Hobby Lobby

156 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561
Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby claims it can delay contraceptive coverage rule, fines | Fox News

Do you believe that the Hobby Lobby should be forced to proved the morning after pill to its employees?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Hobby Lobby claims it can delay contraceptive coverage rule, fines | Fox News

Do you believe that the Hobby Lobby should be forced to proved the morning after pill to its employees?

They should be forced to provide the same insurance coverage that everyone else has to provide.

I don't think that what an employee does with her insurance coverage is a violation of the owner's religious rigths. They provide the insurance as part of the payment that they provide to their employees for working there. That's like saying that my boss has a say over what I spend my paycheck on (since it's "his money" - except that it's not, I earned it and he paid it to me, so now it's mine.) Um, no. Their religious rights end with their own lives and bodies, and mine end with my own life and body. If you pay me something (be that money or insurance coverage) to do my job, that makes it mine, not yours.

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

Exactly Alissa.
Hobby Lobby doesn't buy the morning after pill for their employees, therefore they do NOT provide the pills for their employees. They provide insurance coverage for their employees. That's it.

And they should. They have loyal employees, it's very fair that they should give them healthcare coverage. Smile

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

So if a federal law came down that said that companies must provide plan that will distribute a bible, koran or another religious book to every employee, you guys think that because it's a federal law, the companies should comply with it despite the fact that it violates their religious beliefs?

No one should have to provide abortions whether it be through a pill or an actual abortion or the insurance that covers it. It is the same as paying taxes to provide abortions. It's against many many many people's religion and it's well-known and established. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that all of President Obama's supporters, campaign contributors, and cronies get exemptions from this law for reasons that aren't protected by the Constitution but I guess since we're trampling all over the thing now, I should expect special treatment for those who realize what a mess this bill is and had the common sense to put their money into a politician instead of their employees.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I disagree wholeheartedly with the whole pay for insurance and that's it. When I donated my kidney, the military paid for the operation through Tricare. If the military didn't cover that, Tricare wouldn't pay it. Simple as that. Paying for the coverage is without a doubt paying for the actual procedure/prescription/visit whether there are co-pays involved or not. Otherwise people wouldn't ask about their healthcare plan before accepting a job.

eta- It's Nothing Like a Paycheck. A paycheck is paid to you (minus anything the federal government wants taken out) and what you do with it is completely your decision. If one of your benefits is also going to the gym in their building, they are going to have rules and regulations in place for how you use it and when. They probably will want a doctor to sign off on your workout plan or something similar. Because they will be held responsible. Which is exactly how Hobby Lobby and other Christian's feel when they are told they have to provide something they consider murder. Whether you (and our Federal government) like it or not, they are protected by our Constitution from being responsible for something that is against their religion.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

Before I answer I do have a question. Does anyone know if it is an option for the Hobby Lobby to just not offer any Health Insurance at all?

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Before I answer I do have a question. Does anyone know if it is an option for the Hobby Lobby to just not offer any Health Insurance at all?

Nope.

Back to my logic. If I give a bum $10, I'm not responsible for what he does with that even if I know damn well he's probably going to buy liquor, drugs, or cigarettes. It's not my problem, he asked for it, I hope he does something good with it, but ultimately that decision is his. If I see him falling down on the sidewalk and he asks for a cigarette and I give it to him, that is my responsibility. I know what he's going to do with it and I'm giving it to him for that purpose. I've made that decision and part of the responsibility becomes mine.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

The morning after pill is not an abortion pill.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

The morning after pill is not an abortion pill.

Whether or not this is true, there are thousands of people who believe that it is. Should they be forced to pay for something that they believe is wrong from the very fiber of their being? If the morning after pill is abortion or not is not really relevant. If the Government has the right to tell a private company they must go against their moral convictions it.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Whether or not this is true, there are thousands of people who believe that it is. Should they be forced to pay for something that they believe is wrong from the very fiber of their being? If the morning after pill is abortion or not is not really relevant. If the Government has the right to tell a private company they must go against their moral convictions it.

Lillie, I disagree that it's not like a paycheck. My employer refers to my paycheck, my 401K, my stock options, and my insurance as my "compensation package." It's all part of what they pay me to work there. And I maintain that it's up to me what I do with my pay. My employer may have deeply held religious disagreements with drinking, but no one is arguing that it's their right to tell me that I can't buy a case of beer with my paycheck if I want. Their religious objections only apply to themselves, they have nothing to do with me.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Whether or not this is true, there are thousands of people who believe that it is. Should they be forced to pay for something that they believe is wrong from the very fiber of their being? If the morning after pill is abortion or not is not really relevant. If the Government has the right to tell a private company they must go against their moral convictions it.

It's not about what is felt if it's true or not. The fact is that it is not an abortion pill. What is their moral conviction against a pill that has nothing to do with abortions? Are they against gummie bear vitamins too? Are Christians and Catholics the same in not covering anything to do with birth control like the pill? I thought it was only the Catholics. I admit I don't know much about religion.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Whether or not this is true, there are thousands of people who believe that it is. Should they be forced to pay for something that they believe is wrong from the very fiber of their being? If the morning after pill is abortion or not is not really relevant. If the Government has the right to tell a private company they must go against their moral convictions it.

They aren't paying for it. Part of what they pay me is my insurance coverage. It's mine as compensation for working there, just like my pay check or my 401K.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

My employer should not have a say in what they feel is best for me. They do not run my life. I have insurance as part of my total compensation. Like Alissa, what my company pays to our family health premium is included as what I get paid. Telling me that they don't want me using a certain legal medication is beyond what they should be doing as an employer.

When you pay a premium, you pay for the entire package whether it is used or not. I have never used my behavioral health benefits on my plan but I still get them.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

But I'm not sure why one person so far removed can claim it's against their religious beliefs.

Let's say the boss is a Jehovah's Witness. Many medical procedures would go against their religious beliefs. Would it be okay for the company to say, "We won't offer coverage for any procedures that go against our religious beliefs"? So you have an employee who needs a transfusion but can't get it covered by insurance because it's against the employer's religion, but not their own.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

And Lillie~perhaps you might what to take a step back and watch to how you refer to people. Not all those on the streets are bums. Many are mentally ill. I have a family member who preferred to stay on the street and not in his own home. During a time when there wasn't the amount of help as there is today (although limited). Please remember, that we all have family members who don't live the typical life and some compassion towards others is necessary. Referring to people in derogatory terms is just not right.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Jessica80" wrote:

And Lillie~perhaps you might what to take a step back and watch to how you refer to people. Not all those on the streets are bums. Many are mentally ill. I have a family member who preferred to stay on the street and not in his own home. During a time when there wasn't the amount of help as there is today (although limited). Please remember, that we all have family members who don't live the typical life and some compassion towards others is necessary. Referring to people in derogatory terms is just not right.

I was talking about bums, if your family member doesn't fit that bill then I wasn't referring to him. I'm offended by your statement. I have lots of compassion.

The Jehovah's Witness thing? Yes, if you apply to work for a company that outlines their beliefs, lets you know up front what they are willing to do and not do, and you choose that "compensation package" over another one, then you can purchase your own insurance that will perform the procedures they won't cover because they don't want to be held responsible to a higher power for their actions.

Does the employer not get any say in what they are paying you? If we follow your logic, then the federal government should be able to set the rates for each position in the same way they set the rates for their own employees. Hobby Lobby is saying that abortion isn't included in their compensation package because it's against their religion. They are responsible to their God before they are responsible to our Government. That is what the founding fathers wanted to ensure would never become an issue. That's why we have that amendment. So that people aren't forced to do things against their religion. Providing abortions is very much against mine whether directly or indirectly. Just like providing cigarettes to dehydrated bums is something I'm morally opposed to. Giving a paycheck is totally separate. The Federal government can take away ANY of my other benefits with a few laws from Congress. They will ALWAYS have to give me a paycheck. Any company can take away benefits, they HAVE to pay their employees.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

The government sets a minimum that employers can pay in a pay check (minimum wage) and now they are setting a minimum level of insurance coverage that employers can pay. It's still none of my employer's business whether I use my paycheck to buy booze or use my insurance to obtain a legal medication that they personally disagree with. They don't have to agree with me, they don't have to take it themselves, but it's not their business to tell me I can't have it either. Why are their religious beliefs more important than mine when we're talking about what I do with MY compensation?

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

The government sets a minimum that employers can pay in a pay check (minimum wage) and now they are setting a minimum level of insurance coverage that employers can pay. It's still none of my employer's business whether I use my paycheck to buy booze or use my insurance to obtain a legal medication that they personally disagree with. They don't have to agree with me, they don't have to take it themselves, but it's not their business to tell me I can't have it either. Why are their religious beliefs more important than mine when we're talking about what I do with MY compensation?

Because you can use your paycheck to buy the legal medication. They can't use your belief to get into Heaven. Their payment to the insurance company would be just as harmful to their psyche as it would be for a Muslim to have to buy a ham sandwich for their employee. We make an exception for religious beliefs.

When you purchase an insurance plan you choose what options to provide for your employees (or used to before this VAST overstep into an illegal and immoral and stupid area) and they either choose to accept it or not. Your choices are based on what you think is valuable and what you think your employees will think is valuable. When you decide that the employees value is more important than the employers religion, you've gone way past the gray area into a zone I'm really surprised anyone would argue about.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

They should absolutely not have to provide these pills to employees. They are not refusing to provide contraception, they are refusing to pay for the morning after pill and week after pill. Hobby Lobby self-insures. They are providing their own insurance. Telling them that they have to pay for these pills is the same as telling them that they have to give someone a knife to murder a baby with. They have already stated that they will close their doors before they pay for these pills. They are not telling any employee that they cannot take these pills, they are just saying that if they want these pills then they can get them on their own.

And it is not like saying someone can't use their paycheck to buy booze, it is like saying that the employer has to buy the booze for them.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"wlillie" wrote:

I was talking about bums, if your family member doesn't fit that bill then I wasn't referring to him. I'm offended by your statement. I have lots of compassion.

.

To me the term bum is offensive in itself. Every person who does fit that bill is also a human being with a reason for the place they have landed in their life. It is compassionate to remember that.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

An employer should not have the right to dictate what their employees do with their personal lives, whether it is outlined at the start of the employment or not. By that logic an employer could say that they will fire any unwed parents and that would be fine as long as they said it at the start of employment. The employer is supporting something against a religious belief in that case too. It is still wrong.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"wlillie" wrote:

I was talking about bums, if your family member doesn't fit that bill then I wasn't referring to him. I'm offended by your statement. I have lots of compassion.

The Jehovah's Witness thing? Yes, if you apply to work for a company that outlines their beliefs, lets you know up front what they are willing to do and not do, and you choose that "compensation package" over another one, then you can purchase your own insurance that will perform the procedures they won't cover because they don't want to be held responsible to a higher power for their actions.

Does the employer not get any say in what they are paying you? If we follow your logic, then the federal government should be able to set the rates for each position in the same way they set the rates for their own employees. Hobby Lobby is saying that abortion isn't included in their compensation package because it's against their religion. They are responsible to their God before they are responsible to our Government. That is what the founding fathers wanted to ensure would never become an issue. That's why we have that amendment. So that people aren't forced to do things against their religion. Providing abortions is very much against mine whether directly or indirectly. Just like providing cigarettes to dehydrated bums is something I'm morally opposed to. Giving a paycheck is totally separate. The Federal government can take away ANY of my other benefits with a few laws from Congress. They will ALWAYS have to give me a paycheck. Any company can take away benefits, they HAVE to pay their employees.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize you weren't lumping in all those on the street but saying you don't give money to bums. (I'm not going back to the actual wording) I suppose you ask them then....are you a bum or someone who just happens to be on the street right?

In all your posts on here, I haven't seen much compassion for those that don't live or think like you to be honest. I don't know you IRL but since we can only base it on what we see here I have to say you display a lack of it in your comments. Again, not saying you aren't. You just don't show it in how you word things.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"wlillie" wrote:

Because you can use your paycheck to buy the legal medication.

How is that any different than using their insurance? The employer is still funding it by your logic.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

To me the term bum is offensive in itself. Every person who does fit that bill is also a human being with a reason for the place they have landed in their life. It is compassionate to remember that.

Oh and this too. I forgot to address the term itself.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Lillie, I disagree that it's not like a paycheck. My employer refers to my paycheck, my 401K, my stock options, and my insurance as my "compensation package." It's all part of what they pay me to work there. And I maintain that it's up to me what I do with my pay. My employer may have deeply held religious disagreements with drinking, but no one is arguing that it's their right to tell me that I can't buy a case of beer with my paycheck if I want. Their religious objections only apply to themselves, they have nothing to do with me.

Yes but till now employers do not HAVE to provide anything in the compensation package beyond paying taxes and paying above min wage. NOW they are being told what must be in the compensation package, not just healthcare, but what kind. I don't think Employers should have to have 401Ks, Heath care, or anything above min wage and taking care of the taxes. And I don't much like Min wage either.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"Rivergallery" wrote:

And I don't much like Min wage either.

Really? You would be ok with employers deciding to pay their employees next to nothing?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

Really? You would be ok with employers deciding to pay their employees next to nothing?

Yup, and the market would decide. If they could get people to work for it great, if not they would go under or raise the pay. Trouble is min wage causes multiple things to happen, the least of these is the devaluing of the dollar and the increase in common goods like milk and bread. The Company still has to make money so if they have to pay people more they have to charge more, so the products cost the lower income earner more and more, and raising min wage makes little sense.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

How is that any different than using their insurance? The employer is still funding it by your logic.

So if an employee uses their paycheck to buy crack is their employer providing them with crack? Forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for these pills is just like if they made them pay a drug dealer directly to fund an employee's drug habit.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Yes , of course they should.

And I don't care what people believe. Some people believe all sorts of wild and crazy things, their belief has no impact on my right to emergency contraception. I don't care that they are not educated on how contraception/the female reproductive system works, that is their problem. It's not my job to educate them, its my job to provide for my own well being, and the well being of my family. At this time, that means me not being pregnant. At this time, that could (and one time did) mean utilizing the morning after pill. I was very grateful for that contraception. Anyone who would call it an "abortion pill" displays their own ignorance, which is their right.

Gloria, crack is illegal. THe morning pill is not only legal, but legally covered by insurance. What on earth are you talking about?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"wlillie" wrote:

Because you can use your paycheck to buy the legal medication. They can't use your belief to get into Heaven. Their payment to the insurance company would be just as harmful to their psyche as it would be for a Muslim to have to buy a ham sandwich for their employee. We make an exception for religious beliefs.

When you purchase an insurance plan you choose what options to provide for your employees (or used to before this VAST overstep into an illegal and immoral and stupid area) and they either choose to accept it or not. Your choices are based on what you think is valuable and what you think your employees will think is valuable. When you decide that the employees value is more important than the employers religion, you've gone way past the gray area into a zone I'm really surprised anyone would argue about.

On the same vein as a Muslim employer buying ham for their employees, can Muslim employers ban all food in the workplace during Ramadan?

California doesn't have very many Hobby Lobby locations. However, CA law requires employers to provide health insurance to domestic partners the same as for spouses. (IOW, if a company offers benefits for both the employee and their spouse, they also have to extend that to a domestic partnership.)

I am making an assumption here, but does Hobby Lobby feel the same about same-sex marriage as it does about the morning after pill?

Some medications can increase the risk for miscarriage. Is it then within the realm of the employers' religious rights to restrict access to those medications for pregnant employees? For example, if the employer believes Celebrex can cause a miscarriage, can they cover it when employees aren't pregnant, but not cover it when they are?

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Hobby Lobby doesn't know that any of their employees are actually buying these medications. Hobby Lobby does not need to know what any of their employees are buying legally. It's not even close to walking down to the corner to buy coke. If they offer prescription drugs they need to cover prescription drugs or else they are making moral choices for their employees and that is not what an employer should do. I sure as heck don't want my employer to tell me I better go to Mass on Sunday.

my employer doesn't know what surgical procedures I am getting or not getting. My CEO doesn't come up to me and say "Jess, we're going to pay for Joe's endoscopy but I really hate and despise mammograms so sorry". It can't and shouldn't happen.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Yup, and the market would decide. If they could get people to work for it great, if not they would go under or raise the pay. Trouble is min wage causes multiple things to happen, the least of these is the devaluing of the dollar and the increase in common goods like milk and bread. The Company still has to make money so if they have to pay people more they have to charge more, so the products cost the lower income earner more and more, and raising min wage makes little sense.

Or people would have to accept crap jobs at almost nothing and they and their families would starve. There will always be someone in the position of having to take the bottom the barrel jobs because there is nothing else.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So if an employee uses their paycheck to buy crack is their employer providing them with crack? Forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for these pills is just like if they made them pay a drug dealer directly to fund an employee's drug habit.

By the logic I am seeing here, yes. Either an employer is paying for these things with the compensation package or not. It isn't paying with one part and not with the other.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Jessica80" wrote:

Hobby Lobby doesn't know that any of their employees are actually buying these medications. Hobby Lobby does not need to know what any of their employees are buying legally. It's not even close to walking down to the corner to buy coke. If they offer prescription drugs they need to cover prescription drugs or else they are making moral choices for their employees and that is not what an employer should do. I sure as heck don't want my employer to tell me I better go to Mass on Sunday.

my employer doesn't know what surgical procedures I am getting or not getting. My CEO doesn't come up to me and say "Jess, we're going to pay for Joe's endoscopy but I really hate and despise mammograms so sorry". It can't and shouldn't happen.

How could they not know? They self-insure so they are paying for these things directly.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

People keep saying that the employers do not have a right to dictate what a woman does with her body, I would agree with that. But I do think employers should have a right to say what they will pay for, especially if the company is a self insurer like Hobby Lobby. If people want the morning after pill, they can pay for it.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

How could they not know? They self-insure so they are paying for these things directly.

HIPAA laws.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

How could they not know? They self-insure so they are paying for these things directly.

That's not what self-insure means. The company still does not and should not know who is getting what.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

When a company self-insures it means that they are paying the amount of money that goes to providers directly as well as paying an insurance company administration costs to process claims, have access to member services etc. They will see total amounts going out but they will not see that Joe Smith bought 30pills of Lipitor.

They are basically paying for services as rendered instead of being fully insured where they pay the set premium whether or not that is used on the claims coming in or not.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom3girls" wrote:

People keep saying that the employers do not have a right to dictate what a woman does with her body, I would agree with that. But I do think employers should have a right to say what they will pay for, especially if the company is a self insurer like Hobby Lobby. If people want the morning after pill, they can pay for it.

What if my company didn't want to pay for diabetes medicine because people should know better than to be overweight? Or for sickle cell medicine.....just because I don't really like AA people? Or maybe I don't feel like covering lung cancer treatment because I hate smokers. That okay? Because I don't really believe in those things, say. Say my religion was against gluttony, smoking, or AA people. (I know one of the three is a protected class, just go with me Lol

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Jessica80" wrote:

That's not what self-insure means. The company still does not and should not know who is getting what.

That is exactly what it means.

If you are in a self-insured plan, your employer pays for all your care directly instead of paying an insurance company to handle it. If the cost of care ends up higher than your employer predicted, your employer must cover the cost.

http://www.fairhealthconsumer.org/reimbursementseries/insured.aspx

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

If my employer does a 401(K) match, can they refuse to allow me to invest in companies that violate their religious beliefs?

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"Potter75" wrote:

What if my company didn't want to pay for diabetes medicine because people should know better than to be overweight? Or for sickle cell medicine.....just because I don't really like AA people? Or maybe I don't feel like covering lung cancer treatment because I hate smokers. That okay? Because I don't really believe in those things, say. Say my religion was against gluttony, smoking, or AA people. (I know one of the three is a protected class, just go with me Lol

I dont think employers should be involved in insurance at all. I am all for contributions to a HSAs.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That is exactly what it means.

Insured vs. Self-Insured Plans - FairHealth Educational Site

All you did was reinforce what I said. That just explains that the employer assumes the cost of the claims. It does NOT mean the employer gets to see what you are doing. That is a HIPAA violation.

Again, this is my Monday-Friday. I live and breathe health insurance for 37.5 hours a week. I'm well aware on what this means.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom3girls" wrote:

I dont think employers should be involved in insurance at all. I am all for contributions to a HSAs.

Well I don't think that the unicorns should ever have flown away and abandoned us.

But they did.

And since employers ARE currently involved in insurance, unfortunately this is a discussion which we have to have. And within that discussion, our employers don't have a right to discriminate against me as a woman (or smokers, or AA people, or overweight people) because of their uneducated religious views when it comes to my uterus.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"mom3girls" wrote:

I dont think employers should be involved in insurance at all. I am all for contributions to a HSAs.

You cannot have an HSA without participating in a high deductible health plan although it does not have to be an employer sponsored insurance. You can be a self pay insured and participate in an HSA.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

What if my company didn't want to pay for diabetes medicine because people should know better than to be overweight? Or for sickle cell medicine.....just because I don't really like AA people? Or maybe I don't feel like covering lung cancer treatment because I hate smokers. That okay? Because I don't really believe in those things, say. Say my religion was against gluttony, smoking, or AA people. (I know one of the three is a protected class, just go with me Lol

Ya all those things are still different than telling someone that they must pay for something that is the equivalent of murder. All of those things are to help people get well, not to end a life. It would be more like saying the employer had to pay for a shot used to euthanize someone. And those things just give more reasons why the government shouldn't be mandating that employers must pay for healthcare.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Jessica80" wrote:

All you did was reinforce what I said. That just explains that the employer assumes the cost of the claims. It does NOT mean the employer gets to see what you are doing. That is a HIPAA violation.

Again, this is my Monday-Friday. I live and breathe health insurance for 37.5 hours a week. I'm well aware on what this means.

Ummm at some point someone has to process the claim and pay the bill. It's not like they can do that blindfolded. It may be that only the people whose job it is to pay that sees it, but someone does. Not that it matters. If those pills are on the list of things that are approved to be covered they will be paid for, if they are not then they won't, just like any other claim.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Ya all those things are still different than telling someone that they must pay for something that is the equivalent of murder. All of those things are to help people get well, not to end a life. It would be more like saying the employer had to pay for a shot used to euthanize someone. And those things just give more reasons why the government shouldn't be mandating that employers must pay for healthcare.

Except that it isn't the equivalent to murder. Some people just like to say that, because it makes them feel superior and all judgey proud and like God or something. But these plans still pay for birth control, which is the exxxxact same thing. So it makes no sense, no sense at all.

Honestly its just funny you comparing this to ending an adult life. Its so...........out there.

But really I don't care if that is what you believe, its cool. Its just wrong and illegal, luckily. Smile

And I don't get your last sentence. Aren't you mad that the government is offering an alternative TO employers paying for healthcare? And aren't you all "no employer is gong to offer healthcare anymore because of Obamacare" doomsday scenario a few debates ago? I'm getting confused now. Am I mixing up you and someone else?

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Ya all those things are still different than telling someone that they must pay for something that is the equivalent of murder. All of those things are to help people get well, not to end a life. It would be more like saying the employer had to pay for a shot used to euthanize someone. And those things just give more reasons why the government shouldn't be mandating that employers must pay for healthcare.

What is equivalent to murder? I hope you're not referring to the morning after pill. I still cannot grasp why anyone still thinks it's an abortion pill. Abortion pills are not sold OTC. Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

What is equivalent to murder? I hope you're not referring to the morning after pill. I still cannot grasp why anyone still thinks it's an abortion pill. Abortion pills are not sold OTC. Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted.

It is if you believe that life begins at conception not implantation.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It is if you believe that life begins at conception not implantation.

It doesn't end a life at conception either!!!!

Pages