[perrjojo]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

Let's leave Obamacare out of this conversation.

Companies don't offer health "care."
Most of them provide health insurance only.
Big difference.

So you think it's okay for a man to receive insurance
that pays for his Viagra,
but it's not okay for a woman to choose a type of birth control,
even if it's recommended by her physician,
and be covered by insurance for that???

Interesting .

I am a career woman who began her career in the early 60s. It was really rough for women to get ahead then..virtually impossible. Bonanza, I have learned that anger gets you nowhere. Work and be proactive towards to end you hope to achieve.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Bonanza - I guess you forgot the headlines like these:
UPS to drop 15,000 workers' spouses from insurance, blames Obamacare - Aug. 21, 2013 .

and here is the important line from your link:

In an undated memo to employees, UPS (UPS) said it will discontinue coverage for all working spouses who are eligible for insurance with their own employer


This stops the practice of a spouse having double coverage via their own and their spouse's employer both being available. If the spouse is either not employed or not eligible for employer based health insurance then spousal coverage is provided by UPS Thus no one is loosing coverage. No one.

and

Originally Posted by njbchbum

UPS, UVA Drop Health Care Coverage for Spouses of Employees - California Healthline .

and from that one:

, both will stop providing health care coverage to employees' spouses who can obtain insurance through their own employer

and

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Target to Drop Health Insurance for Part-Time Workers - Bloomberg .

and from the Bloomberg article a very careful explanation that fewer than 10% of its part time workers signed up for Target health plans and that was significant as under the ACA if you are eligible (not if you are covered) for an employer plan you cannot get the subsidy that is used for lessening the cost of insurance via the exchange. So the whole story is that many millions of Americans who were uninsured now have health insurance because of the ACA. Some lost double coverage. Overall that sounds like a great big win for America

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

I don't know it all and don't know everything. I can be enlightened in many areas. However, I DO know about the Hobby Lobby fiasco. I don't need to read your PDF to know what the decision is. I do know about IUDs and contraception. So please don't demean yourself by saying I don't.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. But what (also) doesn't sit well with me is that the ruling won because 5 Supreme Court MEN agreed with Hobby Lobby. These 5 Supreme Court MEN also happen to be CATHOLIC. Hmmmmm . . . Interesting, no???

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the ruling is solely based on opinion. The decision was not unanimous; they did not all agree. So it's the Catholic men who made the decision. I guess you don't see anything wrong with that picture.

I will say again and always will: Too many things hapening in this world are against women. It needs to stop!

LOL, Bonanza! This post just emphasizes the fact that you really do need to read the decision! Justice Alito did write the decision - based on law and not on personal opinion.

Will not converse with you further on this topic for fear of raising your blood pressure and because the talking heads have already filled your head with their talking points. Ciao.

[njbchbum]

blueash - Yes, those are important points. Not having the spouse's coverage as secondary coverage therefore places a greater stress on the spouse for having to pay more money out-of pocket for medical expenses. And that reduces their disposable income for other things that families need. Not a big win for them, eh? How many practitioners accept ONLY the amount that an insurance plan pays and does not bill the patient for the remainder of their customary costs.

And then there is the fact that more Americans have health insurance under obamacare because of the expansion of medicaid, or they were forced off their employer's coverage and had to subscribe to an exchange plan [some of the latter group paying higher deductibles and copays]. Or, as a part of the 'whole story' re coverage, they did obtain coverage because of the benefit of a subsidy.

Now go and do that internet search and read more of the

[CraigC]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

Let's leave Obamacare out of this conversation.

Companies don't offer health "care."
Most of them provide health insurance only.
Big difference.

So you think it's okay for a man to receive insurance
that pays for his Viagra,
but it's not okay for a woman to choose a type of birth control,
even if it's recommended by her physician,
and be covered by insurance for that???

Interesting .

I don't know where you keep coming up with the statement that it's OK for a man to receive insurance that pays for his Viagra. It you are talking about Medicare or ACA, that is ABSOLUTELY false. Medicare specifically excludes all drugs for erectile dysfunction, and the ACA does not mandate coverage for ED. My bet is that drug coverage for ED medications is either rare or non-existent under any insurance policies and certainly not government mandated like ACA mandated birth control.

hwww.planprescriber.com/medicare-part-d/viagra/

Does Medicare Cover Viagra Cialis? - 2014 Insurance Library

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by perrjojo

I am a career woman who began her career in the early 60s. It was really rough for women to get ahead then..virtually impossible. Bonanza, I have learned that anger gets you nowhere. Work and be proactive towards to end you hope to achieve.

You are so right. Perhaps anger isns't the right word but frustration certainly is. Although it certainly is better for women today than it was in the 60s, in looking at the total picture, women are still taking two steps forward and one step back (at best).

If I was (much) younger I would be in Washington lobbying for women's rights in one way or another. But since I am old and poor I will just have to settle with speaking my mind and writing to my congressmen.

Thanks for your kind and correct words. There are others on this site who could also learn something from you. If they read this, they will know who they are.

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by CraigC

I don't know where you keep coming up with the statement that it's OK for a man to receive insurance that pays for his Viagra. It you are talking about Medicare or ACA, that is ABSOLUTELY false. Medicare specifically excludes all drugs for erectile dysfunction, and the ACA does not mandate coverage for ED. My bet is that drug coverage for ED medications is either rare or non-existent under any insurance policies and certainly not government mandated like ACA mandated birth control.

hwww.planprescriber.com/medicare-part-d/viagra/

Does Medicare Cover Viagra Cialis? - 2014 Insurance Library

No, I am not speaking about Medicare. I never mentioned Medicare.

I am speaking about insurance provided to employees under their company's insurance plan. If you had read more, you would know that Hobby Lobby is providing coverage for Viagra, Cialis, etc., to their employees -- male, of course!

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

LOL, Bonanza! This post just emphasizes the fact that you really do need to read the decision! Justice Alito did write the decision - based on law and not on personal opinion.

Will not converse with you further on this topic for fear of raising your blood pressure and because the talking heads have already filled your head with their talking points. Ciao.

It isn't necessary for you to converse more with me about the Supreme Court's decision. It also doesn't matter who "wrote" the decision.

Any ruling made by a member of the Supreme Court is how that person interprets the law. THAT creates their opinion. Have you noticed that not everyone votes the same way? Well, that is their opinion on how they interpret the law.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, what matters is who voted and how they voted. You really don't think the only votes that supported Hobby Lobby, were made by 5 Catholic men and that didn't have something to do with their decision???

[CraigC]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

No, I am not speaking about Medicare. I never mentioned Medicare.

I am speaking about insurance provided to employees under their company's insurance plan. If you had read more, you would know that Hobby Lobby is providing coverage for Viagra, Cialis, etc., to their employees -- male, of course!

Since this thread was about the Supreme Court's ruling I assumed you were talking about government mandated birth control and ED medications. I'm not sure that Hobby Lobby's religious views exclude sex, so I don't see your statement as particularly relevant to this thread. What Hobby Lobby chooses to insure beyond the government mandate is their business.

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by CraigC

Since this thread was about the Supreme Court's ruling I assumed you were talking about government mandated birth control and ED medications. I'm not sure that Hobby Lobby's religious views exclude sex, so I don't see your statement as particularly relevant to this thread. What Hobby Lobby chooses to insure beyond the government mandate is their business.

Spoken like a true man!

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

Spoken like a true man!

If that's the best you can do, I think this thread has about run its course.

How the justices reached their opinion has been fully documented, quoting the law.

Resentment toward the winners is just whining.

.

[CraigC]

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.

Originally Posted by Bonanza

Spoken like a true man!

And very proud to be one! I was BlueAsh's post (#65) that said that Medicare covered Viagra. I confused it with your similar statement. I noticed that you didn't bother to correct BlueAsh, but I understand - you had so many of your own misstatements to correct.

[nitakk]

Bonanza, bravo! I have always been offended that a man has any say in what I do with my body, including abortion. It is my decision, not a corporation's or even the Supreme Court. My generation fought too hard for the rights my daughter and granddaughter enjoy to let us slide back. This has all come about because of the members of the Supreme Court and women would be wise to consider this in presidential elections. In my opinion, men should have absolutely no say in my reproductive rights. It is ironic that conservatives are forever talking about individual rights but hide behind religion like a shield.

[biker1]

People continue to confuse the Supreme Court ruling with woman's rights. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court only said that Hobby Lobby is not required to provide 4 (out of 20) forms of birth control that are considered to be abortions. Employees of Hobby Lobby are free to use those 4 forms of birth control. Nobody has said anything about or restricted your reproductive rights. Lets get a grip on the facts. The fact that someone doesn't want to pay for something is far different than not being allowed to do something. Got it? You can take abortion-causing drugs. I am sorry if you feel so entitled that other people must pay for aspects of your life, such as abortions. I personally am offended that my tax dollars are used (via subsides to Obamacare) to pay for contraception and abortions. People should pay for their own recreational activities. And while we are on the subject, please don't equate ED drugs with abortion-causing drugs. ED is a disease that is treatable. Pregnancy is not a disease.

Originally Posted by nitakk

Bonanza, bravo! I have always been offended that a man has any say in what I do with my body, including abortion. It is my decision, not a corporation's or even the Supreme Court. My generation fought too hard for the rights my daughter and granddaughter enjoy to let us slide back. This has all come about because of the members of the Supreme Court and women would be wise to consider this in presidential elections. In my opinion, men should have absolutely no say in my reproductive rights. It is ironic that conservatives are forever talking about individual rights but hide behind religion like a shield.

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by biker1

People continue to confuse the Supreme Court ruling with woman's rights. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court only said that Hobby Lobby is not required to provide 4 (out of 20) forms of birth control that are considered to be abortions. Employees of Hobby Lobby are free to use those 4 forms of birth control. Nobody has said anything about or restricted your reproductive rights. Lets get a grip on the facts. The fact that someone doesn't want to pay for something is far different than not being allowed to do something. Got it? You can take abortion-causing drugs. I am sorry if you feel so entitled that other people must pay for aspects of your life, such as abortions. I personally am offended that my tax dollars are used (via subsides to Obamacare) to pay for contraception and abortions. People should pay for their own recreational activities. And while we are on the subject, please don't equate ED drugs with abortion-causing drugs. ED is a disease that is treatable. Pregnancy is not a disease.

People should pay for their own recreational activities. If they have ED and can't participate in their recreational activities, they should pay for their own treatment. In fact, ED would aid in birth control and reduce the cost of health care for terminating the pregnancy or carrying it to term.

NOT!