• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hobby Lobby vs obamacare

I can see their point actually. The reason is they aren't fighting the birth control portion but just the morning after pill coverage.

IMO health insurance should never cover the morning after pill as that is a not medically necessary medication and people should buy it themselves anyways... it's like $30? And worst case, someone can't afford it and they can probably get it free at a local women's clinic.
 
Hobby lobby is same as chick a flick. Religious right wing extremist putting personal religious beliefs before employee rights.
Nuff said.
Besides. They sell high priced junk.
 
sportage said:
Hobby lobby is same as chick a flick. Religious right wing extremist putting personal religious beliefs before employee rights.
Nuff said.
Besides. They sell high priced junk.
Click to expand...

You mean the right to fuck and get paid for it? That doesnt seem like a necessity for life to me, why would it be the employers problem to pay you to have sex?
 
Seeing as their freedom of religion is a Constitutional amendment, and Obamacare is not, it should be a clear cut win for them, IMHO.

Personal rights > medical care law.
 
sportage said:
Hobby lobby is same as chick a flick. Religious right wing extremist putting personal religious beliefs before employee rights.
Nuff said.
Besides. They sell high priced junk.
Click to expand...

There's a "right" to have other people pay your medical expenses?
 
Eh, Hobby Lobby is just blowing hot air IMO. The morning after pill is not an abortifactant, so that assertion is wrong. Additionally, while the employer is required to provide contraceptive care with no cost sharing (deductible, company, coinsurance) a premium is NOT considered cost sharing. Thus means that the employer can pass the actuarially equivalent portion of the premium attributable to the contraception along to the employee and the employers beliefs would not be violated.
 
Plan B is only an abortion method if taken after implantation, if I understand it correctly. RU486 was a full on abortion pill. Is RU486 legal in the US?

As a funny aside, during the RU486 anger days, the local radio station where I lived made an anti-RU486 commercial for a new birth control method caused RU469...one of the women in the commercial said something like "I refuse to take RU486, but RU469 - now that is something I can swallow." 🙂
 
sactoking said:
Eh, Hobby Lobby is just blowing hot air IMO. The morning after pill is not an abortifactant, so that assertion is wrong. Additionally, while the employer is required to provide contraceptive care with no cost sharing (deductible, company, coinsurance) a premium is NOT considered cost sharing. Thus means that the employer can pass the actuarially equivalent portion of the premium attributable to the contraception along to the employee and the employers beliefs would not be violated.
Click to expand...

So its not cost sharing so long as you can pass part of the cost along to men who are not screwing the woman get the morning after pill. Glad we cleared that up.

Smoblikat said:
You mean the right to fuck and get paid for it?] That doesnt seem like a necessity for life to me, why would it be the employers problem to pay you to have sex?
Click to expand...

Actually in most locales that is illegal. I guess unless Obama does the pimping?
 
People get this all twisted. If its against your religion to use contraception or birth control.... well don't take it, preach about not taking it and expect your members to not take it. Understanding the first amendment means that these Catholics need to learn that not every religion follows their medieval ways, so if birth control is covered, it doesn't mean they have to use it.
 
nehalem256 said:
So its not cost sharing so long as you can pass part of the cost along to men who are not screwing the woman get the morning after pill. Glad we cleared that up.



Actually in most locales that is illegal. I guess unless Obama does the pimping?
Click to expand...

From what it seems he wants the taxpayers to do the pimping, we just dont get any benefits from it.
 
IBMer said:
People get this all twisted. If its against your religion to use contraception or birth control.... well don't take it, preach about not taking it and expect your members to not take it. Understanding the first amendment means that these Catholics need to learn that not every religion follows their medieval ways, so if birth control is covered, it doesn't mean they have to use it.
Click to expand...

Great post. Except that it completely misses the point here. No one is forcing anyone to take anything and hence this is not what the argument is about. The new healthcare law is forcing the company to provide for something that is against their religious beliefs. This is what the issue is about. Did you actually read the OP/story?

The point is that they don't think birth control should be covered, not whether you should take it or not if it is. Keep up.
 
Smoblikat said:
From what it seems he wants the taxpayers to do the pimping, we just dont get any benefits from it.
Click to expand...

But it is much more fun to think of Obama as the Pimp-in-chief.

Give him a pimp hat, cane, and caddy and I think he could pull it off 😀

And I think the taxpayers are the Johns.
 
marvdmartian said:
Seeing as their freedom of religion is a Constitutional amendment, and Obamacare is not, it should be a clear cut win for them, IMHO.

Personal rights > medical care law.
Click to expand...

Freedom of religion goes both ways. Hobby Lobby owners are free to believe what they believe, their employees should be too. Hobby Lobby employees shouldn't be penalized for the owners religious beliefs.
 
xBiffx said:
Great post. Except that it completely misses the point here. No one is forcing anyone to take anything and hence this is not what the argument is about. The new healthcare law is forcing the company to provide for something that is against their religious beliefs. This is what the issue is about. Did you actually read the OP/story?

The point is that they don't think birth control should be covered, not whether you should take it or not if it is. Keep up.
Click to expand...

No, providing isn't against their beliefs, taking or using it is. And if you want to really get down to it, this is probably the least worry some of things their money can contribute to in the eyes of their god.
 
Insurance is supposed to be for large, unpredictable expenses that you would not be able to pay for otherwise such as getting cancer or being hit by a bus. Plan B costs what, $40 for a dose nowadays? Pay for it out of pocket. I have no moral objections to it but forcing health insurance to pay for every little thing is idiotic.
 
IBMer said:
No, providing isn't against their beliefs, taking or using it is. And if you want to really get down to it, this is probably the least worry some of things their money can contribute to in the eyes of their god.
Click to expand...

That is like arguing that there is a moral difference in hiring a hitman for yourself verse paying for someone elses? 😀
 
ichy said:
Insurance is supposed to be for large, unpredictable expenses that you would not be able to pay for otherwise such as getting cancer or being hit by a bus. Plan B costs what, $40 for a dose nowadays? Pay for it out of pocket. I have no moral objections to it but forcing health insurance to pay for every little thing is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Insurance is not just for unpredictable expenses. I do agree folks should cover their own plan B
 
IBMer said:
No, providing isn't against their beliefs, taking or using it is. And if you want to really get down to it, this is probably the least worry some of things their money can contribute to in the eyes of their god.
Click to expand...

LOL @ you trying to explain their relationship with God. Also, your comment is devoid of common sense. It's not okay for them but why wouldn't be ok for them to be forced to let other do it? They should be able to make that choice if they want to provide for something even if their use of that thing is against their beliefs. This decision shouldn't be forced, that is the point.
 
Why are we supposed to respect someone's made up beliefs about X, Y, or Z?

Someone feels contraceptives are wrong because of what someone wrote in a tent in the desert 2,000 years ago. Good for them. That has no bearing on how our laws should be written or adhered to.
 
child of wonder said:
Why are we supposed to respect someone's made up beliefs about X, Y, or Z?

Someone feels contraceptives are wrong because of what someone wrote in a tent in the desert 2,000 years ago. Good for them. That has no bearing on how our laws should be written or adhered to.
Click to expand...

The first amendment says so? Whether you think they are made up or not is irrelevant. Whether you think these people are crazy is irrelevant. One of the basic principles of this country has been the freedom of people have/practice their religious beliefs. Don't like it, amend it out, get out, or accept it and move on.

This has every bearing on how our laws should be written or adhered to. Here I will make it easy for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
fleshconsumed said:
Freedom of religion goes both ways. Hobby Lobby owners are free to believe what they believe, their employees should be too. Hobby Lobby employees shouldn't be penalized for the owners religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Freedom of religion is a right and a protection under the constitution. Health care and being provided medication is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top