|
Politics Discussion | by mekkanik_mike | 2014-03-27 00:30:01 |
|
About Hobby Lobby. | by ShadowSystems | 2014-03-27 00:47:59 |
| Everybody seems to be missing the real story here. |
by RetiQlum2 |
2014-03-27 12:14:50 |
I drove several hundred miles yesterday which means that I went through several radio zones. I got to hear both the liberal and conservative views on this subject before I eventually just stuck some Pink Floyd in the CD player.
What was most poignant from both sides is what was missing. Then I got home and pulled up UF and saw the same things missing.
If it was a religious argument they would have promoted a Christian Scientist company to the SCOTUS.
If people were arguing about the use of drugs that _could_ be used as contraceptives was the issue but weren't it'd be a non-starter.
The real issue here is a lifestyle that includes unprotected sex and who has to pay for the effects of that.
Look, when I was going out to bars and looking for miss right-now I had condoms in my jacket (keeping them in your wallet is so 80's and can damage them.) Women should do the same, BTW. My health insurance didn't pay for them.
Hey, in those days I also went home via taxi. Health insurance didn't pay for that either.
So the real question being asked is, "should healthcare pay for your lifestyle."
Hobby Lobby is not shoving their religion down their employees throats (as one poster said yesterday) they are simply refusing to pay for a additional coverage in a situation where the person isn't even ill.
At what point are businesses allowed to interfere with their employees choices vs at what point are they required to pay for their employees choices?
A pregnant woman is not ill (other than morning sickness.) That has been the mantra of a lot of liberal organizations that promote "natural childbirth" but now it's a health issue?
If you don't want to have children don't have sex. If you want to have sex but don't want children the pill or condoms are dirt cheap compared to the cover charges at the bar/club you are going to in the first place.
There are better battles for ACA advocates to fight. It's really a battle over secular versus religious reasons on a platform that less than half the country wants anyhow. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I see it slightly differently | by basher20 | 2014-03-27 12:38:33 |
|
It would have simplified the case... | by RetiQlum2 | 2014-03-27 12:49:44 |
|
That argument was brought up tangentially | by basher20 | 2014-03-27 12:58:59 |
|
Except that's a facile argument. | by firehawk | 2014-03-27 12:51:21 |
|
Ask yourself this: | by RetiQlum2 | 2014-03-27 13:06:03 |
|
I'm not delving into philosphy here, Reti. | by firehawk | 2014-03-27 15:07:53 |
|
On the question of cost... | by Ol_Gunner | 2014-03-27 13:23:47 |
|
Wrong | by vdp | 2014-03-27 13:53:29 |
|
Interesting info. | by Ol_Gunner | 2014-03-27 14:11:47 |
|
nope | by basher20 | 2014-03-27 14:53:09 |
|
Wrong | by vdp | 2014-03-27 15:54:04 |
|
On the question of mistakes... | by Ol_Gunner | 2014-03-27 13:34:29 |
|
Yes there is. | by Peace_Man | 2014-03-27 13:53:33 |
|
Sorry... | by Ol_Gunner | 2014-03-27 14:07:39 |
|
Hmm - you have a point there. | by Peace_Man | 2014-03-27 21:58:16 |
|
It seems to me like you just made a huge step in.. | by RetiQlum2 | 2014-03-27 22:29:46 |
|
But the insurance company wants to pay. | by firehawk | 2014-03-27 15:05:55 |
|
The question is: Just because you pay for it, | by Peace_Man | 2014-03-27 13:03:00 |
|
That would make a lot more sense... | by RetiQlum2 | 2014-03-27 13:18:40 |
|
What we really need is a sword. | by RetiQlum2 | 2014-03-27 13:26:18 |
|
The sword of Nationalization? | by Peace_Man | 2014-03-27 13:45:47 |
|
Or, and this is just an idea... | by RetiQlum2 | 2014-03-27 14:05:51 |
|
That may not be the best idea, or in the best | by Peace_Man | 2014-03-27 21:05:10 |
|
Huh. You mean what we had BEFORE? When | by wwill | 2014-03-28 01:28:50 |
|
First, I disagree with your opinion... | by Ol_Gunner | 2014-03-27 13:55:26 |
|
Actually, SCOTUS did announce | by Peace_Man | 2014-03-27 21:13:57 |
|
You're neglecting to define 'gov't approved' | by wwill | 2014-03-28 01:38:25 |
