 |
No, they need $9.00 to buy their own. They don't have to work there, if they don't like the benefits they can work elsewhere... it's a free country. Well, hopefully it stays that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
My wife's insurance won't pay for Prilosec, are they waging a war on her?
This whole argument on birth control is ridiculous. It was a campaign morsel for Obama to pretend like he cares more about women but it's a joke. Birth control is dirt cheap. Any idiot who can scrape together coins from the couch cushions can buy condoms, and the pill is about $5 a month. People have unplanned pregnancies because they didn't plan. To get birth control, they would have to find a doctor, schedule the appointment and actually go there, then ask for the prescription, do whatever tests are required first, go to the pharmacy and get it filled. People who don't even havec the self control to stop at the gas station for a condom, or to fish a few quarters out of their pocket at the bar and buy one from the vending machine, are not likely to be responsible enough to get birth control.
I've worked with many women who were dealing with unplanned pregnancy, and NONE of them have EVER cited that the reason was that they couldn't afford birth control. The reasons were, rather: "1. We wanted a baby but my boyfriend changed his mind and I can't do this alone; 2. It just happened and we figured it wouldn't happen the first time; 3. We were drinking shots and....; 4. I don't know - I guess I wasn't thinking."
If people can afford to buy a can of pop from a vending machine, they can afford birth control. If they can't afford it they can still get it from many non-profits. Several AIDS organizations and even some high schools give condoms away for free. Planned parenthood and other community clinics provide birth control to low income people too.
There is NO NEED and NO VALUE to providing free birth control. Really - we need to now pay people's sex-related expenses as a nation?
If we really want to show care for women why don't we give women free cardiac screanings and cover their lipitor and other blood pressure, cholestrol medications. Cardiac disease is the biggest cause of death among women.
The real value of free birth control is less abortions. That's the goal.
No, it was about cost as your hero Sandra Fluke said.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You just move the goalpost as needed to justify your position. If it wasn't about cost there would be no need to offer it free.Quote:
"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
The goal post hasn't moved you just can't see how far off it is or the obstacles like costs that stand in the way since you need insurance to get that $5/$9 buck birth control. That doesn't include the doctor visit required for a prescription.
All things you righties take for granted. My insurance doesn't cover any drug that has an over the counter substitute for less money. The first thing they ask for at a pharmacy for filling any perscription is your insurance card or else you pay full price.
Hello don't:
If that was the issue, I'd agree with you... But, it's not. It's how the right wing is SPINNING it.. It's what they'd LIKE you to believe. But it's NOT the truth. Nobody is asking for FREE birth control - not Sandra Fluke, and not ANYBODY.Quote:
There is NO NEED and NO VALUE to providing free birth control. Really - we need to now pay people's sex-related expenses as a nation?
There ARE women, however, who work for the Catholic church who are demanding that THEIR health be covered by their health insurance just like the MENS health care is. We DO have equal rights in this country... The church can't discriminate, but it is.
excon
Yes all that discretional expenditure should uninsurable, it would reduce the costs considerably, just consider, no cosmetic surgery, no abortions, no contraceptives, no snip, no nip and tuck, just insure for accidents and serious illness.
Then there was no reason to make it free which is what I've said all along, the mandate was a cure in search of a disease. Thanks for finally validating that for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Bingo ! That's why insurance costs went out of control in the 1st place... mandated coverage.Quote:
Yes all that discretional expenditure should uninsurable, it would reduce the costs considerably, just consider, no cosmetic surgery, no abortions, no contraceptives, no snip, no nip and tuck, just insure for accidents and serious illness.
Well now we have analysed the problem to death, you can implement the solution
Hello again,
Wow, another federal appeals court decision. This one isn't so good for the right wingers.
ExconQuote:
By Steve Olafson
Hobby Lobby Must Cover Emergency Contraceptives For Employees: Federal Appeals Court rules.
OKLAHOMA CITY, Dec 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday rejected a claim by an arts and crafts chain that wants to be exempted from a requirement to provide emergency contraceptives to employees because it violates the religious principles of its owners.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against family-owned Hobby Lobby's assertion that the religious beliefs of its owners should relieve them from providing the "morning after" and "week after" pills to their employees, as required under President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms.
Like you said, they can appeal higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The case that will reach SCOTUS will be Notre Dame v Sebillius
http://opac.nd.edu/assets/69013/hhs_complaint.pdf
Go Fighting Irish!!
Here is another shot in the war on women
Mood swings on PMS: is it all a myth?
So guys what have we been putting up with then?
While the media is fixated on Hobby Lobby's courageous battle they are ignoring all the court challenges to Obamacare .
Atty: Hobby Lobby won't offer morning-after pill :: WRAL.comQuote:
Hobby Lobby and religious book-seller Mardel Inc. which are owned by the same conservative Christian family, are suing to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.
The companies claim the mandate violates the religious beliefs of their owners. They say the morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman's womb.
On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the companies' request for an injunction while their lawsuit is pending, saying the stores failed to satisfy the demanding legal standard for blocking the requirement on an emergency basis. She said the companies may still challenge the regulations in the lower courts.
Kyle Duncan, who is representing Hobby Lobby on behalf of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement posted on the group's website Thursday that Hobby Lobby doesn't intend to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
"The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees," Duncan said. "To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs."
The Obots have been arguing that the plaintiffs in various challenges have no standing to sue because they have not yet been injured by the contraception rule.But not surprising ;the judges in many of the lower courts are not buying that reasoning.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) arguing on behalf of a plaintiff properly noted that.. “By January 1, 2013, at the latest, Paul and Henry Griesedieck face a stark and unavoidable choice: abandon their beliefs in order to stay in business, or abandon their businesses in order to stay true to their beliefs.”
The district court agreed .
Griesedieck v SebeliusQuote:
Plaintiffs must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.”
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).
Here, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that, on January 1, 2013, they will be forced to either: provide their employees with health insurance policies that include the contraceptive services required by the ACA, which is against their religious beliefs, or incur fines for not complying with the requirements of the ACA. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately established that they will suffer imminent irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Accordingly, this factor favors the Court's entry of injunctive relief.
4 of 5 of the rulings handed down in federal hearings this month have agreed . But all the media tells us about is the Sotomayor ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.
Hello tom:
As you know, I'm a "job creator". I'm also a vegan. I'm EVEN religious about it. A LOT of the illness my employees suffer from is from eating meat... IF I stopped covering THOSE illness's, I'd save a lot of money, AND I'd be TRUE to my beliefs.
Would that be OK with you?
excon
What kind of religion thinks its okay to discriminate against women in the workplace? You guys don't want to let unions collect dues, or woman to get contraceptions. I thought religion was voluntary, and personal? I guess I was wrong.
No I ain't. Its wrong for YOU to make following your beliefs a term of employment! Will you ban rubbers too!
As far as I'm concerned you can cover whatever you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Still with this old canard? It isn't discrimination, until Obamacare it was called freedom. You guys scream about choice 'til you turn blue in the face but you don't want anyone else to have a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Do you really not see the irony of arguing for the right to choose in one breath while arguing against it the next?Quote:
You guys don't want to let unions collect dues or woman to get contraceptions. I thought religion was voluntary, and personal? I guess I was wrong.
Oh the drama...Quote:
No I ain't. Its wrong for YOU to make following your beliefs a term of employment! Will you ban rubbers too!
Hello again, Steve:
Whewee. I was worried...Quote:
As far as I'm concerned you can cover whatever you want.
What if I HATE Texans, and don't want to cover them, or anybody who's married to one? What if I don't like women, and eliminated coverage for them entirely?
Would that be cool with you?
Excon
Then you'd probably have problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
So, WHERE do you draw the line? Is hate OK? In this great country of ours, I'm CERTAINLY allowed to HATE, aren't I? That's in the First Amendment too, isn't it?Quote:
Then you'd probably have problems.
Why is it wrong for me to exercise my Constitutional right to HATE?
Excon
I said feel free to cover "whatever" you want, not "whoever." If "whoever" doesn't like your benefits they are free to go elsewhere for "whatever" they're looking for.
Hello again, Steve:
To be clear, I'm FREE to do it, as long as my employees are FREE to seek work elsewhere. That's your position?
excon
What part of the difference between "whatever" and "whoever" do you not get?
Whatever happened to the right to work? Oh that's right, it's a misleading spin you guys use like renaming the greedy rich guys job creators. When are you going to learn that telling people to do as you say ain't going to work?
Discriminating against the majority ain't going to work either. Denying the unique needs of half the population won't work either. I know, you believe YOU have that right, but you don't, yet still you fight your WAR and call it practicing YOUR religion.
We will see how that works out.
So you hate the first and second amendments, we get that. When will you get the irony of taking opposing positions in the same breath?
I have heard that straw argument before, but there are more than just two amendments in the Constitution last I looked.
None of them negating the first two.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
But subject to and regulated by the federal laws. The federal government can and should define the boundaries of limitations of the right afforded us by the Constitution, or you would have a right to own a 50 caliber machine gun,or holler fire in a crowded theater where there was none.
What you thought you had unlimited rights? Don't be silly. Army guns and ammo was banned before, and will be again.
That is an amazing position to take. The government decides how much of your rights you are allowed to exercise.Quote:
The federal government can and should define the boundaries of limitations of the right afforded us by the Constitution
Ex ,Speech is correct in his position on coverage. However ,I'd take it further and say that a vegan diet coverage is one thing ;and a pill that aborts is quite another. Do you have the right to not hire someone contingent on a medical exam ? Can you refuse to hire someone who smokes tobacco ? In some states the answer is yes.
The government had already limited the right of the people when they said all are created equal except slaves, women, and indians, and white guy with no property. That changed over time and a war, and a bunch of protesting.
So past rights violations justify violating my specifically enumerated rights today?
Looks like it's the pizza people that are carrying the fight. First it was Papa John's... and now Domino's .
Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Time to enlist Herman Caine to lead the charge.
Nope not O.K.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You have to eat to live. So your choice of religion leads you down a different path is all up to you. Contraception is a choice just like what it was to get to that point.
Nope not allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There are laws that designate certain speech as hate speech that is not covered by the Constitution. Also there are crimes in a separate category that carry an extra penalty for hate crimes. I wish there weren't so it truly was as you say. That way we could identify those that are true haters from those that are not rather then stirring an underground swell resentment.
Hello, again:
I see that you don't like my religion... What if I was a HEALTH nut "job creator"? Eating McDonalds is a choice, isn't it? From MY perspective, and from MY wallets perspective, it's a BAD choice.
Why should I be REQUIRED to cover those people?
Look. I KNOW what you're going to say. If it's RELIGIOUS, you can discriminate... But, if you have similar deeply held beliefs, they don't count. I certainly don't know why.
What about smoking? What about drinking? What about texting while driving? ALL of those activities EFFECT my bottom line. Why shouldn't I have the right to REFUSE to cover people who DO that?
excon
If YOUR religion allows you to discriminate against any group of people from getting what is lawfully allowed that's just plain wrong. But the fix is a simple one, we have universa lhealth care and not employer based health care.
So instead of benefits, employers can pay MONEY to the workers and we take care of our own business. It will be interesting to see how the church competes with the rest of the market place for skills and services of workers they need.
The only way the church gets away with this discrimination in the first place is a tight job market.
Universal care will never happen here. When the people see the disaster your side has inflicted on us with Obamacare ,then it too will be universally rejected . You think I would have less objection because my tax money pays for something I think is immoral ?
Hello again, tom:
Nahhhh... It's ONLY your side who's saying that. But, you've ALWAYS said it, so what's new?
What's REALLY going to happen is that people will FINALLY see that our health care costs are OUT of control, and the ONLY way to stop them, is to STOP them. Then the amount we save can be spent on AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.
Doesn't THAT moral good, outweigh the moral bad you see in universal health care?
These are REAL dollars we're talking about here, unless you don't believe we'll be able to do it, or you don't believe Romney, and the WORLDS, numbers.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:37 PM. |