[Bavarian]

It is not a duty of a Corporation to provide Health Care. And it is only recently, say early '90s that Health Insurance morhed into prepaid Health care. Before that people paid their own way and the Health Insurance was for big, catastrophic cases.

A Corporation's job is not to provide Health Care or Health Insurance,or jobs, it's job is to make money for its owners. Employer provided Health Insurance started during the '30s as a way to attract better employees.

If one wants to kill her baby, they is no reason why that person can't get her own poison pills.

Comparing Viagra to abortion is "Nuts" as Dr. Ablow would say, only abortion stops a beating Heart. If one does not want the baby their are plenty of us who would have adopted it.

I have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

Just wondering what the public-at-large (here in TV, of course)
thinks about the Supreme Court's decision
that says it's okay for Hobby Lobby to
not cover insurance for any type of birth control
for women in their employ.

Your thoughts, please.

.

Here are a couple of the problems with the stupid Supreme Court decision..First, the insurance plan provided to Hobby Lobby employees has coverage for vasectomies ( a form of birth control) yet they will now deny certain birth control methods for women. Is this not discrimination ???
Secondly and more important is the fact that there are thousand of religous sects in America who own busineses. Some sects are major religous groups that oppose any medical intervention in any form. These are interventions such as vaccinations. blood transfusions, transplants, and surgeries. Does this decision now allow these religious owned businesses to now deny coverage for such medical procedures??
And thirdly, the "Decision" uses th term "sincerely religous" owners of specific businesses. Whe is to decide who meets this provision.
I can forsee a couple of owners suddenly becoming "saved" over night.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Please understand it is not all contraception that is being denied - that is a liberal lie being told to boost the "war on women" concept. The owners of Hobby Lobby believe life begins at conception; therefore, to take or use something that would cause that viable egg to be destroyed is against their religious beliefs. Why should these private owners have to pay for something they don't believe in? What about their rights to religious beliefs? They are not telling women how to live their lives - they still have the option to buy on the open market something that will terminate the pregnancy. And let's get down to personal responsibility - if you can't afford to get pregnant or pay for the morning after pill than use you brain and don't get in that position.

If you feel so strongly that your business should pay for this option for a woman than you should put your money and time and family life on the line and open a business next door and then those that want this coverage can come work for you. Stop already
with the whining and the "I'm entitled bs".

I take issue with you regarding your use of the "egg" and totally omitting the value of the sperm. Why is it that destroying the egg by a morning after pill can be ojectional but destroying the sperm with the same morning after pill is OK.

[44Ruger]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

I take issue with you regarding your use of the "egg" and totally omitting the value of the sperm. Why is it that destroying the egg by a morning after pill can be ojectional but destroying the sperm with the same morning after pill is OK.

How many eggs at ovation? Normally one or two.
How many sperm at ejaculation? 180 million.

Now who's more guilty of interfering with the birth of a child?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Bavarian

It is not a duty of a Corporation to provide Health Care. And it is only recently, say early '90s that Health Insurance morhed into prepaid Health care. Before that people paid their own way and the Health Insurance was for big, catastrophic cases.

A Corporation's job is not to provide Health Care or Health Insurance,or jobs, it's job is to make money for its owners. Employer provided Health Insurance started during the '30s as a way to attract better employees.

If one wants to kill her baby, they is no reason why that person can't get her own poison pills.

Comparing Viagra to abortion is "Nuts" as Dr. Ablow would say, only abortion stops a beating Heart. If one does not want the baby their are plenty of us who would have adopted it.

I have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra.

Sorry, but there is so much misinformation in that post that it should not be left unanswered. Start with the obvious that you have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra. You might start with Medicare and then check every other health insurance policy in America. I doubt you will find hardly any that do NOT cover drugs for ED.

In fact it is a duty for corporations to provide health care to their employees if those corporations are large enough to be covered by the ACA. And the corporation gets to take a huge tax deduction equal to the cost of those non-Cadillac plans so in fact the corporation is providing it at a very discounted rate. The law, affirmed by the court, sets minimum standards as to what that insurance must cover to be in compliance with the ACA requirement. A company is free to offer some less useful insurance if it chooses but the company pays a penalty for failing to provide adequate insurance. The insurance must cover preventive care, vaccinations, and all the components of care everyone would expect as being usual and customary.

So to say that the corporation exists in a vacuum with no social responsibility ignores decades of law. Corporations would make more money if we let them pollute, ignore safety and employee work conditions, exploit children, the list is endless. So corporations are interwoven into our society as much more than income generating tools. We give corporations special rights in exchange for their role.

The history of health insurance differs from your presentation. Coverage was driven by unions, yes unions, negotiating with large employers as a way to increase the benefits to workers without raising their earned income. If the employee got a raise then bought insurance the income was first taxed thus the insurance was bought with after tax dollars. Wages controls during WW2 limited the wage increases employers could offer but did not limit the health insurance benefits. If the corporation used before tax dollars the employee was ahead and the corporation got a tax deduction. So it could spend a dollar on salary or a dollar on insurance, a wash for the corporation. And health insurance has been paying for outpatient non catastrophic care for decades before the 90's.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by gomoho

And what about the owners of Hobby Lobby's choice to freedom of religion. You don't seem to have a problem denying them their right to practice as they choose.

Hobby Lobby is a For Profit Corporation. Their owners can practice religion whatever way they want as a private family but it was a bad decision to include a For Profit Corporation as an exclusion to part of the healthcare law.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Hobby Lobby is a For Profit Corporation. Their owners can practice religion whatever way they want as a private family but it was a bad decision to include a For Profit Corporation as an exclusion to part of the healthcare law.

A "for profit corp" with "numerous qualifers" and that meets the RFRA of 1992.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Here are a couple of the problems with the stupid Supreme Court decision..First, the insurance plan provided to Hobby Lobby employees has coverage for vasectomies ( a form of birth control) yet they will now deny certain birth control methods for women. Is this not discrimination ???
Secondly and more important is the fact that there are thousand of religous sects in America who own busineses. Some sects are major religous groups that oppose any medical intervention in any form. These are interventions such as vaccinations. blood transfusions, transplants, and surgeries. Does this decision now allow these religious owned businesses to now deny coverage for such medical procedures??
And thirdly, the "Decision" uses th term "sincerely religous" owners of specific businesses. Whe is to decide who meets this provision.
I can forsee a couple of owners suddenly becoming "saved" over night.

1. Vasectomies do not have the potential to cause abortions as do the 4 specific contraceptives sited by Hobby Lobby.
2. Re vaccinations, etc - the decision specifically states that is does not in any way deal with those issues.
3. I am confident the judicial system would have to deal with any allegation of "sincerely religious" AS WELL AS the other "numerous qualifiers" set forth in the decision.
What owners do you see "suddenly becoming "saved" over night." who meet the criteria set forth in the decision?

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

A "for profit corp" with "numerous qualifers" that meet the RFRA of 1992.

A bad decision is still a bad decision. Anyhow, let's just hope this does not morph into some For Profit Corporations getting exclusions on vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health care,or preventive healthcare.

I don't think those should be excluded. Are we in agreement?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by 44Ruger

Hummmm. I like way you talk paleface. It's not taking away the freedom from the owner of Hobby Lobby. It's allowing him to take away the rights of hundreds of women.

What rights?

[njbchbum]

[quote=44Ruger;902654]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Yes, why is this so. Hard to understand. I am center neutral on all issues. This one is slanted to far to the right of center for me. I lean right, but not when it comes to discrimination against women. I love my wife too much to tell her what she can or cannot do.

What discrimination?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by buggyone

A bad decision is still a bad decision. Anyhow, let's just hope this does not morph into some For Profit Corporations getting exclusions on vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health care,or preventive healthcare.

I don't think those should be excluded. Are we in agreement?

Buggyone - I do not see this as a bad decision. I see Justice Ginsberg as an alarmist reaching for straws because she has nothing solid upon which to base her fantasy assumptions. Has she NOT, at her age and status in life learned what happens when one assumes?

Again I refer to the exact words in the decision:
"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discriminationas a religious practice."

I count on the court to abide by those words. Of course, remembering some of the actions of the "Warren" Court can send shivers up and down my spine!

[perrjojo]

This is obviously a thread where some agree with the decision and some don't and never the twain will meet. That is why the decision was 5/4. Majority rules. I would imagine ( but do not know) that the 5/4 pretty much represents the USA population. Is this a great country or what?

[Justjac]

Originally Posted by jrandall

Good decision. Hobby a Lobby was againstpaying for 4 abortive contraception drugs.

I did a little research myself rather than rely on the news stations. While Hobby Lobby is against the four forms of birth control, I found it interesting that their 401K plan offered to their employees invests in a variety of birth control companies, including the four forms the store is against offering insurance.

... it's okay to invest in and profit from something you are religiously against using... Forgive me, God...but some days it just doesn't add up.

[Deseylou]

I'm going to be hated here, but I am in agreement with the SCOTUS
I'm not going to defend my point of view
I worked for Chick Fil A
You know what type of company it is when you choose to work there
You may work for a variety of reasons, but no one makes you stay
So,if having that type of coverage is important to you. ....LEAVE