|
|
  Angel in a Sorrel Coat
Posts: 16030
  
Location: In a happy place | jbhoot - 2014-03-26 9:18 AM barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 8:32 AM Nateracer - 2014-03-26 8:25 AM jbhoot - 2014-03-25 12:38 PM Nateracer - 2014-03-25 11:55 AM What I don't understand is why my employer needs to know about my personal life. They hire from all walks of life. They have to know that not everyone follows their Mormon path. So in an interveiw do they get to ask...So are you on birth control? What is your stance on abortion?
Um, I'm here to stock shelves or run a cash register.
Makes no sense to me. That is not what it's about. Hobby Lobby doesn't care one way or the other what you do for birth control. What they are arguing is that they do not want to pay for any type of birth control that ends the pregnancy after conception. ie. the morning after pill. They feel as to their believes that it is taking a life. There by being against their believes. They are only asking for the same consideration that has been given to others. IMO they may win.
Do companies get reports of all of the drugs they are paying for when their employee goes to the doctor? Or are they just paying for insurance?
I just don't get why it's an employers decision how their insurance is used. If their policy carries it, it's lumped into the policy, so there is not much of a way to keep people from using it. They could change policies or providers, but why is a supreme court case needed to tell them to change policies?
It's constitutionally unfair to subject someone and MAKE them bow to YOUR religious findings. Freedom of Religion. You get to do what you want, but so do I.
Agree
BTW, employers should not know what exactly you recieve under your insurance policy due to HIPAA, as far as I know.
Lady's I think you are both missing the issue why this has made it to the Supreme Court. Under the new health care law ALL insurance company's MUST offer ALL forms of birth control. So Hobby Lobby can not get a policy that does not offer these drugs. They are not objecting to birth control or paying for it. What they are objecting to is being forced to pay for the morning after drugs or any device that ends a pregnancy. They are not trying to stop you or your Dr. from using them. You want them fine you pay for them. Why they are at the Supreme Court is because this exemption has been granted to other groups and they want the same consideration.
Explains it very plainly jbhoot. |
|
| |
|
Hungarian Midget Woman
 
Location: Midwest | BTW, I do get what you are saying JB. They can pay out of pocket. For some that is cost prohibitive, hence the argument.
To me their lines in the sand seem arbitrary, due to my reasons above. I think allowing employers what they will or will not cover based on "belief" is somewhat arbitrary as well. I could say I'm part of XYZ church and we don't support cancer treatments because cancer is "holy". Who determines what beliefs are "legitimate" and which ones are crackpot?
I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Keep that in mind...
Edited by barrelracr131 2014-03-26 10:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
 That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 10:35 AM BTW, I do get what you are saying JB. They can pay out of pocket. For some that is cost prohibitive, hence the argument. To me their lines in the sand seem arbitrary, due to my reasons above. I think allowing employers what they will or will not cover based on "belief" is somewhat arbitrary as well. I could say I'm part of XYZ church and we don't support cancer treatments because cancer is "holy". Who determines what beliefs are "legitimate" and which ones are crackpot? I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Keep that in mind... I think there is always those that abuse the system, but in general religion is not arbitrary. They are beliefs that are based on principle rather than policy. Usually religion is in line with science. Mormons(my religion) believe that you shouldn't smoke, smoking has also been scientificaly proven to be harmful. All this is easy to criticize until it is YOUR moral values that are being compromised. What about when they decide it is too expensive on the system to maintaine the life of mentally handicaped children, and your child is mentally handicaped. This is an extreme example but this is a very slippery slope.
Edited by Whiteboy 2014-03-26 11:11 AM
|
|
| |
|
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | Whiteboy - 2014-03-26 11:10 AM
barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 10:35 AM BTW, I do get what you are saying JB. They can pay out of pocket. For some that is cost prohibitive, hence the argument. To me their lines in the sand seem arbitrary, due to my reasons above. I think allowing employers what they will or will not cover based on "belief" is somewhat arbitrary as well. I could say I'm part of XYZ church and we don't support cancer treatments because cancer is "holy". Who determines what beliefs are "legitimate" and which ones are crackpot? I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Keep that in mind... I think there is always those that abuse the system, but in general religion is not arbitrary. They are beliefs that are based on principle rather than policy.  Usually religion is in line with science. Mormons(my religion) believe that you shouldn't smoke, smoking has also been scientificaly proven to be harmful.  All this is easy to criticize until it is YOUR moral values that are being compromised. What about when they decide it is too expensive on the system to maintaine the life of mentally handicaped children, and your child is mentally handicaped.  This is an extreme example but this is a very slippery slope.Â
I think I was unclear on what I found to be arbitrary. I was referring to the science aspect....
Medically, pregnancy does not begin until implantation. Plan B prevents implantation. (BTW I was wrong before, Oral BC prevents ovulation, not implantation, as the objective).
So I guess they feel any fertilized egg is considered the beginning of life, then? Do they also plan to refuse coverage of IVF, preimplantation genetics, and embryo storage? As part of IVF, eggs are fertilized and then only some of the eggs are implanted. The rest of the embryos are stored for potential later use. So technically, that would probably be against their beliefs as well.
In a way, not covering these procedures really does "force" some people not to use these treatments, due to cost. This is where I kind of agree that it does force beliefs upon another person, to some degree. I mean sure, they can work elsewhere, etc etc. Realistically though, it will effect people. IDK, I can see both sides of this case, honestly. I can see wishing to not contribute to something you feel is against personal belief... Its not like I don't understand why they feel as they do, even if I don't share the belief.
Then the other aspect comes in of the government choosing which religious based demands to honor in terms of plan exclusions. You can't really say the Christians Scientists are not a legit religion, or Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Even though they are in the minority and their views differ from many other faiths.
Personally, I think the ACA is just a giant mess.... the end.
I'm really not disagreeing with HL's view. I think in the end, they will just pay the penalty and refuse to offer insurance.... but I do think they will lose the case. I could be wrong though, it's happened more than once.
Edited by barrelracr131 2014-03-26 11:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
 Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 10:35 AM BTW, I do get what you are saying JB. They can pay out of pocket. For some that is cost prohibitive, hence the argument. To me their lines in the sand seem arbitrary, due to my reasons above. I think allowing employers what they will or will not cover based on "belief" is somewhat arbitrary as well. I could say I'm part of XYZ church and we don't support cancer treatments because cancer is "holy". Who determines what beliefs are "legitimate" and which ones are crackpot? I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Keep that in mind... The arguement is not because it is cost prohibitive. Just because someone cannot afford something does not mean someone else should have to pay for it. I know that is the arguement from the left, war on women, woman's health issue, etc. This is diffferent then policies and programs to help the less fortunate. Yes, it may open doors for other suits of this nature but better that then big government telling companies what they must do. They have already given this exemption to these specific birth control methods to other entities.
Edited by rodeomom3 2014-03-26 11:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 11:36 AM
barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 10:35 AM BTW, I do get what you are saying JB. They can pay out of pocket. For some that is cost prohibitive, hence the argument. To me their lines in the sand seem arbitrary, due to my reasons above. I think allowing employers what they will or will not cover based on "belief" is somewhat arbitrary as well. I could say I'm part of XYZ church and we don't support cancer treatments because cancer is "holy". Who determines what beliefs are "legitimate" and which ones are crackpot? I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Keep that in mind...
The arguement is not because it is cost prohibitive. Â Just because someone cannot afford something does not mean someone else should have to pay for it. Â This is diffferent then policies and programs to help the less fortunate. Â Yes, it may open doors for other suits of this nature but better that then big government telling companies what they must do. Â They have already given this exemption to these specific birth control methods to other entities. Â
I just feel that the laws should be fair enough to apply to everyone.
Realistically, the need for exemptions is revealing flaws with the laws themselves.
Exemptions to law is not something that should need to occur to begin with. If that makes sense. |
|
| |
|
 Reaching for the stars....
Posts: 12708
| I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it.
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation. |
|
| |
|
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it.
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation. You got that backwards. No federal mandate should force one to violate their conscience.
Edited by TXBO 2014-03-26 12:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| TXBO - 2014-03-26 11:57 AM lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it.
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation. You got that backwards. No federal mandate should should force one to violate their conscience.
This^ |
|
| |
|
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 12:06 PM
TXBO - 2014-03-26 11:57 AM lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it. Â
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation.  You got that backwards. No federal mandate should should force one to violate their conscience.
This was my point as well that I expressed kind of poorly. The laws should not be asking people to do so to begin with.
The need for these exemptions, IMO, indicate flaws in the original legislation.
And whitey I agree with you actually. IMO the government should not be making healthcare decisions for its citizens in that capacity.
|
|
| |
|
Reaching for the stars....
Posts: 12708
| rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 12:06 PM TXBO - 2014-03-26 11:57 AM lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it.
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation. You got that backwards. No federal mandate should should force one to violate their conscience.
Well for crying out loud -- every person I've ever known, every institution I've ever done business with, every rule I've had to follow, every CHURCH I've ever attended, everything I've ever been EXPOSED to,
has VIOLATED MY CONSCIENCE at some time or other, let alone the frigging GOVERNMENT!!!!
So, after this post and these answers, I don't want to hear how horrible *I* am because I make my own decisions based on MY CONSCIENCE. No matter what. No argument. No disagreement. No slams. Everyone for themselves and be****ed what anyone thinks. |
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 11:42 AM rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 11:36 AM barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 10:35 AM BTW, I do get what you are saying JB. They can pay out of pocket. For some that is cost prohibitive, hence the argument. To me their lines in the sand seem arbitrary, due to my reasons above. I think allowing employers what they will or will not cover based on "belief" is somewhat arbitrary as well. I could say I'm part of XYZ church and we don't support cancer treatments because cancer is "holy". Who determines what beliefs are "legitimate" and which ones are crackpot? I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Keep that in mind... The arguement is not because it is cost prohibitive. Just because someone cannot afford something does not mean someone else should have to pay for it. This is diffferent then policies and programs to help the less fortunate. Yes, it may open doors for other suits of this nature but better that then big government telling companies what they must do. They have already given this exemption to these specific birth control methods to other entities. I just feel that the laws should be fair enough to apply to everyone. Realistically, the need for exemptions is revealing flaws with the laws themselves. Exemptions to law is not something that should need to occur to begin with. If that makes sense.
I understand what you are saying and I agree that the need for exemptions reveals the many of the things that are wrong with ObamaCare. It is ironic that the administration wants to force the country to comply with what it believes is "right" but they do not want to extend that same right to companies to decide what is "right" for them. Birth control that ends conception, not prevent it is not a right, benefit or a necessity. Individuals are free to obtain this on their own, they do not have the right to force others to help pay for it, same goes for abortions. |
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 12:14 PM rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 12:06 PM TXBO - 2014-03-26 11:57 AM lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it.
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation. You got that backwards. No federal mandate should should force one to violate their conscience.
has VIOLATED MY CONSCIENCE at some time or other, let alone the frigging GOVERNMENT!!!!
So, after this post and these answers, I don't want to hear how horrible *I* am because I make my own decisions based on MY CONSCIENCE. No matter what. No argument. No disagreement. No slams. Everyone for themselves and be****ed what anyone thinks.
I don't disagree with what you just posted. I guess the difference is you had the freedom to not do business with any institution that offended you or go to any church that offended you. Hobby Lobby wants to be extended that same choice that has been given to others already exempted for the same reason. |
|
| |
|
That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 12:14 PM rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 12:06 PM TXBO - 2014-03-26 11:57 AM lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it.
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation. You got that backwards. No federal mandate should should force one to violate their conscience. This was my point as well that I expressed kind of poorly. The laws should not be asking people to do so to begin with. The need for these exemptions, IMO, indicate flaws in the original legislation. And whitey I agree with you actually. IMO the government should not be making healthcare decisions for its citizens in that capacity.
I think we are all on the same page, but it is still fun to talk about it. I don't think that the government should be making any decisions for us, not just healthcare. The government screws up everything it touches. |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 12:14 PM rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 12:06 PM TXBO - 2014-03-26 11:57 AM lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it.
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation. You got that backwards. No federal mandate should should force one to violate their conscience.
has VIOLATED MY CONSCIENCE at some time or other, let alone the frigging GOVERNMENT!!!!
So, after this post and these answers, I don't want to hear how horrible *I* am because I make my own decisions based on MY CONSCIENCE. No matter what. No argument. No disagreement. No slams. Everyone for themselves and be****ed what anyone thinks.
Only you can violate your conscience. |
|
| |
|
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | Whiteboy - 2014-03-26 12:26 PM
barrelracr131 - 2014-03-26 12:14 PM rodeomom3 - 2014-03-26 12:06 PM TXBO - 2014-03-26 11:57 AM lonely va barrelxr - 2014-03-26 11:45 AM I won't pick on any specific religion --
Religious freedom includes not following any religion. Separation of church and state covers that right. No religion should be able to get an 'exemption' for anything federally mandated. Except paying their fair share, of course.
If there is any way this case can weaken Obamacare I'm all for it. Â
Otherwise, I think it's stepping over the line of separation.  You got that backwards. No federal mandate should should force one to violate their conscience. This was my point as well that I expressed kind of poorly. The laws should not be asking people to do so to begin with. The need for these exemptions, IMO, indicate flaws in the original legislation. And whitey I agree with you actually. IMO the government should not be making healthcare decisions for its citizens in that capacity.
Ain't that the truth... |
|
| |
|
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | It would be nice if the people protesting Hobby Lobby actually knew what they were protesting against..LOL |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Nevertooold - 2014-03-26 12:42 PM It would be nice if the people protesting Hobby Lobby actually knew what they were protesting against..LOL
Like |
|
| |
|
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Nevertooold - 2014-03-26 12:42 PM
It would be nice if the people protesting Hobby Lobby actually knew what they were protesting against..LOLÂ
No kidding!!! I tried but oh well. It really boils down to what Justice Kennedy has to say any way. |
|
| |
|
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | jbhoot - 2014-03-26 12:50 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-03-26 12:42 PM
It would be nice if the people protesting Hobby Lobby actually knew what they were protesting against..LOLÂ
No kidding!!! I tried but oh well. It really boils down to what Justice Kennedy has to say any way.
People are protesting HL?
I mean I'm not surprised. People protest anything these days. I think the protesting will probably backfire like it did for chick fil a. lol
|
|
| |
Folks on-line