i don't understand the position that the govt decides the provisions of what constitutes "health care"...and how they decided abortion pills and birth control are mandatory for a person's "health"...
|
|
i don't understand the position that the govt decides the provisions of what constitutes "health care"...and how they decided abortion pills and birth control are mandatory for a person's "health"...
3 users like 87sooner's post: OU Sam, oucub23, SoonerBounce
Agree.Originally Posted by 87sooner
No business in America can stop its employees from seeking whatever healthcare options they wish. Stop the ridiculous fear-mongering.
Can their employees refuse coverage and seek benefits in the exchange?
Why not? They aren't the government. As long as their religious beliefs don't supercede a person's constitutional rights. If religious rights aren't protected then the government should force my local deli to carry pork and should force Hobby Lobby and Chik-a-filet to open on Sundays.
Really?
Should businesses be able to ignore other legislation as well that isn't in the constitution? Refuse to hire ****s, blacks, disabled, pay them pennies, ignore overtime regulations, refuse contributions to unemployment insurance?
I don't think you've thought out your position very well.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
Not sure if the Constitutionality of minimium wage legislation has been tested in courts; however discrimination has.
Spanky beat me to it. My religion does not like **** people so I only hire straight people. My religion doesn't think women should work so I only hire men. My religion does not like black people, so I only hire white people.
Your position of religious protection is weak.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
As has the healthcare bill...but I digress.
The constitutionality of all aspects will continue to be challenged until all options are exhausted. I'm not sure the 4 or 5 times the morning after pill might be paid for by Hobby Lobby is worth the fight.
They won't be paying for it either way.
You're being silly.
What's good for the goose...
The thing is Plan B's intended use is contraception...period. Just because it may cause an un intended abortion is not legal grounds to not offer it. Pretty sure you can still buy hanger wire at Hobby Lobby...even though it could cause an abortion.
Terrible analogy. Baseball bats can cause abortions too--that's not their intended purpose though. And you are making several statements as facts that are clearly opinion.
From the manufacturer:
Not opinion.Plan B® (Levonorgestrel) Tablets, 0.75 mg Rx only for women age 17 and younger
For women age 17 and younger, Plan B is a prescription–only emergency contraceptive. Plan B® is intended to prevent pregnancy after known or suspected contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Emergency contraceptive pills (like all oral contraceptives) do not protect against infection with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and other ****ually transmitted diseases.
DESCRIPTION
Emergency contraceptive tablet. Each Plan B® tablet contains 0.75 mg of a single active steroid ingredient, levonorgestrel [18,19-Dinorpregn-4-en-20-yn-3-one-13-ethyl-17-hydroxy-, (17α)- (-)-], a totally synthetic progestogen. The inactive ingredients present are colloidal silicon dioxide, potato starch, gelatin, magnesium stearate, talc, corn starch, and lactose monohydrate. Levonorgestrel has a molecular weight of 312.45, and the following structural and molecular formulas:
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Emergency contraceptives are not effective if the woman is already pregnant. Plan B® is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.
Not at all.
Your opinion was that it's not legal grounds. We'll find that out in the coming months I ****ume.
If it is legal grounds, then the coat hanger analogy carries water. Plan B was not created for, was not tested as, and is not legally allowed to be prescribed as an abortant.
Regardless of the legal grounds, the coat hanger analogy was poor.
I disagree. Both are thought to be used in abortions, and neither was created for that purpose.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
How so? BBS said that religious rights of the "corporation" must be protected. There are plenty of religious people who don't like women in the work place or women at all. Are their religious right being violated when they are told that **** is protected with regards to hiring?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Equality is foundational to the country. Birth control is not. You're making the very slippery slope argument you scoff at others for--and the slope isn't even remotely likely in your example.
The following users like this post: brokebacksooner
i freakin hate walking into a hobby lobby b/c of the clutter,etc but I hope they continue to fight this and that people show up in support.
it's just my opinion that the owners of a company should be able to decide if they want to cover healthcare products that aren't necessary for health. I don't few contraceptives or abortion pills as a necessity. it's a luxury. it's not like HL is not wanting to cover diabetes medicine or something like that
His argument was the government should protect religion. Well, my religion says women belong at home and not in the work place. Who wins?
There is a clear distinction between religious based institutions (which do not have to provide contraceptives) and a corporation run by a guy who happens to go to church.
To top it off, plan b is not an abortion pill. So Hobby Lobby can suck it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Not saying Hobby Lobby shouldn't fight for what they believe in.
I do find it interesting at the selective lines the "Extremely Faithful" draw, and their justifications for such.
They aren't covering them...the plan is.
It seems you have very little understanding of the situation. It's ok. Let me explain it to you:
Basically every company in the United States that offers health insurance does so as a third party (the exception largely being certain government employees, and direct employees of health companies) the rest of them, like Hobby Lobby, pay a fee to an outside company to provide this service. Hobby lobby, in no way, is religiously on the hook for any hysterectomies, or people whose ailing deepen dents die while in the hospital from Morphine ****isted respiratory depression while ending a life of cancer.
Does Hobby Lobby have a right to maintain a business without running water because the suppliers of it use fluoride in the treatment process? No. They are bound, BY LAW, to provide a proper restroom for their employees, even if they have a religious problem with fluoride or toilets, they simply are not allowed to press their employees into fitting their own mold.
The straw is great with this one....
I ****ume that HL is like most companies where they choose the plans and pay a percentage of the premiums. Hence, they don't want to pay for something that goes against their beliefs. it's simple really
Are they then paying for tubal ligations, or ****isted deaths already? Most companies do not personally cater their plans either, most of them go through a broker that will present them with some plans to choose from.
Thankfully, we are probably to a point where there will be no drug benefit that omits such coverage, making the point moot.
This was a cost issue and not a health issue...
My problem is with trying to supply everything in the healthcare plan...it should be a basic plan to cover catastrophic issues...to keep from being bankrupted due to injury or illness and the ****ociated healthcare costs...
I am not sure if I understand this point, expound on this will ya?
This is true 1000%
Hobby Lobby only went with the religious angle because they thought it would carry weight with the courts. The reality is they didn't want to pay for the plan regardless of what it covers. Believe me, if the Plan B pill had been excluded from the formulary, HL would not hav been hunky dory with the legislation.
Here's a solution, HL can get a plan that doesn't cover the pill if they add pay a penalty for that stance, and the Feds can make it available to such employees free of charge. Then HL can have a clean conscience.
If the employee has right of refusal of the plan due to the restriction and the freedom to move to the govt exchange (resulting in a penalty to the employer I believe) then I have no problem with employers being able to tailor their plans.
The following users like this post: URNotserious
Preventative care is a major consideration in keeping people from needing to use the most expensive treatments, thereby keeping the overall amount needing to be spent healthcare down.
In some cases, possibly many, preventative actually cost more...there are a lot of studies showing that not all preventative care actually saves money....
I know this sounds gruesome but if we fail to pick up on someone with early stage, curable cancer, they will live longer and will in the long run cost even more money....instead of dying they live long enough to develop Alzheimer disease...
http://healthinsurance.about.com/gi/...full/358/7/661
New England Journal of Medicine
Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4
The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources.5 It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.
A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature sheds light on these issues. We analyzed the contents of the Tufts–New England Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.tufts-nemc.org/cearegistry), which consists of detailed abstracted information on published cost-effectiveness studies through 2005. Each registry article estimates the cost-effectiveness of one or more interventions as the incremental costs (converted here to 2006 U.S. dollars) divided by the incremental health benefits quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Low cost-effectiveness ratios are “favorable” because they indicate that incremental QALYs can be accrued inexpensively. An intervention is “cost-saving” if it reduces costs while improving health. Poorly performing interventions can both increase costs and worsen health.
Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.
Good points here and below. I'll qualify my statement above: preventative birth control treatment will keep the overall amount needing to be spent down.
I can go along with that statement...my concern is that the relative low cost of the pill in most cases shouldn't cause people from not buying it on their own...if it has a $20 deductible I am fine with it being mandated....but once the claim is filed the cost of the pill just doubled...
Catastrophic and co pays
This is true, another measure of savings comes with many illnesses being treated in offices instead of ERs. As more covered persons utilize the ER for emergencies only, it will reduce costs to everyone...this applies to hospitalization a in general.
A key point
My understanding is a morning-after pill is not an abortion pill.
We are protected from discrimination in the workplace. "Your religion" discriminates so the protection from trumps your religion. Not allowing this pill doesn't discriminate against a protected cl****.
Well yeah. Do you think the company has no input or doesn't review what the company presents them with?
he's trying to say the greens are off the hook with God because they are not responsible for the sins of the govt....or their employees...
so they shouldn't be concerned...
Correct.
In fact, they are probably doing wrong by God by spiting the law.
Do you think this was ever about plan B?
prolly not
why are you certain it is not?
Absolutely
Because, if so, it is an asinine position as plan B is not marketed as an abortant. Seriously, it is basically progesterone, taken by millions of Americans every day.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
