Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Its not like the workers of hobbly lobby cant pay for the stuff themselves(gasp!!!!! people paying for their own stuff)

You seriously cannot imagine a situation in which a female who works a low wage clerk job at Hobby Lobby would not have any money to put together to pay for medication? F#&% em, I guess, right?

And in this situation, the employee would be paying for it themselves. Employer-provided health insurance didn't become free with the ACA, did it? It's just that she's not getting the same services as everyone else, because of her corporate overlords' esoteric religious beliefs.

Notice how Hobby Lobby is being viewed as no Birth Control is being provided by them. How the left is not mentioning the other 16 being provided by Hobby Lobby but saying basically none is being provided

 jasper76 wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Its not like the workers of hobbly lobby cant pay for the stuff themselves(gasp!!!!! people paying for their own stuff)

You seriously cannot imagine a situation in which a female who works a low wage clerk job at Hobby Lobby would not have any money to put together to pay for medication? F#&% em, I guess, right?

If that was the view they wouldn't provide health care now would they...

See how the right keeps on saying "only those four are affected" even though the ruling affects all of them?

 d-usa wrote:
See how the right keeps on saying "only those four are affected" even though the ruling affects all of them?

When did birth control become health care?

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Its not like the workers of hobbly lobby cant pay for the stuff themselves(gasp!!!!! people paying for their own stuff)

You seriously cannot imagine a situation in which a female who works a low wage clerk job at Hobby Lobby would not have any money to put together to pay for medication? F#&% em, I guess, right?

If that was the view they wouldn't provide health care now would they...

Your point is lost on me here.

I wasn't replying to you.

But it became part if health care when it was regulated by the FDA and available by prescription and was used to treat many other conditions other than "I don't want no baby".

Sorry when is an IUD used for anything besides birth control.

Again, when did birth control become health care?

lets put it another way. Should they be forced to fund abortions as health care?

You seriously dont think using medication prescribed by a doctor to avoid pregnancy is healthcare?

What, pray tell, then is it?

Why ask me, I don't know jack according to you.

Google it and don't be lazy and quit pretending that there are no other uses just because you don't know about something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no part of the ACA has ever required anybody to fund abortion.

 jasper76 wrote:
You seriously dont think using medication prescribed by a doctor to avoid pregnancy is healthcare?

What, pray tell, then is it?

Nope. There is no illness to address.
Plastic surgery is also prescribed. People get butt lifts, boobs jobs, face lifts. Other than related to surgery (for example mastectomies) plastic surgery actually violates the hyppocratic oath of do no harm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Why ask me, I don't know jack according to you.

Google it and don't be lazy and quit pretending that there are no other uses just because you don't know about something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no part of the ACA has ever required anybody to fund abortion.

Now you're getting all butthurt again. Get some cream or something.

I didn't ask if the ACA required it. I asked if YOU think they should be required to.

Such ignorance. Much mistaken. Very Frazzled.

 jasper76 wrote:
You seriously dont think using medication prescribed by a doctor to avoid pregnancy is healthcare?

What, pray tell, then is it?

Contraception.

Of which there are many forms.

Including not fething people you don't want to have a kid with.

But, you know, condoms work, too.

I do acknowledge some forms of birth control (coincidentally, the ones that Hobby Lobby DOES Cover) are used for hormone regulation and for dermatological purposes.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. There is no illness to address.

C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.

You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?

You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?

You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?

This is why people who don't know jack about the subject shouldn't be allowed to make laws and rules...

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. There is no illness to address.

C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.

You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?

You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?

You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?

SOME forms of birth control.

Not all.

 d-usa wrote:
Such ignorance. Much mistaken. Very Frazzled.

Answer the question.

Do YOU think they should be required to fund abortions?

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. There is no illness to address.

C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.

You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?

You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?

You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?

SOME forms of birth control.

Not all.

Your point is?

 d-usa wrote:
This is why people who don't know jack about the subject shouldn't be allowed to make laws and rules...

Feelz, not reelz!

The sad thing is that's how it always will be.

 d-usa wrote:
See how the right keeps on saying "only those four are affected" even though the ruling affects all of them?

Okay....

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees, ending its term with a narrow legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

That some but not all.

So it becomes a lower court battle over the interpretation of SCOTUS decision. Think one might want to jump on revising a portion of ACA concerning this matter then just screaming and yelling at each other

 d-usa wrote:
This is why people who don't know jack about the subject shouldn't be allowed to make laws and rules...

Bureaucrats and experts invented and managed the Final Solution.


Godwinned baby!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. There is no illness to address.

C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.

You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?

You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?

You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?

blah blah.

Here's your answer. Don't do the crime.

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. There is no illness to address.

C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.

You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?

You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?

You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?

SOME forms of birth control.

Not all.

To bad the Supreme Court didn't make that distinction.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's your answer. Don't do the crime.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg.

 Jihadin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
See how the right keeps on saying "only those four are affected" even though the ruling affects all of them?

Okay....

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees, ending its term with a narrow legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

That some but not all.

So it becomes a lower court battle over the interpretation of SCOTUS decision. Think one might want to jump on revising a portion of ACA concerning this matter then just screaming and yelling at each other

No, it's all.

I posted the ruling. Read the thread, read the ruling, or don't bother me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Such ignorance. Much mistaken. Very Frazzled.

Answer the question.

Do YOU think they should be required to fund abortions?

Abortions required as a medical treatment should be covered.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. There is no illness to address.

C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.

You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?

You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?

You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?

SOME forms of birth control.

Not all.

To bad the Supreme Court didn't make that distinction.

Agreed.

But I do think it's important to note that the forms that Hobby Lobby in particular disapproves of are the ones with the specific purpose of aborting a "insert phrasing for egg+sperm combo here".

I think it's also important to note that much of the media is conveniently leaving that part out.

But then again, I fall pretty squarely in the camp that employers shouldn't be forced to provide health care at all.

Seems to me that paying for an IUD is a whole lot cheaper than paying for a pregnancy, not to mention raising a kid.

Stupid policy question: why do we not simply offer on demand contraception in this country? It's way cheaper than the alternatives.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's your answer. Don't do the crime.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg.

Frazzled doesn't even know when he is serious anymore. He is to busy playing "Angry Texan" and got lost in the role.

 cincydooley wrote:
I do acknowledge some forms of birth control (coincidentally, the ones that Hobby Lobby DOES Cover) are used for hormone regulation and for dermatological purposes.

Well, I'm sure the medical community will be relieved to know you acknowledge 2 of the non-contraceptive applications of birth control medication.

But why don't we just leave these issues to trained medical professionals and their patients, shall we?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. There is no illness to address.

C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.

You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?

You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?

You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?

SOME forms of birth control.

Not all.

To bad the Supreme Court didn't make that distinction.

Agreed.

But I do think it's important to note that the forms that Hobby Lobby in particular disapproves of are the ones with the specific purpose of aborting a "insert phrasing for egg+sperm combo here".

I think it's also important to note that much of the media is conveniently leaving that part out.

But then again, I fall pretty squarely in the camp that employers shouldn't be forced to provide health care at all.

Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.

They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.

At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.

At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's your answer. Don't do the crime.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg.

Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?

Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.