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.
[quote=NLVgal;35484675]The thing is, is that he basically took a pay cut when they cancelled the benefit he was using.
Employers should just get out of the healthcare benefits business. It hurts the employee, it hurts the employer, it hurts the economy, and only benefits big health insurance companies.[/quote]
The fact is that any drug (or device) which keeps a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortifacient. Even the Catholic church has denounced them for that reason (despite the fact that they don't plan to cover even contraceptives). Hobby Lobby chose to cover plenty of true contraceptives, BTW.
Because the FDA refuses to classify something as an abortifacient, doesn't mean that it isn't one.
You are wrong & that is a fact. Man, it is really disconcerting the amount of lies that people believe & in turn spread around. It's fascinating that you actually believe the drivel. And yes as a matter of fact, if it's not classified as an abortifacient, it is not one. How much more clearer can that get? Why do you hate science & instead believe fantasy? You wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for science.
What isn't explained here is that the employer isn't being forced to do anything.
Its the employer's insurance company that has to comply with a minimal mandate set by the ACA. All the employer does is pay the bill (and employees often pay a large share of health insurance costs).
Not only should women be able to take advantage of a full range of birth control options, health insurance costs will be lower in the long run because of a reduction in payments for maternity costs.
One more 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court that is purely driven by ideology. I've got to hand it to this court. They handed down more 5-4 decisions on controversial topics than any Supreme Court in at least the last 70 years. The justices probably are upset about how "partisan" this country has become. They should go look in a mirror. All these 5-4 decisions are a part of the problem.
So who is it you think pays for the health insurance provided to this company's employees? Hint- in most cases the employer pays the lion's share of the premiums for each employee, and the employee pays the remainder of the premium. Employers negotiate with insurance companies for employee health coverage, choosing the benefits, items covered, deductibles, co-pays, retiree coverage (or not) and so on, and their premiums are based on what they choose. Don't think for one minute that the insurance company won't charge the employer (and the employees in their portion of the premium) for any items included in a given insurance policy, and when it's an item or service for which they can't collect co-pays or deductibles ( such as free birth control), they'll pass along those costs to the employer (and all employees in their premium costs). In short, since the employer provides, and pays premium costs for, health insurance, yes, they will be footing the costs for anything that insurance covers- like free birth control.
I guess a lot of folks consider any ruling with which they don't agree as "partisan", and go after those who make those decisions in any number of ways. I don't see yesterday's SCOTUS decision as considering anything except a ruling against the government mandating that employers act at odds their religious beliefs.
Yes but the point is IMO the government shouldn't be forcing employers to do anything to do with what benefits they offer their employees. If the government deems certain things necessary then they should just take over health care completely.
Government requires employers to pay a minimum wage. I think that's a good thing. It also requires certain medical coverage for employers of a certain size. I think it is imperfect, but a reasonable compromise given political feasibility today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie
Actually, those that have religious (or other) beliefs regarding life beginning at conception do believe that human interference with implantation of a fertilized embryo IS a form of abortion. There is no debate about whether or not failure of a fertilized embryo to implant occurs naturally for any number of reasons, and I think most everyone who's gone through high school biology ( or middle school sex education) has at least a nodding acquaintance with the process of fertilization, transfer of a fertilized ovum to the uterus, and implantation. The debate stands with human interference with this process, you may call it medical technology if you like, but it is what it is.
Those people, however, are incorrect about human pregnancy and abortion. They are free to have incorrect beliefs, but they are not entitled to then argue that their incorrect beliefs are fact. The fact is that pregnancy occurs when there is implantation. Abortion is, by definition, the termination of a pregnancy.
If you give ignorance an inch, it will take a mile. Next, we will here about how using condoms is abortion because they are "human interference with this process" (in fact, similar arguments have been made about sex education).
That is very true. The majority of employer insurance includes a premium to be paid for by the employee. So in essence, that portion of the employee's OWN MONEY is paying for the contraceptive coverage. Can an employee do whatever they want with their wages? Apparently, not. Are "Morality Clauses" going to required for private for profit employees also? You can get FIRED if you employer considers you private behavior goes against THEIR religion, like using contraceptives? If you laugh, don't. There was a bill in Arizona a few years ago which would allow a private employer to fire an employee for using contraceptives (male too or only females???) if birth control was against the the employers religion.
Welcome back to the good old days (which I fully remember) when employers would not hire females of childbearing age.
Most employers I ever worked for paid for 70% or more of the premiums for each employee- what the employee pays is what's left after the employer pays his share. My last employer (I'm retired now) paid $1200/month for each employee on a given plan, the employee's share of that was less than $200 monthly.
Government requires employers to pay a minimum wage. I think that's a good thing. It also requires certain medical coverage for employers of a certain size. I think it is imperfect, but a reasonable compromise given political feasibility today.
Those people, however, are incorrect about human pregnancy and abortion. They are free to have incorrect beliefs, but they are not entitled to then argue that their incorrect beliefs are fact. The fact is that pregnancy occurs when there is implantation. Abortion is, by definition, the termination of a pregnancy.
If you give ignorance an inch, it will take a mile. Next, we will here about how using condoms is abortion because they are "human interference with this process" (in fact, similar arguments have been made about sex education).
Minimum wage is one thing. But benefits are another. Healthcare used to be a "benefit" that the employers offered in addition to pay to entice better employees. Now they are being forced to offer this "benefit" which means it's no longer a benefit but a requirement. If healthcare is a right and not just a benefit, then the government should be providing and protecting this right and not forcing employers to do so.
I'm gonna say it again, the morning after pill & IUD are NOT abortifacients. Why can't you people get that thru your heads? I'll say it 10 more times if it'll finally stick. Facts people, facts.
NOT a fact. This kind of misinformation is ridiculous.
No intelligent, scientifically-educated person can argue against the fact that life begins at conception. You may choose to call it an unimportant life, a life not yet deserving any rights, a not-yet-human life, but it is life. The processes of mitosis (DNA replication) and cell division begin quite shortly thereafter. Those processes are occurring because the fertilized egg IS now alive.
So, if sex results in the fertilization of an egg (which can happen within 30 minutes), then a pill or device which causes that life-form to later die (which is what the morning after pill and IUD do), then that fits the definition of abortifacient....at least the definition that was in existence for decades. If someone has conveniently "changed the definition" to suit their agenda, that does not change the fact that the morning after pill and IUD cause a life-form to cease to be alive.
And while I personally don't have a moral conviction against such an action, I can understand and respect that many others do. It is an unconscionable form of abortion to many people, and I do not believe that anyone (even if they happen to have founded a large business such as Hobby Lobby) should have to violate their beliefs and pay for it.
NOT a fact. This kind of misinformation is ridiculous.
No intelligent, scientifically-educated person can argue against the fact that life begins at conception. You may choose to call it an unimportant life, a life not yet deserving any rights, a not-yet-human life, but it is life. The processes of mitosis (DNA replication) and cell division begin quite shortly thereafter. Those processes are occurring because the fertilized egg IS now alive.
So, if sex results in the fertilization of an egg (which can happen within 30 minutes), then a pill or device which causes that life-form to later die (which is what the morning after pill and IUD do), then that fits the definition of abortifacient....at least the definition that was in existence for decades. If someone has conveniently "changed the definition" to suit their agenda, that does not change the fact that the morning after pill and IUD cause a life-form to cease to be alive.
And while I personally don't have a moral conviction against such an action, I can understand and respect that many others do. It is an unconscionable form of abortion to many people, and I do not believe that anyone (even if they happen to have founded a large business such as Hobby Lobby) should have to violate their beliefs and pay for it.
The morning after pill, and the IUD prevent conception. If conception does not occur then an abortion is not needed. Therefore no death has occurred.
It violates my moral beliefs to have nearly 5,000 of my fellow citizens, mostly young men, killed in a war over oil a zillion miles away which they knew from the beginning we could never win yet nobody gave me a choice about using my tax dollars to pay for it.
Reading comprehension. The Pill has other uses besides birth control. A D & C does also. So if a virgin young girl needs the Pill to regulate her periods her DAD must pay for that because "pay for your own danmed birth control"? If a woman has tumors in her uterus and requires hospitalization, pay for your own damned "birth control" surgery? Should women also have to pay for their own damned Labor and Deliver also? If you say yes to that one, maybe women should not have to pay for not only your damned Viagra, but also not pay for you damned prostate surgery?
I think this goes beyond birth control. Too many MEN are ignorant of woman's health issues, and don't give a damn about females. There isn't a War on Women? Sounds like it to me.
The "Pill" is the only solution to those medical issues? That is utter and complete nonsense.
You can get alternatives with the same active ingredients in other forms of medicine.
This does not go beyond birth control. Only the liberals who want to include everything into the narrowest agendas think like that.
No virgin young girl on this planet needs the birth control pill to regulate their periods. Reading comprehension, learn what need means. There are alternatives.
That is like saying you need to smoke pot to get the medicinal benefits of cannabis but leave it to the ill informed to proclaim just that.
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.
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.
