Did I EVER say that liberals don't work. You work, don't you?

(06-30-2014 03:25 PM)mlb Wrote:  RWT and others who are up in arms here... the SCOTUS were very clear that they were only exempting birth control for closely held companies. The actual savings for the healthcare plan for Hobby Lobby was little to nothing. This is obviously not about money to the owners... and, to be perfectly honest, will only make it harder for them to find female associates in the future.

Otherwise, the SCOTUS made sure to make a very limited ruling. If the associates don't like the fact that their employer doesn't cover their birthcontrol, they can either find a doctor that will prescribe it to them for a "medical condition" (probably won't be hard to find someone to do that) or they can go find another job... or they can come up with the $30 (or less, apparently) to pay for it each month. Get their boyfriend/husband to split it with them. That simple.

My company has a $3000 deductible on our PPO healthcare plan. To offset it they give us $2000 towards an HSA, but at any time they could cancel the HSA deposits (and quite possibly will once we renew in the next few months due to the changes in our plan that are skyrocketing the rates thanks to the ACA). Do you hear me bitching about it? Nope. I have only 1 time in 4 years actually maxed out my deductible. Otherwise I was paying out of pocket after their deposits were placed into my account. I was thankful that I had some healthcare and continue to be thankful as I don't want to go onto the exchange and deal with that debacle.

Thanks for the story, but I'm not up in arms about this whatsoever. It's not like it was any sort of surprise.

(06-30-2014 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thanks for the story, but I'm not up in arms about this whatsoever. It's not like it was any sort of surprise.

You seem to think this is some sort of attack on women's healthcare. In no way is it an attack on that. If she has a true health condition, she can get the prescription covered. It is that simple.

I read a quote from Elizabeth Warren on this that really irks me...

Quote:I cannot believe that we live in a world where someone would even consider letting some big corporation deny the women who work for it access to the basic medical tests, treatments, or prescriptions that they need based on vague moral objections. The current supreme court has headed in a very scary direction.

That is not how they ruled in any way today... and anyone who read it that way did not read the actual ruling or is too dumb to truly understand the decision.

This is NOT a debate about denying medical tests, treatments, or prescriptions to treat a disease. This is about using birth control for nothing more than that... keeping a baby from being born. That really should not be the responsibility of a company. If they want to cover it, great, if not then personal responsibility should come into play.

(06-30-2014 03:57 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thanks for the story, but I'm not up in arms about this whatsoever. It's not like it was any sort of surprise.

You seem to think this is some sort of attack on women's healthcare. In no way is it an attack on that. If she has a true health condition, she can get the prescription covered. It is that simple.

I read a quote from Elizabeth Warren on this that really irks me...

Quote:I cannot believe that we live in a world where someone would even consider letting some big corporation deny the women who work for it access to the basic medical tests, treatments, or prescriptions that they need based on vague moral objections. The current supreme court has headed in a very scary direction.

That is not how they ruled in any way today... and anyone who read it that way did not read the actual ruling or is too dumb to truly understand the decision.

This is NOT a debate about denying medical tests, treatments, or prescriptions to treat a disease. This is about using birth control for nothing more than that... keeping a baby from being born. That really should not be the responsibility of a company. If they want to cover it, great, if not then personal responsibility should come into play.

The problem is that women have been treated like second class citizens when it comes to health care insurance coverage over the years. This was meant to level the playing field. Every small thing will just chip that further away. And it's sad.

(06-30-2014 03:57 PM)mlb Wrote:  I read a quote from Elizabeth Warren on this that really irks me...

Quote:I cannot believe that we live in a world where someone would even consider letting some big corporation deny the women who work for it access to the basic medical tests, treatments, or prescriptions that they need based on vague moral objections. The current supreme court has headed in a very scary direction.

That is not how they ruled in any way today... and anyone who read it that way did not read the actual ruling or is too dumb to truly understand the decision.

Agreed. Tell the crazy-ass *itch to read the f-ing opinion.

(06-30-2014 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The problem is that women have been treated like second class citizens when it comes to health care insurance coverage over the years. This was meant to level the playing field. Every small thing will just chip that further away. And it's sad.

Wrong

The problem is that 'your side' has complained that women are being treated like second-class citizens by creating false issues like this.

There are half a dozen or more oral contraceptives on Wal-Mart's prescription list... and Walgreens and Costco's and Rite-Aids etc etc etc.

The stuff, WITHOUT INSURANCE OR ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND is $10 or less per month.

So why is the President LYING and implying that this decision works AGAINST women?

Because it furthers the incorrect perception that you articulated.

You realize of course that MANY of the most conservative people around ARE women? They just apparently aren't 'your kind' of women, so you dismiss them.

Health Care/Insurance is about treating/preventing diseases, not choices. SOME people think the government should do everything and you (the left, not necessarily you) have convinced SOME women of your lies.

(06-30-2014 09:35 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 09:34 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 09:30 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Horrible ruling that just furthers the ignorance that is Citizens United.

yeah, that whole thing about freedom of speech, especially political speech, is massively ignorant.

The owner can say or do whatever the hell he wants. The company itself is not a person and 5 activist judges will never convince me otherwise.
Corporations will be allowed to vote within 5 years. It's the next logical step following these decisions.

Would you please point out to me where in Citizen's United these five activist judges decided that corporations were people?

After that, would you please explain how the majority cited to around twenty cases confirming that corporations had First Amendment rights if Citizen's United was the decision that granted corporations First Amendment rights?

Then would you please read the Dictionary Act (I'll include a helpful link) and report back on whether corporations are typically included in the definition or persons in American law?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

After that, perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion about corporate personhood in American law.

(06-30-2014 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The problem is that women have been treated like second class citizens when it comes to health care insurance coverage over the years. This was meant to level the playing field. Every small thing will just chip that further away. And it's sad.

This is, in fact, not true. Even before pregnancy coverage was included in insurance packages, women consumed a disproportionate amount of insurance. Male employees have been subsidizing the insurance coverage of their female counterparts and the ACA further exacerbates the problem.

(06-30-2014 04:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The problem is that women have been treated like second class citizens when it comes to health care insurance coverage over the years. This was meant to level the playing field. Every small thing will just chip that further away. And it's sad.

This is, in fact, not true. Even before pregnancy coverage was included in insurance packages, women consumed a disproportionate amount of insurance. Male employees have been subsidizing the insurance coverage of their female counterparts and the ACA further exacerbates the problem.

Yeah...it's not like they disproportionately have more babies or reproductive system issues than men or anything.

SMH.

(06-30-2014 04:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yeah...it's not like they disproportionately have more babies or reproductive system issues than men or anything.

SMH.

All of which have nothing to do with contraception

Is there something in here that says Hobby Lobby, or anyone in support of this ruling was against providing healthcare coverage for babies or reproductive system HEALTH issues?

Contraception and abortion is not a reproductive system HEALTH issues. They may be associated with them, and if so, they are likely covered.

Your side has argued for a long time that they are not health issues, but choices.

Drop the abortion and birth control coverage, and Ill be glad to up the pregnancy and birth coverage and add fertility coverage (IUI, IVF etc.) If the GOP got behind that platform, suburban women would turn in droves. The liberals support reproductive death while conservatives support reproductive life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(06-30-2014 04:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 04:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The problem is that women have been treated like second class citizens when it comes to health care insurance coverage over the years. This was meant to level the playing field. Every small thing will just chip that further away. And it's sad.

This is, in fact, not true. Even before pregnancy coverage was included in insurance packages, women consumed a disproportionate amount of insurance. Male employees have been subsidizing the insurance coverage of their female counterparts and the ACA further exacerbates the problem.

Yeah...it's not like they disproportionately have more babies or reproductive system issues than men or anything.
SMH.

Please explain how male employees subsidizing the insurance coverage of female employees is treating women like second-class citizens. Remember, this is true even when pregnancy-related costs are excluded.

They'll still cover 16 contraceptives.

(06-30-2014 05:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Drop the abortion and birth control coverage, and Ill be glad to up the pregnancy and birth coverage and add fertility coverage (IUI, IVF etc.) If the GOP got behind that platform, suburban women would turn in droves. The liberals support reproductive death while conservatives support reproductive life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

As long as they turn out to be conservatives.

I wonder if the audit notice has already been sent to Hobby Lobby?

(06-30-2014 05:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Drop the abortion and birth control coverage, and Ill be glad to up the pregnancy and birth coverage and add fertility coverage (IUI, IVF etc.) If the GOP got behind that platform, suburban women would turn in droves. The liberals support reproductive death while conservatives support reproductive life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You are missing the whole point. The point is to oppose Obamacare regardless os whether or not it works.

(06-30-2014 01:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This ruling will have no effect on baking wedding cakes for homosexuals. The decision is pretty narrow.

So if my kid ever asks me if there is religious freedom in this country all I can tell him is it depends.

(06-30-2014 10:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 01:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This ruling will have no effect on baking wedding cakes for homosexuals. The decision is pretty narrow.

So if my kid ever asks me if there is religious freedom in this country all I can tell him is it depends.

That is correct. Unless it's something other than Christian.

Bottom line to all the liberal whiners - A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby won. Business wins. Common sense wins. This means, of course, Obama and his agenda lost. So the USA wins.

As many have pointed out - 16 contraceptives are still available to these poor, deprived women.

Ever forward.

If it were men who got pregnant an abortion right would be in the Bill of Rights. It's not a war on women it's a separate but equal agenda. They are treated as less. Anyone who can separate themselves from the politics of it can see that. Look at it objectively. One group has a favored status. It's not right and it's not fair and it WILL be pointed out. War is hyperbole. It's shut up and speak only when spoken to. That's not war but it is a favored status. It surprises me that so many on the right tolerate it and disguise it under the umbrella of religion.