Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't infringe on anyone's rights. All the employees of Hobby Lobby can still purchase birth control (and cheaper with this ruling). Health care is not a right, it is a benefit paid by the employer.

Thanks for that fresh take that has certainly not been repeatedly spouted by people in this very thread dozens of times over the previous 18 pages by people supporting the HL decision. Really illuminating stuff.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't infringe on anyone's rights. All the employees of Hobby Lobby can still purchase birth control (and cheaper with this ruling). Health care is not a right, it is a benefit paid by the employer.

If the government mandates it, its not a benefit.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

Most people are really confused by all this. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control. What they were opposed to is being forced to pay for the morning after pill. That is what the Supreme Court agreed with.

Which is birth control and covered by almost everyone's plan. Why should HL get an exception?

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

yup.. See what I mean.

If someone stands up for the UNBORN BABY, they're a religious ass hole.

If they call a lib a baby killer, they are hate mongers and intollerant.

You can talk to these fine folk all you want, but in the end, it will just come down to being cussed out, called names, and stared down by someone that has no real comprehension of what tolerance really is.

It just makes my head spin.

For me, that just means you're anti-choice.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

How it works in Canada is that a minimum basic coverage is provided by the government, and then almost everyone has secondary coverage through their job which is not government paid coverage, its through a private for profit company. Our basic coverage doesn't cover things like prescriptions, ambulance service, dental, or vision...so your ACA sounds much more inclusive.

Not really. There are tiers of coverage made available through the ACA that people can choose. Obviously the lowest tier is the least expensive but offers the least coverage with the highest deductibles. To get specialty coverage like dental or vision, you still have to pay a whole lot more. In many cases the deductible is so high that someone may still owe tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills even if they are "covered". It's a very flawed system. Our government is trying to have its' cake and eat it too. They want to offer affordable healthcare to the poor while still maximizing profits for their bed buddies big pharma and the insurance lobby.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

...

Not really. There are tiers of coverage made available through the ACA that people can choose. Obviously the lowest tier is the least expensive but offers the least coverage with the highest deductibles. To get specialty coverage like dental or vision, you still have to pay a whole lot more. In many cases the deductible is so high that someone may still owe tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills even if they are "covered". It's a very flawed system. Our government is trying to have its' cake and eat it too. They want to offer affordable healthcare to the poor while still maximizing profits for their bed buddies big pharma and the insurance lobby.

Yeah thats not cool. If I needed open heart surgery tomorrow, it would be covered by my basic government healthcare. What wouldn't be covered is things like a private hospital room, tv and internet in my room, follow up drugs taken outside of the hospital, and in some cases the anaesthetic. Its kinda weird, and convoluted, and unless its surgery thats required immediately you may wait awhile for it, but the system still works.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
unless its surgery thats required immediately you may wait awhile for it, but the system still works.

This is one of the main arguments against socialized medicine in the US. You hear a lot of "my Canadian friend had to wait so long to get a (insert non life saving surgery) that he just gave up and paid for it in America out of pocket."

That's a good point. Nobody should have to be put on a waiting list for a medical procedure and while I'm sure there's way more doctors in the US than in Canada, there's also way more potential patients. My only argument to that would be that under a privatized healthcare system, if you weren't already wealthy or working for the government, you wouldn't have to worry about a waiting list for a knee replacement. You'd never get approved for the surgery and you'd just have to deal with the chronic pain until you died.

Don't get me wrong, if you have a heart attack an need a pace maker, it happens immediately. But for example, my dad has a bad back...to the point where some days he only gets out of bed for an hour or two. He's been waiting 2 months for an MRI (100% paid for by healthcare), but he could have spent the $1000 and got an MRI from a private centre in a day or two. The next step, is his doctor will look at the MRI, and will probably refer him to a specialist...the specialist will probably take a month to get in to see. If they decide on surgery, if its considered bad enough, they'll operate within days, if its not, it could be months. So its kind of a fucked up system, but if its life threatening, you get service immediately.

Darlin', should you have such a stay in the hospital let me know and I'll cover the ( below) referenced internet charge if insurance won't. Your contributions here are large and appreciated.

Mrs. F

p.s., ....charges for TV ?????

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
Yeah thats not cool. If I needed open heart surgery tomorrow, it would be covered by my basic government healthcare. What wouldn't be covered is things like a private hospital room, tv and internet in my room, follow up drugs taken outside of the hospital, and in some cases the anaesthetic. Its kinda weird, and convoluted, and unless its surgery thats required immediately you may wait awhile for it, but the system still works.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Thanks for that fresh take that has certainly not been repeatedly spouted by people in this very thread dozens of times over the previous 18 pages by people supporting the HL decision. Really illuminating stuff.

You would have to read the rest of my post. Didn't take our ADD medicine today??

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
If the government mandates it, its not a benefit.

...
Which is birth control and covered by almost everyone's plan. Why should HL get an exception?

Really?? Abortion is birth control?

I believe her reference was to the morning after pill, not abortion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

Really?? Abortion is birth control?

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

I believe her reference was to the morning after pill, not abortion.

...

It was, thank you.

But I suspect he thinks that Plan B, Ella, or IUD's are abortion; which simply isn't true as none of these methods disrupt an implanted pregnancy.

Yeah, I think Mr. Aardvarks just wants to lash out at something.

That aside, I am really tired of what this HL reinforces in my beliefs, that men....notice that none of the women on the Supremes voted for it....have got this cultural thing for wanting to fuck with our wombs. In less developed cultures men sew up our vulva, surgically cut out our clitoris, bring home AIDS to their families, all with the consent of their cultures and laws. In the western democracies the game is far more subtle, and using the bible as a fig leaf for repressive laws they insist on messing with our womb and tell us what is right and wrong to do with it. And their only investment in it is the joy of orgasm. It's been said often and at great volume by people better than me that if men could get pregnant it would be a different world. " To love and obey"...what a bunch of shit. When I married last October our vows were to love and trust. Obedience is a foul concept for a relationship of supposed ( right ? equals. But I digress...sorry

Religious extremism is alive and well in America and because of it's power the Republicans reluctantly embrace it, warts and all because of it's political power. And so we have the warped HL decision and there will be more like it. Because what the social conservatives truly want is a theocracy.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
I completely agree with you that if men could get pregnant that abortion would have been widely accept as far back as when they were first able to perform them.

That is true Sugarpie. I was reading where the Planets population was going to triple in the next few decades. Can't exactly remember when or the figure but it was a LOT if birth control does not become more widespread. The baby machines are pretty much dooming the quality of life on Earth

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

Yeah, I think Mr. Aardvarks just wants to lash out at something.

That aside, I am really tired of what this HL reinforces in my beliefs, that men....notice that none of the women on the Supremes voted for it....have got this cultural thing for wanting to fuck with our wombs. In less developed cultures men sew up our vulva, surgically cut out our clitoris, bring home AIDS to their families, all with the consent of their cultures and laws. In the western democracies the game is far more subtle, and using the bible as a fig leaf for repressive laws they insist on messing with our womb and tell us what is right and wrong to do with it. And their only investment in it is the joy of orgasm. It's been said often and at great volume by people better than me that if men could get pregnant it would be a different world. " To love and obey"...what a bunch of shit. When I married last October our vows were to love and trust. Obedience is a foul concept for a relationship of supposed ( right ? equals. But I digress...sorry

Religious extremism is alive and well in America and because of it's power the Republicans reluctantly embrace it, warts and all because of it's political power. And so we have the warped HL decision and there will be more like it. Because what the social conservatives truly want is a theocracy.

F1098 (and Sugarpie) you are so out in left field with your leftist dogma. I'll restate what this case was about to the annoyance of Eric Lindros. It had nothing to do with birth control, wombs, orgasm's, surgically cutting out clitoris's, it didn't put ANY restrictions on use or access. What the SCOTUS reminded F1098 and Surgarpie is the power of the federal government isn't open ended, the General Welfare clause doesn't mean the government can do whatever it wants (read Federalist #41 for what it does mean).

Now, F1098 thinks you must have a vagina to understand this case (?) What about Roe vs Wade? Since I'm sure you have no clue, all the male justices voted for it. Apply your logic to this, or is gender an issue only when someone disagrees with you?

The supreme court actually referred to a recent federal law that grants certain company's protection from federal law. This law was co-authored by Nancy Pelosi.
Only the plan B birth control will not be covered by Hobby Lobby. Plan B birth control terminates a pregnancy, which many people deem as aborting a fetus.

Your entire diatribe is nonsensical. I am not a Republican or a Conservative, I'm a libertarian.

That's quite funny Mr. Aardvarks, because I see myself as libertarian....I don't want the government in my womb. That's quite Libertarian, no ? From your point of view I'd guess you were a TP fellow, and a social conservative which I am clearly not. Most of the libertarians I know are against someone like you waving the flag in a woman's vagina....and it's my body not Washington's. ( Hope that is clear to you.)

Anyway, what's with the "must have a vagina" question ? If you were much of a reader you'd see that I am a woman. Clue...it's in the signature block for all of my posts. But it's clear that you aren't much of a reader anyway.

This case had nothing to do with me or anyone else in your womb.

I'm in no way a social conservative. I lobbied to have our states anti-gay marriage laws overturned.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

That's quite funny Mr. Aardvarks, because I see myself as libertarian....I don't want the government in my womb. That's quite Libertarian, no ? From your point of view I'd guess you were a TP fellow, and a social conservative which I am clearly not. Most of the libertarians I know are against someone like you waving the flag in a woman's vagina....and it's my body not Washington's. ( Hope that is clear to you.)

Anyway, what's with the "must have a vagina" question ? If you were much of a reader you'd see that I am a woman. Clue...it's in the signature block for all of my posts. But it's clear that you aren't much of a reader anyway.

1.) I know your a female.
2.) It wasn't a question.
3.) It was a statement.
4.) You opened with ..." that men....notice that none of the women on the Supremes voted for it....have got this cultural thing for wanting to fuck with our wombs"

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

Plan B birth control terminates a pregnancy, which many people deem as aborting a fetus.

We can argue all day and I'm sure we'll never agree, but by medical definition Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy.

But again, that is not the point of this thread, and its not the main reason why the HL ruling upsets me. What upsets me is that:
1) Hobby Lobby is not person and therefor can not have a religious conviction
2) These forms of birth control are accepted under the ACA
3) Employees have paid for access to these drugs via their healthcare plan
4) You can't just change the law for yourself if you don't agree with it.