Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA (Page 7)

No, in fact they are happy to offer 16 of the 20 approved contraception.  They only oppose the 4 that cause a fertilized egg to no longer be a fertilized egg (abort if that's the term you'd like to use).

The Plan B pill is about $35-60 without insurance.  So in reality people are getting their panties in a bunch about a $50 outlay that a vast majority of women will probably never make in their life. But if you listen to Sandra Fluke and the like, Hobby Lobby is breaking into your bedroom and stealing your birth control pill right out of your mouth!

What's interesting is that the ACA does not cover condoms or vasectomies.  The only 2 forms of birth control for a man.  So if essence the ACA discriminates against men more so than women in this case. 

I'm filing a lawsuit!!!!

Why do they object to the IUD?

I'm far from an expert on the subject, but generally speaking the debate in the past has been very easy because contraception was all about pre-conception tools such as the pill and condoms, and the abortion debate was scheduling a post conception procedure.  I think it's pretty easy for most people to agree where those lines were drawn in the past.

However, with things like IUD's and the morning after pill there's now a gray area in between the historical sides of the debate.  IUD's do act to prevent conception, but they can also prevent a fertilized (or conceived) egg from attaching.  So, if somebody believes that life begins at the moment of conception then it's perfectly rational to not be in favor of IUD's.

We all have varying positions on where life begins.

Some feel life begins with the act that leads to a child occurs.  (pizza)
Many feel that life begins at the moment of fertilization.
Many feel that life begins in the second trimester.
Many feel that life begins in the third trimester when a baby is viable outside of the womb.
However, legally speaking life doesn't begin until the moment of birth which is the foundation of our current laws.

So, it's not an easy issue to legislate because in America everyone has the right to believe whatever they want on the issue and the law is what it is.  Where the problem comes in is when people (on both sides) try to dictate to others through legislation their feeling of when it begins.

It's perfectly rational for somebody who doesn't believe life begins until the third trimester or even birth to have zero issues with IUD's and morning after pills.  It's also perfectly rational for somebody who believes life begins at conception to be opposed to IUD's.  So, it's really not right for the Federal government to dictate birth control options that can conflict with a person's views IMHO.

I'm sure you agree that individuals can absolutely believe whatever they want on this issue, but this whole debate really came down to what extent those individual rights extended to a privately held company.

I don't particularly understand the argument that this isn't such a big deal since it only deals with four forms of contraception. People are arguing that Hobby Lobby only takes issue with 4 of the 20 forms of birth control, because those four might cause abortions due to failure of a fertilized egg to implant. If you are going to extend this argument to the IUD, you might as well extend it to conventional birth control pills. The pill works by preventing ovulation, but also causes a thinning of the uterine lining, which could theoretically prevent a fertilized egg from attaching - so why does Hobby Lobby have a problem with the IUD or morning after pill, but think a conventional pill is ok then? The scientific basis for rejecting these 4 as opposed to the other 16 is just not there. This Supreme Court ruling opens the door for a corporation to decide to refuse coverage of all forms of contraception on similar grounds, due to "sincerely held religious beliefs." Yes, this case is only dealing with four forms of contraception, but the ruling sets a dangerous precedent.

This is the entire point.  You employer doesn't care if you get an IUD or take the morning after pill.  They are just not going to pay for it.

People like Sandra Fluke keep espousing falsehood with comments like:

"Help us reach 50,000 strong denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision and declaring that a woman’s boss should NOT have a say in her health care decisions."

Your employer does NOT have a say in your HC decisions.  They have a say in what they will PAY for regarding your health care.

That's like saying "My employer won't pay me enough for buy a Ferrari.  I'm being opposed and my employers is interfering with my car buying decisions!!!"

I get what you're saying and honestly after researching these things myself I feel they're a lot closer to "the pill" than they are to the other side because the morning after pill is really just a "super dose" of the pill to prevent ovulation primarily and as you mentioned the lining part which prevents attachment (which the pill does).

The whole part of this that I don't like on this is the idea of the government mandating what private employers should cover for their employees in the first place and it has nothing to do with contraceptives.  

Agree completely with that - which is why I wish healthcare was handled completely outside of the workforce. I don't think employers should have anything to do with it, and the ACA completely fails to address this. That could be a whole other thread though, right?

I already said my opinion on personhood for corporations. But this ruling does not exactly bother me. The ACA is riddled with holes. Hobby Lobby had a solid case of what they provided and the reasons for the ones they don't. It was going to be very hard for the government to win the case. I do not think this opens a flood gate for tight held corporations to do what ever they want. This was a pretty solid case for Hobby Lobby. Good for them for fighting. I have not lost any sleep.

You don't need 10,000 pages of laws to fix health care. Only one. Divorce healthcare from employment. Solved. If need be, government can cover uninsured with taxes.... or the market covers them with premiums... which is what we already do.

I respectfully disagree with the bolded.  One of the major contributors to healthcare costs being so high is employer paid healthcare and things like copays.  Healthcare is no different than anything else in the market and supply and demand is in full control.  Hospitals and doctors charge huge amounts for their services because that's the only thing they can do to slow down demand.  Unfortunately, the demand doesn't get slowed down because the people using the services are not paying for them.  If your employer is paying 2/3 of your insurance and you only have a $50 copay for any doctor visit your demand is near infinite.  Even the 1/3 you pay on your healthcare premium is just another "tax" line on your paycheck that you never feel.

Throw in the tens of millions of people on free insurance through various government subsidies and their demand is infinite.

So, essentially the whole idea of the ACA is trying to treat the symptom (healthcare is expensive) by giving everyone cheaper or free insurance.  /facepalm
They're actually throwing gas on the fire and making the demand much greater which will absolutely drive healthcare prices through the roof.

So, trying to have the government regulate health care costs is not the solution.  We need to divorce insurance from employers and make everyone write that check every month like we do for car insurance.  Allow individuals to get insurance across state lines.  Stop with the copay crap so people buy insurance with a deductible just like with a car.  You pay everything out of pocket up to your deductible and they cover the rest (80/20 or whatever).
For those that can't afford insurance or are unemployed I feel we'd be much better served with need based care clinics that are government owned/operated facilities (single payer) and let those who have insurance or can afford it use private care.  Kind of a hybrid approach.

Healthcare was pretty affordable in the 70's, individual health care plans were affordable and abundant as well. 

When did the Federal Government begin "helping" things in the health care field with their regulations and laws? Forcing ER's to treat anyone who came through the door?

Has anyone here paid any attention to what a modern U.S. hospital looks like?  I can't firgure out when the rooms started needing marble bathroom counters and cherry wood cabinets, or when hospital lobbies started to need to look like those of a 5 star hotel.....or when pharma companies needed to start paying huge advertising fees so that their medicnes could be advertised to the general public (isn't that what doctors are for?) . I could go on and on about the absurdity of it all and I can't imagne a more screwed up scenario for something so basic. 

good point. lets search their wallets for insurance cards while they bleed out!

Yeah, it's crazy how much money they're making.

I don't really blame the hospitals because they're not the ones who have broken the system.  Sure, they're the ones charging huge amounts, but the reason they're charging the huge amounts is because the insurance companies are paying the huge amounts, and companies are paying them huge amounts, and the consumers that have the insurance and use the services could care a less how much it costs.

If I could charge my customers $100k per phone system install I'd do it in a heartbeat, but unfortunately for me there's a lot of competition and my customers are paying for it out of their own pockets, so they beat me up on price or go somewhere else if it's cheaper.  So, I have to charge a competitive price that's market driven or I won't sell anything.
If my customers all had to just pay $50 for a phone system then they'd all want new phone systems every year and I could jack my prices through the roof and install that imported marble toilet I've always wanted.