Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:44 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
Not all prescription medication is covered, and I know of no medication that is health companies are forced to cover by law. If a company does not want to cover medication for a particular health issue, they have/had that choice. It was their choice and not a responsibility bestowed upon them by the government like birth control is.
So companies should be able to evaluate the uses and efficacy of medications and decide for themselves which medications they want their insurance companies to cover, and which they don't? You are willing to allow your employer, who doesn't have the medical knowledge or education, to make those medical decisions for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:45 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,837,332 times
Reputation: 20030
that opinion was severely limited in scope, being one that ONLY dealt with contraceptives, AND is only allowed for closely held corporations. in other words, hobby lobby, and corporations like them can refuse to cover contraceptives, but they CANNOT refuse to provide health insurance. you fail based on your progressive beliefs that somehow conservatives are going to get away with not providing health care for anyone, and that you progressives are going to save the world by spending everyones money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:45 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
By saying "shareholders"?
Actually, yes.

"Should employees be required to adjust their private lives according to the religious beliefs of shareholders? When stockholders get together at their annual meetings, should there be votes on what the religious beliefs of the corporation are going to be this year? What happens when people of another religious persuasion purchase a lot of stock and gain the stock majority? Does the corporation change religion, too?

A corporation is a THING. IT doesn't have beliefs."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:46 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,611,728 times
Reputation: 22232
I'm shaking my head wondering why it became the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance to its employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:49 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,099,924 times
Reputation: 4828
"The court ... has ventured into a minefield ... Would the exemption … extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations ... Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,483 posts, read 11,280,665 times
Reputation: 9002
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Or maybe some Mormon who holds on to the more archaic interpretations of their Bible decides he won't provide insurance to Blacks b/c they have the Mark of Cain.

The inability of this crop of Conservative justices to see the obvious consequences of their decisions is going to be a black mark on the history of this country. We're going to look back at several of these decisions and shake our heads w/ embarrassment that supposedly educated jurists were dumb enough to actually reach their conclusions.
What are the "obvious consequences of their decisions" with regard to the subject of birth control?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,111,909 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
that opinion was severely limited in scope, being one that ONLY dealt with contraceptives, AND is only allowed for closely held corporations. in other words, hobby lobby, and corporations like them can refuse to cover contraceptives, but they CANNOT refuse to provide health insurance. you fail based on your progressive beliefs that somehow conservatives are going to get away with not providing health care for anyone, and that you progressives are going to save the world by spending everyones money.
And what's stopping one of these anti-gay bigots from using the reasoning that b/c of their religious objections that they can't support providing insurance to gay employees? And based on the Conservative decision, they'd be w/in their rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,483 posts, read 11,280,665 times
Reputation: 9002
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
"The court ... has ventured into a minefield ... Would the exemption … extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations ... Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
....millions of people being denied the right to quietly gestate in their mother's womb (Liberal Feminists).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,111,909 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
What are the "obvious consequences of their decisions" with regard to the subject of birth control?
Opening the doors for legal discrimination b/c of religious conviction?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Spokane, WA
1,989 posts, read 2,535,640 times
Reputation: 2363
Countdown until another see's a post on TellMeWhatToSayToConservativerRepublicans dot org that needs to be reposted/repeated here.

Don't work for Hobby Lobby! Goddamn, what a nation of worrisome abolsute crybabies we've become. For ****ake's sake!

Last edited by CaseyB; 06-30-2014 at 04:25 PM.. Reason: language
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:38 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top