kinds of life situations, are taken on the spur of the moment, as is sick leave, without first getting approval from management to take the time off.

If an employee promised to spend X amount of dollars on each employee's health insurance, that employer doesn't, under current law, have the right to dictate the terms of how an employee uses their minimal standard coverage, based on a moral bias.

In other words, if a female employee's insurance will pay for "The Pill" as a migraine headache remedy, and she also benefits from the contraceptive aspect, it isn't fair that another woman, who only needs or wants the same drug for it's intended purpose, can't have it because her employer doesn't approve of her life style.

if you call in, even with PTO available, you can still be issued corrective action. Before you can take PTO, you must complete requests which then must be approved. Not everyone can request off on Christmas. It don't work that way. Thus, an employer does get input on how PTO is used. Once your PTO is approved and you are no longer at work, you can do whatever you want (presuming you don't commit crimes).

Insurance....it isn't like you are given an insurance card that you can utilize how you want. Your employer selects a plan that provides the coverage that they feel will most address the health risks of their employees while keeping costs in line with budgets. If your employees are low paid, having a $500 single user premium is useless because no one will participate.

An insurance plan has several elements. Essentially it is gambling, where you and the insurance companies assess risk and gamble on it. If an employer does not feel that birth control is a necessary risk, they can select a plan that doesn't include that type of coverage.

In this case, an employer could select an insurance plan which precludes covering contraceptive care. If I employed 300 men and 3 women in an oilfield supply company, this would be a reasonable risk, and I may choose to exclude that type of coverage from the plan we offer our employees.

I am thinking you may have limited exposure to these things, which is fine. But what I am telling you is how it works. Insurance and PTO are not compensation. They are benefits. In my accounting bible, they are both indicated to be separate accounts which roll into a blended line item on my balance sheet, along with FICA (income tax), SUI (state unemployment insurance), Medicare and SS (all of the prior have an employee paid contribution which is matched by the employer as the employer paid contribution) and holiday pay, along with the regular and OT wages and tips (since they are taxed they are included, even though the employer doesn't fund it).

If you are truly interested in how the 10th edition uniform code of accounts handles this type of thing, I can quote it for you once I get into the office and have access to my copy. But the point is, there are rules that govern how this type of stuff is utilized. The first error in your thinking, and the thinking of many others, is that a benefit = compensation. You aren't taxed on it....it isn't a compensation. Its a benefit. Even though PTO is taxed once it is paid..that is due to it being an income.

This anti-contraception crap is where you religious-right people out there really lose me. I'd rather my tax dollars pay for some contraceptives for people who don't want/can't afford kids than to pay for that kids welfare/prison bill/court costs/rehab etc Or even more straight to the point, if I help someone avoid unwanted children I'm indirectly saving myself or my family being killed/robbed by one of these kids who was raised like crap as an unwanted baby.

You guys need to really think about how things work and not do this knee-jerk 'treat-the-symptoms' type of politics.

reply to post by 8675309jenny


and what about those of us who are not religious, and are more prone to anarchy? Since you have dismissed "the religious right" and their viewpoint, you are still left with folks like me

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


And you do realize that your opinion is not the "popular" one, hence, people are going to argue your points, regardless.

However, your opinion is the simplest, easiest, way to explain the entire basis of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit in laymans terms so anyone can understand.

I feel as you do. This is a personal responsibility, and there is always a public health department that works with people based on income, on a sliding scale. Why this seems to be intentionally left out of every discussion is beyond me. I scour these threads looking for one person to come forward to mention this, and never. Nothing. Not a word.

And what about the government funded, much touted, always spoken about, but not during THIS conversation, well known abortion clinic. We all know who I mean.

The problem, the basic real problem is, it does not fit into the redistribution paradigm that the ACA was designed to be, and up until this week, the administration was in loud vocal denial about. Now, having made that admission publically, it still remains a denial to some people that simply toe the line and parrot the talking points. Wealth redistribution under any facade still is wealth redistribution, and people want their share of the pie.

Now, and only now, that some of those with their hands out have realized that nothing is free, and they too will be paying a huge premium, have come squealing back, "I didn't know *I* was going to be the one paying for it!", has it dawned on them what a scam this whole thing has been.

So now, we have this confusion. Who has the right to determine when life begins? Who has the right to determine who can end that life, and how? Who has the right to take money from a persons' pocket who may object, and force them to pay for ending an innocent life? What if this does offend? Is it only the right of a Muslim to be offended? What about Mormons? Christians? Mennonites? Is there a line?

Surely, our taxes have, in the past, gone to Medicaid to fund abortions. But never has it been so "in your face" that your taxes will now not only fund abortions, but abortifacients, birth control that many feel constitutes giving permission for a large population to live immorally. And you know what? Those people have the right to their opinions, jus like those that have opposing opinions.

It is the same circular argument that I have with people that protest about companies like Walmart not paying "living wages". If you don't like it, improve your job skills and get another job! Work with a company whose policies YOU agree with! What gives any employee the right to think they can walk in and propose to change the way a company does business?

It seems during the dock strikes in California, the dock workers figured it out pretty fast when the company was prepared to replace employees with non-union workers. And, Hostess, when they closed their doors. People should get the hint, companies are getting tired of being told how to run their business, and are quite happy in these days of suffocating regulations and overgrown government, and stupid employees, to just... shut the doors.

21,000 peoples' jobs are hanging in the balance, over some pills that can be bought at the health department on a sliding scale. But, no one mentions this. Ever.

There are so many government funded ways to get birth control, but that really isn't the issue, is it? It is about government control, and power.

reply to post by 8675309jenny


And yet, you still neglect the entire topic of teaching personal responsibility. To he honest, that is the real root of a lot of today's troubles. People have our very own government telling women to live the life of "Julia", let the government be your sugar daddy, and hold your hand from the cradle to the grave.

Whatever happened to teaching values, morals, and personal responsibility? To get out and to do for ones' self? Instead, we are teaching to be dependent upon everyone else. You don't make enough money? Aww, poor thing. Quit working all together, and walk the protest lines, demanding an entry-level training job at a hamburger joint, that was DESIGNED to teach people HOW to work, was never meant to BE a carreer, pay higher wages, because those people stopped development in the 11th grade! They are mental midgets that hold themselves back, yet, those who make an effort and move on past nasal piercings and tattoos ajd actually have goals in life are deigned to forever pay for their stagnation. This is what we teach now. Dependency on others. Ways to use the "system", since "that is what it's there for!"

Instead, teach people that learning and development should never stop. If you are in a dead end job, leave! Find another job BEFORE you quit! Then move on, and grow. We somehow lost that, and a lot of the blame falls on this administration.

The life of "Julia", indeed.

Have more babies, no responsible fathers, its the "cool" thing, and don't forget to swipe that EBT, it's free! Just like the Medicaid!

Oh. Good luck finding a doctor, though. At least some of us still have rights. For now.

reply to post by Libertygal




1,000,000% agree with you, HOWEVER. You can sit here saying shoulda-this shoulda-that and wait for our society to just morph into the utopian dream you envision, OR you can be a realist for a few moments and address a simple problem in an effective affordable way that actually benefits ALL of us!

Look, in a fight, you don't get to write the rulebook, you don't get to control how the other side trains or cheats, the only thing you can control is what YOU do.

If you can stop 3/4 of unwanted neglected children from being born in the first place, you're well on your way to your idealist utopia where people take responsibility for their actions.



I don't think anyone has the right to take the idealist mentality unless they've adopted a few of these unwanted kids. C'mon, put your money where your mouth is. I'm not trying to take the moral high ground here, I'll happily admit that I don't want to raise someone else's unloved baby.

By the way, I'm not defending the ACA in any way. I hate the ACA and all that it stands for in EVERY way possible!

This nation absolutely needs reforms and has for over a decade, but everything in the last 4years has just pushed it FURTHER over the cliff!! It's unbelievable to watch it unfolding.

windword
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

We're not talking about abortion, here. We're talking about contraception. Contraception is the best method of keeping abortion numbers low.

Outlaw abortion and there won't be any numbers...

Evanzsayz

windword
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

We're not talking about abortion, here. We're talking about contraception. Contraception is the best method of keeping abortion numbers low.

Outlaw abortion and there won't be any numbers...

Yea, ya know.... cause making things illegal ALWAYS stops people from doing it.....

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I am saying that the employer should not be required to do anything relating to health care. We provide insurance to our folks, with us paying over 70% of the premiums on their behalf. They get the same insurance the CEO gets at the same price. Additionally, we pay 100% for the AD&D and life for the employee (up to 100k). The reason we do this is to take care of our folks while providing us a competitive advantage. Since we are the only place in our industry to offer insurance, you can imagine we have amassed all the talent in our town, and are rated so far above our compettition in customer satisfaction that it is almost ridiculous to even look at (seriously).

Now...if you have any idea how much insurance costs an employer, you may understand why I would bristle at my employees making demands about health care coverage. We spend tens of thousands a month on this benefit for them, to invest in their health.

This doesn't make any sense. You already paying 70%, but the ACA only requires you to pay 60%. you complaining about the cost of MINIMAL STANDARD health care. Are you trying to tell us the in your company, female CEO don't get birth control coverage, and this is the high standard business that you are proud of? PFFFT

If, as a business, i do not wish to invest in their decision to not have children, that is my choice.

LOL! Your true misogyny colors are showing. But you will support them "barefoot and pregnant"?

LOL! Let me help you with that: "i do not wish to invest in their CHOICE to not have children, that is my DECISION."

But, in reality, you don't have a choice or a decision. And, somehow I really doubt that YOUR corporation can convince anybody that they are religiously offended by their/your employees using birth control.

Besides, this is on the insurance companies to provide you policy choices that meet the standard of the ACA.

reply to post by windword

In your opinion, every woman who is using birth control other than the barrier method, the rhythm methods or abstinence is having an abortion, possibly as often as once a month. Something like 80 percent of American women of child bearing age are using these contraception products. That's lot of abortions!

every terminated fertilized egg is no different than abortion. an unnatural and abrupt end to the human life cycle.

this is true, whether you accept it or not.

Bob Sholtz
reply to post by windword

 

In your opinion, every woman who is using birth control other than the barrier method, the rhythm methods or abstinence is having an abortion, possibly as often as once a month. Something like 80 percent of American women of child bearing age are using these contraception products. That's lot of abortions!

every terminated fertilized egg is no different than abortion. an unnatural and abrupt end to the human life cycle.

this is true, whether you accept it or not.

It is not true at all.
Do the people that believe this hold funerals every month when they or their wives or their daughters, or in fact any female they no have a period?
Fertilised eggs fail to implant every month so do you grieve every month for a child that has died?
No, and the vast majority of pro life people do not have this belief, as it is not true that they are foetuses until them implant.
this is true ehwther you want to believe it or not.
It's quiet sickening you would have women grieving unborn children every time they have a period.
next you be wanting to shove us out in the shed every month until we are clean again.

Sookiechacha
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

This doesn't make any sense. You already paying 70%, but the ACA only requires you to pay 60%. you complaining about the cost of MINIMAL STANDARD health care. Are you trying to tell us the in your company, female CEO don't get birth control coverage, and this is the high standard business that you are proud of? PFFFT

It makes plenty of sense. We pay for what we want to pay (can afford to pay), and try to get the best coverage to ensure the greatest amount of health for our employees. We may or may not include birth control....i am not going into those details.

Find another business like mine within 1000 miles that offers insurance to its employees, and Ill buy you a steak dinner.

LOL! Your true misogyny colors are showing. But you will support them "barefoot and pregnant"?

LOL! Let me help you with that: "i do not wish to invest in their CHOICE to not have children, that is my DECISION."

But, in reality, you don't have a choice or a decision. And, somehow I really doubt that YOUR corporation can convince anybody that they are religiously offended by their/your employees using birth control.

Besides, this is on the insurance companies to provide you policy choices that meet the standard of the ACA.

Like i said, not going into those details (mostly because they are irrelevant).

Nice try with the lame, half assed attempt at insulting me. You obviously are a noob. I have upwards of 15k posts on ATS that have a rich history of making your claim of my misogyny look absolutely stupid.

reply to post by Libertygal

However, your opinion is the simplest, easiest, way to explain the entire basis of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit in laymans terms so anyone can understand.

I feel as you do. This is a personal responsibility, and there is always a public health department that works with people based on income, on a sliding scale. Why this seems to be intentionally left out of every discussion is beyond me. I scour these threads looking for one person to come forward to mention this, and never. Nothing. Not a word.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you support these "public health department" clinics like Planned Parenthood for working women whose employer based insurance refuses to cover contraception to fill in the gaps that their insurance doesn't? Isn't that kinda like Walmart relying on and encouraging their employees to fall back on food stamps and medicaid?

And anyway, pro-life groups are passionately and relentlessly attacking and trying to shut down and defund Planned Parenthood and similar clinics all over the country! Poor women being the most at risk of losing their access to affordable and safe birth control and other female needs.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


To be fair, I also found that comment to be "sexist", but I left it alone because personal opinions on contraception isn't really important or what this thread is about. It's about the Supreme Court taking up the Hobby Lobby and the Mennonites claim that they should be exempt from having to provide contraceptive insurance, as per the ACA mandate due to religious objection.

If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, do you expect your business to claim religious objection to this provision?

Also, I readily admit that insurance laws are tricky and I don't understand them or the actual ACA mandate. It isn't as black and white as one would hope, and the more I look into it, the more confused I become.

I came across this Article last night about insurance loopholes and "grandfathered" policies. I admit that I was half way into a bottle of wine when I read it, but it brought tears to my eyes. This article probably deserves a thread all by itself, but I don't have the time or inclination to do it.

Anticapitalist Meetup: “Separate but Equal” Shuts Down Women’s Health Care

Two obstetricians, far apart geographically and serving two different hospitals, are all that is left to see obstetric patients in the Southern half of the county. Both doctors are men over 60, who have a tough future ahead of them. Without outside help there is no way they can see all the patients that will need them. They have to remain within 30 minutes of the hospital and can be told to come to work any time of the day or night. They can never have a moment off, a full night’s sleep, a drink of alcohol to ring in the New Year. Watching a full length movie, or having a nice dinner with the spouse without interruption is a thing of the past. Neither of the remaining doctors can get sick or injured. This is really asking them to be super human and there is no cavalry on their horizon. In fact, if Catholic Health Systems is successful at closing one of the two hospitals, only one physician will remain.

And this:

Rosa Rivers
Senior Insurance Regulatory Analyst
Consumer Service Division
You requested clarification on the ACA law in regards to contraceptive and immunizations. A grandfathered health plan isn’t required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered. If you have health coverage from a plan that existed on March 23, 2010 — and that has covered at least one person continuously from that day forward — your plan may be considered a “grandfathered” plan.

If your plan is a grandfathered plan it is not required to provide certain recommended preventive services at no additional charge to you. This would include charges for contraceptives. This would be the only reason the company is not paying for contraceptives.

The above also applies, but also the ACA requires coverage on vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prior to September 2009 with no co-payments or other cost-sharing requirements when those services are delivered by an in-network provider. The immunization vaccine you listed in your email is not on the recommended list. [Note from author: This is an inaccurate statement. HPV vaccine is covered. See the lists above.]

Sincerely
Rosa Rivers

Some of the comments to the article are just as interesting, informative and compelling as the article itself, in my opinion.

Again, thanks to all for your input in this thread!

windword
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

To be fair, I also found that comment to be "sexist", but I left it alone because personal opinions on contraception isn't really important or what this thread is about. It's about the Supreme Court taking up the Hobby Lobby and the Mennonites claim that they should be exempt from having to provide contraceptive insurance, as per the ACA mandate due to religious objection.

If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, do you expect your business to claim religious objection to this provision?

No. Because we cover birth control for our employees already, and have for years. We have a lot of females that work for us, and we want to take care of our employees. But the point here is that we should have the choice based on our employees and what would make the most sense for them.

Also, I readily admit that insurance laws are tricky and I don't understand them or the actual ACA mandate. It isn't as black and white as one would hope, and the more I look into it, the more confused I become.

I came across this Article last night about insurance loopholes and "grandfathered" policies. I admit that I was half way into a bottle of wine when I read it, but it brought tears to my eyes. This article probably deserves a thread all by itself, but I don't have the time or inclination to do it.

Anticapitalist Meetup: “Separate but Equal” Shuts Down Women’s Health Care

Two obstetricians, far apart geographically and serving two different hospitals, are all that is left to see obstetric patients in the Southern half of the county. Both doctors are men over 60, who have a tough future ahead of them. Without outside help there is no way they can see all the patients that will need them. They have to remain within 30 minutes of the hospital and can be told to come to work any time of the day or night. They can never have a moment off, a full night’s sleep, a drink of alcohol to ring in the New Year. Watching a full length movie, or having a nice dinner with the spouse without interruption is a thing of the past. Neither of the remaining doctors can get sick or injured. This is really asking them to be super human and there is no cavalry on their horizon. In fact, if Catholic Health Systems is successful at closing one of the two hospitals, only one physician will remain.

And this:

Rosa Rivers
Senior Insurance Regulatory Analyst
Consumer Service Division
You requested clarification on the ACA law in regards to contraceptive and immunizations. A grandfathered health plan isn’t required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered. If you have health coverage from a plan that existed on March 23, 2010 — and that has covered at least one person continuously from that day forward — your plan may be considered a “grandfathered” plan.

If your plan is a grandfathered plan it is not required to provide certain recommended preventive services at no additional charge to you. This would include charges for contraceptives. This would be the only reason the company is not paying for contraceptives.

The above also applies, but also the ACA requires coverage on vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prior to September 2009 with no co-payments or other cost-sharing requirements when those services are delivered by an in-network provider. The immunization vaccine you listed in your email is not on the recommended list. [Note from author: This is an inaccurate statement. HPV vaccine is covered. See the lists above.]

Sincerely
Rosa Rivers

Some of the comments to the article are just as interesting, informative and compelling as the article itself, in my opinion.

Again, thanks to all for your input in this thread!

I had a bottle of pinot grigio last night (ok, maybe 2.....). I don't remember anything, let alone what I read.

ETA: i should add, i have no negative opinion on contraceptives. My wife took the pill before the youngest was born, and had tubal ligation during her c-section. So i don't have that as a reality in my life. But I certainly do think that they should be taken by far, far more people than who currently take them.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

But the point here is that we should have the choice based on our employees and what would make the most sense for them.

Over the weekend I overheard a man complaining about "Obamacare", stating that he owns a construction business and most of his employees are men, and he doesn't want to cover maternity leave/care. That got me thinking about family plans, where the spouse's coverage can be added. So, to me, it makes sense that the mandates be in place, even for companies that employ a majority of men.

It seems to me that the "far right" is in favor of families and mothers staying home with their children, especially new borns, and would generally be in favor of such policies. Personally, I think that the gentleman was short sighted.

windword
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

But the point here is that we should have the choice based on our employees and what would make the most sense for them.

Over the weekend I overheard a man complaining about "Obamacare", stating that he owns a construction business and most of his employees are men, and he doesn't want to cover maternity leave/care. That got me thinking about family plans, where the spouse's coverage can be added. So, to me, it makes sense that the mandates be in place, even for companies that employ a majority of men.

It seems to me that the "far right" is in favor of families and mothers staying home with their children, especially new borns, and would generally be in favor of such policies. Personally, I think that the gentleman was short sighted.

This isn't left/right. I detest both, and prefer anarchy or extreme libertarianism.

I know a guy who owns a drilling company. Of his 300 employees, only 5 are married. The rest are young men. Why should this drilling company need to pay for the contraceptive care instead of covering in office injections?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You make a good point. I suppose, in those kind of cases, the law should allow a corporate business to file for an exemption.

As for the case of anarchy, I don't know that, in general, corporations can be trusted to defend their employee's best interest, and I'm still in favor of minimal standards for health care coverage. I certainly don't think that Hobby Lobby has its employees best interest in mind. I think corporate mentality often can be myopically aimed at the bottom dollar or some philosophical agenda, and tend to ethically "cut corners", unless otherwise overseen by laws and regulations.

windword
reply to post by ketsuko

 

The use of contraception is a constitutionally protected right.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Griswold v. Connecticut involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."[2] Although the law was passed in 1879, the statute was almost never enforced.
Attempts had been made to test the constitutionality of the law; however, the challenges failed on technical grounds. In Tileston v. Ullman (1943), a doctor and mother challenged the statute on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain sexual situations, threaten the lives and well-being of patients.
en.wikipedia.org...

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), is an important United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse (though not the right of unmarried people to engage in any type of sexual intercourse).
en.wikipedia.org...

Additionally

Contraceptive Use in the United States:
• More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.
www.guttmacher.org...

That includes Catholic women and women of all religious denominations.

Perhaps true, but having someone else pay for it is not and this is the true issue. Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to force a private entity to provide certain goods and/or services?