• 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.

Judge rules private company owners cannot be forced to violate their religious belief

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Perhaps the government could step in and provide this coverage for a modest premium as they do with flood insurance. This would be a small price to pay in order to accomodate such an important and fundamental right as religious freedom.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Perhaps the government could step in and provide this coverage for a modest premium as they do with flood insurance. This would be a small price to pay in order to accomodate such an important and fundamental right as religious freedom.
Click to expand...

republicans woudldn't allow the .gov to do that.
 
Matt1970 said:
And that's just it. We are not talking about medication to address high blood pressure or to treat cancer and very very few people need it for any other reason that to not get a bun in the over from getting poked.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, go scroll up and read the things I posted and the links..
 
I don't mind non-profit, religious organizations having special dispensation to protect the views of their religion. I don't mind private businesses having the right to do the same if they make a claim with evidence supporting their beliefs and clearly outline any deviation from law in the contract of every employee.
Corporations are supposed to be separate entities, and therefore should not have any ability to claim religious standing.
 
Matt1970 said:
But he still got his data from NPR, not Republican Talking Points.
Click to expand...

He may have gotten a link from NPR, but he has bought into the talking points well before providing such link. He truly believes the talking points and or myths and misinformation that the republicans are spouting. Regardless of providing some link from NPR.

Which really he is just deflecting as you are on the very valid points, and facts I provided in my posts as well as in my links.
 
To me, the logical answer is to have contraceptives covered by insurance when needed for a medical condition (ie, the dr prescribes it to treat a particular condition). If someone wants it as a lifestyle choice, that's perfectly fine but they can pay for it themselves.

Those are two completely different scenarios. Medical insurance coverage should include the prescription drugs needed to treat medical conditions, but need not cover things that are not needed to treat a medical condition.

Simple fix, everyone happy.
 
PokerGuy said:
To me, the logical answer is to have contraceptives covered by insurance when needed for a medical condition (ie, the dr prescribes it to treat a particular condition). If someone wants it as a lifestyle choice, that's perfectly fine but they can pay for it themselves.

Those are two completely different scenarios. Medical insurance coverage should include the prescription drugs needed to treat medical conditions, but need not cover things that are not needed to treat a medical condition.

Simple fix, everyone happy.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

I would also add that it should have the same co-pay as other drugs under the plan.
 
So wait, the purpose of this is that it shouldn't be mandatory for insurance plans to cover birth control?

employees of private company owners should have the same quality of health care as employees of corporation or government workers.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Will premiums be sufficient to support the program without taxpayer assistance?
Click to expand...

(b) Premiums and Financing-
`(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option--
`(i) in a manner that complies with the premium rules under paragraph (3); and
`(ii) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--
`(I) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
`(II) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.
Click to expand...

loko
 
Oldgamer said:
Here’s one thing the controversy over health insurance and contraception has taught us: Conservative men need to learn a thing or two about reproductive health.
Click to expand...

Because that would require learning, and as shown by this thread, they simply can't understand new things that aren't filtered through Rush.
 
sactoking said:
Would it be acceptable for a Scientologist employer to bar employees from mental health coverage? Could that same employer refuse to pay for psychiatric pharmaceuticals on the insurance's formulary? Can a Mormon employer refuse to pay for alcohol-related treatment? Can a Mennonite employer drop tobacco-related coverage?
Click to expand...

No one is barring anyone from coverage. That employee is still free to purchase coverage on the open market.

And many employers cost out their coverage if you drink or smoke, hell even life insurance companies based their cost and coverage benefits on those.
 
BurnItDwn said:
So wait, the purpose of this is that it shouldn't be mandatory for insurance plans to cover birth control?

employees of private company owners should have the same quality of health care as employees of corporation or government workers.
Click to expand...

no they shouldn't. No everything is created equal nor should it be. If private company healthcare coverage was better than government, should we force them to "dumb" it down or should we expand an government employee's healthcare?
 
CPA said:
no they shouldn't. No everything is created equal nor should it be. If private company healthcare coverage was better than government, should we force them to "dumb" it down or should we expand an government employee's healthcare?
Click to expand...

We should be on a sort of single payer system, like the civilized world.
 
WHAMPOM said:
Should private company owners be allowed to violate their employees' religious beliefs? Suppose he feels the same about support of a religious order that protects their Pedo Priests?

Back to trolling again are ya?
Click to expand...

Oh willy whampon...you quoted a question and then "forgot" to answer it. Trolling you are, yes, trolling you are.
 
infoiltrator said:
Bible says judge not, lest you be judged.
Religious choices are personal, INSURANCE should not be controlled.
This places one mans religious belief in control of other people.
Judge is idiot.

If one believes no one should own guns, does this give a property owner the right to reject gun owners as employees or tenants?
Click to expand...

You have it backwards, the employee is still free to use contraceptives, just not purchased for them by the owner. You put who is forcing their beliefs onto who.

It gives the property owner the right to say you cannot bring a gun onto his property. I know, not what you wanted to hear, but the truth.
 
CitizenKain said:
Because that would require learning, and as shown by this thread, they simply can't understand new things that aren't filtered through Rush.
Click to expand...

Exactly..

Notice how not one of them will read the articles, or links, nor acknowledge the points and facts? Its called "living in a bubble". Facts just don't get in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top