Supreme Court questions Trump's rollback of birth control coverage

[Chosen Daughter]

Ok, one more time.... the exemption is so these private organizations do not have to comply with the federal law requiring them to purchase insurance they may not want.The religious/moral thing is just a work around to get around the law....

And again this isn't about a private policy for individuals.  This is about employers that provide insurance to employee's, any kind.

[Cyber Liberty]

Ok, one more time.... the exemption is so these private organizations do not have to comply with the federal law requiring them to purchase insurance they may not want.The religious/moral thing is just a work around to get around the law....

Forget it, she's on one of her moral tears, facts be damned.  She doesn't get the government is trying to force nuns to pay for abortions.  O'Bastard lives on in the ignorance of people who claim to be on our side.

[Idiot]

 

[Chosen Daughter]

Forget it, she's on one of her moral tears, facts be damned.  She doesn't get the government is trying to force nuns to pay for abortions.  O'Bastard lives on in the ignorance of people who claim to be on our side.

Can No One Be Left Alone? The Little Sisters of the Poor Case

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/05/little-sisters-of-the-poor-case-supreme-court-thomas-ascik.html

Don't worry!  Nobody under the Little Sisters of the Poor is going to need or want contraceptives.

[Cyber Liberty]

Can No One Be Left Alone? The Little Sisters of the Poor Case

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/05/little-sisters-of-the-poor-case-supreme-court-thomas-ascik.html

Don't worry!  Nobody under the Little Sisters of the Poor is going to need or want contraceptives.

[Chosen Daughter]

I see you concur.  So why should we rearrange health coverage in the United States for religion?  Isn't that state sponsor of religion.  If the Catholic church wants to provide their own insurance provided by the church they should.

I am against abortion but this is too far.  I know many Christians who use contraceptives for family planning.  My guess is the majority of women here have used them.  Perhaps you could have been correct on IUD's which prevent a fertilized egg to plant in the womb.  I have never used one.  But what is our argument?  Are we to demonize people for family planning by allowing every business to deny contraception on the base of religious objection?

How does a person know when applying for a job that they will be discriminated against for not being ready to start a family?   And if we want to reduce abortion and even get rid of Planned Parenthood this is the wrong direction.  I would say its pro abortion.  Because people without access will become pregnant.



Christian Pregnancy Centers to Offer Women Contraceptives
A network of eight Christian pregnancy centers in Texas will provide contraceptive options next year as it vies for federal funding Planned Parenthood relinquished earlier this year.

By CLARICE SILBER, Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Planned Parenthood gave up roughly $60 million when it left a federal family planning program this year in opposition to a new Trump administration rule prohibiting clinics from referring women for abortions.

n Texas, a network of eight Christian pregnancy centers is jockeying for that Title X funding as it makes plans to take the unprecedented step of offering unmarried women contraceptives next year.

The move by The Source marks a turning point for faith-based pregnancy centers that are opposed to abortions and typically do not provide birth control, while they instead preach abstinence outside of marriage...……..

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-11-15/chain-of-christian-pregnancy-centers-to-offer-contraceptives

The nuns are having a fit about something that doesn't even affect them.  It doesn't cost them any more.  They wouldn't use it, nor any of their employees would likely do that.  They are only looking to change the insurance based on their own religious objection.  She should be able to object to the Vatican and obtain insurance through the church.

How does this differ from my stance on abortion?  I view abortion as murder.  Perhaps you could give an argument on cells, and yes, the Bible did say he formed us in the womb.  But in our society and views on sex.  The amount of women who become pregnant without a husband.  The attitude about sex.  The reality that they have been pushing sex in our education system.  Its in our media.  Its on almost every television show.  Lets face it we are not a society of nuns.  For me personally I have used birth control.  And if God asks me to answer for it I will.

But contraception is the avenue to reduce unwed pregnancies.  It is the avenue for planned pregnancy and family.


Should A Christian Use Birth Control? If So, What Forms Are Acceptable?


Read more: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/should-a-christian-use-birth-control-if-so-what-forms-are-acceptable/#ixzz6LyXdpFc6

[roamer_1]

I think every insurance should cover birth control.  If you want to reduce abortion preventing unwanted birth is the way.  And natural ways do not work.

This is ridiculous.  There should be co pay for the prescription and that is it.  Every woman should have access to this.

I will disagree. Completely.

I think it should be solely in the hands of the employer what he wants to offer in an insurance package, if he wants to offer one at all. If a company can't afford to offer full coverage, and may only be able to offer a catastrophic plan, then that should be up to the company...

I don't need uncle nanny telling me what's best for my company or my employees, religious convictions aside.

[libertybele]

I will disagree. Completely.

I think it should be solely in the hands of the employer what he wants to offer in an insurance package, if he wants to offer one at all. If a company can't afford to offer full coverage, and may only be able to offer a catastrophic plan, then that should be up to the company...

I don't need uncle nanny telling me what's best for my company or my employees, religious convictions aside.

The responsibility of "birth control" lies in the hands of those having consensual relations and not the responsibility of the government, the insurance companies or the employers.

[roamer_1]

The responsibility of "birth control" lies in the hands of those having consensual relations and not the responsibility of the government, the insurance companies or the employers.

That's right enough, but only the tip of the nose of the camel. I want the broadest array of options offered to employers. A one-size-fits-all approach defining by edict what insurance must consist of is not the way to control costs. ever. Similar to the idea that DC has no idea what's good for Montana.

There should be as much variation and option as possible, and let it be tailor made... Otherwise the demanded features will drive up the cost - What you MUST have WILL be expensive, because you have no alternative but to pay for it.

If *NOTHING* is demanded, then the market is free to order availability and cost accordingly when building the packages the market needs... As organically as is possible.

AGAIN, if at all. I am offended by the idea that an employer must pay for health insurance in the first place.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's right enough, but only the tip of the nose of the camel. I want the broadest array of options offered to employers. A one-size-fits-all approach defining by edict what insurance must consist of is not the way to control costs. ever. Similar to the idea that DC has no idea what's good for Montana.

There should be as much variation and option as possible, and let it be tailor made... Otherwise the demanded features will drive up the cost - What you MUST have WILL be expensive, because you have no alternative but to pay for it.

If *NOTHING* is demanded, then the market is free to order availability and cost accordingly when building the packages the market needs... As organically as is possible.

AGAIN, if at all. I am offended by the idea that an employer must pay for health insurance in the first place.

It's a tradition that got started in the age of wage and price controls during WW2, I believe.  It was a way of offering a higher wage than cash.

[roamer_1]

It's a tradition that got started in the age of wage and price controls during WW2, I believe.  It was a way of offering a higher wage than cash.

It doesn't matter why... It's not healthy. If people had to pay their own bills, I guarantee the price of healthcare would drop remarkably.

[Cyber Liberty]

It doesn't matter why... It's not healthy. If people had to pay their own bills, I guarantee the price of healthcare would drop remarkably.

Oh, Hell yeah.  That's on the money.  On top of that, it creates virtual slaves for which employers can keep the wages low, because people are afraid to take a hike and risk that perk.

[Chosen Daughter]

I will disagree. Completely.

I think it should be solely in the hands of the employer what he wants to offer in an insurance package, if he wants to offer one at all. If a company can't afford to offer full coverage, and may only be able to offer a catastrophic plan, then that should be up to the company...

I don't need uncle nanny telling me what's best for my company or my employees, religious convictions aside.

But the problem isn't with the contraception but the healthcare system itself.  I think people should be offered catastrophic policies also.  I don't use my insurance much. I pay for it but the deductible is so high I would never want to use it.  But I have taken a natural approach to health anyway.

I went for years working for an employer without insurance.  Went to walk ins if I needed it.  Had to go to emergency once and it nearly put me in the poor house.  Had to pay it off monthly.    I also had a job prior that had the  best insurance.  Covered everything with the births of my children.  I don't need contraceptives now, but I could use catastrophic insurance.  I disagree with you on employers.  They should cover their workers.  Benefits draw good talent too.  But small companies cannot always afford it.

Catastrophic policies would be a good thing.   

[roamer_1]

But the problem isn't with the contraception but the healthcare system itself.  I think people should be offered catastrophic policies also.  I don't use my insurance much. I pay for it but the deductible is so high I would never want to use it.  But I have taken a natural approach to health anyway.

I went for years working for an employer without insurance.  Went to walk ins if I needed it.  Had to go to emergency once and it nearly put me in the poor house.  Had to pay it off monthly.    I also had a job prior that had the  best insurance.  Covered everything with the births of my children.  I don't need contraceptives now, but I could use catastrophic insurance.  I disagree with you on employers.  They should cover their workers.  Benefits draw good talent too.  But small companies cannot always afford it.

Catastrophic policies would be a good thing.

I am much like you wrt alt med... I resent an insurance mandate that I will never use, paying for it anyway, while paying for my own medicine out-of-pocket.

I also disagree with the concept of insurance on principle: Rule of thumb, it cannot be cheaper for someone else to pay your bills. That it seems like it is means they are making their money a different way... my experience with insurance has been one of denial after denial. No point in chasing it legally and jumping through hoops. The sonsabiches took my money year after year, and then dumped me on my butt the minute I really needed em. Screw that... Just like you paying hand over fist and scared to use it because if you do, they'll jack you up...

One way or another, The primary reason you cannot afford healthcare on your own is because something is holding that market up, against the forces of supply and demand. Knock out that prop, and the prices would fall precipitously. I wonder what that prop is?

Knock that out, and you will be able to pay out-of-pocket.

As to 'employers should provide insurance' - Should is a strong word. Like a dictate.
No, they should not. I have no responsibility... NONE... to see after my employees. They are not my pets, nor my subjects. And I have found the best variety of worker is fiercely independent, preferring a subcontract to employment. They are more reliable, show more initiative, take on more responsibilities. and require far, far less overseeing. I paid a hard price for em - on average 25% more. Because they are worth it.

And my guys always did eat before I did, sometimes all winter long.... Often taking out of my own pocket, and out of my own children's mouths, paying them for make-work when times were rough. So I paid a premium, and defended them, and kept them well - But not because it was  required of me.

Were it required, I would do nothing.

[Chosen Daughter]

I am much like you wrt alt med... I resent an insurance mandate that I will never use, paying for it anyway, while paying for my own medicine out-of-pocket.

I also disagree with the concept of insurance on principle: Rule of thumb, it cannot be cheaper for someone else to pay your bills. That it seems like it is means they are making their money a different way... my experience with insurance has been one of denial after denial. No point in chasing it legally and jumping through hoops. The sonsabiches took my money year after year, and then dumped me on my butt the minute I really needed em. Screw that... Just like you paying hand over fist and scared to use it because if you do, they'll jack you up...

One way or another, The primary reason you cannot afford healthcare on your own is because something is holding that market up, against the forces of supply and demand. Knock out that prop, and the prices would fall precipitously. I wonder what that prop is?

Knock that out, and you will be able to pay out-of-pocket.

As to 'employers should provide insurance' - Should is a strong word. Like a dictate.
No, they should not. I have no responsibility... NONE... to see after my employees. They are not my pets, nor my subjects. And I have found the best variety of worker is fiercely independent, preferring a subcontract to employment. They are more reliable, show more initiative, take on more responsibilities. and require far, far less overseeing. I paid a hard price for em - on average 25% more. Because they are worth it.

And my guys always did eat before I did, sometimes all winter long.... Often taking out of my own pocket, and out of my own children's mouths, paying them for make-work when times were rough. So I paid a premium, and defended them, and kept them well - But not because it was  required of me.

Were it required, I would do nothing.

I like independence also, but medical costs are sky high.  Staying healthy is the best option.  If you have to go without insurance you are screwed.  Not illegals though.  They get everything for free.