1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest!
The donation button is here.
https://goo.gl/aFggcs

Hobby Lobby Want To Muzzle Doctors

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by redravin, Mar 24, 2014.

  1. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    OK. The thread title is a serious piece of rhetoric but it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting to say "Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for employees doctors visit if birth control is mentioned."
    That title pisses me off just as much and it's exactly what they want the SCOTUS to rule on in the upcoming decision.
    I just thought they didn't want to have any money coming close to 'birth control'. No, Hobby Lobby wants to keep the doctors from being able to even talk to the employees about the subject.

    Hobby Lobby doesn't just want to avoid covering contraception. It wants to stop doctors from talking about it.

    Of course Hobby Lobby doesn't have to offer insurance.
    They can just pay the fine, which is actually cheaper than offering the insurance (which I find kind of disgusting but that's another post).
    They don't want to do that because nobody would want to work for them.
    The Christian press is screaming about how the companies are being forced to go against their principles but this law was put into effect when Bush was president.

    I'm pissed, screw Hobby Lobby.

     
  2. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & don't criticize. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    I have a hard time imagining any company wanting to meddle in what birth control their employees use or don't use. It makes little sense from a legal and/or public relations view.

    It makes even less sense for an insurance company to agree. What are the costs of birth control verses pregnancy, prenatal care, birth, postnatal care, etc?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    Add to the Hobby Lobby case where they don't want to pay for contraception, the latest situation in Oklahoma where a Catholic Health Organization bought the only medical center in Bartlesville and promptly told all the doctors they couldn't write prescriptions for birth control.

    Catholic Health Organization To Limit Contraception Prescriptions | Liberals Unite


    So everything that was fought for in the sixties and seventies is being swept away.
    They are trying to push woman back into the subservient role by taking away their ability to control their bodies.
    Sorry old dudes, it didn't work then and it isn't going to work now.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  4. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    That's why it is so important who gets to put justices on the Supreme Court.
    They interpret laws for decades.

    Wonder what's going to happen within the next 3 years.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & don't criticize. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    YES! One of my biggest concerns has always been when we get a conservative Republican president with a Republican majority in the house & senate is how many Supreme Court justices will they put on the bench. And I have sisters who are single-issue voters, they'll support any dumbass who spews family values and pro-life dogma.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I prefer a system where employers pay for labor (at full value) and let each individual buy their own insurance covering what they want. It is not an employer's business what employees are doing outside of work, what type of birth control they use, etc. Rather than convoluted Supreme court rulings on issues like this - let's just go to a simpler system.
     
  7. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Toronto
  8. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Often 401(K) plans and other employer based retirement plans are administered by third parties, aka - TPA's (Third Party Administrators) - management is not directly involved in specific investment decisions. Now that Mother Jones points this out, do we really want to go down this slippery slope of an employer getting more involved in an employee's business? Again, I would prefer the employer pay full wages and let employees handle their retirement savings.
     
  9. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC

    Agreed, it used to be simply "benefits"...something the used to entice/keep the employees.
    But now it has become a necessity...and a financial burden upon both the business and employee.

    Companies are now manipulating things and selecting packages to minimize the impact to their bottom line and make things less complex. Understandable, but a conflict of interest.
    It is difficult to interpret who has the better insurance by potential employees...viewing from the outside (no inside experience with it's usage, options and limitations)

    People need to choose their own medicine.
     
  10. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    Then you have companies dropping their part time health insurance (Target and Trader Joes) to cut costs.
    I run the Target employees web site and they have dropped so many of the peoples hours that people who last year qualified as full time now are part time.

    I love how conservatives blame that on the ACA.
    NO, it's the damned companies fault!
    They are the ones being the evil smegheads.
    I'm sorry, we did it to save money, is not a fucking excuse.

    I love the idea of paying the people what they are worth and letting them buy their own medical care.
    I'd love even more getting rid of insurance companies completely and starting the whole thing from scratch.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Toronto
    I'd still like to see some hellfire directed at such a "problem." To keep things balanced, and to show integrity. I'm sure there are ways to get TPAs to restrict certain investment types (including investing in weapons manufacturing, that sort of thing).

    I think in this case it's mainly a matter of "If you're going to take a moral stand, at least be honest about it."

    I'm not all that interested in reading much about this. Is the company "appalled" at this revelation of their retirement investments?
     
    • Like Like x 1