Women, Hobby Lobby and the GOP: Hell to Pay in November?

They seem to think a $9 a month cost will become a major issue over........ Fast & Furious (2 dead American Law Enforcement Agents), Benghazi (4 Americans dead) could have been prevented, NSA spying on our online and phone conversations, IRS Targeting individuals using Government as a weapon against the people it doesn't like........They think the cost of 2 cups of Starbucks fancy coffee will be the turning point that helps them stay in office after all of the aforementioned. It's comical.

 

Women won't forget....what?

That HL still provides for something like 15 kinds of birth control?

If women are so stupid as to not realize they still have access to birth control, they should not have the right to vote.

 

It seems to me that the Hobby Lobby ruling leaves the possibility of "censored healthcare for men" open. For instance, if an employer has a religious objection to the boner pills people have been yelling about, then those could be denied (they could be construed as immoral, I'm sure). Nothing in the ruling says men's healthcare will be treated any differently.

 

Ya, that's gonna happen...
(I don't want that to happen)

The ruling was expanded to include all forms, ALL FORMS, of contraception, not any medications men use. But, nice try.

 

You could get Individual Health Care if your employer doesn't provide to your satisfaction, OR you could buy the contraceptive pills on your own. If it's "too expensive" then that shows what a "priority" it must be(not much of one lol)

There is no War on Women, but if they want one so badly I'll give it to them: Enough is enough! Why should men have to pay for a woman's health care? Feminists and other activists proclaimed independence, but you don't quite go through with it. Nope, Government is supposed to conveniently hand out everything for women.

In short, today's women prefer 19th century romanticism with 21st century authoritarianism. Or put another way: She wants to be treated like a queen while being seen as "strong and independent".

That isn't acceptable, a woman's independence has come at the consequence of our income, our political standing in our own country. Since 1965, we'd been saying "yes". Now it's time we said 'no', and draw some red lines.

 

Women wanting equal rights is unacceptable?
Why are you judging women? Why the obvious disdain for women? Why is it your business? I don't need your "yeses" or your "noes" just stay out of my business. You are a hateful person.
I pay for my own health insurance btw.

 

AAAAHHHH!! It's worse than I thought. I don't need the boner pills, but you're telling me I can be denied free condoms? Those sexist bastards.

 

I do not hate religion. I respect everyone's right to their religious beliefs. I don't make it my business what religion anyone is.

It's not my business, don't make it my problem.

 

Admit it. You want very expensive free stuff. Kill your offspring. It will be best for all concerned and those of us who are completely disinterested.

Liberals raising children has to be child abuse.

 

What's an "equal right"? If we were really equal there wouldn't be a need for government interference. But that's precisely what we have, not to establish 'equal rights', but female privilege! Said privilege in of itself would be irrelevant if it didn't impact men's lives, but it does. Equally, if men had the same privileges but they don't. They get the privilege of Social Media making all men look like fiends lol.

In today's world, a man's income belongs to the woman he was stupid enough to get together with. In today's world, a woman's Word is truth and yours blasphemy.
In today's world, we cover your "health needs", but a guy's? Forget it!

And of course, for opposing the Feminist Mystique in all of it's Holy Righteousness(ROFL), I'm a hater There is no war, we bent down for ladies a lot more than we should've. It's too late to stop some of this nonsense, but it's not too late to keep it from getting worse. That's my goal.

 

You get what you pay for......some drugs are covered in all health care categories. Birth control is covered, AND at zero co-pay, just not EVERY fda-approved drug/device for it. The Obama administration over-reached on that one. Be happy they mandated that covered female birth control is covered at zero co-pay, because that's not the case for any other drug category. I pay for my prescription plans too -- and some of the medications my physician wants me to take aren't covered. Happens to just about everyone eventually. No one seems to care that people who have a medical condition where there doctor thinks they should take X drug for whatever reason (perhaps they've tried other less expensive drugs for the condition and they didn't work; perhaps this drug works differently in the body; perhaps they had side effects....whatever).....their particular drug the doctor wants them to take isin't covered, and the ACA "interpretation" doesn't mandate it, much less for free! Are their RIGHTS being violated? After all, they're paying for insurance and their plans too! This "EVERY fda-approved drug/device for female birth control MUST be covered at zero co-pay" was never a RIGHT, it was an administration's interpretation of how they CHOSE to implement the ACA, for obvious reasons......and they got shot down. People who scream about "RIGHTS" to free female birth control always mention .... "but it covers Viagra for men"! Actually, it covers Sildenafil, the generic for Viagra, and NOT at zero co-pay. That drug is contra-indicated in some men, and it simply doesn't work for others. And guess what? The alternatives Levitra and Cialis aren't covered. But you think you're getting shafted because EVERY possible birth control drug isn't covered at zero co-pay. Please.

 

No, I didn't "stop to think about that", because that isn't happening. Female birth control isn't being denied to anyone, it's available everywhere. No one is threatening to make it unavailable, some simply don't wish to be forced to pay for it. Funny, employers AND the government don't wish to be forced to pay for EVERY available drug or treatment for ANY type of health care, not just female birth control. On Medicare and want the newest cancer drug? Nope, they're going to make you start with the least expensive that may work for your condition, OR you can pay the difference yourself. Have insurance through your employer and your doctor wants you to try the newest anti-depressant? Sorry, that drug isn't covered under your insurance plan because it's not on their formulary, because it's more expensive than other drugs that may or may not work for you. So what if you pay for your health insurance and it's deducted out of your check. I want to buy health insurance that covers all of MY healthcare needs too, but it's not available. And guess what? It's not available to YOU either, because at some point, your doctor is going to want you to take a drug that isn't covered. Whether its for religious reasons, costs, or just having to draw the line somewhere, insurance "comes between you and your doctor" all the time, UNLESS you're willing to pay for whatever your doctor recommends yourself. If your argument is that it in your mind it's "ok" for all those other reasons except religious ones, then just say so and own it. But your arguments attempting to justify your stance don't work, because they don't hold true when applied to ANY OTHER type of health care besides female contraception.

 

Yes, I understand how prescription drugs work.

You just don't understand my point. Or you just disagree, which is your right, but what you wrote has nothing to do with my position.
The ruling was expanded to cover ALL forms of contraception. My insurance company wants to provide me my legal medication prescribed by my doctor, for free with my policy. It actually saves them money overall. And I want to receive it in the policy that I pay for. But, because of my boss's feelings they are being censored. It's about equal rights.

Men's healthcare is determined between them, the insurance provider, and their doctor (medical professionals). Not some third (fourth) party forcing their opinion on you.

 

Well, ALL sounds pretty equal to me. Whether it's male contraception or female, the ruling covers it. Looks like you just defeated your own argument.

 

You want to make a wager on that one?

 

Yes they are right there is no war on women.

The equal pay act which they blocked was an attack on men and nothing more.

The USSC Hobby Lobby decision respects no rights over another which is exactly what the law is supposed to do.

The other issues mentioned are also not about women

 

There is no male prescription contraception. Don't play stupid.

 

Yes, men have been given fewer options when it comes to contraception. But if the inequality against men in this area ever stops, and they are given as many options as women enjoy, they will still be equally affected by this ruling. So the law in this case is more equal than the birth control methods. And yet women are screaming "inequality" because they don't get something with zero co-pay that isn't even available to men AT ALL.

 

I'm confident that the democrats will do fairly well in the Novembers; most people do not want the republicans in office. Unless the republicans can turn the party around to what it was 50 years ago, all hope for them is lost, which is fine by me. I don't like them; they are anti-labor; they will never get my vote.

 

If there was any kind of demand for this, from men, the pharmaceutical companies would be on it! As it is they have been trying to develop a male oral contraceptive but haven't been successful without causing some permanent damage.
It isn't being denied to men because of someone else's personal religious beliefs!

Maybe if men were the ones who got pregnant, they would push for it, vote to allocate funds for research. I'd support that. I think women would completely support this, do you really think their would be women trying to stop it?? (En masse) I want equal rights for all Americans. Not just women.

 

Umm...why would a lesbian care about birth control?

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, I would. Keep up this kind of crap and see what happens.

 

Well, if we look at these two sentences and accept them as true, then we must conclude that there IS a demand for it, as they have been trying to develop it. I'm sure many men would like to not have to depend on women to take their pill, and trust that they have done so.

Not yet, but as soon as it exists, it will be.

Well, I'm glad you support equality for all. But it seems a bit disingenuous to cry "inequality" over the fact that you might have to pay a little bit of money for something that is not available to men at ANY price. You're right about one thing: that ain't equal. But we seem to disagree upon which side is getting shorted here.

 

But that's simply not true. Men's healthcare (and EVERYONE's actually, for everything except female contraception), is not determined only between them, the insurance provider, and medical professionals. It is affected by employers and by government, as far as what is mandated and what the employer is willing to pay for. Many employers are "self-insured", they pay an insurance company to administer the plan but they fund the claims themselves. Even when that's not the case, the employers have a say in the contract with the insurance company as to what they will cover and what they won't......a say which is now of course after the ACA affected by certain government mandates, but anything not mandated is still up to the employer to include in their plan or not. If anything, men were getting the short end of the stick, because there was NO government mandate requiring any potential health care for them to be universally covered at zero co-pay. For the record, your insurance company doesn't necessarily "WANT" to provide EVERY contraceptive at zero copay, they were REQUIRED to do so until the SCOTUS struck down the mandate. Prior to the ACA implementation interpretation by the Obama administration, very few insurance companies and/or employer plans covered every FDA-approved female contraceptive, much less for zero co-pay, for reasons such as costs AND religious objections. You seem to think that because the Obama administration expanded the ruling, that was automatically the end of it, said and done, and you were now and forever entitled to it. That expanded ruling was nixed by the SCOTUS because it was a departure from the previous norm, and said departure was ruled to violate the RIGHT (enshrined in the Constitution) to religious freedom. You say it's about equal rights, but that's the fallacy of your position. It was a never a right in the first place, and if anything, it gave women preferential treatment that men did not receive. Merely because the President ATTEMPTED to "give you" something that was not written in the ACA, and the SCOTUS then nixed that attempt doesn't violate your equal rights. The problem was the attempt in the first place, which violated actual rights enshrined in the Constitution.

 

Ok, what about employees who do not share their employers religious convictions? Religion does not supersede the rights of individuals.

 

Apples and oranges.
It's not about having to pay a little bit of money. Who wants the money for it? My insurance company wants to offer it to me with no copay. But my boss's feelings somehow come into the picture.
I'm paying for my health insurance already and the insurance company wants to offer it.
Why should I have to pay again?! Why should my boss's feeeelings cost me money?