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
    More: Scary, D.C. Circuit, obamacare, individual mandate, contraceptive mandate, Law and Justice, Catholic Faith, birth control, contraceptives  
•       •       •

5080 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2013 at 4:37 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-01 02:31:24 PM  
9 votes:

Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.


I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.
2013-11-01 02:31:52 PM  
6 votes:

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.


They just hate women.
2013-11-01 02:13:05 PM  
6 votes:
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.
2013-11-01 02:21:03 PM  
5 votes:
But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."
2013-11-01 05:06:17 PM  
4 votes:

leevis: 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.


Birth control is part of healthcare, and, as such, is covered under healthcare insurance. Family planning is a huge portion of any woman's life, health and well-being. If you don't understand this, then STFU and GTFO.
2013-11-01 04:49:18 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2013-11-01 03:57:09 PM  
4 votes:

Weaver95: enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.

I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?


If evangelicals cared about the message of Christianity there would be no evangelicals.
2013-11-01 02:23:03 PM  
4 votes:
This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.
2013-11-01 06:13:14 PM  
3 votes:

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?


One can also live without medical care of any kind - and many thousands do, daily.
The prescription doesn't say that, actually. The insert does - it outlines all the potential complications (which include death).
You know what else screws up a woman's body? Pregnancy - potential complications also include death.
You pay for my estrogen and I will pay for your eventual diabetes/blood pressure/prostate/cancer/steroid therapy meds
Hormonal therapy does, in fact, improve personal health - and it absolutely improves society - by every measure available.
2013-11-01 06:10:19 PM  
3 votes:

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?


Go sit in the corner until you understand something, anything, about the practice of medicine and its personal and societal impacts.
2013-11-01 05:30:17 PM  
3 votes:

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


No it doesn't. It only puts a substantial burden on their ability to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
2013-11-01 05:14:05 PM  
3 votes:

jjorsett: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

Because enslavement would infringe on their rights.

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers drug coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

You should be able to. And if you so choose,  your employees who object should quit and find an employer who offers transfusion coverage, or go out and buy their own coverage.


I'm a Klan business owner, why do I have to serve black customers and hire black employees?

Oh, right, because I asked the government to create an entirely fictional person (i.e. my business's corporate entity) to protect myself from most liability. So I want the government to do that for me, but I don't want to play by the government's rules. Bullshiat.
2013-11-01 03:06:23 PM  
3 votes:
And we wonder why the Senate GOP is 100% dead set on making sure Obama can't appoint anyone to this bench.
2013-11-01 02:21:10 PM  
3 votes:
I hate people.
2013-11-01 02:20:23 PM  
3 votes:
Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.

/Somebody didn't think this through.
2013-11-01 09:09:14 PM  
2 votes:

Kit Fister: vrax: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

Don't be proud of that.  Not even a little.  This is one of the only countries stupid enough to allow that to happen.  It's not good.  It's pure idiocy!

But j am proud of it. I stood on my own and took care of myself without being a burden to others. If I am a burden to others, I would rather be dead than burden them.


Then you don't really believe in the concept of a society.  Technically, you burden others with your existence, taking finite, shared resources that we all use, such as clean air, water, food, land, fossil fuels, etc, that could be used by others.  However, for some reason, you are hung up simply on the monetary.  Fact is, we give and take all the time.  It's how we function as a compassionate, human society.  Some need more than others.  That you can't both empathize with those people and be willing to accept that you are deserving of the same is very sad.  If there's anything great about this country is what we've done together and for one another.  Our greatness is slipping away very quickly.
2013-11-01 07:49:08 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Unfortunately, in cases where you have such inequality the federal government is often the only agency that is capable of leveling the field. See also, civil rights and women gaining the right to vote.
2013-11-01 07:29:44 PM  
2 votes:

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.


I used to work on a dairy farm, and I know manure when I encounter it.
Compliance with the law does not harm them. They are free to worship as they please. Their ability to profit is also not impaired. Any harm they claim is purely imaginary.

They aren't allowed to set compensation (of any kind) below the minimum required by law, no matter what their religion dictates. They are running a company, not holding worship services. If they were to set compensation below the minimum required by law, it would constitute real harm to their employees and employees' families.

The DC court farked up. Big time.

Freedom of religion does not include a right to impose yours on anybody else: I'm Jewish, and this comment will be my final one for today. Should you respond after sunset, I'm not allowed to put you to death, per Exodus 31:15. The law of the land, which guarantees us both freedom of religion, quite rightly forbids it.

/Shabbat shalom, farkdom.
2013-11-01 07:10:28 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:29:20 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:09:50 PM  
2 votes:

MonoChango: umad: shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!

I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.

Why?


Because it would save us a shiatload of money and drastically lower crime.
2013-11-01 06:08:04 PM  
2 votes:

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?


Because easier access to contraception correlates with lower overall expenditures by society. Bang-for-buck-wise the contraceptive mandate is actually one of the biggest ways the ACA is going to save the country money. It's not the prettiest provision from a theoretical perspective, but it's spot on from a practical one.
2013-11-01 06:06:21 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon. It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


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.
2013-11-01 06:05:49 PM  
2 votes:
fc02.deviantart.net

As many as ONE IN TEN WOMEN have polycystic ovary syndrome, and one common treatment for it is hormone therapy by birth control! PCOS is connected to cancer and type two diabetes.

Sometimes, it's not about having sex. SOMETIMES, it's about just trying to be healthy and survive, for god's sake!
2013-11-01 05:54:01 PM  
2 votes:

chapman: theorellior: chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.

This is about people getting their preferred method of birth control paid for by their employer through insurance.This is not about people getting chemo under their insurance, so please feel free to STFU yourself.


Birth control: Does it require a doctor's approval? Does it impact a woman's health and well-being? Is pregnancy a medical condition that carries risks and should be assumed with care? Why, yes, to all of the above, so kindly fark yourself with a cactus if you think that contraception is basically a hedonistic luxury that only sluts would want to obtain for free. If someone pays for health insurance through their labor, as part of their compensation from their employer, then all health procedures should be covered. Including birth control and boner pills.
2013-11-01 05:40:33 PM  
2 votes:

acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?


Like minimum wage?
2013-11-01 05:11:56 PM  
2 votes:

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.


No. Just stop with the false equivalence. You don't retain any control over the cash you just spent on groceries. You can't tell the grocery store how to spend it.

The employer pays some of the costs of insurance. It is a form of compensation for the employees' labor that does not come close to making up for the way wages have been artificially depressed by 1) tax policy, 2) unconscionable policies - trade and taxation - that favor exporting jobs, 3) stupid corporate tax policy, 4) naked, unchecked greed, and 5) union-busting.
The minimum standards for health insurance policies are what they are, just as corporations have to live with the minimum wage.

Whether and how an employee uses her compensation is not any of the corporation's farking business.

/As noted above, they aren't blocking coverage for penis pills.
2013-11-01 04:54:45 PM  
2 votes:
Well, since their opposition is based on solid scientific and medical grounds, I can fully underst... wait... "Religious freedom"?!  Hey, FARK YOU!  Close your business and go start a church, assholes!
2013-11-01 04:53:21 PM  
2 votes:
What if, like Ned Flanders, you didn't believe in insurance at all?

What if you considered insurance to be a form of gambling, which you are religiously opposed to?
2013-11-01 04:50:04 PM  
2 votes:

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.


They're pro-consequences for the un-virtuous. It's not a baby, it's a gift. And a punishment. But don't you ever feel resentful for having motherhood forced on you by strangers in political office, you dirty little slut.

They feel the same about healthcare. The hard-working and virtuous people don't get sick.
2013-11-01 04:47:04 PM  
2 votes:

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.


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.
2013-11-01 03:37:24 PM  
2 votes:
T-Servo:.

Does that mean my business can deny Viagra coverage for randy old men? That might improve our client relations.


They wouldn't do that, old white men run these companies. They only want to punish sluts that have sex for any reason other than procreation.
2013-11-01 03:03:24 PM  
2 votes:
For f*ck sakes, they don't pay for contraception coverage, they pay for not covering it. Belief in a magic dude in the sky really f*cks with these peoples ability to do simple math.
2013-11-01 02:40:26 PM  
2 votes:
More and more I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
2013-11-01 02:37:13 PM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.

Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.


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.
2013-11-01 02:30:02 PM  
2 votes:
How can a company interject itself between a patient and their doctor and dictate medical policy (via forcing their insurer to not cover something already in the policy in teh first place)?

Isn't that a blatant HIPAA violation?
2013-11-02 03:48:40 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: As to society, I gladly pay in taxes or directly for what I take and use, because to me that's how it should work: I pay for what I need and sell what I have or what skills I have to earn themoney to pay for what I need.


Except that as a society, we've decided that we don't want it to work like that.  Your property taxes pay for some other children's education as well as your own, for police to protect the well-being of the community at large, and for the fire dept. to put out the fire at somebody else's house as well as your own.  Your gas taxes pay for roads all over your state and the country, not just the ones you drive.  Hell, Social Security works by directly transferring money you pay in during your working years to people you've never met and are done working to spend as they need.

If you want your taxes to pay directly only for what you take and use,  then you really don't want to live in any kind of modern society.
2013-11-02 03:11:28 AM  
1 vote:

Terrible Old Man: If you cannot afford condoms, I do not want you risking having sex to begin with. Period.

Sorry snowflake, but if you're that broke, you're not worth the 1% risk of getting pregnant with contraceptives anyways. Put down the Doritos and Code Red, log off WoW and get a job if you want sex. It's a privilege, not a right. Remember, in the real world, you're actually supposed to be proving you are worthy of mating and can provide for young before you have them, just like all the other animals.


Are we talking about condoms?!  No, we're not talking about condoms because condoms are an over the counter contraceptive.  So, take your walker back across your lawn, Terrible Old Man, and go clean your dentures or something.
2013-11-01 10:49:38 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: Oh, trust me, I spent a good deal of time trying to get reimbursements and payouts. It was worse than useless based on all the money I put in in premiums. Now I'd rather just squirrel away money and not have to deal with those sack sucking leeches.


Wouldn't that be nice if you could pay the hospital what the insurance companies pay, and not some ridiculous 400%+ markup for individuals paying in cash?
2013-11-01 10:00:45 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: timelady:
Then you DID get help from somebody. You DIDN'NT do it on your own. You did it with your family. And if your family had nothing to give, you would have been bankrupt. That is bad for society. The less bankruptcies, this means the economy is healthier. Surely that basic fact makes sense to you?

A healthy, productive society is a better society on every level.

You are like that 3rd rate actor who claimed he had been on welfare, and did anyone give him a helping hand? Nope - he was all bootstrappy, just like you.

Yes I did have help. And I am paying off the loan every paycheck, because I didn't have a choice in them paying. Your analogy assumes that I asked and took the handout and then said I did it on my own. What I did was more akin to having someone thrust money into my hand against my will which I now feel obligated and honorbound to pay back. Believe me when I say I would have rather died than have to burden my family.


I genuinely understand your distaste for your situation. I feel the same in such things. But here again is the point you are missing. You are currently a productive member of society thanks to the helping hand of your family. Without them, you faced potential financial ruin, and even perhaps losing the ability to work due to poorer health options. How is society better off in that sense? Personally obviously you aren't. The people you buy products and services from would have been worse off.

How can you not see that decent insurance means that not only does society benefit, but you personally don't have to face repaying your family? You are healthy and working. That is just what society needs.

People who don't have your family face the dire consequences. Stress isn't an aid to healing either, is it? And they can get access to better preventative health care, driving costs even further down.

And in the end, as part of this, all that happens is that the insurance companies may make slightly less monster profits, but I can live with that. Because that is the ONLY downside in this. Everyone wins, surely? (Except insurance companies, who are still making obscenely high profits, just not ridiculously obscenely high profits).

Your current system is one in which only people who make millions off misery win. Surely that is not the society you think is ideal?
2013-11-01 09:59:34 PM  
1 vote:
Seriously. I can't believe someone brought out a debunked "welfare queens" stereotype. That sh*t's been around for 30 years and been debunked for about the same time.
2013-11-01 09:56:27 PM  
1 vote:

ciberido: acohn: capn' fun: So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?

No, you and your wife and your daughter and her SO get to decide that by whatever legal means available.  That's a separate issue of whether an employer, particularly a non-publicly-held stock corporation, must pay for those means.


"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."


Ohhhh! Right. I just need to pay extra, out of pocket, for the same birth control, at full retail, than the same thing covered or discounted by the insurance policies of my friends and neighbors who don't work for capricious religious assclowns. Because Jesus. Are those the legal means you refer to?
2013-11-01 09:48:21 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: But don't make it sound like some kind of right you have when its a gentleman's agreement to pool resources and nothing more. Me personally, I rather have the option to just pay my own way because fark health insurance companies and their goddamn useless crap.


Except...you didn't pay your own way. You admitted it yourself. Just admit that your ideals don't work in the real world and move on.
2013-11-01 09:16:42 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.

No, my insurance denied my claims and paid nothing. My family paid off the bill against my express wishes anddemands. I had no say otherwise I would not have had them pay anything.


Then you DID get help from somebody. You DIDN'NT do it on your own. You did it with your family. And if your family had nothing to give, you would have been bankrupt. That is bad for society. The less bankruptcies, this means the economy is healthier. Surely that basic fact makes sense to you?

A healthy, productive society is a better society on every level.

You are like that 3rd rate actor who claimed he had been on welfare, and did anyone give him a helping hand? Nope - he was all bootstrappy, just like you.
2013-11-01 09:09:29 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.

Also, yes, I am happy to pay for a woman's birth control if it means I don't have to pay for her offspring and their costs.

well? in that case? maybe a new thread is in order - since that is what this one started out about

/sorry about the medical debt, btw
//been there
///three
2013-11-01 09:06:26 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister:

I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

Given the cost of health care - how does a person realize the right to health care without insurance?
(6 years ago a partial severing of a finger cost my spouse $15,000, two years ago 5 hours in the ER was $7,000)

giving someone a right they can't use is wicked

I think insurance exchanges and coops are a good thing. I think any means of allowing people to pool resources to pay for medical care is a good thing. But it is not a right or obligation for anyone else to pony up to cover someone else's costs.

When I had my heart problems, I had to pony up a couple hundred grand for care when insurance refused to cover it, and it took help from my family to cover it all. But I can't just demand that other people pay for my healthcare because I don't want to put aside money to cover the costs.

actually? yes you can - its called buying insurance - since you were out of pocket that much WITH it you really ought to understand "preventative costs" better
its good your family could help you
some people don't have that resource - some people are literally a singular unit, working minimum wage and at the mercy of their employer - who are balking over a hypocritical stance on morality they themselves don't practice.

do you tell your auto insurance company you just don't care to cover that nert who rear-ended someone last week and so, while you think coverage is a good idea, you'll just give the nice officer at your accident scene the names of your parents?

I am required by law to have auto insurance, but I live in a no fault state so it doesn't matter.

Plus if I caused an accident, I would gladly pay to fix the person's vehicle, because I did the damage.

I break someone's stuff, I'll pay to replace it. If I hurt someone, its my job to ge ...


This is going nowhere.
You don't want to understand that, outside yourself, there are people who pay for something (insurance) and do not consider it a burden but rather an acknowledgement that, more likely than not, they will need to use that pool someday as well.
You don't seem to understand that what you cost your insurer for your heart issue would cover a woman's b/c years for many lifetimes

You are arguing spruce-tree raw-elk self-reliance and I am talking about math and preventative measures.
2013-11-01 09:05:28 PM  
1 vote:

parasol: Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.

You have every right to opt out of insurance ("demand everyone else pony up") even though, according to your post, you were insured and so already did get support from other payers - as well as your parents.
Women asking for B/C is AVOIDING a mess - and far cheaper than your reported one-illness cost - over a LIFETIME - not to mention they, like you, pay for their coverage.


Also, yes, I am happy to pay for a woman's birth control if it means I don't have to pay for her offspring and their costs.
2013-11-01 08:49:24 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: parasol: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: I think access to healthcare is a right. Insurance? Not so much. Insurance is just a product meant to offer lower prices on the gamble that most won't need serious payouts to make it worth it.

How do you get one without the other?

Every time I've had to do the hospital thing I had the option to pay cash for treatment. Did I miss the point where suddenly you couldn't be treated without insurance?

you missed the point that suddenly you can't pay for treatment in cash - don't worry - it will happen to you eventually

You mean after the $240k medical nightmare? Its goddamn expensive to be sick, but I also have no right to demand you and everyone else pony up to pay it for me. My mess, mine to clean up and deal with. I didn't even want to ask my family for help but I couldn't stop them from doing it anyway.


Don't be proud of that.  Not even a little.  This is one of the only countries stupid enough to allow that to happen.  It's not good.  It's pure idiocy!
2013-11-01 08:27:03 PM  
1 vote:

ciberido: You're entire argument seems based on the premise "The owner of the company has a right to set the rules."  This is not true.  It has been declared untrue by no less than the  88th US Congress back in 1964.


Your* entire argument.  Karmic justice, perhaps, for calling someone else an idiot.
2013-11-01 08:24:32 PM  
1 vote:

DubyaHater: ciberido: DubyaHater: The owner of the company has a right to set the rules

[img.4plebs.org image 250x272]
Ok, so you're a complete idiot.  Moving on.

And you're a bigger idiot for having nothing constructive to say. I guess you learned your debate skills in a middle school bathroom stall
/Moving on


Oh, I had a pretty specific point I was making, which apparently was lost under the scorn.  So I'll give you the less vituperative version, and you can tell me whether or not you find it constructive:

You're entire argument seems based on the premise "The owner of the company has a right to set the rules."  This is not true.  It has been declared untrue by no less than the  88th US Congress back in 1964.

Because it's untrue, it's well-known to be untrue, and it has been that way for at least 49 years (probably longer than you've lived), the fact that you assert a position that was specifically negated by an act of Congress without even acknowledging that little problem, suggests that you are both quite ignorant and arrogant.  At the very least, it means that, logically, we can dismiss anything you say based on that falsehood --- thus the "stop reading there" image.

It also suggests that you are both ignorant enough, and complacent enough in your own ignorance, that you will never have anything of value to contribute to the discussion.  Thus, while admittedly harsh, labeling you as "a complete idiot" is a pretty safe bet.

But what the hell, Christmas is only two months away.  I'll give you another chance.  Make a case that acknowledges civil-rights laws and their implications for what rights businesses do and do not posses, and I promise, in turn, to read it with an open mind.
2013-11-01 08:22:18 PM  
1 vote:
How the fark do these people think insurance works? Do they think that the premiums paid actually go into a special envelope and get set aside to pay for the individual who paid it?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. If you provide insurance coverage for your employees, the money you pay goes into a giant pool that pays for the needs of ALL the insurance company's clients! Not exclusively your employees! Buying an insurance policy means you are, in part, contributing to someone who needs brain surgery, a heart transplant, and chemo for their ass cancer. You also help pay for diabetes medication for the fattie that can't quit the burgers. That's just the way the goddamn cookie crumbles. But by including yourself in the policy, other people healthier than you are subsidizing your own unhealthy habits. By specifically excluding your employees, you're loudly announcing to the world what a gigantic farking bag of douche you are.
2013-11-01 07:20:12 PM  
1 vote:

DubyaHater: The owner of the company has a right to set the rules


img.4plebs.org
Ok, so you're a complete idiot.  Moving on.
2013-11-01 07:12:02 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:10:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:09:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:05:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:03:49 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:51:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:46:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:39:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:36:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:36:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:28:45 PM  
1 vote:
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 06:16:56 PM  
1 vote:

acohn: ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?

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.
2013-11-01 06:16:37 PM  
1 vote:

timelady: D&Cs aren't just used for abortion. I have needed them for (looks around, sighs) 'lady issues' post miscarriage. I would have died without them.

Women with endometriosis and related issues need the Pill to manage the incredible pain and bleeding - so they can work, not be on welfare.

WTF is wrong with your country, Americans? You used to be the cool kid everyone admired in high school. Now you are creepy born again freaky weird at the reunion.

/ I know you aren't all that way, but it seems a majority must be when these decisions get made
// your decisions frankly scare the hell out of me


Money took over our politics, turned the middle class against the poor, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
2013-11-01 06:16:35 PM  
1 vote:

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Yea, sorry. It doesn't work that way. You can't just make up your beliefs as you go along and then expect the laws of the land to bend to your whims.
2013-11-01 06:14:30 PM  
1 vote:
chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

Does the fact that birth control is cheaper than pregnancy change your mind? Or the fact that you pay for childbirth and child care for poor people in the form of higher premiums (to make up for the people who can't pay), food stamps, WIC, welfare, etc.? When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens.

A model developed by Global Health Outcomes that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs found that covering contraception saves employers $97 per year per employee.

From the HHS report on The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance:  "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,"

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

Why?

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?

Because it's basic health care, provided by a doctor, by prescription. Are you aware that the pill treats a wide-range of medical conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy? Are you aware that pregnancy can be medically dangerous, even life-threatening, for some women?
2013-11-01 06:13:58 PM  
1 vote:
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.
2013-11-01 06:00:18 PM  
1 vote:
I suggested employers do experience the consequences of their compensation and benefits decisions.  I think this goes beyond reproductive healthcare but that's just me and beyond the scope of this thread.

In response to certain counterarguments:

a) Yes, I agree that collective bargaining (unions by another name) makes this reckoning often but not always happen more quickly.  In the case of contraceptive or abortion benefits, this is probably more strongly the case since one, perhaps unintentional, result of Gilardi's approach is an all male workforce; women much more quickly and directly bear the impact of the denial of reproductive services benefits.

b) Yes, I agree that cyclical factors also play a role in terms of when an employer's behavior becomes consequential.  I made no claim about whether there are more workers than jobs or etc.

Regardless of the truth of (a) and (b), I don't think that takes away from the truths that an employer is entitled to a great degree of latitude (within existing law) about what benefits are provided and how they are allotted; and, that the process of determining all forms of compensation are improved when labor (in all its organized or unorganized forms) is given a voice in the process.
2013-11-01 05:59:15 PM  
1 vote:

BigGrnEggGriller: Buy your own damn rubbers, you dirty hippies


What?!  It's an over the counter solution.  Unless your doctor applies them, insurance doesn't pay for your Band-Aids either.
2013-11-01 05:55:09 PM  
1 vote:

shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!


I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.
2013-11-01 05:55:08 PM  
1 vote:

timelady: D&Cs aren't just used for abortion. I have needed them for (looks around, sighs) 'lady issues' post miscarriage. I would have died without them.

Women with endometriosis and related issues need the Pill to manage the incredible pain and bleeding - so they can work, not be on welfare.

WTF is wrong with your country, Americans? You used to be the cool kid everyone admired in high school. Now you are creepy born again freaky weird at the reunion.

/ I know you aren't all that way, but it seems a majority must be when these decisions get made
// your decisions frankly scare the hell out of me


Too many people  who put themselves ad religion ahead of doing the right thing.
2013-11-01 05:52:22 PM  
1 vote:

Phins: The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?

I know someone who opposed to both. Here's her "logic."

Sex with birth control puts a barrier between you and your partner and you can't give yourself fully if there's something between you. This type of sex, with a barrier, is bad for you. Also, any sexual activity that is not the type that could lead to pregnancy (P in V) is bad for you. She knows this is true for everyone on the planet. Use Natural Family Planning only and accept the possibility of pregnancy or don't have sex.

She also believes that hormonal BC and IUDs cause abortion because it might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The fact that the medical definition of pregnancy is that it occurs on implantation is irrelevant because it's wrong. The considerable medical evidence that hormonal BC does NOT prevent implantation is not good enough. There would have to absolute proof that no fertilized egg could ever not implant and, needless to say, there is no evidence/proof that would satisfy her.

She will also say that "people need to control themselves" which leads to the real objection: people are having sex just for fun without the threat of pregnancy. According to her, people who are not willing to have a child if pregnancy occurs shouldn't have sex. Everyone should just be abstinent until marriage and then use NFP.

She doesn't care that this is wildly unrealistic and has never worked in the entire history of humankind. That's the standard and we shouldn't lower the standard, people should live up to the standard. This is what's best for you.


Make sure to label her somehow so that the public will know to avoid at all costs.
2013-11-01 05:49:46 PM  
1 vote:
The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?

I know someone who opposed to both. Here's her "logic."

Sex with birth control puts a barrier between you and your partner and you can't give yourself fully if there's something between you. This type of sex, with a barrier, is bad for you. Also, any sexual activity that is not the type that could lead to pregnancy (P in V) is bad for you. She knows this is true for everyone on the planet. Use Natural Family Planning only and accept the possibility of pregnancy or don't have sex.

She also believes that hormonal BC and IUDs cause abortion because it might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The fact that the medical definition of pregnancy is that it occurs on implantation is irrelevant because it's wrong. The considerable medical evidence that hormonal BC does NOT prevent implantation is not good enough. There would have to absolute proof that no fertilized egg could ever not implant and, needless to say, there is no evidence/proof that would satisfy her.

She will also say that "people need to control themselves" which leads to the real objection: people are having sex just for fun without the threat of pregnancy. According to her, people who are not willing to have a child if pregnancy occurs shouldn't have sex. Everyone should just be abstinent until marriage and then use NFP.

She doesn't care that this is wildly unrealistic and has never worked in the entire history of humankind. That's the standard and we shouldn't lower the standard, people should live up to the standard. This is what's best for you.
2013-11-01 05:43:45 PM  
1 vote:

keypusher: R.O.U.S: I can think of some other unfortunate consequences of such a precedent:

1: Equal opportunity employment is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to discriminate against anyone of the wrong beliefs, or who my religion states is inferior.

2: The Fair Housing act is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to keep the "wrong" people out of my neighborhood/HOA/apartments/town.

3: Disabled people offend my god, I demand that I be allowed to remove all wheelchair ramps, accessible doors, etc from my business.

Etc Etc...

In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.

There is a concept called "begging the question."  In all seriousness, you might want to familiarize yourself with it.

Separately, your "hypotheticals" have all been litigated, and the business owners lost.

Even more separately, this is maybe the millionth reason our employer-provided health care system is stupid.


This is why it would be best if they just did away with all the stupid rules on health care companies.   Let them compete across state lines like every other company and level the playing field by making an individuals health care coverage expenses tax deductible.  That way I can insure myself and family at terms that make sense for me without stepping on other people's religious freedom, or have my company, or government force me to buy something I don't want... you know some sort of free enterprise type thing.   I'm just getting tired of all this farking socialism.  It doesn't work theoretically, hasn't ever worked when it's been tried in reality, and never will work for a free people.  The most basic bottom line is that once you do anything as a collective you give up your personal freedom.  We have decided that we will collectively provide healthcare.  Guess what, that means we have lost our personal freedom when it comes to healthcare, only the collective matters.  Now your only option is to pray that your political enemies don't take control of it.
2013-11-01 05:40:22 PM  
1 vote:

acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?


Let's see how far you can fly setting wages below minimum.
2013-11-01 05:37:39 PM  
1 vote:

chapman: vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.

I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.


Well, great!  See, that wasn't such a big deal.  Oh, wait, now they are actually playing doctor and telling you how you can be treated with a medication.  That is exactly where we don't want any business, TYVM!
2013-11-01 05:37:32 PM  
1 vote:

iodine: @theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet.

o.O

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.

Obviously, in your mind, we have a system where there are more jobs than people or an equal number of jobs and people, which means that the power in employer-employee relationship is at parity.
In reality, the power has been tipped more and more in favor of employers over the past nearly four decades.

This is not a seller's market for labor.
Asserting that it is, or that the relative power of employers and employees is at parity, is pants-on-fire on head potato.
2013-11-01 05:35:41 PM  
1 vote:

DubyaHater: Nothing is 100% effective.....condoms, the Pill, IUD's. There is a risk someone using contraception could get pregnant and decide to abort the fetus. Why would the owner of a corporation who doesn't believe in abortion want to find someone's contraception? Having sex is a personal choice. You want to have sex, accept the consequences. Get your own contraception.
The owner of the company has a right to set the rules. You don't like it, start your own business and run it the way you want. Or better yet, buy your own insurance.
/my gf had a hysterectomy
//I'm good


That would sound much better if you included "corporate business owners who enjoy tax breaks, lowering their contribution to social service programs who provide assistance for unintended babies of workers who are underpaid and didn't want children for that very reason"
2013-11-01 05:35:00 PM  
1 vote:

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.


I'm sure somebody has already replied to this, but, do you realize that that insurance companies would rather pay for birth control than to have a baby? Want to know why? It's insanely expensive to have a baby! Your premiums will rise if this goes through
2013-11-01 05:34:18 PM  
1 vote:
D&Cs aren't just used for abortion. I have needed them for (looks around, sighs) 'lady issues' post miscarriage. I would have died without them.

Women with endometriosis and related issues need the Pill to manage the incredible pain and bleeding - so they can work, not be on welfare.

WTF is wrong with your country, Americans? You used to be the cool kid everyone admired in high school. Now you are creepy born again freaky weird at the reunion.

/ I know you aren't all that way, but it seems a majority must be when these decisions get made
// your decisions frankly scare the hell out of me
2013-11-01 05:34:06 PM  
1 vote:

iodine: @theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet. 

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.


Yeah, and that might result in something if there's a union contract in play.  If not,  hahahaha....  Yeah, just find another job.  "Great idea!", said the person without a clue!
2013-11-01 05:32:12 PM  
1 vote:

SH: How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.


HIPPA:
www.atomicnerds.com
2013-11-01 05:29:40 PM  
1 vote:

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.


My ex used birth control because of poly-cystic ovarian syndrome or something like that.
2013-11-01 05:27:06 PM  
1 vote:

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


Fark 'em!  If they don't like it then they need to get behind a national single payer system so that they no longer carry the burden.  But, of course, they wouldn't do that because soshulizum overwhelms their two braincells.
SH
2013-11-01 05:25:31 PM  
1 vote:
How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.
2013-11-01 05:20:17 PM  
1 vote:
My favorite thing about this is if it passes then companies can just declare a Pentecostalism based healthcare system.  Faith Healing for everyone!
2013-11-01 05:12:07 PM  
1 vote:

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.


I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control. However, it also covers vasectomies - but people only get pissed off about the women's birth control. So, yeah, there's a bit of a sexist thing going on from the conservatives.

That being said, it is a little disingenuous to specifically call out birth control coverage for women. It's a realpolitik solution, though. Easier access to birth control for women pays off a lot more than vasectomies in the long run, statistically, both for the patient and for their families.
2013-11-01 05:08:32 PM  
1 vote:
Corporations don't have a religion. Corporations are a legal fiction.

If you form a corporation you are literally asking the big bad government to alter the rules of reality and create a new person, and then make that person take on all the bad things that could happen to your business, shielding you for the most part. I'm of the opinion that if you want the government to do that for you, you can play by the government's rules. Don't like it? Make it a sole proprietorship and face the perils of business your own damn self.
2013-11-01 05:08:23 PM  
1 vote:

Cupajo: Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron


And even if it is, it's still heath care. A woman is under risks of all sorts of adverse outcomes through pregnancy. A woman's ability to choose when and how frequently she is pregnant is a huge portion of her health care.
2013-11-01 05:06:11 PM  
1 vote:
So how many businesses and companies are owned by Muslims in America and can they all now impose Sharia law on their employees?
2013-11-01 05:06:00 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-11-01 05:05:03 PM  
1 vote:

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.


Does the employer's insurance pay for Viagra, Cialis, etc?  I bet it does.
2013-11-01 05:03:58 PM  
1 vote:

The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?  I bet they support abstinence only "education" too.  FFS.


It's like abstinence-only gun control.  It's about finding a way to effectively ban something that's legal.
2013-11-01 05:02:47 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-11-01 05:00:52 PM  
1 vote:

R.O.U.S: In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.


Which right or freedom was being impinged?  The right to have someone else buy you stuff?
2013-11-01 04:58:24 PM  
1 vote:
There appears to be a few options to run with for these Gilardi brothers.

If you deny contraceptives to your female employees you it seems only reasonable to honor all forms of necessary maternal leave for said employees. And, since we are playing fair in this country now, that is extended further to all male employees. Done and done.

If you are to claim that your business has a different set of rules because your business is Christian, then the Supreme Court gets will get to decide if religious affiliations are taxable. Which they totally wont, because every company in America would start paying lip service to whatever deity they could think of first and write it off as "FSM's true noodley wish". So, there's that.

How is their denying coverage to employees not forcing their own religion on others? I choke on an french fry and a Christian scientist says, 'Gods will' and lets me die (hyperbole, yes.)

(next subject)

Please supreme court, please go back and rethink this garbage about corporations being people. They aren't.

Though, this does set up a case eventually for one of those salvage and strip companies to pop up in court claiming that their new parent company raped them.
2013-11-01 04:57:13 PM  
1 vote:

drop: 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.


STFU and GTFO until you can comprehend the difference between medicine and farking motorcycle riding.
2013-11-01 04:53:14 PM  
1 vote:
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 ...?
2013-11-01 04:49:30 PM  
1 vote:
I just have one question...

Why are males making these decisions?

I say lets pass a law that says only women can make decisions on VIagra prescriptions and vasectomies.

/it's only fair...
2013-11-01 04:48:11 PM  
1 vote:
Since the Constitution prevents Congress from establishing a religion, I'm sure Scalia will use this chance for the Supreme Court to establish a religion.

/Welcome to Catholicism everybody. Remember: fish on Fridays, Saturday mass covers Sunday so you won't miss football, and you can't lie to nuns.
2013-11-01 04:47:23 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-11-01 04:44:58 PM  
1 vote:
So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?
2013-11-01 04:41:12 PM  
1 vote:
Perhaps they should STFU and let those with ovaries decide.
2013-11-01 03:28:51 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.


That would be as odd as the Church selling indulgences... ....
2013-11-01 02:43:54 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.

Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net

"Son, you have NO idea."
2013-11-01 02:29:20 PM  
1 vote:
I should incorporate myself, take out massive loans, declare bankruptcy and walk away from myself to a resort in the Bahamas.
2013-11-01 02:26:53 PM  
1 vote:

enry: So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.


I wonder how the evangelicals will reconcile corporate religion with that whole "thou shalt have no other gods before me" line in their bible?
2013-11-01 02:24:56 PM  
1 vote:

Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.


Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.
2013-11-01 02:24:39 PM  
1 vote:
So we have corporations as people and now people as corporations.
2013-11-01 02:20:41 PM  
1 vote:
Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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