Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[Lorilei]

They are a matter of "political correctness" in this day.

Every decision that is made is made under the auspice of "political correctness". There are no moral absolutes. There are no rights/wrongs.

Decisions are made solely on how it will affect potential votes.

I don't even know how you type this nonsense with a straight face.

 

[julybaby04]

Hobby Lobby isn't a religious organization. Their employees shouldn't have to bow down to the owners' religious beliefs.

There is no difference in Hobby Lobby or say some corporation like Chik-fil-a.

The standards those who own those business have are well known. If someone has a different standard/belief, then why in the world would the even apply there?

Those companies can just as easily shut their doors and no one will have a job. The people who are complaining would be out of work anyway. Why not just apply to a business where the ideals agree?

No one can force Hobby Lobby or anyone else to stay in business. This kind of tunnel vision is going to cause greater harm in that many could lose their jobs.

Really? For a $30/month birth control prescription (or whatever they cost).

 

[RobDownSouth]

They are a matter of "political correctness" in this day.

Every decision that is made is made under the auspice of "political correctness". There are no moral absolutes. There are no rights/wrongs.

Decisions are made solely on how it will affect potential votes.

Play that victim card, honey.

You know you want Christian Sharia law.

 

[UrsulaX]

Mandating and forcing people into a "right" kind of insurance is wrong.

No one is forced. People have insurance options. At worst, an uninsured person may have to pay a fee. Also, sparing employees copays and mandating that employers provide coverage with a certain minimum value is intended to benefit you and everyone who helps pay for your healthcare.

Mandating and forcing people to pay for others healthcare that is in complete opposition to deeply held religious beliefs is wrong.

Presumably, you would not be denied hospital care in the event of an emergency. Someone, preferably you or your insurance company, would pay for it. Without contributions from others, very few of us could afford catastrophic ailments or accidents. Similarly, we all ultimately pay for the uninsured. The government is merely attempting to regulate a collective burden. Since healthcare issues are not inherently religious and religion does not exempt citizens from paying taxes, I am not sure why such regulation would be considered wrong.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There is no difference in Hobby Lobby or say some corporation like Chik-fil-a.

The standards those who own those business have are well known. If someone has a different standard/belief, then why in the world would the even apply there?

Those companies can just as easily shut their doors and no one will have a job. The people who are complaining would be out of work anyway. Why not just apply to a business where the ideals agree?

No one can force Hobby Lobby or anyone else to stay in business. This kind of tunnel vision is going to cause greater harm in that many could lose their jobs.

Really? For a $30/month birth control prescription (or whatever they cost).

Because a corporation whose primary focus is commerce and not religion cannot force it's "religious beliefs" upon their employees.

This is a fact you seem singularly unwilling or unable to comprehend.

 

[julybaby04]

No one is forced. People have insurance options. At worst, an uninsured person may have to pay a fee. Also, sparing employees copays and mandating that employers provide coverage with a certain minimum value is intended to benefit you and everyone who helps pay for your healthcare.



Presumably, you would not be denied hospital care in the event of an emergency. Someone, preferably you or your insurance company, would pay for it. Without contributions from others, very few of us could afford catastrophic ailments or accidents. Similarly, we all ultimately pay for the uninsured. The government is merely attempting to regulate a collective burden. Since healthcare issues are not inherently religious and religion does not exempt citizens from paying taxes, I am not sure why such regulation would be considered wrong.

Forcing someone with deeply held religious beliefs to "help pay" for someone to have an abortion is directly related to this.

Everyone is forced. If someone already has insurance (and presumably was not one of those who had it canceled), then they have no issues. If someone had their's cancelled because it was not "good enough" as decided by some politician in DC, the they have to find new insurance....and probably at much higher rates....when they were very happy with the coverage they had.

If someone is young, in their 20's and are healthy and do not want nor need the extra expense of healthcare, they no longer have that option. They are FORCED to purchase something.

Yes, there are those who choose not to go under financially to purchase something they don't need or already had, but now have to pay a FINE. How completely ridiculous is that? The government decided this. There idea of freedom in this country has been taken away.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Forcing someone with deeply held religious beliefs to "help pay" for someone to have an abortion is directly related to this.

Everyone is forced. If someone already has insurance (and presumably was not one of those who had it canceled), then they have no issues. If someone had their's cancelled because it was not "good enough" as decided by some politician in DC, the they have to find new insurance....and probably at much higher rates....when they were very happy with the coverage they had.

If someone is young, in their 20's and are healthy and do not want nor need the extra expense of healthcare, they no longer have that option. They are FORCED to purchase something.

Yes, there are those who choose not to go under financially to purchase something they don't need or already had, but now have to pay a FINE. How completely ridiculous is that? The government decided this. There idea of freedom in this country has been taken away.

People are "forced" to contribute to Social Security as well, which robs seniors of the "dignity of work" in their final years.

I guess that's another instance of freedom in America being taken away.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I've been divorced for two years now, and Lorilei's restraining order doesn't expire until June.

There are lights flashing on one of my keyboards right now, and I'm not sure whether they're alarms or not.

But then, I suppose they'll continue.

I'm not really disposed to dealing with electronic problems at the moment, so I hope you get it sorted.

Anyway, Lori's really cool, so don't be an ass to her and stuff.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The act of using (or wanting to use) contraception contradicts the assertion that the condition is deliberate.

I also wonder if you're arguing that health insurance shouldn't cover healthcare during pregnancies since they too are usually a result of....self-inflicted orgasms.

Fuck this think called sex!

Okay, that's it.

I'ma go away and read poetry and listen to music because this is some fucked-up repugnant shit.

 

[StrangeLife]

Oh, good. Then you agree that there is no reason for insurance to cover treatment for erectile dysfunction, either.

It's not a quid pro quo situation or a gender-based wrestling match Lori - either it's sickness or it isn't.

And you said it yourself - erectile dysfunction is a "dysfunction." Meaning that something doesn't work. In other words, you're sick and should thus be covered.

Another angle is, that erectile dysfunction can be a symptom of pending circulatory collapse, heart problems or hormonal imbalance, and therefore should never be ignored. In a way, a mans ability to rise to the occasion is as sensitive to his health as the regularity of a woman's period is to hers.

 

[Tryharder62]

But it's OK to force deeply held secular beliefs on someone else?

Such as?

It's just a different perspective.

 

[Lorilei]

It's not a quid pro quo situation or a gender-based wrestling match Lori - either it's sickness or it isn't.

And you said it yourself - erectile dysfunction is a "dysfunction." Meaning that something doesn't work. In other words, you're sick and should thus be covered.

Another angle is, that erectile dysfunction can be a symptom of pending circulatory collapse, heart problems or hormonal imbalance, and therefore should never be ignored. In a way, a mans ability to rise to the occasion is as sensitive to his health as the regularity of a woman's period is to hers.

Trust me, if something ends up in my uterus that I didn't intend to be there, I'm gonna consider that to be a dysfunction.

Anyway, I was being facetious. Of course I think that should be covered. Again, it's part of the sexual and reproductive health umbrella, and is between a patient and his or her doctor, not the patient and his or her employer. And it certainly isn't any of MY business.

 

[neci]

I am going to celebrate my new insurance by going to Planned Parenthood and getting a ten year IUD.

 

[StrangeLife]

Wrong. If it requires a medical prescription, there's a medical need.

No amount of spin on your part can change that fact.

Wrong! http://s7.postimg.org/7xwghfjxj/smilie6.gif

If it require a medical prescription it means that society has an interest in limiting access to the substance in question. Nothing more.

This can be because it's dangerous (propofol), because it's difficult to use correctly (prednisolon) or because it's usage should be limited for the common good (penicillin). In the case of birth control pills, it's because it's difficult to choose the correct type, I think....

 

[StrangeLife]

Trust me, if something ends up in my uterus that I didn't intend to be there, I'm gonna consider that to be a dysfunction.

A gun in the top drawer next to the bed is a very efficient way of dealing with those...

Anyway, I was being facetious. Of course I think that should be covered. Again, it's part of the sexual and reproductive health umbrella, and is between a patient and his or her doctor, not the patient and his or her employer. And it certainly isn't any of MY business.

An employer might very well agree with your holistic philosophy and offer birth control (and he might also like to not have too many female employees on un-scheduled maternity leave). But my point is, that it's a "benefit package" like a car or a golf club membership - not a "health care package". And it should thus always be voluntary for the employer to offer it.

 

[StrangeLife]

I am going to celebrate my new insurance by going to Planned Parenthood and getting a ten year IUD.

I must be getting tired - for a minute there I though you wrote "IED" and intended to blow yourself up...

 

[julybaby04]

I don't even know how you type this nonsense with a straight face.

Why would I not have a straight face?

Truth is truth.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Wrong! http://s7.postimg.org/7xwghfjxj/smilie6.gif

If it require a medical prescription it means that society has an interest in limiting access to the substance in question. Nothing more.

This can be because it's dangerous (propofol), because it's difficult to use correctly (prednisolon) or because it's usage should be limited for the common good (penicillin). In the case of birth control pills, it's because it's difficult to choose the correct type, I think....

That's a rather novel explanation/rationalization. I'll still stand by my interpretation.

 

[Lorilei]

Why would I not have a straight face?

Truth is truth.

There was not a single truthful statement in your post. Not one. Hyperbole much?

 

[RobDownSouth]

There was not a single truthful statement in your post. Not one. Hyperbole much?

This might help explain: The Christian Right’s Ease With Lies And Dishonesty

 

[StrangeLife]

That's a rather novel explanation/rationalization. I'll still stand by my interpretation.

Hey! Didn't you just tell me that you agreed with me?


Oh oops - that was a different thread....

 

[renard_ruse]

Can someone explain why the Lit General Board has become a garbage dump for extreme social liberal trash threads?

 

[phrodeau]

There is no difference in Hobby Lobby or say some corporation like Chik-fil-a.

The standards those who own those business have are well known. If someone has a different standard/belief, then why in the world would the even apply there?

Those companies can just as easily shut their doors and no one will have a job. The people who are complaining would be out of work anyway. Why not just apply to a business where the ideals agree?

No one can force Hobby Lobby or anyone else to stay in business. This kind of tunnel vision is going to cause greater harm in that many could lose their jobs.

Really? For a $30/month birth control prescription (or whatever they cost).

Why should a company gain an economic advantage because of their religious beliefs?

 

[warrior queen]

Seems to me, subsidising $18/year of the contraceptive pill is a fuckload cheaper than paying out welfare to a woman who has a baby she didn't want.
Why is this even a debate?

 

[Lorilei]

Seems to me, subsidising $18/year of the contraceptive pill is a fuckload cheaper than paying out welfare to a woman who has a baby she didn't want.
Why is this even a debate?

It shouldn't be, but there are some factions of America (the Christian Taliban) who would like to drag America back a couple hundred years.

And I say that as a Christian, but one who finds the extreme fundamentalists abhorrent.