Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you are deliberately ignoring practical effects.

A Cashier at Hobby Lobby makes $9.00 a hour. Or $18,000 a year before taxes. After you deduct rent and food and utilities, she doesn't have money left over for birth control.

That's why she's working for a company like Hobby Lobby, which provides insurance in lieu of pay.

HL's insurance offers 16 different kinds of birth control.

You really have no argument.

But there are 20 kinds available, and the four they DON'T allow might be the best applicaitons in some cases.

And Hobby Lobby isn't a doctor.

Then it is a good thing they aren't making medical decisions for people.

I do have a question for you though, why don't you complain about the government regulating what doctors can, and cannot, do? After all, the government flat out tells doctors they can't prescribe pain medication for people that really need it, but I haven't seen one word from you about how the governemnt isn't a doctor. Is that because you are a lying sack of shit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep.

Some people are afraid of being free, we can't help them, all we can do is marginalize them so they don't have the power to take away our freedom.

guy, it isn't an issue of "Freedom". Letting rich people take something away from me after I've worked for it doesn't make me any freer.

As I've said, whenever I hear one of you wingnuts assholes talk about "Freedom", what you usually mean is "The ability of people with money to abuse people without money".

You guys don't believe in freedom, you believe in the perquisites of the wealthy. You think the backwards ass Bronze Age superstitions of rich people should trump the right of women to get appropriate medical care.

This isn't Freedom, guy.

Rich people aren't taking anything from me, the government is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

They shouldn't fund ANY birth control at all, period.

Pregnancy is not a "disease" that needs controlled. Further, birth control is not an expensive thing. It can be purchased very cheaply.

Why should I be forced to pay for someone else who is not even sick, who simply wants to go out and have sex without consequences on my dime?

You want to go out and have a good time, fine. You pay for it yourself.

except that it isn't on "your dime".

Hobby Lobby does not give out health coverage out of goodness. They give it out because the value of the labor or that employee covers her salary, insurance and other costs. In short, that young worker produces the money that pays for that insurance.

IN short, she's already worked or paid for that birth control, you are asking her to pay for it a second time.

and I will go one further. Most young people do not require $5000 of health treatments a year. If you gave them that money in a lump sum and encouraged them to buy their own insurance, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the Private Health Care market would collapse in about five years, as the young would only buy cheap policies and the old couldn't get policies at anything less than an exhorbitant price.

So the young worker is essentially subsidizing the rest of us.

One of the arguments the government made was that Hobby Lobby could simply drop its employee insurance altogether. They even worked out the math to prove how much Hobby Lobby would save if they did that. If you are right that Hobby Lobby is all about rich people taking thing from poor people why wouldn't they just dump all their employees on Obamacare and save all that money?

Hint: They believe that their religion commands them to provide insurance.

Thanks for making a foll out of yourself.

 

[Lakhota]

Hobby Lobby is mild compared to what Eden Foods wants to do.

 

[dblack]

The primary question underlying this debate is whether government has any business telling companies what kind of insurance they must offer, or employees what kind insurance they must acquire. They don't.

But, that question aside, why would birth control ever be covered by insurance??? The whole idea of insurance is protection against unforeseen risk, to pay for medical expenses when you get sick unexpectedly and can't afford it. It's foolish to use it to pay for planned expenses - it's far more cost effective to simply pay for those yourself. And if there was ever a planned medical expense, it's birth control.

People just seem to lose all sense of reason when it comes to this issue.

 

[Lakhota]

The primary question underlying this debate is whether government has any business telling companies what kind of insurance they must offer, or employees what kind insurance they must acquire. They don't.

But, that question aside, why would birth control ever be covered by insurance??? The whole idea of insurance is protection against unforeseen risk, to pay for medical expenses when you get sick unexpectedly and can't afford it. It's foolish to use it to pay for planned expenses - it's far more cost effective to simply pay for those yourself. And if there was ever a planned medical expense, it's birth control.

People just seem to lose all sense of reason when it comes to this issue.

What about Viagra, penis pumps, and other erectile dysfunction products? Why are they covered and not birth control products?

 

[dblack]

The primary question underlying this debate is whether government has any business telling companies what kind of insurance they must offer, or employees what kind insurance they must acquire. They don't.

But, that question aside, why would birth control ever be covered by insurance??? The whole idea of insurance is protection against unforeseen risk, to pay for medical expenses when you get sick unexpectedly and can't afford it. It's foolish to use it to pay for planned expenses - it's far more cost effective to simply pay for those yourself. And if there was ever a planned medical expense, it's birth control.

People just seem to lose all sense of reason when it comes to this issue.

What about Viagra, penis pumps, and other erectile dysfunction products? Why are they covered and not birth control products?

Got me.. all equally stupid. Why should government be involved in dictating any of this?

 

[JoeB131]

Democrats playing games again folks

they know this won't go anywhere

and if it does you all should be damn worried about your FREEDOMS

Yes, i will happily give up my freedom to be cheated by my employer.

So would most people.

How was anyone 'cheated' in this instance? If they were promised certain benefits as compensation, and didn't receive them, that would count. But that's not what's going on here. Where is the deception?

They were promised certain benefits. They did not receive them.

Even ignoring that Hobby Lobby used to offer these sorts of methods, before they mandate came along and they decided that Jesus was against them, the fact is, they offered health coverage. NOt Health coverage unless it violates whatever backwards ass Bronze Age Superstition I happen to subscribe to selectively.

 

[JoeB131]

HL's insurance offers 16 different kinds of birth control.

You really have no argument.

But there are 20 kinds available, and the four they DON'T allow might be the best applicaitons in some cases.

And Hobby Lobby isn't a doctor.

Again, nothing is keeping anyone from seeking those options on their own.

Stop being dishonest.

Why should they have to pay for coverage twice? If you are working for health coverage, you should get health coverage- period.

 

[Meister]

The primary question underlying this debate is whether government has any business telling companies what kind of insurance they must offer, or employees what kind insurance they must acquire. They don't.

But, that question aside, why would birth control ever be covered by insurance??? The whole idea of insurance is protection against unforeseen risk, to pay for medical expenses when you get sick unexpectedly and can't afford it. It's foolish to use it to pay for planned expenses - it's far more cost effective to simply pay for those yourself. And if there was ever a planned medical expense, it's birth control.

People just seem to lose all sense of reason when it comes to this issue.

What about Viagra, penis pumps, and other erectile dysfunction products? Why are they covered and not birth control products?

16 choices for birth control ARE covered....16.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The primary question underlying this debate is whether government has any business telling companies what kind of insurance they must offer, or employees what kind insurance they must acquire. They don't.

But, that question aside, why would birth control ever be covered by insurance??? The whole idea of insurance is protection against unforeseen risk, to pay for medical expenses when you get sick unexpectedly and can't afford it. It's foolish to use it to pay for planned expenses - it's far more cost effective to simply pay for those yourself. And if there was ever a planned medical expense, it's birth control.

People just seem to lose all sense of reason when it comes to this issue.

What about Viagra, penis pumps, and other erectile dysfunction products? Why are they covered and not birth control products?

The point is that none of that should be covered, yet you insist on insurance covering them.

That makes you the problem, not the solution.

 

[JoeB131]

[

They shouldn't fund ANY birth control at all, period.

Pregnancy is not a "disease" that needs controlled. Further, birth control is not an expensive thing. It can be purchased very cheaply.

Why should I be forced to pay for someone else who is not even sick, who simply wants to go out and have sex without consequences on my dime?

You want to go out and have a good time, fine. You pay for it yourself.

except that it isn't on "your dime".

Hobby Lobby does not give out health coverage out of goodness. They give it out because the value of the labor or that employee covers her salary, insurance and other costs. In short, that young worker produces the money that pays for that insurance.

IN short, she's already worked or paid for that birth control, you are asking her to pay for it a second time.

and I will go one further. Most young people do not require $5000 of health treatments a year. If you gave them that money in a lump sum and encouraged them to buy their own insurance, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the Private Health Care market would collapse in about five years, as the young would only buy cheap policies and the old couldn't get policies at anything less than an exhorbitant price.

So the young worker is essentially subsidizing the rest of us.

And that's exactly what Obamacare does. So why is it good in that case, but bad when it's private insurance?

You will now predictably screech "Single payer!!"...while once again ignoring the fact that it's the taxpayers who subsidize everyone else.

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought. At all.

Go back and read what I said. I didn't say it was bad. In fact, I consider it quite good.

Of course the young should subsidize the old because we are all going to be old at some point.

But if you are going to make the young subsidize the old, you don't double back and say, "I don't approve of you having sex or using birth control because my magic fairy in the sky doesn't approve."

Now, on to Single Payer. Single Payer would be cheaper, because you'd eliminate-

Huge Malpractice Suits
Huge CEO Salaries
Emergency Room Visits for routine care
Redundant Paperwork filing.

It's why other industrialized countries with Single Payer spend 8-11% of their GDP and we spend 17% of our GDP and get much worse results.

But I'm sure you were too busy being a mean-spirited asshole to think about any of this.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Then it is a good thing they aren't making medical decisions for people.

I do have a question for you though, why don't you complain about the government regulating what doctors can, and cannot, do? After all, the government flat out tells doctors they can't prescribe pain medication for people that really need it, but I haven't seen one word from you about how the governemnt isn't a doctor. Is that because you are a lying sack of shit?

strawman argument. The government makes these decisions based on the advice of doctors.

And they aren't doing it because they consulted a Sky Fairy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Then it is a good thing they aren't making medical decisions for people.

I do have a question for you though, why don't you complain about the government regulating what doctors can, and cannot, do? After all, the government flat out tells doctors they can't prescribe pain medication for people that really need it, but I haven't seen one word from you about how the governemnt isn't a doctor. Is that because you are a lying sack of shit?

strawman argument. The government makes these decisions based on the advice of doctors.

And they aren't doing it because they consulted a Sky Fairy

Prove that they consulted doctors before deciding that it was illegal for doctors to prescribe needed pain medications or forever be branded an authoritarian hack. They made the decision on the basis of the war on drugs, not doctors. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the situation would know that.

While you are at it feel free to explain how asking you why you don't say something is a straw man argument. That should be interesting exercise of your endless ability to ignore reality.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Then it is a good thing they aren't making medical decisions for people.

I do have a question for you though, why don't you complain about the government regulating what doctors can, and cannot, do? After all, the government flat out tells doctors they can't prescribe pain medication for people that really need it, but I haven't seen one word from you about how the governemnt isn't a doctor. Is that because you are a lying sack of shit?

strawman argument. The government makes these decisions based on the advice of doctors.

And they aren't doing it because they consulted a Sky Fairy

Prove that they consulted doctors before deciding that it was illegal for doctors to prescribe needed pain medications or forever be branded an authoritarian hack. They made the decision on the basis of the war on drugs, not doctors. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the situation would know that.

While you are at it feel free to explain how asking you why you don't say something is a straw man argument. That should be interesting exercise of your endless ability to ignore reality.

Maybe you ought to specify which policy you are babbling about, exactly.

Because, honestly, trying to chase down all your straw men is a waste of my time.

Try to focus - Hobby Lobby should be allowed to deny their employees certain treatments because- why exactly?

 

[dblack]

Yes, i will happily give up my freedom to be cheated by my employer.

So would most people.

How was anyone 'cheated' in this instance? If they were promised certain benefits as compensation, and didn't receive them, that would count. But that's not what's going on here. Where is the deception?

They were promised certain benefits. They did not receive them.

They were?!? I did not know that. Apparently know one else does either. You should come forward with your evidence and file a class action lawsuit on behalf of Hobby Lobby employees. Fraud is a serious matter.

Or... maybe you're just talking out of your ass again. Because, again, this isn't about Hobby Lobby's relationship with its employees - it's about the owners of Hobby Lobby refusing to abide by a government mandate. They weren't being fined because they failed to come through on a promise. They were being fined because they didn't follow orders.

Even ignoring that Hobby Lobby used to offer these sorts of methods, before they mandate came along and they decided that Jesus was against them, the fact is, they offered health coverage. NOt Health coverage unless it violates whatever backwards ass Bronze Age Superstition I happen to subscribe to selectively.

Ok. So what?

 

[zeke]

You do understand that there are 16 other choices to avoid pregnancies, right?

Do you really think that a man would complain if Viagra wasn't on the table, but Cialis and Lavitra were?

You leftwing goofballs really don't think it through, just pick up the talking points from the democtat goons, then end up looking foolish.
This is no more than the left trying to create hysteria out of nothing in an election year to cover for the mess Obama has created in his second term.

You have a reading comprehension problem don't cha? Try re reading the part where I wrote Viagra or any other form of artificial hardon.

Would you have an issue with a woman CEO taking this position or not? That is the ONLY question.

Can a woman CEO refuse to pay for artificial hard on medications for her men employees?
Yes or no?

I don't have a reading comprehension, but you must.
You are arguing like everything was taken off the table and the women has no choice....but that really isn't the case....is it?
They have 16 choices to choose from. Your trying to make a point by taking everything off the table for the guy. You're arguing apples to oranges....I was arguing apples to apples.
You can't argue apples to apples and make the premise sound. Too bad for you.

You ignorant shit. What does the number of choices have to do with anything?

This is ALL about religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with "birth control" except in the sense that the Hobby Lobby CEO had a RELIGIOUS problem with certain kinds of birth control.

Just like my hypothetical woman CEO would have a RELIGIOUS problem with paying for ANY kind of get it up drugs.

Exact same comparison. Has everything to do with religious beliefs and nothing to do with variety of drugs to choose from.

 

[dblack]

You have a reading comprehension problem don't cha? Try re reading the part where I wrote Viagra or any other form of artificial hardon.

Would you have an issue with a woman CEO taking this position or not? That is the ONLY question.

Can a woman CEO refuse to pay for artificial hard on medications for her men employees?
Yes or no?

I don't have a reading comprehension, but you must.
You are arguing like everything was taken off the table and the women has no choice....but that really isn't the case....is it?
They have 16 choices to choose from. Your trying to make a point by taking everything off the table for the guy. You're arguing apples to oranges....I was arguing apples to apples.
You can't argue apples to apples and make the premise sound. Too bad for you.

You ignorant shit. What does the number of choices have to do with anything?

This is ALL about religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with "birth control" except in the sense that the Hobby Lobby CEO had a RELIGIOUS problem with certain kinds of birth control.

Just like my hypothetical woman CEO would have a RELIGIOUS problem with paying for ANY kind of get it up drugs.

Exact same comparison. Has everything to do with religious beliefs and nothing to do with variety of drugs to choose from.

Yeah. You hypothetical woman CEO should have every right to make that call, regardless whether it's a religious view or not.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't have a reading comprehension, but you must.
You are arguing like everything was taken off the table and the women has no choice....but that really isn't the case....is it?
They have 16 choices to choose from. Your trying to make a point by taking everything off the table for the guy. You're arguing apples to oranges....I was arguing apples to apples.
You can't argue apples to apples and make the premise sound. Too bad for you.

You ignorant shit. What does the number of choices have to do with anything?

This is ALL about religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with "birth control" except in the sense that the Hobby Lobby CEO had a RELIGIOUS problem with certain kinds of birth control.

Just like my hypothetical woman CEO would have a RELIGIOUS problem with paying for ANY kind of get it up drugs.

Exact same comparison. Has everything to do with religious beliefs and nothing to do with variety of drugs to choose from.

Yeah. You hypothetical woman CEO should have every right to make that call, regardless whether it's a religious view or not.

Actually, what ought to happen is every workplace should have a union that negotiates these things collectively.

The idea that my health care can be held hostage to the superstition and ignorance of my employer is just kind of awful to most sensible people.

 

[dblack]

You ignorant shit. What does the number of choices have to do with anything?

This is ALL about religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with "birth control" except in the sense that the Hobby Lobby CEO had a RELIGIOUS problem with certain kinds of birth control.

Just like my hypothetical woman CEO would have a RELIGIOUS problem with paying for ANY kind of get it up drugs.

Exact same comparison. Has everything to do with religious beliefs and nothing to do with variety of drugs to choose from.

Yeah. You hypothetical woman CEO should have every right to make that call, regardless whether it's a religious view or not.

Actually, what ought to happen is every workplace should have a union that negotiates these things collectively.

The idea that my health care can be held hostage to the superstition and ignorance of my employer is just kind of awful to most sensible people.

The idea that your health care should be up to your employer in the first place is the mindset of a slave. As far as unions go, go for it. As long as both sides have the right to say "no thanks" and look elsewhere to meet their needs, I have no problem with unions. It's the current state of labor laws that makes unions dysfunctional.