Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Conservative business owners win appeal in DC Circuit Court challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 393
    More: Scary, D.C. Circuit, obamacare, individual mandate, contraceptive mandate, Law and Justice, Catholic Faith, birth control, contraceptives  
•       •       •

5069 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2013 at 4:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



393 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-01 06:26:37 PM  

Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?


Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.
 
2013-11-01 06:28:45 PM  
Health care plans are already regulated through ERISA. Corporations have no "right to expression" when it comes to federal regulations when it comes to minimum wages or equal opportunity employment. This ruling would let corps practice racial discrimination because they have a right to express their racial preferences. And I'm sure that's what these conservatives are actually lobbying for as revenge for LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act.
 
2013-11-01 06:29:07 PM  

iodine: Thinking it through a little further, and I'm glad for the dialogue that educates me, I think employer provided health benefits, as designed now, do discriminate against women because women will more immediately and consequentially experience the consequences of the denial of reproductive health care services than their male colleagues and/or their employer.

I am still uneasy about the idea that the federal government is the proper agency to level the field.  I still do think the court reached the right decision in this particular case.

I apologize for suggesting that anyone should just suck it up.


Well, if left to the states, it's going to be a 50 flavor disaster like we have now.  To call healthcare in the US a system is laughable at best.  We still can't even get billing right.  "World's Greatest" my ass!
 
2013-11-01 06:29:20 PM  
MonoChango: If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?

It DOES help our collective society.

From the HHS report  The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance


Each year, public funding for family planning prevents about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies.  Preventing these pregnancies results in 860,000 fewer unintended births, 810,000 fewer abortions and 270,000 fewer miscarriages.  More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly-funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care services upon pregnancy.  Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.


and there's this:


"Unintended pregnancy and childbearing depress levels of educational attainment and labor force participation among mothers and lead to higher crime rates and poorer academic, economic, and health outcomes among children,"


So, it saves money, increases education attainment, lowers the crime rate, improves the economy and improves child health. I'd say that benefits our collective society.
 
2013-11-01 06:29:44 PM  

keypusher: theknuckler_33: http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm

Read on then.


http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/march-14-st at ement-on-religious-freedom-and-hhs-mandate.cfm


Indeed I did. Still missing the part where providing a health care plan that includes contraception coverage violates church teachings. They say it did, but not how.  Which is kind of funny as you'd think that would be pretty important... you know, a little reminder to everyone.  Additionally interesting is how that letter so clearly points out that their problem is with the mandate. You'd think if providing health care plans that include contraception were against church teachings, there'd be some kind of warning to Catholic employers not to willingly provide such coverage.
 
2013-11-01 06:29:50 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.


I see your point - perhaps the reason is more women will use b/c as a temporary method while men who opt for permanent sterility are still much less common?
maybe we should find out if tubal ligation is covered to accurately compare apples to apples? (be warned? most doctors refuse this option to women under a certain age)
 
2013-11-01 06:31:01 PM  

acohn: keypusher: "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Aren't there already federal statutes that grant exemptions to groups run by religious organizations for laws and regulations that run counter to their religious teachings?  I know there are on the state level, but obviously, that doesn't apply in this matter.


Only to the churches themselves.  Catholic schools like say, Notre Dame or Stubenville, are not considered Religious Institutions by HHS for purposes of the mandate.  Even though both institutions are owned by religious orders.  BYU would be in a similar boat I believe, since it's not directly owned by the LDS church.
 
2013-11-01 06:33:15 PM  

Kit Fister: Don't want to pay for women's contraceptives? Don't offer health insurance, give everyone a raise commensurate with what they wouldhave spent on health ins. And tell everyone to buy their own damn plans.

Problem solved.


I agree with this. But in our current society it would probably end up as companies dumping insurance, not giving any sorts of raises, and conservatives yelling at the sick to get better jobs or get busy dying.
 
2013-11-01 06:33:57 PM  

parasol: Lord Dimwit: Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.

I see your point - perhaps the reason is more women will use b/c as a temporary method while men who opt for permanent sterility are still much less common?
maybe we should find out if tubal ligation is covered to accurately compare apples to apples? (be warned? most doctors refuse this option to women under a certain age)


Tubal ligation is specifically covered under the same mandate as hormonal birth control. Basically, one can be performed without a co-pay and must be offered if possible. I feel like the same requirements should've been in place for vasectomies.

(citation: "Contraception FAQ" by the National Women's Law Center)
 
2013-11-01 06:35:30 PM  
Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)
 
2013-11-01 06:36:14 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't.


There is a seriously large chasm between hormonal birth control and a vasectomy.  If you were talking about tubal ligation, then I'd be with you.
 
2013-11-01 06:36:58 PM  

MonoChango: vernonFL: MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?

Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Did you miss what I posted, or do you choose to be wilfully obtuse? Or are you just barely functional?

It IS a health issue. Even without pregnancy as a risk (pregnancy can be very risky health wise for woman and fetus), what about single women not having sex who STILL require it for their health (endometriosis, PCOS, other issues requiring D&C, hormonal birth control side effect of helping with endo, etc).

Again, I have to ask you, do you bother educating yourself before spouting your opinionated crap, or just persuading yourself that you are an articulate intelligent human while showing all evidence to the contrary? Or do I need to show sympathy to you because you are functionally sub human in intelligence?
 
2013-11-01 06:37:52 PM  

Literally Addicted: My problem with these idiots is not in the anti-abortion stance, but their position that the government is stomping on their freedoms while they use their freedoms to stomp on someone else's.


But this is a typical liberal mindset:  that health insurance your employer is paying for somehow discriminates against you if your employer doesn't want to pay for something.  You are free to go get your own insurance, but this doesn't occur to the liberal mind.  They are so used to the idea of someone else being in control of their life that the very suggestion that they do something on their own terrifies them.

Employer-based health insurance is not a right.  It's not a "freedom."  It's a dependency an employee places on the employer.
 
2013-11-01 06:38:13 PM  

theorellior: Clemkadidlefark: I suspect they consider it your responsibility to wed before copulation and to be a mother and father to the children you sire. To love them, and raise them up proper. Not grind them up in a blender and flush them down a clinic drain. And they object to being made party to such a practice.

Contraception is not abortion, please do try to keep up.



He can't fathom what a vaccine is, I don't think he's ready to learn about contraceptives yet.
 
2013-11-01 06:39:03 PM  

Lord Dimwit: parasol: Lord Dimwit: Phins: Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

Oh, no reason in particular. You'll note that throughout the thread I'm defending the provision and I understand and support the practical reasons for it. I have no problem with it personally. I just think that it's kinda irritating that hormonal birth control is mandated to be covered, while vasectomies aren't. They probably will be covered anyway, but I think they should've been specifically included too.

I see your point - perhaps the reason is more women will use b/c as a temporary method while men who opt for permanent sterility are still much less common?
maybe we should find out if tubal ligation is covered to accurately compare apples to apples? (be warned? most doctors refuse this option to women under a certain age)

Tubal ligation is specifically covered under the same mandate as hormonal birth control. Basically, one can be performed without a co-pay and must be offered if possible. I feel like the same requirements should've been in place for vasectomies.

(citation: "Contraception FAQ" by the National Women's Law Center)


Is this the same mandate they are trying to get out of?

There was a certain farkette who begged her doctor for tubal ligation and was told "you might change your mind so, no". Women I know who got one w/o fuss/lecture already had more than 2 children and were already scheduled for a birth - it is far more invasive than wire snipping.

They should be covered equally - however, the social perceptions are vas deferense.
 
2013-11-01 06:41:01 PM  

keypusher: The majority specifically declined to hold that a corporation possessed the right to free exercise of its religious belief.  See p. 15.  So this has nothing to do with the "corporations aren't people" argument.


Then on what basis did the court decide that the Gilardis could challenge the law as business owners?  Judge Randolph's concurrence that "emphasizes that the status of the Gilardis' companies as subchapter S corporations gives special force to the conclusion that they are individually burdened."  seems to support the notion that natural and legal persons are interchangeable under the law.
 
2013-11-01 06:41:32 PM  

ShadowKamui: Assassinate the CEO and demand the government now recognize you as the owner according to your Sith religion


Wrong religion.
4.bp.blogspot.com
You keep what you kill.
 
2013-11-01 06:42:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: a. The Pill.
b. Diaphragm.
C. D&C.
d. IUD.
e. Condom.
f. Sponge.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which one is not like the others ...?


What is that, Duck & Cover? As in, what you say to your lady just as you pull out?
 
2013-11-01 06:42:37 PM  

SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)


Why should women have lower coverage than men?
 
2013-11-01 06:46:12 PM  
I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?
 
2013-11-01 06:46:24 PM  
Corporations are people?  Let me know when the first one goes to prison.  And then they should also be taxed at the same rate as people.  And only in some states will same-sex corporations be allowed to merge.
 
2013-11-01 06:46:56 PM  

Lsherm: Literally Addicted: My problem with these idiots is not in the anti-abortion stance, but their position that the government is stomping on their freedoms while they use their freedoms to stomp on someone else's.

But this is a typical liberal mindset:  that health insurance your employer is paying for somehow discriminates against you if your employer doesn't want to pay for something.  You are free to go get your own insurance, but this doesn't occur to the liberal mind.  They are so used to the idea of someone else being in control of their life that the very suggestion that they do something on their own terrifies them.

Employer-based health insurance is not a right.  It's not a "freedom."  It's a dependency an employee places on the employer.


FFS, you are so full of shiat!  it is compensation for services rendered and is usually subsidized by varying degrees by the employee!  An employee should feel put out if the plan(s) offered do not meet their medical requirement.   As things stand right now, the employer is free to offer equivalent cash compensation so that employees can shop for their own coverage.
 
2013-11-01 06:47:25 PM  

ginandbacon: SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)

Why should women have lower coverage than men?


why should women have to wait to time their fertility to re-enrollment schedules - which are generally once a year?  looking at you school-teachers who time their birth dates to summer....

also? if birth control is covered as a "cash bonus" plan - are any medical complications (clots, strokes) not covered?
 
2013-11-01 06:48:34 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Thankfully, it's not the employers who are providing the access to contraception, but a health plan from a third party bought and paid for by a legally fictional entity distinct from the person of the owner(s).

A fictional entity that cannot, I might add, hold any sort of beliefs whatsoever.


The district court agrees with you: "While we decline the Freshway companies' invitation to accept Townley's ipse dixit that closely held corporations can vindicate the rights of their owners, we understand  the impulse. The free exercise protection-a core bulwark of freedom-should not be expunged by a label. But for now, we have no basis for concluding a secular organization can exercise religion." (p. 15 of the court decision).

But clearly, that's not the basis of the court's decision.  Somehow, the personal injury to the business owners that the court recognized gave the owners the right to impose their views on the business.
 
2013-11-01 06:50:17 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?


the problem here? you, as a pedestrian are PROTECTED by cross walks, sidewalks,medians, lights and signs YOU didn't pay for exclusively because they are considered protection for the greater good.

bad analogy.
 
2013-11-01 06:51:01 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?


Let's see, prescription medication, motorcycle gear, rock climbing gear, scuba gear.

Sesame Street had a song about this.  Not sure that you are old enough for Sesame Street yet.
 
2013-11-01 06:51:19 PM  

ginandbacon: acohn: My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?

No.


Then why do different types of insurance plans for business exist?  Why do sr. executives and the officers of a corporation frequently get better coverage than low-level employees?
 
2013-11-01 06:51:22 PM  

acohn: Somehow, the personal injury to the business owners that the court recognized gave the owners the right to impose their views on the business.


An opinion which probably will be overturned on appeal.
 
2013-11-01 06:54:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: acohn: Somehow, the personal injury to the business owners that the court recognized gave the owners the right to impose their views on the business.

An opinion which probably will be overturned on appeal.


We can only hope!
 
2013-11-01 06:55:37 PM  
In a perfect world, sanctimonious social conservatives would be deported to a special island where they can pass all those famly valyers laws that they like. Not like it would do anything for them, because most of the (few) women that support their views are well beyond menopause.

Their so-called morals are strictly for control of women, nothing else. It's absolutely not because they LURVE JAYZUSS  or feel pity for those po' li'l bay-beez, or even getting brownie points to fast-track them to heaven.

These suit-wearing  pampered assholes are just as bad or worse than those commie dictators that they rail against.
 
2013-11-01 06:55:46 PM  

Pitabred: acohn: Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.

Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?

Corporations still shield their owners from personal liability, public or private. If you're shielded from liability, your employees should be shielded from your capriciousness.


Then why did Judge Randolph, in his concurring opinion, emphasize that the status of the Gilardis' companies as subchapter S corporations gives special force to the conclusion that they are individually burdened? (http://tinyurl.com/n53huly)
 
2013-11-01 06:55:52 PM  

SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)


Yes, let's set up a completely separate, parallel system instead of including it in the already existing one. Because that always works out well.
 
2013-11-01 06:56:03 PM  
Acohn makes a great point I'd neglected about how Gilardi's, as a subchapter S corporation, "is especially burdened".  I hadn't waddled into the whole "corporations are legal persons (or not) debate" but I can say from personal experience that whether one is Subchapter S or not, the government, in particular the Treasury department, will find responsible an individual, biological human or human(s) PERSONALLY responsible whenever they THINK they are owed money, whether or not they are actually entitled to it, corporate veil or no.

In the case of some companies, or corporations, Subchapter S or no, there is no meaningful difference between sole proprietorship and incorporated status.  There is no meaningful "corporate veil".  Even if there is, there is no practically meaningful defense (other than settlement) from the costs of the litigation of those who think there is no difference, YOU are the one to be held accountable for their "harm".

--All the more reason why the court made the right decision.
 
2013-11-01 06:57:00 PM  

acohn: ginandbacon: acohn: My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?

No.

Then why do different types of insurance plans for business exist?  Why do sr. executives and the officers of a corporation frequently get better coverage than low-level employees?


Why do child labor laws exist? Or OSHA regulations? Or the Family Medical Leave Act? Or overtime laws? Or antidiscrimination laws? Or oh heck, fire alarms?
 
2013-11-01 07:03:20 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Freshway Foodstrucks bear signs stating, "It's not a choice, it's a child," as a way to promote the owners' anti-abortion views to the public, according to the legal complaint.

How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.

I suspect they consider it your responsibility to wed before copulation and to be a mother and father to the children you sire. To love them, and raise them up proper. Not grind them up in a blender and flush them down a clinic drain. And they object to being made party to such a practice.


And here I thought contraception was about preventing pregnancy rather than terminating it... Silly ol' me... Because that would mean they were more interested in telling me the employee when I could have sex (or else!) and have nothing to do with actually ending a life, unless you believe that a life begins before conception-- which is some real predestination crazy at work there...
 
2013-11-01 07:03:49 PM  

iodine: Acohn makes a great point I'd neglected about how Gilardi's, as a subchapter S corporation, "is especially burdened".  I hadn't waddled into the whole "corporations are legal persons (or not) debate" but I can say from personal experience that whether one is Subchapter S or not, the government, in particular the Treasury department, will find responsible an individual, biological human or human(s) PERSONALLY responsible whenever they THINK they are owed money, whether or not they are actually entitled to it, corporate veil or no.

In the case of some companies, or corporations, Subchapter S or no, there is no meaningful difference between sole proprietorship and incorporated status.  There is no meaningful "corporate veil".  Even if there is, there is no practically meaningful defense (other than settlement) from the costs of the litigation of those who think there is no difference, YOU are the one to be held accountable for their "harm".

--All the more reason why the court made the right decision.


LMFAO!  So, their corporate status defines the level of imposition the law places upon their religious freedom.  You can't make up seriously stupid shiat like that.
 
2013-11-01 07:03:58 PM  

vrax: the money is in the banana stand: I could be walking down the street and a car hits me.
I could be walking down the middle of a freeway and a car hits me.

In both of those instances, a car ran into me, and technically it isn't my fault. However, in the first example, I was not taking any unnecessary or stupid risks and the driver of the vehicle is at fault entirely. In the second example, I should not have been walking down the middle of the farking freeway and the car would not have hit me.

It is your choice to take additional risks and not your right. If you want to fark, that onus isn't on everything else should it result in a pregnancy. You have to pay for that shiat. I don't care about this moral argument, this is completely outside that. IF however a pregnancy occurs from a rape, that should be covered. If insurance covers contraceptives, then why don't they cover my motorcycle helmet? Rock climbing safety equipment? Scuba safety gear?

Let's see, prescription medication, motorcycle gear, rock climbing gear, scuba gear.

Sesame Street had a song about this.  Not sure that you are old enough for Sesame Street yet.


Please. Outside of being raped, having sex and getting pregnant is a choice. If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it. If I want to go to Vegas and gamble, I do it on my money. When I run out of money or when luck doesn't go my way, that is my responsibility. I don't get that pawn that responsibility off on others like a immature child.
 
2013-11-01 07:05:27 PM  

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


You may not realize it (in fact, I'd bet that you do not), but you're using one (or both) of two arguments here: either you're arguing that birth control isn't part of basic healthcare, or you're arguing that that there's no government mandate to provide healthcare to its citizens somehow.  Or else you're being very coy and what you really mean is you think we should just go to a single-payer system, but that seems unlikely.  This is because if you accepted that (1) there's a legitimate mandate for the US government to provide healthcare for its citizens somehow, (2) birth control is legitimately part of basic healthcare, and (3) a single-payer system, however much simpler and more logical that it might be, isn't feasible given the current political climate, then the conclusion that (4) all businesses should be required to include birth control along with the other healthcare they are required to provide their employees is inevitable.

So you must be taking issue with one of the three assertions I listed.  Please tell us, specifically, which one you object to, or else stop wasting our time with "actually derp derp derp" blather.  I'm quite fond of the word "actually," as it happens, and I hate to see it so abused.

Incidentally, the "you hate women" criticism comes into play with assertion #2.  So keep in mind that if you take issue with assertion #2 and do not provide very cogent reasons why you think birth control should not be considered basic healthcare, then yes, the natural conclusion to reach will be that you either hate women or are a complete idiot.
 
2013-11-01 07:05:44 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.


Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?
 
2013-11-01 07:08:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?


You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?
 
2013-11-01 07:09:14 PM  

acohn: Pitabred: acohn: Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.

Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?

Corporations still shield their owners from personal liability, public or private. If you're shielded from liability, your employees should be shielded from your capriciousness.

Then why did Judge Randolph, in his concurring opinion, emphasize that the status of the Gilardis' companies as subchapter S corporations gives special force to the conclusion that they are individually burdened? (http://tinyurl.com/n53huly)


I said should. Not that they are. And Judge Randolph ruled that because he's an ideologue idiot. If they are individually morally burdened, they can stop their corporation and take personal liability for everything in the business.

If I feel it's my moral right to sell my daughter into slavery, that doesn't mean the law supports it. Really strong feelings have no place in law.
 
2013-11-01 07:09:34 PM  

parasol: ginandbacon: SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)

Why should women have lower coverage than men?

why should women have to wait to time their fertility to re-enrollment schedules - which are generally once a year?  looking at you school-teachers who time their birth dates to summer....

also? if birth control is covered as a "cash bonus" plan - are any medical complications (clots, strokes) not covered?


1.) I guess we could mandate that women can spend the money on whatever they want and men have to be required at gunpoint to buy condoms so that they have the same costs?

2.) Under my grand plan they can have birth control all year long or just blow that money on coke and have lots of kids!  or be school teachers and only buy coke 9 months before summer!  (Also in general maternity leave is a completely separate issue from birth control, I don't see anyone making anything except a 'I don't want to pay for it' case against maternity leave.)

3.) Whatever is covered by health insurance otherwise is covered, this would be an isolated one off because among the health care debate there seem to be the broad "EVERYONE GETS IT" and "DIE IN A FIRE" stances and the only single item that people seem to not want to pay for if they're in the "EVERYONE GETS IT" camp is birth control.  Also, while I think having Viagra etc covered is frivolous, it's at least internally consistent logic if you're anti abortion as birth control prevents children and Viagra makes the act possible for some.


Pitabread
Yes, let's set up a completely separate, parallel system instead of including it in the already existing one. Because that always works out well.

It would solve the problem that is being posed which is 'religious conservatives don't want to pay directly for birth control' everyone gets their money, conservatives don't have to directly pay for it.  I fully understand that a much easier simple solution is "Their moral beliefs are wrong and shouldn't count because I want my birth control paid for" but I'm simply pointing out something that addresses the actual legitimate issue here (people want their birth control paid for).  Besides, the health care law is already a trillion pages long, I could write this up in 10-12 tops.
 
2013-11-01 07:10:28 PM  
I realize this thread is about a legal challenge for insurance coverage for birth control by corporations who feel it violates their personal code of morality.

Some posters have indicated their confusion as to why they ought to help pay for this - ignoring the fact that their insurance premiums (car, house, boat) already paid for other's behavior they find irresponsible.

You may feel there is some vast pool of unmarred women who are healthy and getting busy with regularity - and you'd be right. That isn't the issue....

The issue is that we, as a collective body called "americans" understand that women who work, who require insurance, who are fertile will be lessened in fundamental ways if corporations are allowed to refuse coverage for something that becomes an essential part of our lives early on and lasts, monthly, for many decades.

You want a productive country, you want to pay less for support programs, you want fewer abortions - and yet some of you refuse to look at other countries and see that when women control when they have children makes these very things possible - your pat response is "i dont want to pay for some slut to get off" and I wonder how you look at the women in your life and deny them health care, a healthy sex life and children they plan for and look forward to - and then call it "morality" or equate it to skiing and motorcycle helmets.

It is pennies on the dollar for a better society that includes healthy happy female partners for you in business and in person.
 
2013-11-01 07:10:33 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?


Because it's cheaper for us as a whole to have those measures covered, especially for lower-income women. When contraceptives are available, the birth rate in lower-income areas decreases and that lowers a whole lot of other problems. Not to mention that it's a basic service that most (if not all) industrialized nations provide as a matter of course.
 
2013-11-01 07:11:58 PM  

Cupajo: drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.

Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron.  The pill can protect against cancer, help keep the skin clear, and ease the symptoms of PMS.


TMI, but relevant:

This, so much. The reason I'm not on antidepressants right now is birth control pills. One week a month, I would have what my husband and I referred to as "hell week," where I'd experience some extreme mood swings. (We're talking borderline suicidal and depressed.) I also had horrible migraines. My OB/GYN put me on a new low-dose birth control pill and had me take it so that I have no period at all. The result? I have fewer migraines and no mood swings. Hubby will likely be getting a vasectomy in the future, but I've already begged my doctor to keep me on these pills for as long as possible. The benefits go far beyond simple birth control.

Bonus: "Suicidal tendencies" are a side effect for a lot of psychiatric meds, but not for birth control. A lot of women on antidepressants may simply need some form of hormone therapy instead.
 
2013-11-01 07:12:02 PM  

Lsherm: Employer-based health insurance is not a right.  It's not a "freedom."  It's a dependency an employee places on the employer.


LMAO! Yea, the employer is bending to the will of the employee. That's rich.
 
2013-11-01 07:12:28 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?


Because it's none of your business just like the rest of an individual's healthcare!
 
2013-11-01 07:14:36 PM  

iodine: Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.


You do realize, I hope, that just because you SAY an argument is erroneous doesn't make it so, nor is it very likely to convince many people who, until you spoke, found it pretty persuasive.


iodineLet's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.

The gist of your actual argument seems to be "birth control is no more healthcare than a gun is," which isn't so much erroneous as ridiculous.

Or do you feel that I have not represented your main argument fairly?  If so, then by all means take the time to clear up the misconception.
 
2013-11-01 07:15:50 PM  

SamFlagg: parasol: ginandbacon: SamFlagg: Here's the solution.

It's a solution that will piss everyone off.

A birth control only health coverage plan is mandated to exist and it will be mandated to cost X dollars a month.

Minimum wage is reformed to be "minimum wage + Y dollars" where a month of Y dollars would equal X.

With your extra money you can choose to buy birth control or not.  Problem solved.  (If the problem was that everyone wasn't angry.)

Why should women have lower coverage than men?

why should women have to wait to time their fertility to re-enrollment schedules - which are generally once a year?  looking at you school-teachers who time their birth dates to summer....

also? if birth control is covered as a "cash bonus" plan - are any medical complications (clots, strokes) not covered?

1.) I guess we could mandate that women can spend the money on whatever they want and men have to be required at gunpoint to buy condoms so that they have the same costs?

2.) Under my grand plan they can have birth control all year long or just blow that money on coke and have lots of kids!  or be school teachers and only buy coke 9 months before summer!  (Also in general maternity leave is a completely separate issue from birth control, I don't see anyone making anything except a 'I don't want to pay for it' case against maternity leave.)

3.) Whatever is covered by health insurance otherwise is covered, this would be an isolated one off because among the health care debate there seem to be the broad "EVERYONE GETS IT" and "DIE IN A FIRE" stances and the only single item that people seem to not want to pay for if they're in the "EVERYONE GETS IT" camp is birth control.  Also, while I think having Viagra etc covered is frivolous, it's at least internally consistent logic if you're anti abortion as birth control prevents children and Viagra makes the act possible for some.


Pitabread
Yes, let's set up a completely separate, parallel system instead of including it in the al ...


You are either insane or an asshole pr both and I am done with you.
 
2013-11-01 07:18:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: cameroncrazy1984: the money is in the banana stand: If you want to run that risk, you are going to have to pay for it.

Sorry, I can't find this law anywhere, mind pointing it out for me?

You believe employers should offer a healthcare plan that covers contraceptive and abortion under any circumstance because why exactly?

Because it's cheaper for us as a whole to have those measures covered, especially for lower-income women. When contraceptives are available, the birth rate in lower-income areas decreases and that lowers a whole lot of other problems. Not to mention that it's a basic service that most (if not all) industrialized nations provide as a matter of course.


I just don't agree with the logic that people can do stupid shiat and because they either cannot or don't want to pay for it, can choose not to and everyone else has to pay for it. I don't want to see this logic expanded and I think it encourages bad behavior.
 
Displayed 50 of 393 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report