quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

if they are paying ACA insurance premiums then yes, they are paying for it.
just like they are paying for someones testicular cancer treatment or swollen prostate or testosterone gel, viagra, or vasectomy, someones kids broken leg, someones elses heart attack, someones STD. half the population are women, these are vital to womens health care....and their life in general and yet, you are talking about cost, like you can pick and choose any other medical treatment to whinge about. oh except when your religious views trump the person working for your "personal beliefs"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

They pay for their insurance, why should they pay twice?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The solution to his problem is obvious: start his own religion in which blow jobs are a sacrament.

Already got that.

Where do I sign up?
How much are the dues???Will tithing work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

They pay for their insurance, why should they pay twice?

BECAUSE!!!!! Corporations are people too!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Corporations, made of people, are moving just like people move, out of "liberal" California and into Conservative Texas, Arizona and Idaho (etc) in droves

Once the leftists in California finally get their way and have destroyed or driven out most of the rest of those evil nasty corporations... Who will pay the bills?

Poor unemployed people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

The ruling is very limitedin its scope. While I don't agree with it,some here are blowing it way out of proportion.

Daddysatyr is right in the closely held prive companies. Publicly traded corporation cannot applythis ruling. Further, thecompanies who DO wish to use the exemption must apply to use it and it can be denied and fought. Should those companies go public they will lose the exemption, which only applies to not provided birth control. It is an exemption to the ACA. Where the concept of a Muslim dress code comes into play is pretty far fetched.

LL-
It isn't that limited, the problem with this ruling is that it further extends the principal that a corporation is a person with the protections of the bill of rights extended to it, and it is very, very troubling. They made the argument in this case that it applied only to a family owned business, and that it was this one specific issue, but this has opened up a lot of doors. For example, an orthodox Jewish family owns a business, should they be allowed to not hire non Jews, because it is their belief only Jews should be hired? Should they be allowed to deny women applicants? Should they be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people, despite the fact that local law covers this? What this ruling is doing is saying that religious belief trumps other laws, and that is troubling, because this can be extended to a lot of things. Should some evangelical Christian manager be allowed to fire an employee he found out was living with his girlfriend, claiming that was against his faith? The ruling extended the rights of people to corporations, but what about the people in corporations (since the logic on saying corporations are people is that corporations are made up of people), this could in the end grant them the same right, and that is a mess. The precedence that the uber conservative justices broke so easily, that of a corporation not being a person, has implications well beyond it. Justices have held that businesses need to accomodate the religious belief of their employees as long as it doesn't place an undue burden on the business, and it also said that religious belief ends where federal law comes in, specifically anti discrimination laws, but under this, they could very easily say that the same right they granted to the owners of the company applies to people within a public corporation, since they are the 'persons' that make a corporation as an entity a person......and with the clowns in the conservative majority, who knows how far they will try and take it.

I worked, as a temp, for Hadassah. If I was going to eat in the building it had to be kosher. I'm not Jewish, but I respected them enough to abide by that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
How can any reasonable person disagree with this:
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”

Where does this ruling declare that a woman can't use birth control, IUD's, morning after pills, etc.? They can still make personal health care decisions for themselves, but can't force the costs of those decisions on their bosses in cases where it goes against their bosses religious beliefs
They can still go out and purchase birth control, can't they? They can still use IUD's and "morning after" pills, right?

That is correct.

No. Incorrect. If, as DS says, these are "personal health care decisions" they should not be proscribed by the boss's religious sensitivities. What the Majority ignored was that personal health care decisions have impacts on the society. There is a greater public interest for women to refrain from pregnancy and stay in the work place. The Hobby Lobby religious sensibility is woven out of the fabric of a history of keeping women in inferior positions.
If "they can still go out and purchase birth control" you and I can "still go out and purchase our own damn flu shots." Even of course if insurance supported inoculations offend the religious creed of some ass hole boss.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
if they are paying ACA insurance premiums then yes, they are paying for it.
just like they are paying for someones testicular cancer treatment or swollen prostate or testosterone gel, viagra, or vasectomy, someones kids broken leg, someones elses heart attack, someones STD. half the population are women, these are vital to womens health care....and their life in general and yet, you are talking about cost, like you can pick and choose any other medical treatment to whinge about. oh except when your religious views trump the person working for your "personal beliefs"

It has been pointed out to me that the Hobby Lobby complaint included not just paying for the physical contraceptives but also "related education and counseling" which means at this point if someone wants their doctor's visit to be paid for they cannot discuss their contraceptive use and options with their doctor at all if they work for one of these companies.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/20/_hobby_lobby_doesn_t_just_want_to_avoid_covering_contraception_it_wants.html?
And yes, since the Supremes extended this to cover all contraceptive methods if a male employee of a Catholic owned company that has sued over this goes to the doctor and dares to discuss whether he is using condoms the office visit is technically not covered at all.

quote:

"Essentially, if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are successful, they’ll win the right to refuse to extend coverage for doctor’s visits that include discussion about certain forms of contraception, like IUDs or the morning after pill,"

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
if they are paying ACA insurance premiums then yes, they are paying for it.
just like they are paying for someones testicular cancer treatment or swollen prostate or testosterone gel, viagra, or vasectomy, someones kids broken leg, someones elses heart attack, someones STD. half the population are women, these are vital to womens health care....and their life in general and yet, you are talking about cost, like you can pick and choose any other medical treatment to whinge about. oh except when your religious views trump the person working for your "personal beliefs"

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
if they are paying ACA insurance premiums then yes, they are paying for it.
just like they are paying for someones testicular cancer treatment or swollen prostate or testosterone gel, viagra, or vasectomy, someones kids broken leg, someones elses heart attack, someones STD. half the population are women, these are vital to womens health care....and their life in general and yet, you are talking about cost, like you can pick and choose any other medical treatment to whinge about. oh except when your religious views trump the person working for your "personal beliefs"

It has been pointed out to me that the Hobby Lobby complaint included not just paying for the physical contraceptives but also "related education and counseling" which means at this point if someone wants their doctor's visit to be paid for they cannot discuss their contraceptive use and options with their doctor at all if they work for one of these companies.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/20/_hobby_lobby_doesn_t_just_want_to_avoid_covering_contraception_it_wants.html?
And yes, since the Supremes extended this to cover all contraceptive methods if a male employee of a Catholic owned company that has sued over this goes to the doctor and dares to discuss whether he is using condoms the office visit is technically not covered at all.

You have been had, Ken. Or, you're lying.

quote:

"Essentially, if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are successful, they’ll win the right to refuse to extend coverage for doctor’s visits that include discussion about certain forms of contraception, like IUDs or the morning after pill,"

The Hobby Lobby complaint is about 4 government accepted methods of BC. While the Supremes mentioned their decision relates to all 20 government accepted means, this does not mean Hobby Lobby doesn't want their employees to be able to discuss any BC methods, just those 4.

Now, do we know that this decision included their ability to not pay for visits about those BC methods? And, do we know the decision also cleared the little HIPAA/confidentiality hurdle of the employer being told everything that was discussed with the doctor?

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Someone at the office was talking to day about the Hobby Lobby case, and they said a company has already said they were filing suit to try and get the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians despite local laws making that illegal, arguing that the hobby lobby case made their religious beliefs paramount over local law....if this is true (I don't have any articles on it yet), it means the religious right has basically decided to use a supreme court with a religious right conservative block to try and do an end run around rights gains that have been made.....personally, I think let the courts rule as they may, but make the companies who discriminate pay big time. Given that the religious right are most powerful in places with the economic power of a third world country, they can't count on the hoi poloi to bail them out.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

They pay for their insurance, why should they pay twice?

BECAUSE!!!!! Corporations are people too!

they obviously arent women

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LMAO then push for single payer, or deny religious beliefs to corporations
when women are off work having babies and or entering welfare because they keep getting pregnant, they will whine louder paying for a birth and doctors bills.

Not at all they will just require all women not actively seeking pregnancy to keep a cork in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

How is not forcing the employer to pay for a woman's choice of birth control not a personal decision by the woman? She is still free to choose her BC option, isn't she?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
if they are paying ACA insurance premiums then yes, they are paying for it.
just like they are paying for someones testicular cancer treatment or swollen prostate or testosterone gel, viagra, or vasectomy, someones kids broken leg, someones elses heart attack, someones STD. half the population are women, these are vital to womens health care....and their life in general and yet, you are talking about cost, like you can pick and choose any other medical treatment to whinge about. oh except when your religious views trump the person working for your "personal beliefs"

It has been pointed out to me that the Hobby Lobby complaint included not just paying for the physical contraceptives but also "related education and counseling" which means at this point if someone wants their doctor's visit to be paid for they cannot discuss their contraceptive use and options with their doctor at all if they work for one of these companies.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/20/_hobby_lobby_doesn_t_just_want_to_avoid_covering_contraception_it_wants.html?
And yes, since the Supremes extended this to cover all contraceptive methods if a male employee of a Catholic owned company that has sued over this goes to the doctor and dares to discuss whether he is using condoms the office visit is technically not covered at all.

You have been had, Ken. Or, you're lying.

quote:

"Essentially, if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are successful, they’ll win the right to refuse to extend coverage for doctor’s visits that include discussion about certain forms of contraception, like IUDs or the morning after pill,"

The Hobby Lobby complaint is about 4 government accepted methods of BC. While the Supremes mentioned their decision relates to all 20 government accepted means, this does not mean Hobby Lobby doesn't want their employees to be able to discuss any BC methods, just those 4.
Now, do we know that this decision included their ability to not pay for visits about those BC methods? And, do we know the decision also cleared the little HIPAA/confidentiality hurdle of the employer being told everything that was discussed with the doctor?

We know they won and that the lawsuit include "related education and counseling" and we know that the Court told the lower courts that the ruling applies to all forms of contraception and it supersedes all other laws because SCOTUS says so. So the Catholic employers who object to all forms of contraception can not only not pay for any of them they can also not pay for any doctor's office visit where such is discussed and yes men, that includes discussing condoms and vasectomies. 

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How is not forcing the employer to pay for a woman's choice of birth control not a personal decision by the woman? She is still free to choose her BC option, isn't she?

It is not because the law prescribes a certain level of health care to be covered, it's an insurance policy they have to pay, not every single bills from the pharmacy, so what the employees use or not is just between them and their doctors. Seriously people should strike and protest for this ruling, it means employers' rights trump workers' rights and religion trumps law.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
if they are paying ACA insurance premiums then yes, they are paying for it.
just like they are paying for someones testicular cancer treatment or swollen prostate or testosterone gel, viagra, or vasectomy, someones kids broken leg, someones elses heart attack, someones STD. half the population are women, these are vital to womens health care....and their life in general and yet, you are talking about cost, like you can pick and choose any other medical treatment to whinge about. oh except when your religious views trump the person working for your "personal beliefs"

It has been pointed out to me that the Hobby Lobby complaint included not just paying for the physical contraceptives but also "related education and counseling" which means at this point if someone wants their doctor's visit to be paid for they cannot discuss their contraceptive use and options with their doctor at all if they work for one of these companies.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/20/_hobby_lobby_doesn_t_just_want_to_avoid_covering_contraception_it_wants.html?
And yes, since the Supremes extended this to cover all contraceptive methods if a male employee of a Catholic owned company that has sued over this goes to the doctor and dares to discuss whether he is using condoms the office visit is technically not covered at all.

You have been had, Ken. Or, you're lying.

quote:

"Essentially, if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are successful, they’ll win the right to refuse to extend coverage for doctor’s visits that include discussion about certain forms of contraception, like IUDs or the morning after pill,"

The Hobby Lobby complaint is about 4 government accepted methods of BC. While the Supremes mentioned their decision relates to all 20 government accepted means, this does not mean Hobby Lobby doesn't want their employees to be able to discuss any BC methods, just those 4.
Now, do we know that this decision included their ability to not pay for visits about those BC methods? And, do we know the decision also cleared the little HIPAA/confidentiality hurdle of the employer being told everything that was discussed with the doctor?

We know they won and that the lawsuit include "related education and counseling" and we know that the Court told the lower courts that the ruling applies to all forms of contraception and it supersedes all other laws because SCOTUS says so. So the Catholic employers who object to all forms of contraception can not only not pay for any of them they can also not pay for any doctor's office visit where such is discussed and yes men, that includes discussing condoms and vasectomies. 

So, you lied, then. Gotcha.