The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

I need a mammogram, some Jimmy caps, another camera up my ass, some STD screening, some skydiving coverage, a bullet proof vest, AND Sundays off.

and that's just a vacation at Couch Freaks.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

normiss

I need a mammogram, some Jimmy caps, another camera up my ass, some STD screening, some skydiving coverage, a bullet proof vest, AND Sundays off.

Mammogram - Lose some weight you fat bahstahd!

STD screening / body armor / skydiving ins - Quit screwing other skydivers' girls!

Camera - You really are a sick pervert, aren't you?

You can have Sundays off. After chasing all those girls and having sex with a camera, you need some rest.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[champu 1]

rushmc

Nice twist
The employee can spend their own money on any BC they wish
They just should not be able to tell the employer what BC they want provided

My point is that nobody is walking into their boss's office and demanding birth control and abortions. They are going to their doctor for those things. The doctor is then billing the patient and the insurance company to pay for it in whatever ratio the plan states. (The ACA is saying contraceptives belong in the "preventative" bucket in health plans, making them covered with no co-pay, but this discussion is larger than that as I think the employers are saying they want the plans to offer no coverage for these things.)

So what's happening is that employers are demanding that insurance companies offer them plans for their employees that exclude certain things, and for the government to waive/lift any regulations that would prevent such a plan from being offered. They want a tailored form of compensation that they can provide their employees that allows them, in their view, to religiously firewall themselves from employee behavior they deem immoral.

So what I'll ask again is, what is the difference between the dollars given to the employee and the dollars given to the insurance company to cover their employees' health care? If they're worried about providing heath insurance that covers immoral things, how can they provide their employees money? I don't know if you know this, but money covers the purchase of anything.

[rushmc 23]

So let the employee purchase it

The gov has no right to tell anyone anything at this level but we are where we are at this point

So now all the employer is asking is that they do not have to provide abortion type drugs in a HC plan do to their beliefs

Thats it!
this is NOT about the pill but it is about the morning after pill

But of course the anti christian bigotry will not allow that to happen if these bigots can help it

(the bigot comment NOT aimed at you)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

And god help (literally) the employees of Christian Scientists.

Or a similar analogy - say, for example, your employer is a Jehova's Witness - will not permit your health insurance to cover blood transfusions if you're in an accident or need surgery, or to cover your doctor's use of platelet-rich plasma treatment on you, etc.

As a matter of public policy, this is the problem with allowing employers to cherry-pick the medical procedures for which they will or will not provide insurance coverage, based solely on ideology. At the end of the day, "the line" must be drawn somewhere. As a matter of legal analysis, I cannot imagine the line being drawn in a manner that is not, ultimately, arbitrary and capricious.

As for "employers can do what they choose; you don't have to work there if you don't like it" - sorry, but US law has a long history of that type of argument losing out to public policy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are but two examples of that.

.

[champu 1]

rushmc

So let the employee purchase it. The gov has no right to tell anyone anything at this level but we are where we are at this point. So now all the employer is asking is that they do not have to provide abortion type drugs in a HC plan do to their beliefs. Thats it!

this is NOT about the pill but it is about the morning after pill. But of course the anti christian bigotry will not allow that to happen if these bigots can help it. (the bigot comment NOT aimed at you)

So hypothetical... we let the actuaries at the insurance company price out the cost of a plan that includes all the mandated coverages, and then they price out a plan that excludes coverages that the employer objects to. The employer pays the insurance company the latter, and then the employee uses money from their wages (which is also provided to them by their employer) to pay the difference* to the insurance company, and then the employee gets the full coverage.

If this scratches the itch, then I think it would be workable. I would suggest, however, that if it does scratch the itch then the employers religion has melted their fucking brain.

*NB: depending on what is excluded (e.g. preventative services) this difference could theoretically be negative.

[rushmc 23]

champu

***So let the employee purchase it. The gov has no right to tell anyone anything at this level but we are where we are at this point. So now all the employer is asking is that they do not have to provide abortion type drugs in a HC plan do to their beliefs. Thats it!

this is NOT about the pill but it is about the morning after pill. But of course the anti christian bigotry will not allow that to happen if these bigots can help it. (the bigot comment NOT aimed at you)

So hypothetical... we let the actuaries at the insurance company price out the cost of a plan that includes all the mandated coverages, and then they price out a plan that excludes coverages that the employer objects to. The employer pays the insurance company the latter, and then the employee uses money from their wages (which is also provided to them by their employer) to pay the difference* to the insurance company, and then the employee gets the full coverage.

If this scratches the itch, then I think it would be workable. I would suggest, however, that if it does scratch the itch then the employers religion has melted their fucking brain.

*NB: depending on what is excluded (e.g. preventative services) this difference could theoretically be negative.

Your position seems to come from a premise that getting employer HC is some kind of right. Its not

HC as part of a employer compesation plan came about because of Jimmy Carters wage freeze blunder

Now here we are

Any employer should be allowed to offer what ever they wish
An employee can take it or leave it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[funjumper101 15]

chutem

Quote

Picking and choosing what medical treatment is covered or not is a very slippery slope.
Birth control presciptions are not always for birth control, as has been written here before. You must be uneducated as to female physiology and medical issues.

As Americans, and skydivers, I would hope that we would be on the side of freedom of choice, not massive restrictions on choice.

By this statement we can assume you support ACA covering Boob jobs, tummy tucks, and liposuction?

When the proposed treatment is for a medical issue, the answer would be a great big YES!!!

There are documented cases where each of the medical procedures you write about is required for a medical condition.

I the case of the procedure being for strictly cosmetic reasons, that would be where the patient should pay 100% of the cost themselves.

[rehmwa 2]

funjumper101

When the proposed treatment is for a medical issue, the answer would be a great big YES!!!

There are documented cases where each of the medical procedures you write about is required for a medical condition.

I the case of the procedure being for strictly cosmetic reasons, that would be where the patient should pay 100% of the cost themselves.

agree!!

if someone wants to buy supplemental private coverage that also includes cosmetics they sure can....bet it would be expensive


(though it still doesn't address a cosmetic procedure that is rationalized by a false claim to insurance under a medical justification. example - removing an unsightly, but completely harmless, mole is cosmetic, but if the doctor creates additional work to send that tissue to a lab for a cancer screening (just in case), suddenly it's all covered. and costs more due to the lab work adder.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[funjumper101 15]

rushmc

******So let the employee purchase it. The gov has no right to tell anyone anything at this level but we are where we are at this point. So now all the employer is asking is that they do not have to provide abortion type drugs in a HC plan do to their beliefs. Thats it!

this is NOT about the pill but it is about the morning after pill. But of course the anti christian bigotry will not allow that to happen if these bigots can help it. (the bigot comment NOT aimed at you)

So hypothetical... we let the actuaries at the insurance company price out the cost of a plan that includes all the mandated coverages, and then they price out a plan that excludes coverages that the employer objects to. The employer pays the insurance company the latter, and then the employee uses money from their wages (which is also provided to them by their employer) to pay the difference* to the insurance company, and then the employee gets the full coverage.

If this scratches the itch, then I think it would be workable. I would suggest, however, that if it does scratch the itch then the employers religion has melted their fucking brain.

*NB: depending on what is excluded (e.g. preventative services) this difference could theoretically be negative.

Your position seems to come from a premise that getting employer HC is some kind of right. Its not

HC as part of a employer compesation plan came about because of Jimmy Carters wage freeze blunder

Now here we are

Any employer should be allowed to offer what ever they wish
An employee can take it or leave it

You have just made an excellent argument for a single payer system. Nicely done!!!

Health care and medical insurance should have ZERO to do with one's employer.

Health care should be administered in via single payer system as is done n the social democratic countries like Denmark, Sweden, and other civilized societies.

The obscene system currently in place in the USA needs radical reform. ACA is a tiny start in that direction.

The RWCs oppose anything that helps the average citizen. Only policies that help the extremely wealthy are acceptable.
I can see it coming now... the RWCs will pretend that they care about freedom and personal choice, except that they don't.

[rushmc 23]

funjumper101

*********So let the employee purchase it. The gov has no right to tell anyone anything at this level but we are where we are at this point. So now all the employer is asking is that they do not have to provide abortion type drugs in a HC plan do to their beliefs. Thats it!

this is NOT about the pill but it is about the morning after pill. But of course the anti christian bigotry will not allow that to happen if these bigots can help it. (the bigot comment NOT aimed at you)

So hypothetical... we let the actuaries at the insurance company price out the cost of a plan that includes all the mandated coverages, and then they price out a plan that excludes coverages that the employer objects to. The employer pays the insurance company the latter, and then the employee uses money from their wages (which is also provided to them by their employer) to pay the difference* to the insurance company, and then the employee gets the full coverage.

If this scratches the itch, then I think it would be workable. I would suggest, however, that if it does scratch the itch then the employers religion has melted their fucking brain.

*NB: depending on what is excluded (e.g. preventative services) this difference could theoretically be negative.

Your position seems to come from a premise that getting employer HC is some kind of right. Its not

HC as part of a employer compesation plan came about because of Jimmy Carters wage freeze blunder

Now here we are

Any employer should be allowed to offer what ever they wish
An employee can take it or leave it

You have just made an excellent argument for a single payer system. Nicely done!!!

Health care and medical insurance should have ZERO to do with one's employer.

Health care should be administered in via single payer system as is done n the social democratic countries like Denmark, Sweden, and other civilized societies.

The obscene system currently in place in the USA needs radical reform. ACA is a tiny start in that direction.

The RWCs oppose anything that helps the average citizen. Only policies that help the extremely wealthy are acceptable.
I can see it coming now... the RWCs will pretend that they care about freedom and personal choice, except that they don't.

Single payer?

Again, if one assumes HC is a right
Its not

and if an employer wishes to offer a HC plan to try and get the brightest and the best to work for them, OK. their choice

Also, the ACA is not about HC. Neither would a single payer plan be. it is about you and your liberal buddies thinking they know better for the rest of us so you therfore try and push you BS down our throats

So, in the end, YOU make an agrugment taking freedoms and liberty away and use the government to do it

Nicely done comrade

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

rushmc

***So hypothetical... we let the actuaries at the insurance company price out the cost of a plan that includes all the mandated coverages, and then they price out a plan that excludes coverages that the employer objects to. The employer pays the insurance company the latter, and then the employee uses money from their wages (which is also provided to them by their employer) to pay the difference* to the insurance company, and then the employee gets the full coverage.

If this scratches the itch, then I think it would be workable. I would suggest, however, that if it does scratch the itch then the employers religion has melted their fucking brain.

*NB: depending on what is excluded (e.g. preventative services) this difference could theoretically be negative.

Your position seems to come from a premise that getting employer HC is some kind of right. Its not

HC as part of a employer compesation plan came about because of Jimmy Carters wage freeze blunder

Now here we are

Any employer should be allowed to offer what ever they wish
An employee can take it or leave it

I'm familiar (somewhat, not an expert) for the reasons why healthcare plans started showing up in employee compensation packages, and that it was not always the case. I assure you I lament the current situation as much as you but, as you say, now here we are.

If employer provided healthcare were never a thing, and employers just paid their employees more and left the purchase of healthcare coverage up to them then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's why it appears to me that it's the employers taking advantage of this stupid setup as an opportunity to proselytize.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I the case of the procedure being for strictly cosmetic reasons, that would be where the patient should pay 100% of the cost themselves.

Still arbitrary cherry-picking. Say, for example, if a psychiatrist prescribes cosmetic surgery as therapy for the patient's chronic, life-crippling depression. Then the winner will be he who gets the best doctor's note.

[rushmc 23]

It is a free county
We have free speech
We (are supposed to) have free exercise of religion
Employer provided HC is a compensation component
Why should we or the government be involved in what is offered that employee

The employee and employer come to terms of employment without our help. They both agree or, that person can seek employment elsewhere

In the case of obamacare, the employer is being told what some of the components of the compensation package will be, and therefore cost

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

"freedom and personal choice"

it seems that is a subjective concept

one side "freedom and personal choice as long as you are personally responsible for those choices"

the other "freedom and personal choice regardless of whether one can afford it or not or if it encroaches on others"

hard to bridge that gap, and strangely enough, one can make reasoned argument/rationalizations on why either side makes sense - but I'm sure Speaker's Corner, with the incredible group of open minded and respectful members will figure it out soon and shine a bright light of understanding on the rest of the world.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,460]

Well, there are more sides.

"free within what I think is reasonable"
"free within what you think is necessary"

there's often a very wide gap between those two, as well.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 806]

Which been painfully and repeatedly made clear in this thread.

[wmw999 2,460]

What -- a dead horse, here, in SC? Say it ain't so!

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 806]

Dead horses are covered, so we're good.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

Dead horses are covered, so we're good.

Yep
Even as geldings they still have maternity coverage

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 806]

Collective pools of people are awesome until one disagrees.


Now, where's my free rubbers?

[turtlespeed 221]

quade

*********...its my choice...

No. It's not. Not by any legal standard you can name.
I should have said, "SHOULD be my choice!"

And what would give you the right to dictate what forms of birth control your employees use? How on earth do you believe it "should" be your right to do that? People want government out of their business, what the hell gives employers the right to dictate something that personal?

It should be my right to offer a certain coverage. The coverage offered may or may not include what you want, but it is what I want to offer.

If we went to a boogie, and I offered to buy some jumps, should you then demand that I buy you balloon and chopper jumps all day?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

turtlespeed

If we went to a boogie, and I offered to buy some jumps, should you then demand that I buy you balloon and chopper jumps all day?

Your false equivalency is . . . false.

If I pay you to mow my lawn, do I have the right to prevent you from buying a gun with the money?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

normiss

Collective pools of people are awesome until one disagrees.


Now, where's my free rubbers?

Snippity-snip, big guy.

[turtlespeed 221]

quade

***If we went to a boogie, and I offered to buy some jumps, should you then demand that I buy you balloon and chopper jumps all day?

Your false equivalency is . . . false.

If I pay you to mow my lawn, do I have the right to prevent you from buying a gun with the money?

Irrelevant.

More along the lines that even though you are mandated to supply me with guns, your beliefs are that you won't provide the bullets, rather if I want bullets I can go get them on my own.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun