The threat of the Hopper is that it skips commercials completely. And the Hopper can't advertise that on TV.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Necronic
Staff member
Looks like Hobby Lobby won their case, but it will only affect family owned private companies, so we won't see it affect too many large organizations.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...use-to-cover-contraception-supreme-court-says
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...use-to-cover-contraception-supreme-court-says
GasBandit
Staff member
And Harry Reid doesn't get it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Hobby Lobby decision: 'Today's decision jeopardizes women's access to essential health care. Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors'
Uh, they can still have all the contraception they want, sport. They just pay for it themselves. You know. Like always.
"I want you to pay for me to buy a TV!"
"I'm not paying for you to buy a TV."
"You have to pay for him to buy a TV. It's not your business to intrude in the private consumer electronics decision he makes with Dan at Best Buy."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Hobby Lobby decision: 'Today's decision jeopardizes women's access to essential health care. Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors'
Uh, they can still have all the contraception they want, sport. They just pay for it themselves. You know. Like always.
"I want you to pay for me to buy a TV!"
"I'm not paying for you to buy a TV."
"You have to pay for him to buy a TV. It's not your business to intrude in the private consumer electronics decision he makes with Dan at Best Buy."
So why don't we want healthcare to cover (or rather, help cover, lord knows most plans don't "pay" for any medication, just a part of it) contraception? Wouldn't that help lower things like abortion rates, unwed mothers and bigger welfare payouts? Seems to me there's mainly societal benefits there.[DOUBLEPOST=1404148522,1404148469][/DOUBLEPOST]
I believe I read in the Atlantic that this will actually cover almost 90% of business out there actually.
Because the religious right of this country is dead set on forcing the government to let them make laws based on their religious views... but only the views of Christians and only certain types of Christians. Because they doesn't understand how bigoted they are.
Pregnancy has a, um, slight impact on ones health? And like many other things insurance covers, it can and does have an impact on other sectors of society.
But I suspect you know that.
Big difference between 90% of businesses, and 90% of employees out there. I don't know proportions, but I certainly "hear" lots that most employers are small business, and yet there's a number of large businesses out there with 100,000+ employees. So "% of workers affected by this ruling" is the only one that's an actual useful number.
all I wonder about is the women who are not taking it to prevent pregnancy. The majority of my lady friends are not on birth control for its stated reason but to regulate their period or hormones(same thing really). if you are a lady who needs it for that shouldn't it be fine for your insurance to cover it? why should something you pay an arm and a leg for every paycheck not cover all your medications, and not just the ones your employer approves of? I have no standing in the issue, just putting it out there.
Dave
Staff member
It will probably depend on the ICD-9 code used on the paperwork. These codes show the reason for treatment.
Not to mention that PREGNANCY DOES EFFECT A PERSON'S HEALTH. There's no debating that. So, just like everything else that insurance covers, why on earth wouldn't contraception be a part of that coverage? Are we going to start telling diabetics they don't get their medication covered because they should have been more careful with their health? What about any elective surgeries? What about quality of life stuff? It seems to me that people deciding they don't like one kind of medication (for some truly baffling reasons) is a VERY dangerous precedent to set.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's false pretense to implicitly assert that insurance covers "everything else" so why not contraception - there's a great many things insurance doesn't cover for a variety of reasons, depending on the insurance company, the exact plan purchased, etc.
And wal mart sells birth control pills for $9 for a 30 day supply.
And wal mart sells birth control pills for $9 for a 30 day supply.
Necronic
Staff member
I can't imagine this will effect 90% of employees though. Most people are employed by publicly owned/traded companies
Edit: whoops my bad someone already said this.
Honestly though I'm pretty surprised Gasbandit is for this. Religious companies getting extra privileges is not exactly libertarian. I guess your view would be that you think any company should be able to do this (and more) for any reason? Honest question.
Of course not, for instance my insurance covers allergy meds but not allergy shots. Guess which my doc thinks will help the most?
But really, I get that the conservatives do NOT want insurance to cover contraception for some weird reason, what I don't get is WHY does this seem to bother everyone so much? Why on earth do you care if Mary Sue gets a copay on her contraception?
Because why waste money on WOMEN?
GasBandit
Staff member
You have to understand I start from the perspective that health care is not a right. Health insurance is part of a negotiated compensation package between an employer and employee that got its start back in the day as a way to offer more to a hire while getting around wage control laws. The supreme court decision is not perfect, it's silly to set a threshold the way they have - law should apply to everyone equally. But the truth of the matter is that this is a non-crisis, that should have been a non-controversy. It's part of a manufactured outrage engine invented by the democrat party so they have another flag to wave in their fight against the fictional "war on women" that they're using politically. Birth control is 9 bucks a month at wal mart. Nobody is banning birth control.
Remember when Romney was asked out of the blue by Democrat waterboy George Stephanopolous during the presidential debate if he wanted to ban birth control pills and he was confused because that was a topic that hadn't even come up in any discussion, ever, up to that point, and was not legislation that was even on the table anywhere? It was laying the groundwork for yet another fictional crisis to advance the statist/socialist agenda. Just like the so-called 40 million uninsured fake crisis which got us Obamacare in the first place.
Catholics (and most other dominations) believe that it is wrong to have casual sex, because it's purpose is to form a family and leads to moral degeneration when done casually. As such, they oppose anything that allows consequence free sex... be it condoms, birth control pills, or morning after pills. The people running the companies simply do not want to pay for the means that will allow others to do things they don't agree with. Never mind that they are perfectly okay with forcing OTHERS to pay for things that they agree with (like faith-based initiatives payed for with taxes).Of course not, for instance my insurance covers allergy meds but not allergy shots. Guess which my doc thinks will help the most?
But really, I get that the conservatives do NOT want insurance to cover contraception for some weird reason, what I don't get is WHY does this seem to bother everyone so much? Why on earth do you care if Mary Sue gets a copay on her contraception?
To put it simply, they believe they are righteous and want to force people to live like they do.
a small, brown, Jewish man from southern Palestine, or the tall, white, Christian man from Utah? :3
GasBandit
Staff member
I care when someone is forced to pay for a practice that goes against their religion. I'm not religious myself, but would you argue I should only protect the rights of those whose views exactly match my own?Of course not, for instance my insurance covers allergy meds but not allergy shots. Guess which my doc thinks will help the most?
But really, I get that the conservatives do NOT want insurance to cover contraception for some weird reason, what I don't get is WHY does this seem to bother everyone so much? Why on earth do you care if Mary Sue gets a copay on her contraception?
Women have the right to all the birth control they want. They just don't have the right to make someone else to unwillingly pay for it.
Because, according to some, "kill your fetus" pills should not be covered, even if you are using them "off label*" to regulate your hormones, because you might unintentionally (or intentionally) kill a fetus or give the impression that it's ok to kill foeti ... and that's bad. Just because you say you don't use that baby-killing medication to kill babies doesn't mean you aren't gonna kill babies with it later (see also: gun control, file sharing services).
--Patrick
*The same way people get prescriptions written for Loniten (who don't really need it) solely for the cosmetic effects.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's a fallacious line of reasoning. If they were FIRING people for using contraception, that'd be different. But they just don't want to pay for it. That's not "forcing people to live like they do."[DOUBLEPOST=1404153511,1404153411][/DOUBLEPOST]
Necronic
Staff member
I generally agree with Gas/SUPCO on this one, and this is one of the few places I see the Free Market as an actual solution to these problems. Don't like their policy? Don't shop there, shop at a competitor. It's why I don't go to Walmart anymore (although in their case I think what they are doing should be illegal.) Target/Costco can have all my dollery-do's. It really does make a difference.
I guarantee you that you won't see this in many high skilled workplaces, like engineering firms or banks, because they may lose potentially valuable employees to it. Also they are godless places filled with soulless automatons so it would be hard to argue religious motivations.
I guarantee you that you won't see this in many high skilled workplaces, like engineering firms or banks, because they may lose potentially valuable employees to it. Also they are godless places filled with soulless automatons so it would be hard to argue religious motivations.
That's sounds like an awfully dangerous slippery slope once we start letting religious people dictate what medical things are and aren't allowed to be covered by healthcare.
It's only a slippery slope when the only option for paying for healthcare (not insurance) is what is provided by the employer, or the government.
GasBandit
Staff member
INSURANCE. I hate to be a broken record but the distinction between health CARE and health INSURANCE is an important one.
As for what you meant - Only when it's a religious person providing health insurance coverage. Why should you fear that any more than a washington bureaucrat deciding whether your grandma gets surgery or just painkillers and hospice care since they're gonna die soon anyway? Somebody always "decides." The solution is to have as much competition in a free market as possible, so you can get the product that "decides" the way you prefer.
If they could fire people for using contraception, they would and don't pretend otherwise. These are people who went to SCOTUS over "9 bucks a month". Fortunately, we actually have a law preventing that.
Regardless, despite your view that it's "9 bucks for a month at Walmart", you are leaving out the other cost: the doctor's visit itself. It's not going to be covered because it's not for a "legitimate medical need" (birth control is considered optional, despite it's societal benefits) and even the cheapest doctor is going to cost you $60 just to get in the door. You can't get birth control pills without a prescription, so it's more like $70 minimum a month, more if your doctor doesn't work out of a back alley and less if you can get him to prescribe you more than a month at a time. But it's still a far cry from $9 a month.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, it turns out this is even more of a non-issue than I thought it was. Hobby Lobby's medical coverage already did and still does cover 16 different birth contol pills, condoms, sponge, etc. All that this fuss was about was the morning after pill.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/
Oh goodie, so that means women who were raped have a better chance of conceiving a child instead of taking a morning-after pill, just in case? That's just awesome.
GasBandit
Staff member
The morning after pill is over the counter and costs $30-$65, according to Planned Parenthood (found it for $49.99 at Walgreens). Try again.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heh... "progress" he says.
I don't see some of the current crop of the justices lasting another 6-10 years. If Hillary wins, we WILL get another liberal judge.