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.

(Salon)   The women on the US Supreme Court give Hobby Lobby a three way pounding. Now you're thinking about Ginsburg in a sexual way   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Hobby Lobby, Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, emergency contraception, Paul Clement, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

11482 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:31 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-25 11:54:14 PM  

CanisNoir: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.



Really? Doesn't seem to have proven to be so far. Up to this point, they've lost. The only rulings they've won have been injunctions to delay the enforcement of the ruling.
Maybe this tie will prove the charm - but I wouldn't bet the farm on it, if I were you.
Not exactly my idea of a "compelling case".
 
2014-03-25 11:54:38 PM  

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.

Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition" It's the natural result of unprotected sex and is an absolute necessity for the continuation of the human race. I would agree that pregnancy COULD be considered a "stupid, civilization-wrecking condition" if it's done by people who don't have the means (or a stable enough relationship) to support a child. Which is why I would encourage private businesses and charities to donate low-maintenance birth control to women at risk. But strong-arming EVERYONE into paying for birth control via the government is a form of tyranny which may come back to bite us in the end.  Birth control and family planning are far too important to be left to the inept social engineering of the government.


i.imgbox.com
Well, this is of course an entirely different situation. As the leader of this community, may I be the first to offer you my hand in friendship. And now let us all go to my house for a little spunge cake and a little wine,,,
 
2014-03-25 11:57:01 PM  

The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.


Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.
 
2014-03-25 11:57:27 PM  

SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.


So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.
 
2014-03-25 11:58:58 PM  

CanisNoir: The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.

Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.


You think the pill is only about contraception and you're calling other people "low information"? 

I read that correctly, right?
 
2014-03-25 11:59:37 PM  

emersonbiggins: debug: jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.

And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).

My wife's birth control runs $140/mo. without coverage, and it's the only one of four she's been on that doesn't drive her completely mad.  But, go on, tell us how it's free again.

/hint:  a lot of shiat is "free" in college


Yup, cus millenials are stupid and they think that nobody pays that $6000 a year bill. harharhar yup!!! Stupid kids!!!

I grabbed a handful of condoms everytime I went to the clinic because I knew they were free and I'd rather have one than not. That stuff helps a lot.

It helps A LOT.
 
2014-03-25 11:59:47 PM  

SundaesChild: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.


One is a drug that requires a doctors prescription. Do you know why some drugs are over the counter and some require a doctors permission?
 
2014-03-26 12:00:14 AM  

yourmomlovestetris: Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition


So, you're saying that no woman has ever died from complications arising from pregnancy?  Pregnancy is indeed a medical condition and it can be quite dangerous.  Fortunately, it can be monitored, treated, or prevented entirely.
 
m00
2014-03-26 12:00:42 AM  
The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.
 
2014-03-26 12:01:33 AM  

SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.


That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.
 
2014-03-26 12:02:11 AM  

SundaesChild: So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.


When you use a condom it's not intentionally life-threatening, though this thread is making me wish it were.
 
2014-03-26 12:02:51 AM  

Bane of Broone: CanisNoir: The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.

Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.

You think the pill is only about contraception and you're calling other people "low information"? 

I read that correctly, right?


The Pill isn't involved in this case and will still be covered. Thanks for proving my point.
 
2014-03-26 12:03:01 AM  

jst3p: SundaesChild: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.

One is a drug that requires a doctors prescription. Do you know why some drugs are over the counter and some require a doctors permission?


That is my point. Why are you arguing my own point with me?
 
2014-03-26 12:04:54 AM  

debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.


Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.
 
2014-03-26 12:05:36 AM  

SundaesChild: jst3p: SundaesChild: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.

One is a drug that requires a doctors prescription. Do you know why some drugs are over the counter and some require a doctors permission?

That is my point. Why are you arguing my own point with me?


Sorry, I read it wrong. Pretend I was just agreeing with you.
 
2014-03-26 12:05:40 AM  

karmaceutical: Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.

The whole point of "religious freedom" as construct in America is to protect us from the rule of the Church, not to compel us into someone else's religious practice.  No one is trying to tell anyone how to practice their religion... except for Hobby Lobby.  That is why there is a such a big dust-up over these ridiculously cheap and useful pills.


Actually it's quite the opposite, it's in the 1A to protect the practice of religion from the government.  Unless you think that freedom of the press is to protect us from the press?  And freedom of speech is to protect us from anything you have to say?
 
2014-03-26 12:05:47 AM  

debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.


You could just go to Planned Parenthood and or any summer music festival and stock up for free, you know.
 
2014-03-26 12:05:54 AM  

debug: That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel. Condoms should be covered. It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.


I agree, but keep in mind you could make the same argument for several other OTC things too.
 
2014-03-26 12:06:07 AM  

jso2897: CanisNoir: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.


Really? Doesn't seem to have proven to be so far. Up to this point, they've lost. The only rulings they've won have been injunctions to delay the enforcement of the ruling.
Maybe this tie will prove the charm - but I wouldn't bet the farm on it, if I were you.
Not exactly my idea of a "compelling case".


I'm basing it on PBS coverage of todays arguments. The government relied on an easily dismissed "slippery slope" argument. Their strongest point (and stickler imho) is that companies can't have a religion. It's gonba be interesting.
 
2014-03-26 12:07:54 AM  

jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.


I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.
 
2014-03-26 12:09:55 AM  

debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.


Because by your logic almost everything at Walgreen's should be covered.
 
2014-03-26 12:10:51 AM  

debug: Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered? It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were. Not sure what the big problem is.


Again: why shouldn't aspirin be covered?
 
2014-03-26 12:12:28 AM  

debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.


Why would you want to wait two weeks to get in to see your doctor and then have him take your vitals and examine your junk and then have to spend a $15-$20 copay plus the $5-$20 or whatever for the prescription condoms just so can have sex, and you have to go through this every year to renew your prescription, when right now you can walk into any store and get 3 of them for maybe $2-3 immediately? Or free at Planned Parenthood?
 
2014-03-26 12:12:37 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: debug: Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered? It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were. Not sure what the big problem is.

Again: why shouldn't aspirin be covered?


Or band-aids? Or toothpaste?
 
2014-03-26 12:17:38 AM  

Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.



You're thinking of the  Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court was thinking of the Establishment Clause.When put together, they go like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

And are interpreted by the Supreme Court like this:

..."Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
(source)

This is why you're not allowed to sacrifice mixed race children on the white house lawn because god told you to stick it to the socialists Muslims who are oppressing you.

ehornsinedinburgh.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-26 12:18:03 AM  

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.



Questions:

1) why should my employer get to pick and chose what medications I receive from my doctor?

2) why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?
 
2014-03-26 12:20:02 AM  
So if a Hobby Lobby is considered a being, and gets the right to incorporate their religious beliefs, would that mean a failed Hobby Lobby store in a particular location has the right to life and they must keep it open no matter how much energy it takes and money they lose? Or can they just abort it?
 
2014-03-26 12:20:25 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.


Questions:

1) why should my employer get to pick and chose what medications I receive from my doctor?

2) why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?


I demand an abortion! Right now! What? No, I'm not pregnant. Why do you ask?
 
2014-03-26 12:20:43 AM  

SundaesChild: debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.

Why would you wa ...


Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

You understand that other things that you must see a doctor aren't covered, right?  In most plans, if you don't have high cholestrol, preventative annual blood screenings aren't covered.  So it seems that having to see a doctor vs not having to see a doctor really isn't a condition of coverage.


Now, aside from your asprin/bandaid/toothpaste nonsense.  Why wouldn't you want condoms covered?  Just one decent reason would be fine.
 
2014-03-26 12:21:47 AM  

CanisNoir: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.


How does it matter if its abortion? Does abortion have some sort of special status as a particular kind of religious belief that needs extra respect, as opposed to all other religious beliefs?
 
2014-03-26 12:23:43 AM  

debug: SundaesChild: debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.

Why would you wa ...

Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

You understand that other things that you must see a doctor aren't covered, right?  In most plans, if you don't have high cholestrol, preventative annual blood screenings aren't covered.  So it seems that having to see a doctor vs not having to see a doctor really isn't a condition of coverage.


Now, aside from your asprin/bandaid/toothpaste nonsense.  Why wouldn't you want condoms covered?  Just one decent reason would be fine.


You could argue that toothpaste prevents gingivitis and band aids acts as barriers against infection, so yes. They can prevent disease.
 
2014-03-26 12:24:43 AM  

debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?


Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.
 
2014-03-26 12:29:18 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.


Questions:

1) why should my employer get to pick and chose what medications I receive from my doctor?

2) why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?


I could be wrong but nether of the two items in this case are considered "medication". Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder? With all the current exemptions the Government really cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in over riding HLs religious rights. Employees are at will and most other forms of contraception will be covered. The only ones being forved here iare the two companies.
 
2014-03-26 12:29:46 AM  

jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.


Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?
 
2014-03-26 12:30:25 AM  

SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.


Then make companies pay for a physical exam where the doctor prescribes the bc. That's fair, since it is to prevent health issues that may arise from using bc.

IMO, most bc should probably not be prescribed anyway.
 
2014-03-26 12:32:16 AM  

CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?


I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?
 
2014-03-26 12:33:23 AM  

jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.


Aspirin is also a blood thinner and is used in the preventative treatment of blood clots, among other medical issues.
 
2014-03-26 12:33:57 AM  

debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?


I did answer. That logic would mean including everything in Wallgreen's. The pill isn't covered because it is birth control. It is covered because you need to take it under the supervision of a doctor. I am in favor of having everything that must be taken under a doctors supervision covered. I am not in favor of anything that has any preventative value being covered.
 
2014-03-26 12:34:00 AM  

debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?


Because they are already cheap, widely available OTC and oftentimes even free! During my last visit to PP I got, in addition to my Nuva Ring, something like a dozen condoms at no charge at all. Why isn't "already free" good enough for you?
 
2014-03-26 12:34:03 AM  

debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?


Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.
 
2014-03-26 12:34:49 AM  

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?

I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?


Apples and oranges. For you to have a point we would need a single payer system.
 
2014-03-26 12:35:55 AM  

Alicious: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

Uh huh, and contraception that is used to treat a medical condition would fall where in your explanation of how it works"?


Contraception used to treat a medical condition should be covered like any other medicine.

Pregancy is not a disease that need be prevented at all costs.
 
2014-03-26 12:36:52 AM  
For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.
 
2014-03-26 12:38:27 AM  

CanisNoir: Apples and oranges. For you to have a point we would need a single payer system.

 How is that distinction important in determining constitutional or statutory compliance? I agree with you that it is 2 different things, but why does that difference matter?
"Pay me 5 bucks so I can hire than hitman" v. "pay that hitman 5 dollars" seem like two morally identical directives to me.
 
2014-03-26 12:39:37 AM  

Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.


Interesting.

In spite of their popularity, most health insurance companies do not cover condoms under their plans at the present time. However, this might be set to change under the edicts of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the new law, women with health insurance are likely to have access to condoms, with a prescription and without a co-pay. However, men do not have this option available to them.

So they will be covered. For women.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-c on doms/

That's kinda hilarious.
 
2014-03-26 12:39:58 AM  

gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.


IUD also requires a rather painful removal process after a certain number of years. And it can get lost in the uterus, rare but not impossible, making removal even more complex, even possibly warranting surgery.

Condoms just slip right off.
 
2014-03-26 12:42:39 AM  

gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.


Keeping the "Plan B" pills behind the counter was something the Religious Right forced the FDA into when they accounted they were going to make it non-perscription.
 
2014-03-26 12:43:03 AM  

jst3p: Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.

Interesting.

In spite of their popularity, most health insurance companies do not cover condoms under their plans at the present time. However, this might be set to change under the edicts of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the new law, women with health insurance are likely to have access to condoms, with a prescription and without a co-pay. However, men do not have this option available to them.

So they will be covered. For women.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-c on doms/

That's kinda hilarious.


To be fair, the BC and the condoms do benefit men that want to get laid without fear of knocking some chick up. So I don't know why reproduction is considered strictly a women's issue.
 
2014-03-26 12:43:06 AM  

CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?


What do you mean "force to finance"?  Is health insurance free for employees of Hobby Lobby?
 
2014-03-26 12:44:00 AM  

jst3p: So they will be covered. For women.


Well, female condoms are generally more expensive and not often available in the condom aisle.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments

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

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