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 251
    More: Cool, Hobby Lobby, Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, emergency contraception, Paul Clement, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

11472 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:31 PM (1 year 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
 
2014-03-26 12:44:49 AM  

DamnYankees: 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.


No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.
This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.
 
2014-03-26 12:44:50 AM  

SundaesChild: 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.


While I agree it shouldn't be strictly a woman's issue I know guys. I will make sure my daughter knows not to rely on any guy in this area, it is all on her.
 
2014-03-26 12:45:41 AM  

m00: 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.


No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.
 
2014-03-26 12:49:27 AM  

jst3p: SundaesChild: 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.

While I agree it shouldn't be strictly a woman's issue I know guys. I will make sure my daughter knows not to rely on any guy in this area, it is all on her.


True enough, but unless they are gay you would think that the average dude would have a vested interest in his lady friend's BC being covered.
 
2014-03-26 12:50:40 AM  

Trid_Kicker: m00: 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.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.


What, pray tell, is so "frightening" about it?
 
2014-03-26 12:50:43 AM  

SundaesChild: jst3p: SundaesChild: 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.

While I agree it shouldn't be strictly a woman's issue I know guys. I will make sure my daughter knows not to rely on any guy in this area, it is all on her.

True enough, but unless they are gay you would think that the average dude would have a vested interest in his lady friend's BC being covered.


Sure, but until around 25 when hormones were raging I didn't always make the most rational decisions "in the moment".
 
2014-03-26 12:53:21 AM  

SundaesChild: True enough, but unless they are gay you would think that the average dude would have a vested interest in his lady friend's BC being covered.


We're moving in that direction, but we're not there yet. Better sex ed helps.
 
2014-03-26 01:07:30 AM  

CanisNoir: No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.


How is that different from this? Elect people who would repeal the contraception mandate. That's the recourse.

CanisNoir: This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.


And yet you can't explain the difference. You're just re-asserting it. There's no difference.
 
2014-03-26 01:10:19 AM  

CanisNoir: The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.


considering they got clement, it'd be surprising any other way
 
2014-03-26 01:12:14 AM  

Animatronik: 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.


In what universe do you live, where contraception is not preventative care?

/didn't read the entire thread
//don't care how many other people called you out on this
///don't care if you don't actually believe it
////that you would type this is enough for a response
 
2014-03-26 01:13:53 AM  

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.


i75.photobucket.com

You just keep shiattin' all over yourself, don't ya Animatronik?
 
2014-03-26 01:15:53 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.


Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.
 
2014-03-26 01:30:19 AM  

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.

How is that different from this? Elect people who would repeal the contraception mandate. That's the recourse.

CanisNoir: This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.

And yet you can't explain the difference. You're just re-asserting it. There's no difference.


If you don't.know the difference between a general tax and the way healthcare iis paid for there's no hope for you. I'm off to bed, you just keep on thinking you've got a valid point. Someday it'll click.
 
2014-03-26 01:34:17 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: 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.


MEH
Given that plan B is a very high dose of hormone, I have no problems with it being behind the counter.
I am guessing that the pharmacies would keep it behind the counter for no other reason than farking theft.  That shiat would magically disappear otherwise.

on a slight aside, can men get plan B? do you have to have a vagina to get it?
 
2014-03-26 01:40:21 AM  

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.

How is that different from this? Elect people who would repeal the contraception mandate. That's the recourse.

CanisNoir: This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.

And yet you can't explain the difference. You're just re-asserting it. There's no difference.


To make it even easier for you to see your error, I'll buy into your false equivalency and point out that with both the military and criminal justice system, the government has an easily provable compelling interest. In this case, not so much due to the large number of exemptions already allowed.

/goodnight.
 
2014-03-26 01:41:36 AM  
TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance
 
2014-03-26 01:44:32 AM  

namatad: on a slight aside, can men get plan B? do you have to have a vagina to get it?


Men can get it too.  Just wander up and ask.  You might get some looks, but they'll still sell it to you.
 
2014-03-26 01:45:51 AM  

Trid_Kicker: m00: 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.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.


Actually if hobby lobby wins the owners should be publicly executed on the supreme court steps to honor the elder gods or some South American feathered serpent

Assuming they survive the attempted sacrifice, a VP should send out a memo stating Sith + rule of 2 is the one true religion followed by violent purging of all other VPs and assassination of the owners.  Legally that VP now assumes full ownership of the company as per the requirements of his religion.  Hopefully the new dark lord will finally carry industry standard power converters, rather the Trade Federation garbage the current owners have been trying to sell
 
2014-03-26 01:46:49 AM  

karmaceutical: 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.

That is a really stupid argument.


Well if they just provide it to the brown people...


// oh yes I did,
 
2014-03-26 01:50:45 AM  

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.


YES THERE IS

/takes birth control for non contraceptive reasons
//avoiding pregnancy is as much a medical treatment - DEFINATELY preventative medocine - as Viagra anyhow.
///Viagra ain't emergency or preventative care either
////also you made that up re insurance
 
2014-03-26 01:53:16 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: 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.

You pack a lot false assertions in one paragraph. Impressive


You certainly can't fault his verve though. To cram that much wrong into a single sentence takes guts. Gut, tenacity, and complete and utter lack of understanding of a topic, and the courage to soldier on anyway. It's impressive.

Again: companies don't pay for contraception. They don't pay for Viagra. They don't pay to get your arm set--with the exception of Workman's Comp, but even then, that is almost always paid out of an insurance plan. They don't pay for your cancer treatments. They don't pay for anything, directly. The person who has the plan, their needs, their treatments, their care, is between them, their doctors, and their insurer. Not the company. The company doesn't pay for any treatment. Period.

What employers do is set up a plan for their workers to buy into. They often contribute, but they still don't pay directly for any service that the worker gets. They pay their premiums, which are then put into the insurance company's kitty, and then they pay out claims. This particular argument keeps getting forwarded. Now then, I can see folks complaining that public assistance plans for treatment goes to contraception, for neonatal care, or the like, because those are direct payments from tax dollars. It's pretty damn stupid, because preventative care means less trips to the ER, less cost in the long run, and healthier children and folks who can contribute to the economy--and not drain public coffers later. But the argument that employers are "paying for" well, any treatment is simply not true. The insurance company, they pay. The employer? They pay for the plan, not the services. And the services are between the employees and their doctors.

Companies aren't paying for anything but the plan. How their employees use that plan, that's up to them. That's called "personal responsiblity." Roll it over the tongue a bit, Animatronik, because that's that pesky freedom that you tend to say is all trampled on. Say it with us. "Personal responsibility." Which means, that sometimes folks make choices we don't agree with. That we even think are terrible mistakes. But that's on their own heads, not anyone else.

What HL is essentially saying, is that they don't want to contribute to any fund that would allow such terrible things to be done. Oddly enough, I'm betting that the insurer does pay for those services that they don't like out of the company kitty. Which means, simply by having insurance, they are contributing to the very things that they despise. And are enabling with every check that they send. Already. Insurers don't just set aside specific checks to pay for things--that money goes into the bowels of their accounts, is often invested, turned into more cash elsewhere, and I'm betting, even invested in some things that the HL folks might find even more objectionable. Heck, I'm betting that some of the cash even goes for hookers and blow for the execs, who draw their pay from that kitty too. So, just by having the insurance, they are already paying for all manner of wrong, in their minds, and haven't been bright enough to realize this.
 
2014-03-26 01:54:19 AM  

namatad: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

MEH
Given that plan B is a very high dose of hormone, I have no problems with it being behind the counter.
I am guessing that the pharmacies would keep it behind the counter for no other reason than farking theft.  That shiat would magically disappear otherwise.

on a slight aside, can men get plan B? do you have to have a vagina to get it?


It was BTC because they slapped a over 16 thing on it iirc.

I've bought Plan B BTC just to have on hand after a harrowing weekend adventure with my roommate trying to find it when it was still Rx. Unless the pharmacist is a jerk I see no reason why you couldn't. My SO routinely picks up my scripts (and one is controlled yet there's never an issue...)

/shrug
 
2014-03-26 01:57:35 AM  

namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance


"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/
 
2014-03-26 01:58:18 AM  

hubiestubert: Peter von Nostrand: 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.

You pack a lot false assertions in one paragraph. Impressive

You certainly can't fault his verve though. To cram that much wrong into a single sentence takes guts. Gut, tenacity, and complete and utter lack of understanding of a topic, and the courage to soldier on anyway. It's impressive.

Again: companies don't pay for contraception. They don't pay for Viagra. They don't pay to get your arm set--with the exception of Workman's Comp, but even then, that is almost always paid out of an insurance plan. They don't pay for your cancer treatments. They don't pay for anything, directly. The person who has the plan, their needs, their treatments, their care, is between them, their doctors, and their insurer. Not the company. The company doesn't pay for any treatment. Period.

What employers do is set up a plan for their workers to buy into. They often contribute, but they still don't pay directly for any service that the worker gets. They pay their premiums, which are then put into the insurance company's kitty, and then they pay out claims. This particular argument keeps getting forwarded. Now then, I can see folks complaining that public assistance plans for treatment goes to contraception, for neonatal care, or the like, because those are direct payments from tax dollars. It's pretty damn stupid, because preventative care means less trips to the ER, less cost in the long run, and healthier children and folks who can contribute to the economy--and not drain public coffers later. But the argument that employers are "paying for" well, any treatment is simply not true. The insurance company, they pay. The employer? They pay for the plan, not the services. And the services are between the employees and their doctors.

Companies aren't paying for anything but the plan. How their employees use that plan, that's up to them. That's called "personal responsiblity." Roll it over the tongue a bit, Animatronik, because that's that pesky freedom that you tend to say is all trampled on. Say it with us. "Personal responsibility." Which means, that sometimes folks make choices we don't agree with. That we even think are terrible mistakes. But that's on their own heads, not anyone else.

What HL is essentially saying, is that they don't want to contribute to any fund that would allow such terrible things to be done. Oddly enough, I'm betting that the insurer does pay for those services that they don't like out of the company kitty. Which means, simply by having insurance, they are contributing to the very things that they despise. And are enabling with every check that they send. Already. Insurers don't just set aside specific checks to pay for things--that money goes into the bowels of their accounts, is often invested, turned into more cash elsewhere, and I'm betting, even invested in some things that the HL folks might find even more objectionable. Heck, I'm betting that some of the cash even goes for hookers and blow for the execs, who draw their pay from that kitty too. So, just by having the insurance, they are already paying for all manner of wrong, in their minds, and haven't been bright enough to realize this.


I might steal that hookers and blow argument. But don't think they aren't aware. It's just that the "abortion" wharrgarbal trumps all.

Anyhow, if HL doesn't want to buy into a plan that has to cover women's health (long overdue BTW) why can't they tell their employees to find their own insurance and take the penalty?

/rhetorical question
//7
 
2014-03-26 02:02:26 AM  

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.


You don't talk to very many women, do you?
 
2014-03-26 02:03:20 AM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: Anyhow, if HL doesn't want to buy into a plan that has to cover women's health (long overdue BTW) why can't they tell their employees to find their own insurance and take the penalty?

Apparently because Jesus doesn't like the idea of sacrifice for principles, especially when their is money on the line. It's one of his lesser known teachings.
 
2014-03-26 02:03:43 AM  

jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/


My insurance covers it, no problem. Via a coworker.

I'm planning to spend several hours tomorrow on the phone with them contesting a physical they declined to cover (well they charged me for every blood test even though it was all done through my doctor's employer's facilities, and it was all fine 3 years ago when I last got one...) and making sure my sleep study is covered (last one scheduled they denied an hour prior).

Oh, yeah, and my generic BC is $25 copay. My other two generic scripts are $3 to $10. $90 a year difference.

/f--king hate this
 
2014-03-26 02:05:43 AM  

jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/


Word on the interbutts is that the hobby lobby plan covers it.  Just like it USED to cover birth control, until the black democrat passed a healthcare bill.
 
2014-03-26 02:07:43 AM  

hubiestubert: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Anyhow, if HL doesn't want to buy into a plan that has to cover women's health (long overdue BTW) why can't they tell their employees to find their own insurance and take the penalty?

Apparently because Jesus doesn't like the idea of sacrifice for principles, especially when their is money on the line. It's one of his lesser known teachings.


Of the 20 odd kids I was in Catholic youth leadership council with in HS, only one is a crazy Benedict admiring nutjob. Everyone else ranges from atheist to mass on holidays. And she's been posting like crazy on FB between this and Michigan gay marriage (the horror).

I brought up something as long those lines but my computer must be malfunctioning because I never got a response. Huh.
 
2014-03-26 02:10:38 AM  

TheBigJerk: jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/

Word on the interbutts is that the hobby lobby plan covers it.  Just like it USED to cover birth control, until the black democrat passed a healthcare bill.


Heard that as well, but on phone = not gonna search it out.

Probably giving them credit with their customer base. It's all JoAnn or Michael's around here... Only HLs I know of are in conservative enclaves.
 
2014-03-26 02:14:31 AM  

EnderX: Passive Aggressive Larry: You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.


So we should force Chick-Fil-A to open on Sundays then?


CanisNoir: Trid_Kicker: m00: 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.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.

What, pray tell, is so "frightening" about it?


Many of us don't think our personal lives should need to conform to our employer's C.E.O,'s religious beliefs.
 
2014-03-26 02:16:53 AM  
The simple answer is to make birth control an over the counter drug. Expect the FDA to make that happen in the next few years.

My prediction, Hobby Lobby loses, 6-3. Possibly, 9-0.
 
2014-03-26 02:19:25 AM  
Jeebus, the whining is reaching a crescendo.

C'mon people it's settled law.

Just like the 2nd Amendment.

Right?
 
2014-03-26 02:26:03 AM  

Slam1263: Jeebus, the whining is reaching a crescendo.

C'mon people it's settled law.

Just like the 2nd Amendment.

Right?


Ffs
 
2014-03-26 02:29:11 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.


The word you're looking for is "abortifacient". Which is NOT what the Morning After Pill is.

The primary mechanism of action of combined estrogen-progestogen emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.
 
2014-03-26 03:13:30 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?


You are very conveniently ignoring the core of the argument. It is not that they are all fighting against covering condoms, they are patiently explaining to you why your argument (i.e. your false equivalence) is bad.

BCP is covered because it is a prescription that women have to have invasive yearly exams to receive- NOT because it is a contraceptive. Condoms are over the counter, which NO insurance covers for ANYTHING (however FlexBen/HSA's do). You know what else is over the counter that is not covered by insurance? The morning after pill. So, this means that you are in favor of the morning after pill (Plan B) to be covered as well? Or just another troll enjoying a lot of successes?
 
2014-03-26 03:29:24 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/

My insurance covers it, no problem. Via a coworker.

I'm planning to spend several hours tomorrow on the phone with them contesting a physical they declined to cover (well they charged me for every blood test even though it was all done through my doctor's employer's facilities, and it was all fine 3 years ago when I last got one...) and making sure my sleep study is covered (last one scheduled they denied an hour prior).

Oh, yeah, and my generic BC is $25 copay. My other two generic scripts are $3 to $10. $90 a year difference.

/f--king hate this


That's why it's not covered.  Most policies don't cover preventative screening.  Now if you had already been diagnosed with high choloesterol, the blood work would be covered.  Isn't that stupid?
 
2014-03-26 04:13:49 AM  
I'd get in between Kagan and Soto in a heartbeat.  But Ginsburg?  Only if I had access to a TARDIS.
 
2014-03-26 04:16:05 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.

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.


There's a lot of idiocy in this post. You do know that Hobby Lobby is in no position to make any sort of medical decision, especially one catagorizing IUDs and Plan B, both of which are actually the same medication, Levonorgestrel. Levonorgestrel only prevents ovulation, it does not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. And who asked private corporations to pay for abortions? Idiocy.

And, yes, pregnancy is the natural result of unprotected sex and an absolute necessity for the continuation of the human race. However, it is also an extremely dangerous medical condition which can lead to pain, heartburn, anemia, high blood pressure, insomnia, mood swings, nausea, vomiting, mastitis, bleeding from various orafices, overactive bladder, oedema and death.

How would you encourage private groups to pay for others' birth control? Seriously. We had 50 years to pull our collective heads from our asses and it didn't happen. We had to ask our governing body to step in and do something. And don't act like its strong-arming, in a March 2014 NBC/WSJ[PDF] poll, 53% of people supported the mandate for contraception coverage. In a March 2012 PRRI[PDF] poll, 53% supported the mandate. A March 2012 Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 61% support for the mandate. A Feb. 2012 KFF study showed 63% support for the mandate.

In fact, only two studies I found had an opposite finding, a December 2013 Rasmussen poll indicating 51% opposing the mandate and a December 2013 WPA Opinion Research[PDF] survey indicating 59% opposition. You can take that as you will, however, I do not find either of these surveys credible. The Rassmussen poll hides its details behind a paywall, leaving me unable to see the exact numbers and the wording of the question seems, to me, a tad leading. Additionally, Rasmussen has consistently been in the bottom 5 of major polling groups for accuracy. The WPAOR poll didn't even release the wording of the questions and was commissioned by the Family Research Council, a known hate group per the Southern Poverty Law Center; everything about them is suspect.

Anyway, the majority of polls show that the American people are for the contraceptive mandate. There's no tyranny. And, lest you forget, we are a government "of The People, by The People and for The People". If government is incompetent, then it is a problem with The People. Garbage in, garbage out. And, more than that, birth control and family planning will still be handled by medical professionals; no part of the PPACA removed the private medical professional from the equation and the only relevant part for this conversation only added that private insurers must cover FDA approved contraception. And, man oh man, being able to get easy access to contraception is really going to bite us in the ass, the same as legalizing abortion did[PDF], when unplanned pregnancies drop, leading to fewer households worrying how they're going to feed their kids, leading to less crime, leading to a better society, all around.

CanisNoir: I could be wrong but nether of the two items in this case are considered "medication".


You are and, yes, they are. They are two different delivery methods for Levonorgestrel, a second generation synthetic progestogen used as an active ingredient in some hormonal contraceptives[Wikipedia]. They most certainly are medications. As to why a company should be compelled to provide coverage that the owner doesn't agree with: that is the cost of doing business in our society. Long ago, we decided that, to function as a society, certain concessions would have to be made by everyone involved. That's why you can't kick me out of your diner because I'm the product of miscegenation. Everyone gets the same basic share.

In this case, Society decided that the health and well-being of its people, all its people, is worth putting money into and protecting the structure of and businesses decided long ago to offer healthcare instead of higher wages. They chose to provide healthcare and we chose what healthcare would mean. If you or Hobby Lobby do not want to abide by this social contract, I hear Somalia is really nice this time of year. And, as so many before me have pointed out, Hobby Lobby didn't have a single issue with Levonorgestrel being covered until the PPACA said it had to be covered[PDF] (Paragraph 55).

And, if Hobby Lobby isn't just trying to be contrary dicks, then why are we in court? Their supposed beef is that Plan B and IUDs can cause abortions when there isn't a credible medical professional in the world that would say that they do. Plan B used to be thought to prevent implantation, but it has been common medical knowledge for years and the FDA was being petitioned to have this erroneous assertion removed from labeling months before Hobby Lobby filed its original complaint.
 
2014-03-26 04:23:26 AM  

fusillade762: EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!

Your double negative much confuse me.


...NOT?

/dunno
 
2014-03-26 05:04:59 AM  

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.


I don't think Emerson meant that foolish people should literally say "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" as an excuse for their foolish behavior. Ya never know though, he was at times a twit.
 
2014-03-26 05:15:23 AM  
Whodathunkit, a left slanted opinion piece getting greenlit on fark and touted as fact.

The math here is simple: YOU use birth control; they disagree with birth control. YOU pay for the birth control YOU freely choose to use. Not force someone else to violate their beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS is going to get this one right. What's too bad is that it's being fought on the grounds of religious freedom, and not general 1st amendment freedom of expression like it should be.

And hooey to the feminists for showing their true colors. Not satisfied to have the freedom to prevent and abort pregnancies, they also feel the need to force others to pay for their decisions, or lack thereof. And I really dug their cause when they were seeking equality too.
 
2014-03-26 05:46:00 AM  

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Whodathunkit, a left slanted opinion piece getting greenlit on fark and touted as fact.

The math here is simple: YOU use birth control; they disagree with birth control. YOU pay for the birth control YOU freely choose to use. Not force someone else to violate their beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS is going to get this one right. What's too bad is that it's being fought on the grounds of religious freedom, and not general 1st amendment freedom of expression like it should be.

And hooey to the feminists for showing their true colors. Not satisfied to have the freedom to prevent and abort pregnancies, they also feel the need to force others to pay for their decisions, or lack thereof. And I really dug their cause when they were seeking equality too.


The debate on if the government can set, and compel, employers to offer insurance covering a set amount of services and products has already been concluded, legally speaking.  If you want to go back to that debate feel free to vote for like minded people who will change the law to not require things that you don't want to be covered to be covered.  What we are debating now is under what circumstances a company's owners can disregard the law.  Their argument isn't even particularly limited to health care.  There is no reason their argument and this ruling couldn't be applied to many other things such as worker's safety laws and anti-discrimination laws just to name a few.  Quit confusing the issue.
 
2014-03-26 06:02:49 AM  
We really need to reform the Supreme Court. A bunch of old guys who are put in a position of power for life with no input from the public and stay there way past the point of dementia? That seems undemocratic. Of course, reforming SCOTUS would involve major changes to the constitution, and I don't think that's ever happened before.
Can anyone think of a better way for the Supreme Court to be run?
 
2014-03-26 06:53:31 AM  

jbc: 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?

Are you trying to suggest Scalia is capable of logical thought?


Are you trying to suggest you're more well-schooled in law than a Supreme Court Justice?
 
2014-03-26 06:55:12 AM  

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


So tired of people thinking day after pills are a right...
 
2014-03-26 07:08:11 AM  
Another thread trashed by a "Why Daddy?" troll.
 
2014-03-26 07:11:56 AM  
FTA "Everything would be piecemeal; nothing would be uniform"

So, if they find against Hobby Lobby then all of the exemptions and extensions given by the Obama administration would also fall under this brand of logic too right? I mean it's already as piecemeal as it is precisely because of all of those executive orders changing the law for some but not for others. This is a very bad argument to make on the part of the court if the altering of the law by executive fiat ever comes up in front of the court,

karmaceutical: 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.


Hobby Lobby is NOT preventing their employees from using the Morning After Pill nor are they preventing their employees from getting an abortion. What they are saying is that they don't want to facilitate it by paying for it due to religious reasons. Specifically because their religion considers it a sin and by facilitating that sin they are in fact also committing the same sin as if they themselves were performing an abortion. The law does already recognize that being an accomplice makes you just as responsible for the crime even if they did not commit the crime (getaway drivers where the robbery ended up with the murder of the clerk while the driver sat in the car and didn't even have a weapon for example).

Not being forced by the government to be an active participant in what they consider to be a sin should fall under the separation of church and state. Conscientious Objector laws due to religious reasons are already in place and this could and should fall into that category.
 
2014-03-26 07:22:42 AM  
Hobby Lobby actually pays their employees enough that they should be able to pay out of pocket for the few contraceptives that Hobby Lobby does not wish to have covered.  It's not like they are refusing to cover any kinds of birth control.  My insurance doesn't cover Depo shots which I prefer over instead of the pill for treatment of medical issues.  I simply just pay the $45 for the generic every three months and it's not that big a deal.
 
2014-03-26 07:29:47 AM  

Radioactive Ass: FTA "Everything would be piecemeal; nothing would be uniform"

So, if they find against Hobby Lobby then all of the exemptions and extensions given by the Obama administration would also fall under this brand of logic too right? I mean it's already as piecemeal as it is precisely because of all of those executive orders changing the law for some but not for others. This is a very bad argument to make on the part of the court if the altering of the law by executive fiat ever comes up in front of the court,

karmaceutical: 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.

Hobby Lobby is NOT preventing their employees from using the Morning After Pill nor are they preventing their employees from getting an abortion. What they are saying is that they don't want to facilitate it by paying for it due to religious reasons. Specifically because their religion considers it a sin and by facilitating that sin they are in fact also committing the same sin as if they themselves were performing an abortion. The law does already recognize that being an accomplice makes you just as responsible for the crime even if they did not commit the crime (getaway drivers where the robbery ended up with the murder of the clerk while the driver sat in the car and didn't even have a weapon for example).

Not being forced by the government to be an active participant in what they consider to be a sin should fall under the separation of church and state. Conscientious Objector laws due to religious reasons are already in place and this could and should fall into that category.


Hobby Lobby isn't a person. I repeat, Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It does not have a religion. It is a thing.

SomeFarkinFarmgirl: Hobby Lobby actually pays their employees enough that they should be able to pay out of pocket for the few contraceptives that Hobby Lobby does not wish to have covered.  It's not like they are refusing to cover any kinds of birth control.  My insurance doesn't cover Depo shots which I prefer over instead of the pill for treatment of medical issues.  I simply just pay the $45 for the generic every three months and it's not that big a deal.


Once again, Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It's a business. It's a thing. It has no "beliefs" protected by the Constitution.

And you are clearly missing the point. If a THING can deny this to PEOPLE, there's little to stop other medical procedures from being covered.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report