there are two kinds of sex: one is for procreation, and therefore doesn’t need contraception.
if you force employers to pay for recreational sex, why not force them to pay for all other kinds of recreational activities????
forced provision of contraception is not really about health insurance at all.
What about intimacy between 2 married people who do not want a child or more children? This creates a healthier relationship and a stronger marriage. Does that not benefit society?
Based on your comment, I assume you’d be OK with employers only providing coverage for ED medication if the employee signs a contract agreeing that he will only use the medication for procreation, and acknowledging that he will lose coverage once conception is confirmed?
Because, all other kinds of recreational activity do not lead to children. But, that is an irrelevant point. This should be covered, because it is better for society. Most health insurance companies provide this coverage for free, as in the case of Hobby Lobby, but the employer still does not want to provide coverage, because they want to force their interpretation of their religion onto other people. Most of the same people making these arguments don’t think contraception should be provided at all, because they are religious maniacs.
You are right Captain Planet. My daughter takes the lowest dosage of oral conceptive in order to slow the spread of endometriosis. It is currently the only preventative for this condition. It has nothing to do with protecting her against pregnancy. At the dose she takes it would not be too effective for that.
Sherinae,
My wife was put on contraception so we COULD conceive a child. It was used to help her ovulate because she wasn’t doing that on her own. There are many other medical reasons, too.
Steve, using your logic, employers already are paying for all activities, recreational or otherwise. If you’re in a car accident, is the employer paying for you to drive, through the health care plan? Health plans pay for covered expenses, not activities.
Even without its other uses, contraceptive medicine for the avoidance of pregnancy is very much a health care issue, which makes it a legitimate public policy concern for health insurance coverage. I doubt if any of the plaintiffs in this case will be quoting your Rush Limbaugh arguments in court.
OT, we have Auto Insurance to take care of Auto Accidents personally including Uninsured Motorists or the Fleet if driving for the employer and Workers Compensation for on the job injuries. Health Insurance should not be involved for those activities. By the way, I hardly think the Little Sisters of the Poor will need birth control or abortions. They should have already been exempted from this requirement in their health plan.
This case is not about whether employers can be required to provide contraceptive coverage. It’s about whether the HHS rules violate the plaintiffs’ protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” I don’t agree that asking employers to complete a form is a “substantial burden” on exercise of religion. All the form says is, “Providing this coverage is against our religion and we’re not going to pay for it.” True, submitting the form to the insurer triggers the insurer’s separate coverage for employees who want it, but I don’t think that makes the employer somehow complicit. What the insurer does after it receives the form does not involve the employer.
I don’t know…but seems to me the reasoning behind these suits doesn’t make any sense. The premiums collected from all insureds is mixed and mingled. By removing contraceptive coverage from their policy, they are not avoiding their premium dollars paying for contraception claims. The premium dollars simply are not separated out that way in reality. If they argued that they did not want their employees to have the coverage because it was against their beliefs, it would be more understandable. This stance wouldn’t stop their premiums from being used to pay contracption claims the insurance company receives from other policyholders, though.
Bill, the fatal flaw of this Progressive Law is the mandates and forcing people to buy something they don’t necessarily want for one reason or another. It wouldn’t have been that hard to have boxes to check on an application and either opt for the coverage or opt out. Instead, what we have is one size fits all and the only choice is how much you want for a deductible or out of pocket expense. This country was founded on freedom of choice, but when a government says you must take it or pay a fine/tax, something is very wrong with that picture.
Mandates for insurance is the reason you have a job and make the money you make, whether by the government or lenders.
If insurance was only sought by those who wanted it, the market would shrink significantly leading to less jobs and a crumbling of the economy.
You said, “This country was founded on freedom of choice, but when a government says you must take it or pay a fine/tax, something is very wrong with that picture.” Go tell the conservative Heritage Foundation. The mandate was originally their idea. Anyone with half a brain about insurance understands the necessity of the mandate if you are going to provide coverage for high risk people or those with pre-existing conditions. Ever hear of adverse selection?
In addition, does that mean that the country was founded as pro-choice? How about freedom from religion? How about the freedom to marry the consenting adult of your choice? How about the freedom to smoke/use marijuana? We can keep going about the freedoms Conservatives want to take away.
Agent, that is a sensible reply, but it doesn’t address the problems with this reasoning behind this lawsuit. The lawsuit (even if they win) will not attain their goals. Their premiums will continue to pay claims for contraception, just for those insured under other policies and ACA will not come crumbling down (if that truly is part of their goal). Thus, waste of time and money.
Bill, we live in a very angry, entitled society as evidenced by some of the posts we see on this blog from the Progressive element. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves to see what this country has become and how far they want to take it left.
By the way, the next Republican debate on the economy is tonight by Fox Business network. I have a feeling that the questions will be far different than that sorry CNBC debate crap we witnessed. We may actually find out what the candidates will propose and do with the disastrous Obama economy mired in an average 1.5% growth, very bad labor participation rate, the lowest in 30 years tax plans etc.
“Bill, we live in a very angry, entitled society” we know, Agent – we have all read your posts
November 10, 2015 at 12:26 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Agent,
You said, “We may actually find out what the candidates will propose and do with the disastrous Obama economy mired in an average 1.5% growth, very bad labor participation rate, the lowest in 30 years tax plans etc.”
Spoiler alert, we will not. They will stand up there and brag about their ratings and poll numbers, and insult each other, President Obama and the Democratic candidates. Oh what fun.
November 10, 2015 at 1:36 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Our founding fathers were progressives. If they “would be rolling over in their graves” it would be due to the attempt by conservatives to wear away the separation of church and state, as well as trying to give everything to the wealthy. Both of those things were cornerstones of the behavior of the king of England, and the conservatives in power, during colonial times. Our founding fathers were against those things. Try learning something about our nation’s history, since you obviously didn’t learn it when you were in school.
As far as the debate goes, whenever they are asked a question about a serious issue, they sidestep and change the subject, or they answer in vague generalities that have little to no substance. By the way, Ben Carson obviously cannot “do math” if he thinks his tax plan will do what he says it will do. But that’s not his fault; “it’s the media’s fault”.
November 11, 2015 at 11:13 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Bill, I don’t know if you watched the debate, but Fox Business Network did a great job asking pertinent questions on the economy, did not do any agenda questions or talk about Fantasy football and they were respectful to the candidates. Trump, Carson and Rubio and Cruz didn’t hurt their case any and only Kasich & Paul hurt themselves. I really liked Carly’s three page tax code a lot. This debate was like night and day from the previous CNBC debate. Those Progressive idiots should never host another Republican debate. They will not be giving the Socialist Democrats a hard time if they do their debate. In fact, they will be right in their element.
“I’m very familiar with what you mean when you say Janet yelling (Yellen)”
November 17, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Hey Bill, Charlie Sheen has sure been practicing his sexual freedom for years, hasn’t he? He has had AIDs for four years and slept with dozens of females and males and no telling how many he has infected with the virus. I thought that was a crime to knowingly sleep with someone knowing you had the virus. The only reason he came out with it was he couldn’t afford the blackmail money anymore.
there are two kinds of sex: one is for procreation, and therefore doesn’t need contraception.
if you force employers to pay for recreational sex, why not force them to pay for all other kinds of recreational activities????
forced provision of contraception is not really about health insurance at all.
Football is also a recreational activity. Are you saying employer plans should exclude employees’ kids’ football injuries?
Steve, you are incorrect that there are only 2 kinds of sex. Sexual assault is very real.
Its of course horrible, but real
steve,
What about intimacy between 2 married people who do not want a child or more children? This creates a healthier relationship and a stronger marriage. Does that not benefit society?
Based on your comment, I assume you’d be OK with employers only providing coverage for ED medication if the employee signs a contract agreeing that he will only use the medication for procreation, and acknowledging that he will lose coverage once conception is confirmed?
Because, all other kinds of recreational activity do not lead to children. But, that is an irrelevant point. This should be covered, because it is better for society. Most health insurance companies provide this coverage for free, as in the case of Hobby Lobby, but the employer still does not want to provide coverage, because they want to force their interpretation of their religion onto other people. Most of the same people making these arguments don’t think contraception should be provided at all, because they are religious maniacs.
Steve,
Doctors prescribe contraception for purposes other than avoiding pregnancy.
You are right Captain Planet. My daughter takes the lowest dosage of oral conceptive in order to slow the spread of endometriosis. It is currently the only preventative for this condition. It has nothing to do with protecting her against pregnancy. At the dose she takes it would not be too effective for that.
Sherinae,
My wife was put on contraception so we COULD conceive a child. It was used to help her ovulate because she wasn’t doing that on her own. There are many other medical reasons, too.
He doesn’t care, he is a religious nut, and his argument will always change based on every new fact you provide.
Steve, using your logic, employers already are paying for all activities, recreational or otherwise. If you’re in a car accident, is the employer paying for you to drive, through the health care plan? Health plans pay for covered expenses, not activities.
Even without its other uses, contraceptive medicine for the avoidance of pregnancy is very much a health care issue, which makes it a legitimate public policy concern for health insurance coverage. I doubt if any of the plaintiffs in this case will be quoting your Rush Limbaugh arguments in court.
OT, we have Auto Insurance to take care of Auto Accidents personally including Uninsured Motorists or the Fleet if driving for the employer and Workers Compensation for on the job injuries. Health Insurance should not be involved for those activities. By the way, I hardly think the Little Sisters of the Poor will need birth control or abortions. They should have already been exempted from this requirement in their health plan.
This case is not about whether employers can be required to provide contraceptive coverage. It’s about whether the HHS rules violate the plaintiffs’ protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” I don’t agree that asking employers to complete a form is a “substantial burden” on exercise of religion. All the form says is, “Providing this coverage is against our religion and we’re not going to pay for it.” True, submitting the form to the insurer triggers the insurer’s separate coverage for employees who want it, but I don’t think that makes the employer somehow complicit. What the insurer does after it receives the form does not involve the employer.
But Jesus specifically said that employers are not to provide coverage for contraceptives. Nor are they to fill out any forms.
I don’t know…but seems to me the reasoning behind these suits doesn’t make any sense. The premiums collected from all insureds is mixed and mingled. By removing contraceptive coverage from their policy, they are not avoiding their premium dollars paying for contraception claims. The premium dollars simply are not separated out that way in reality. If they argued that they did not want their employees to have the coverage because it was against their beliefs, it would be more understandable. This stance wouldn’t stop their premiums from being used to pay contracption claims the insurance company receives from other policyholders, though.
Bill, the fatal flaw of this Progressive Law is the mandates and forcing people to buy something they don’t necessarily want for one reason or another. It wouldn’t have been that hard to have boxes to check on an application and either opt for the coverage or opt out. Instead, what we have is one size fits all and the only choice is how much you want for a deductible or out of pocket expense. This country was founded on freedom of choice, but when a government says you must take it or pay a fine/tax, something is very wrong with that picture.
Agent,
Mandates for insurance is the reason you have a job and make the money you make, whether by the government or lenders.
If insurance was only sought by those who wanted it, the market would shrink significantly leading to less jobs and a crumbling of the economy.
You said, “This country was founded on freedom of choice, but when a government says you must take it or pay a fine/tax, something is very wrong with that picture.” Go tell the conservative Heritage Foundation. The mandate was originally their idea. Anyone with half a brain about insurance understands the necessity of the mandate if you are going to provide coverage for high risk people or those with pre-existing conditions. Ever hear of adverse selection?
In addition, does that mean that the country was founded as pro-choice? How about freedom from religion? How about the freedom to marry the consenting adult of your choice? How about the freedom to smoke/use marijuana? We can keep going about the freedoms Conservatives want to take away.
Agent, that is a sensible reply, but it doesn’t address the problems with this reasoning behind this lawsuit. The lawsuit (even if they win) will not attain their goals. Their premiums will continue to pay claims for contraception, just for those insured under other policies and ACA will not come crumbling down (if that truly is part of their goal). Thus, waste of time and money.
Bill, we live in a very angry, entitled society as evidenced by some of the posts we see on this blog from the Progressive element. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves to see what this country has become and how far they want to take it left.
By the way, the next Republican debate on the economy is tonight by Fox Business network. I have a feeling that the questions will be far different than that sorry CNBC debate crap we witnessed. We may actually find out what the candidates will propose and do with the disastrous Obama economy mired in an average 1.5% growth, very bad labor participation rate, the lowest in 30 years tax plans etc.
“Bill, we live in a very angry, entitled society” we know, Agent – we have all read your posts
Agent,
You said, “We may actually find out what the candidates will propose and do with the disastrous Obama economy mired in an average 1.5% growth, very bad labor participation rate, the lowest in 30 years tax plans etc.”
Spoiler alert, we will not. They will stand up there and brag about their ratings and poll numbers, and insult each other, President Obama and the Democratic candidates. Oh what fun.
Our founding fathers were progressives. If they “would be rolling over in their graves” it would be due to the attempt by conservatives to wear away the separation of church and state, as well as trying to give everything to the wealthy. Both of those things were cornerstones of the behavior of the king of England, and the conservatives in power, during colonial times. Our founding fathers were against those things. Try learning something about our nation’s history, since you obviously didn’t learn it when you were in school.
As far as the debate goes, whenever they are asked a question about a serious issue, they sidestep and change the subject, or they answer in vague generalities that have little to no substance. By the way, Ben Carson obviously cannot “do math” if he thinks his tax plan will do what he says it will do. But that’s not his fault; “it’s the media’s fault”.
Bill, I don’t know if you watched the debate, but Fox Business Network did a great job asking pertinent questions on the economy, did not do any agenda questions or talk about Fantasy football and they were respectful to the candidates. Trump, Carson and Rubio and Cruz didn’t hurt their case any and only Kasich & Paul hurt themselves. I really liked Carly’s three page tax code a lot. This debate was like night and day from the previous CNBC debate. Those Progressive idiots should never host another Republican debate. They will not be giving the Socialist Democrats a hard time if they do their debate. In fact, they will be right in their element.
“I’m very familiar with what you mean when you say Janet yelling (Yellen)”
Hey Bill, Charlie Sheen has sure been practicing his sexual freedom for years, hasn’t he? He has had AIDs for four years and slept with dozens of females and males and no telling how many he has infected with the virus. I thought that was a crime to knowingly sleep with someone knowing you had the virus. The only reason he came out with it was he couldn’t afford the blackmail money anymore.