login
Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says (Page 3)
-
No new posts
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says | Rss Feed  |
|
 2013-03-15 1:27 PM in reply to: #4661373 |
Champion  34263     Chicago |  Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge saysbradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:25 PM You can buy the pill at Target....with no 'script needed for $9 a month..... How would you know? Sinner. |
| 2013-03-15 1:28 PM in reply to: #4661365 |
Champion 5117 Brandon, MS | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:22 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:17 PM DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:04 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:54 PM I don't think of it all when considering whether or not contraception should be covered by insurance. If that CEO doesn't want his wife to take birth control, more power to him, but in not allowing for coverage of contraception, he is discriminating against women. Times have changed in that most of us are cool with women having the same work place rights and advantages as men. Covered contraception levels the playing field, if only slightly, because now they don't have to pay for something that men don't. Just because they got the organs that bake the bun doesn't mean they should pay $40/month (what my wife paid before it was covered) so they can have sex with their husbands. You have an incorrect definition of discrimination. He is not forbidding them jobs. He is not forbidding his employees contraceptives. He is following his religious beliefs in that he is not propagating contraceptives. Has nothing to do with arguments for or against "equality". Unless you think a suitable arrangement is to just stop doing the deed if you want to have a career. In my opinion it has everything to do with equality. Why should a woman be forced to pay for something a man doesn't so she can consummate relationships without having to worry about taking time off for a baby? Exactly why is is her sole responsibility? If you want to get busy cough up some dough or wrap your package but it is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's! My present wrapping days ended when I got hitched. Luckily, the state plan now covers birth control, so 95% of the teachers don't have to fork over $480 bucks a year just so they can remain in classroom, or all just plan on having summer babies all the time. And trust me... $480 out of a Mississippi teacher's salary is way more of a percentage than it should be. |
| 2013-03-15 1:28 PM in reply to: #4661378 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says mr2tony - 2013-03-15 1:27 PM bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:25 PM You can buy the pill at Target....with no 'script needed for $9 a month..... How would you know? Sinner. My wife has a condition..... |
| 2013-03-15 1:29 PM in reply to: #4661381 |
Champion 18680  Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says sesh - 2013-03-15 2:28 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:22 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:17 PM DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:04 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:54 PM I don't think of it all when considering whether or not contraception should be covered by insurance. If that CEO doesn't want his wife to take birth control, more power to him, but in not allowing for coverage of contraception, he is discriminating against women. Times have changed in that most of us are cool with women having the same work place rights and advantages as men. Covered contraception levels the playing field, if only slightly, because now they don't have to pay for something that men don't. Just because they got the organs that bake the bun doesn't mean they should pay $40/month (what my wife paid before it was covered) so they can have sex with their husbands. You have an incorrect definition of discrimination. He is not forbidding them jobs. He is not forbidding his employees contraceptives. He is following his religious beliefs in that he is not propagating contraceptives. Has nothing to do with arguments for or against "equality". Unless you think a suitable arrangement is to just stop doing the deed if you want to have a career. In my opinion it has everything to do with equality. Why should a woman be forced to pay for something a man doesn't so she can consummate relationships without having to worry about taking time off for a baby? Exactly why is is her sole responsibility? If you want to get busy cough up some dough or wrap your package but it is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's! My present wrapping days ended when I got hitched. Luckily, the state plan now covers birth control, so 95% of the teachers don't have to fork over $480 bucks a year just so they can remain in classroom, or all just plan on having summer babies all the time. And trust me... $480 out of a Mississippi teacher's salary is way more of a percentage than it should be. I do believe you missed the point. |
| 2013-03-15 1:30 PM in reply to: #4661373 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:25 PM You can buy the pill at Target....with no 'script needed for $9 a month.....
Expect More, Pay Less is the motto! |
| 2013-03-15 1:31 PM in reply to: #4661363 |
Elite 3770 | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says dontracy - 2013-03-15 1:20 PM ejshowers - This. A legitimate none-pregnancy related health concern, like a good friend of my daughter who is on the pill to prevent excessive and random-timed bleeding. Why should this not be covered under a health plan? That's a good point. Hormonal treatment for such health issues is allowed under Catholic teaching. In my opinion for what it's worth, it could be allowed under a health plan. Just thinking off the cuff here, I'd guess we'd have to assume that it is actually a real health concern and not just a cover for contraception and then assume that it would only be used while the medical condition is present. It may be allowed, but I'm paying $86 a month for nuvaring b/c the Archdiocese won't pay for it. When I have a documented reason to use it. I personally don't like the assumption since there are many many reasons why it may be used. |
| 2013-03-15 1:31 PM in reply to: #4661382 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 2:28 PM mr2tony - 2013-03-15 1:27 PM My wife has a condition.....bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:25 PMYou can buy the pill at Target....with no 'script needed for $9 a month..... How would you know? Sinner. Yes it's called marriedtobraditis! There is a topical cream to treat it but it may be a lifetime diesase. |
| 2013-03-15 1:33 PM in reply to: #4661382 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:28 PM mr2tony - 2013-03-15 1:27 PM bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:25 PM You can buy the pill at Target....with no 'script needed for $9 a month..... How would you know? Sinner. My wife has a condition..... So the judge in Michigan is saying that your wife shouldn't have treatments for that condition paid for because he doesn't believe in it. |
| 2013-03-15 1:34 PM in reply to: #4661393 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says turtlegirl - 2013-03-15 2:31 PM dontracy - 2013-03-15 1:20 PM ejshowers - This. A legitimate none-pregnancy related health concern, like a good friend of my daughter who is on the pill to prevent excessive and random-timed bleeding. Why should this not be covered under a health plan? That's a good point. Hormonal treatment for such health issues is allowed under Catholic teaching. In my opinion for what it's worth, it could be allowed under a health plan. Just thinking off the cuff here, I'd guess we'd have to assume that it is actually a real health concern and not just a cover for contraception and then assume that it would only be used while the medical condition is present. It may be allowed, but I'm paying $86 a month for nuvaring b/c the Archdiocese won't pay for it. When I have a documented reason to use it. I personally don't like the assumption since there are many many reasons why it may be used. What other prescription meds does your insurance plan not cover? I would be willing to bet the is a fairly extensive list of them. When I was quitting smoking the insurance company would not cover the welbutrin even though it was prescribed by a dr. Was that stupid /short sighted of them, I believe so but it is no differnt than any other drug the insurance will not pay for. |
| 2013-03-15 1:35 PM in reply to: #4661399 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says mr2tony - 2013-03-15 1:33 PM bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:28 PM mr2tony - 2013-03-15 1:27 PM bradleyd3 - 2013-03-15 1:25 PM You can buy the pill at Target....with no 'script needed for $9 a month..... How would you know? Sinner. My wife has a condition..... So the judge in Michigan is saying that your wife shouldn't have treatments for that condition paid for because he doesn't believe in it. It can be treated other ways....but for $9 a month at Target, why pay the $20 copay for the other drug. Remember Sandra Fluke....her argument was that it would cost her $3000 to get thru law school. Apparently they don't teach 'shopping around for prices' at G-Town Law. |
| 2013-03-15 1:37 PM in reply to: #4661385 |
Champion 5117 Brandon, MS | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:29 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:28 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:22 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:17 PM DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:04 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:54 PM I don't think of it all when considering whether or not contraception should be covered by insurance. If that CEO doesn't want his wife to take birth control, more power to him, but in not allowing for coverage of contraception, he is discriminating against women. Times have changed in that most of us are cool with women having the same work place rights and advantages as men. Covered contraception levels the playing field, if only slightly, because now they don't have to pay for something that men don't. Just because they got the organs that bake the bun doesn't mean they should pay $40/month (what my wife paid before it was covered) so they can have sex with their husbands. You have an incorrect definition of discrimination. He is not forbidding them jobs. He is not forbidding his employees contraceptives. He is following his religious beliefs in that he is not propagating contraceptives. Has nothing to do with arguments for or against "equality". Unless you think a suitable arrangement is to just stop doing the deed if you want to have a career. In my opinion it has everything to do with equality. Why should a woman be forced to pay for something a man doesn't so she can consummate relationships without having to worry about taking time off for a baby? Exactly why is is her sole responsibility? If you want to get busy cough up some dough or wrap your package but it is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's! My present wrapping days ended when I got hitched. Luckily, the state plan now covers birth control, so 95% of the teachers don't have to fork over $480 bucks a year just so they can remain in classroom, or all just plan on having summer babies all the time. And trust me... $480 out of a Mississippi teacher's salary is way more of a percentage than it should be. I do believe you missed the point. Single women would have to pay out of their own pocket if they wanted to have a career and also have some sex. Couples who both work would share the cost (our income does go in the same pot), but they are still paying so they can have sex if the woman wants a career. I just always get the feeling that this gets people so worked up because it means that women are having sex. Maybe even out of wedlock. Maybe with more than one person. That's something working men get to do, not the fairer sex! |
| 2013-03-15 1:37 PM in reply to: #4660640 |
Elite 3770 | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says Well, now its a matter of not having the money, but certainly no name brand ones, and all maintenance ones are mail order. The birth control thing drives me crazy. I've been on it WELL before I was ever sexually active, and have to be on this particular one b/c I have high blood pressure. I'm lucky that it hasn't carried over to psychiatric drugs, for me or any of my fellow teachers or their children. |
| 2013-03-15 1:38 PM in reply to: #4661408 |
Elite 3770 | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says sesh - 2013-03-15 1:37 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:29 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:28 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:22 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:17 PM DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:04 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:54 PM I don't think of it all when considering whether or not contraception should be covered by insurance. If that CEO doesn't want his wife to take birth control, more power to him, but in not allowing for coverage of contraception, he is discriminating against women. Times have changed in that most of us are cool with women having the same work place rights and advantages as men. Covered contraception levels the playing field, if only slightly, because now they don't have to pay for something that men don't. Just because they got the organs that bake the bun doesn't mean they should pay $40/month (what my wife paid before it was covered) so they can have sex with their husbands. You have an incorrect definition of discrimination. He is not forbidding them jobs. He is not forbidding his employees contraceptives. He is following his religious beliefs in that he is not propagating contraceptives. Has nothing to do with arguments for or against "equality". Unless you think a suitable arrangement is to just stop doing the deed if you want to have a career. In my opinion it has everything to do with equality. Why should a woman be forced to pay for something a man doesn't so she can consummate relationships without having to worry about taking time off for a baby? Exactly why is is her sole responsibility? If you want to get busy cough up some dough or wrap your package but it is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's! My present wrapping days ended when I got hitched. Luckily, the state plan now covers birth control, so 95% of the teachers don't have to fork over $480 bucks a year just so they can remain in classroom, or all just plan on having summer babies all the time. And trust me... $480 out of a Mississippi teacher's salary is way more of a percentage than it should be. I do believe you missed the point. Single women would have to pay out of their own pocket if they wanted to have a career and also have some sex. Couples who both work would share the cost (our income does go in the same pot), but they are still paying so they can have sex if the woman wants a career. I just always get the feeling that this gets people so worked up because it means that women are having sex. Maybe even out of wedlock. Maybe with more than one person. That's something working men get to do, not the fairer sex! What if its not for having sex? It can also be a result of a condition. A medical condition. |
| 2013-03-15 1:39 PM in reply to: #4661408 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says sesh - 2013-03-15 11:37 AM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:29 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:28 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:22 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:17 PM DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:04 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:54 PM I don't think of it all when considering whether or not contraception should be covered by insurance. If that CEO doesn't want his wife to take birth control, more power to him, but in not allowing for coverage of contraception, he is discriminating against women. Times have changed in that most of us are cool with women having the same work place rights and advantages as men. Covered contraception levels the playing field, if only slightly, because now they don't have to pay for something that men don't. Just because they got the organs that bake the bun doesn't mean they should pay $40/month (what my wife paid before it was covered) so they can have sex with their husbands. You have an incorrect definition of discrimination. He is not forbidding them jobs. He is not forbidding his employees contraceptives. He is following his religious beliefs in that he is not propagating contraceptives. Has nothing to do with arguments for or against "equality". Unless you think a suitable arrangement is to just stop doing the deed if you want to have a career. In my opinion it has everything to do with equality. Why should a woman be forced to pay for something a man doesn't so she can consummate relationships without having to worry about taking time off for a baby? Exactly why is is her sole responsibility? If you want to get busy cough up some dough or wrap your package but it is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's! My present wrapping days ended when I got hitched. Luckily, the state plan now covers birth control, so 95% of the teachers don't have to fork over $480 bucks a year just so they can remain in classroom, or all just plan on having summer babies all the time. And trust me... $480 out of a Mississippi teacher's salary is way more of a percentage than it should be. I do believe you missed the point. Single women would have to pay out of their own pocket if they wanted to have a career and also have some sex. Couples who both work would share the cost (our income does go in the same pot), but they are still paying so they can have sex if the woman wants a career. I just always get the feeling that this gets people so worked up because it means that women are having sex. Maybe even out of wedlock. Maybe with more than one person. That's something working men get to do, not the fairer sex! Once again... free condoms are available many many places. Outside of the rare latex allergy, is there a reason that women can't use these? |
| 2013-03-15 1:42 PM in reply to: #4660640 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says $9 A MONTH AT TARGET.....NO SCRIPT NEEDED now that it's been said again.....the money issue is out of the way. If an insurance provder/company allowed employee to buy it under insurance the co-pay would be $15 - $25. Domino's is actually saving it's employees money should they choose to purchase B.C. |
| 2013-03-15 1:43 PM in reply to: #4661408 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says sesh - 2013-03-15 2:37 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:29 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:28 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:22 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:17 PM DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:04 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:54 PM I don't think of it all when considering whether or not contraception should be covered by insurance. If that CEO doesn't want his wife to take birth control, more power to him, but in not allowing for coverage of contraception, he is discriminating against women. Times have changed in that most of us are cool with women having the same work place rights and advantages as men. Covered contraception levels the playing field, if only slightly, because now they don't have to pay for something that men don't. Just because they got the organs that bake the bun doesn't mean they should pay $40/month (what my wife paid before it was covered) so they can have sex with their husbands. You have an incorrect definition of discrimination. He is not forbidding them jobs. He is not forbidding his employees contraceptives. He is following his religious beliefs in that he is not propagating contraceptives. Has nothing to do with arguments for or against "equality". Unless you think a suitable arrangement is to just stop doing the deed if you want to have a career. In my opinion it has everything to do with equality. Why should a woman be forced to pay for something a man doesn't so she can consummate relationships without having to worry about taking time off for a baby? Exactly why is is her sole responsibility? If you want to get busy cough up some dough or wrap your package but it is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's! My present wrapping days ended when I got hitched. Luckily, the state plan now covers birth control, so 95% of the teachers don't have to fork over $480 bucks a year just so they can remain in classroom, or all just plan on having summer babies all the time. And trust me... $480 out of a Mississippi teacher's salary is way more of a percentage than it should be. I do believe you missed the point. Single women would have to pay out of their own pocket if they wanted to have a career and also have some sex. Couples who both work would share the cost (our income does go in the same pot), but they are still paying so they can have sex if the woman wants a career. I just always get the feeling that this gets people so worked up because it means that women are having sex. Maybe even out of wedlock. Maybe with more than one person. That's something working men get to do, not the fairer sex! And single men if they were smart would still be wrapping their packages if they were smart!!! Men do not pay not because they don't need to but because they are stupid about it! The allusion to we all must just be sexist is not even worth an answer or I would have to tell my self to go make me a sammich. |
| 2013-03-15 1:44 PM in reply to: #4661174 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says Tom's a good guy and deeply rooted in his faith. He shouldn't have to pay for any of his employees contraception, and apparently now won't have to. I agree. I currently do not pay for health insurance (obviously...military). But when I do, I don't want higher premiums because the companies are forced to cover BC and thus must raise the cost for everyone so they can afford to cover BC. It would be much fairer if the people that wanted BC covered could just pay higher premiums... |
| 2013-03-15 1:46 PM in reply to: #4661411 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says turtlegirl - 2013-03-15 2:38 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:37 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:29 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:28 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 1:22 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 2:17 PM DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:04 PM sesh - 2013-03-15 1:54 PM I don't think of it all when considering whether or not contraception should be covered by insurance. If that CEO doesn't want his wife to take birth control, more power to him, but in not allowing for coverage of contraception, he is discriminating against women. Times have changed in that most of us are cool with women having the same work place rights and advantages as men. Covered contraception levels the playing field, if only slightly, because now they don't have to pay for something that men don't. Just because they got the organs that bake the bun doesn't mean they should pay $40/month (what my wife paid before it was covered) so they can have sex with their husbands. You have an incorrect definition of discrimination. He is not forbidding them jobs. He is not forbidding his employees contraceptives. He is following his religious beliefs in that he is not propagating contraceptives. Has nothing to do with arguments for or against "equality". Unless you think a suitable arrangement is to just stop doing the deed if you want to have a career. In my opinion it has everything to do with equality. Why should a woman be forced to pay for something a man doesn't so she can consummate relationships without having to worry about taking time off for a baby? Exactly why is is her sole responsibility? If you want to get busy cough up some dough or wrap your package but it is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's! My present wrapping days ended when I got hitched. Luckily, the state plan now covers birth control, so 95% of the teachers don't have to fork over $480 bucks a year just so they can remain in classroom, or all just plan on having summer babies all the time. And trust me... $480 out of a Mississippi teacher's salary is way more of a percentage than it should be. I do believe you missed the point. Single women would have to pay out of their own pocket if they wanted to have a career and also have some sex. Couples who both work would share the cost (our income does go in the same pot), but they are still paying so they can have sex if the woman wants a career. I just always get the feeling that this gets people so worked up because it means that women are having sex. Maybe even out of wedlock. Maybe with more than one person. That's something working men get to do, not the fairer sex! What if its not for having sex? It can also be a result of a condition. A medical condition. Yes I know I take it for that reason when I need it. Trust me I cannot get pregnant so BC is not an issue! Again there are other meds that are not covered under your insurance why is this one sacrsanct? |
| 2013-03-15 1:47 PM in reply to: #4661426 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says jldicarlo - 2013-03-15 12:44 PM Actually in general, insurance companies want to provide free birth control. For them its far cheaper to pay a few bucks for BC than to have an unwanted pregnancy which is hugely more expensive to them, so free BC should actually result in lower premiums.Tom's a good guy and deeply rooted in his faith. He shouldn't have to pay for any of his employees contraception, and apparently now won't have to. I agree. I currently do not pay for health insurance (obviously...military). But when I do, I don't want higher premiums because the companies are forced to cover BC and thus must raise the cost for everyone so they can afford to cover BC. It would be much fairer if the people that wanted BC covered could just pay higher premiums... |
| 2013-03-15 1:49 PM in reply to: #4661411 |
Champion 5117 Brandon, MS | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says turtlegirl - 2013-03-15 1:38 PM What if its not for having sex? It can also be a result of a condition. A medical condition. And it should be covered then as well. I'm a single payer fan and think it all should be covered. |
| 2013-03-15 1:51 PM in reply to: #4661438 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says drewb8 - 2013-03-15 2:47 PM jldicarlo - 2013-03-15 12:44 PM Actually in general, insurance companies want to provide free birth control. For them its far cheaper to pay a few bucks for BC than to have an unwanted pregnancy which is hugely more expensive to them, so free BC should actually result in lower premiums.Tom's a good guy and deeply rooted in his faith. He shouldn't have to pay for any of his employees contraception, and apparently now won't have to. I agree. I currently do not pay for health insurance (obviously...military). But when I do, I don't want higher premiums because the companies are forced to cover BC and thus must raise the cost for everyone so they can afford to cover BC. It would be much fairer if the people that wanted BC covered could just pay higher premiums... There is no such thing as free! Somebody is paying, the question is who. |
| 2013-03-15 1:52 PM in reply to: #4661414 |
Champion 5117 Brandon, MS | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says uclamatt2007 - 2013-03-15 1:39 PM Once again... free condoms are available many many places. Outside of the rare latex allergy, is there a reason that women can't use these? Come to Mississippi and we can go on a free condom hunt. I've seen them one place before. The healthplex on campus at Mississippi State and people threw a fit. |
| 2013-03-15 1:53 PM in reply to: #4661445 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says trinnas - 2013-03-15 12:51 PM True. I guess it would be the insurance company shareholders since the company would be taking a loss on the BC by offering it for 'free'.drewb8 - 2013-03-15 2:47 PM jldicarlo - 2013-03-15 12:44 PM Actually in general, insurance companies wantto provide free birth control. For them its far cheaper to pay a few bucks for BC than to have an unwanted pregnancy which is hugely more expensive to them, so free BC should actually result in lower premiums.Tom's a good guy and deeply rooted in his faith. He shouldn't have to pay for any of his employees contraception, and apparently now won't have to. I agree. I currently do not pay for health insurance (obviously...military). But when I do, I don't want higher premiums because the companies are forced to cover BC and thus must raise the cost for everyone so they can afford to cover BC. It would be much fairer if the people that wanted BC covered could just pay higher premiums... There is no such thing as free! Somebody is paying, the question is who. |
| 2013-03-15 1:54 PM in reply to: #4661451 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says drewb8 - 2013-03-15 2:53 PM trinnas - 2013-03-15 12:51 PM True. I guess it would be the insurance company shareholders since the company would be taking a loss on the BC by offering it for 'free'.drewb8 - 2013-03-15 2:47 PM jldicarlo - 2013-03-15 12:44 PM Actually in general, insurance companies wantto provide free birth control. For them its far cheaper to pay a few bucks for BC than to have an unwanted pregnancy which is hugely more expensive to them, so free BC should actually result in lower premiums.Tom's a good guy and deeply rooted in his faith. He shouldn't have to pay for any of his employees contraception, and apparently now won't have to. I agree. I currently do not pay for health insurance (obviously...military). But when I do, I don't want higher premiums because the companies are forced to cover BC and thus must raise the cost for everyone so they can afford to cover BC. It would be much fairer if the people that wanted BC covered could just pay higher premiums... There is no such thing as free! Somebody is paying, the question is who. Really??? Ya think?? I bet not! I bet it results in higher premiums for all. Edited by trinnas 2013-03-15 1:54 PM |
| 2013-03-15 1:55 PM in reply to: #4660640 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says Y'all do realize too....that under Obamacare, the "Employer Shared Responsibility Provision" (the section that states employers have to offer 'affordable' insurance) is only related to 'Employee Only'. Meaning a company only has to pass the test of affordability for the single employee and can charge any almost premium they want to for family coverage? Think twice about how spectacular this ACA thing is going to be......expecially if you have families. |
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says | Rss Feed |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK