Judge says Hobby Lobby must offer BC coverage

[JenniferJuniper]

Don't be silly! Of course she doesn't believe they should live!

Duh on my part! But of course.

[doggie]

Wouldn't bother me a bit if they cut everyone's hours to 29 hours. When the government forces you to do something against your religious beliefs and the only way you can continue to follow your beliefs is to cut people's hours to 29 hours a week so you don't have to provide insurance at all, then I guess that's what you have to do. I.

If that's what your religion tells you then your religion sucks. From what I have heard they are a crappy company to work for and that seems typical of a christian company.

[She Who Laughs]

Haven't you a frumper to sew or something?

All this is well and good...until it's your husband's hours that gets cut and your insurance that winds up under Obamacare. The irony is delicious.

And if you refuse Obamacare, pay the find, but then get sick, Dear Baby Jeebus help you if you need expensive medical interventions. I hope you know all about bankruptcy. It sounds like you and a lot of your fundie friends will be sailing that ship down the river in about 5 years.

Evidently you don't understand the law. Even if a person decides to pay the fine instead of getting insurance, all they have to do is buy the insurance if they end up needing some major medical interventions. After all, the insurance companies won't be able to refuse anyone for pre-existing conditions. So, you wait until you get sick or need surgery and then buy the insurance.

[Guest Anonymous]

WE MADE YOU SOMETHING!

I made you a macaroni necklace, the rest of FJ made you this:

http://freejinger.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13944

[marmalade]

Don't be silly! Of course she doesn't believe they should live!

Awesome that the "deserving" vs. "undeserving" thread is running concurrent to this. Our little troll likely believes all those Dickens orphans, or other hard-working families he wrote about were all undeserving sacks of shit who deserved to live in London's disgusting slums. Slums that, as noted, "good CHRISTIANS" chose to ignore.

History is merely repeating itself, just in another country. Different, morons, same bad justifications.

[kb2]

Wouldn't bother me a bit if they cut everyone's hours to 29 hours. When the government forces you to do something against your religious beliefs and the only way you can continue to follow your beliefs is to cut people's hours to 29 hours a week so you don't have to provide insurance at all, then I guess that's what you have to do.

But when a company accepts a full year's worth of work for a female employee of childbearing age who is on birth control, they are saved from finding and paying for a replacement for six weeks of that year by her birth control. Why is it only unconscionable when employers have to pay for birth control but not when they benefit from it?

Further, why are they paying employees who they suspect will use their earnings on birth control? Shouldn't try only employ quiverfull or NFP only employees if they don't want their money being spent on birth control? How is paying for insurance that provides the option of birth control so much more imposing from paying a salary that provides the option of paying for condoms, birth control, and heroin?

[JenniferJuniper]

Evidently you don't understand the law. Even if a person decides to pay the fine instead of getting insurance, all they have to do is buy the insurance if they end up needing some major medical interventions. After all, the insurance companies won't be able to refuse anyone for pre-existing conditions. So, you wait until you get sick or need surgery and then buy the insurance.

It's not quite that simplistic.

This article might help explain things a little better for you.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2012/07/0 ... insurance/

[She Who Laughs]

But when a company accepts a full year's worth of work for a female employee of childbearing age who is on birth control, they are saved from finding and paying for a replacement for six weeks of that year by her birth control. Why is it only unconscionable when employers have to pay for birth control but not when they benefit from it?

Further, why are they paying employees who they suspect will use their earnings on birth control? Shouldn't try only employ quiverfull or NFP only employees if they don't want their money being spent on birth control? How is paying for insurance that provides the option of birth control so much more imposing from paying a salary that provides the option of paying for condoms, birth control, and heroin?

They said they had no problem with regular birth control and stated they would continue to provide that to employees as before. Their issue was strictly with the morning after pill.

[marmalade]

Evidently you don't understand the law. Even if a person decides to pay the fine instead of getting insurance, all they have to do is buy the insurance if they end up needing some major medical interventions. After all, the insurance companies won't be able to refuse anyone for pre-existing conditions. So, you wait until you get sick or need surgery and then buy the insurance.

But will you be able to afford it once you snubbed it? Why so proud? You don't laugh, you cackle.

[She Who Laughs]

It's not quite that simplistic.

This article might help explain things a little better for you.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2012/07/0 ... insurance/

It's possible that they could change the law between now and 2014, but as it stands right now, there is no specific open enrollment period or waiting period. Who knows what the law will say by 2014. As it is health insurance premiums are already sky rocketing and they predict them to continue to rise dramatically. So much for the "affordable" part of the affordable care act. We'll see how affordable it is by 2014.

[kb2]

They said they had no problem with regular birth control and stated they would continue to provide that to employees as before. Their issue was strictly with the morning after pill.

...Which their employees can buy with their salary, and which they still stand to benefit from their employees' lack of unplanned pregnancy. So, why employ anyone who they think might use the morning after pill?

[JenniferJuniper]

It's possible that they could change the law between now and 2014, but as it stands right now, there is no specific open enrollment period or waiting period. Who knows what the law will say by 2014. As it is health insurance premiums are already sky rocketing and they predict them to continue to rise dramatically. So much for the "affordable" part of the affordable care act. We'll see how affordable it is by 2014.

You may want to do some research on the Massachusetts plan, which again, the Affordable Care Act is modeled on.

Expect the fines to increase. Right now, for a person with a moderate income in MA the fine is 50% of what the lowest plan would cost. So when one considers the risks outlined in the article above (even if there isn't a waiting period, you still are uninsured when a health crisis happens and that's never good for your health), it makes more sense to just buy the policy.

Only 5% of Massachusetts residents are currently uninsured, BTW. The lowest in the country.

Here are a couple of comparables.

19.1% - Percentage of people living in the South who are uninsured, the highest percentage of any region.

24.6% - The percentage of uninsured people in Texas, the highest of any state.

Again, I think a single payer system makes more sense. Get the insurance companies out of it entirely. But it's a step in the right direction for sure.

[dairyfreelife]

Let's not feed the trolls. They'll just make a mess on the carpet.

[JenniferJuniper]

Let's not feed the trolls. They'll just make a mess on the carpet.

Troll or not, I think it's worth discussing simply because so many other people out there have the same simplistic, knee jerk opinions on the topic which are based solely on random bits of things they overhear. This individual is not using facts and reason and she should be called out for it.

[dairyfreelife]

Troll or not, I think it's worth discussing simply because so many other people out there have the same simplistic, knee jerk opinions on the topic which are based solely on random bits of things they overhear. This individual is not using facts and reason and she should be called out for it.

I agree. I just know that She Who Laughs has admitted she is a troll. She has stated herself that she just comes here because she sees us like a trainwreck. She's a fundie Elle. The articles posted can help anyone reading here, I'm just saying don't get caught up in her bait. ;) It'd be great to get people like her to see reason, but I doubt she will sadly. Still, maybe they'll help other non troll readers.

[DarkAnts]

Troll or not, I think it's worth discussing simply because so many other people out there have the same simplistic, knee jerk opinions on the topic which are based solely on random bits of things they overhear. This individual is not using facts and reason and she should be called out for it.

Here is a fact and inconvenient truth for the resident troll. I was denied insurance at the age of 24 (when I was no longer covered under my parents insurance) because I have mild/moderate asthma (back in 2008). I have never been in the hospital because of it for it. But, its the reason I was given by 4 different insurance companies. I am lucky to live in a state that had a high risk insurance pool. I got insurance that was partially covered under medicaid. Without so called obamacare, I would not be have gotten on my employers insurance plan.

[JenniferJuniper]

I agree. I just know that She Who Laughs has admitted she is a troll. She has stated herself that she just comes here because she sees us like a trainwreck. She's a fundie Elle. The articles posted can help anyone reading here, I'm just saying don't get caught up in her bait. ;) It'd be great to get people like her to see reason, but I doubt she will sadly. Still, maybe they'll help other non troll readers.

I know who she is, and I don't think anyone cares whether she sees reason or not. I certainly don't.

But as you note, there are many other people reading out here and her bullshit makes good fodder.

[rock_girl]

Here is a fact and inconvenient truth for the resident troll. I was denied insurance at the age of 24 (when I was no longer covered under my parents insurance) because I have mild/moderate asthma (back in 2008). I have never been in the hospital because of it for it. But, its the reason I was given by 4 different insurance companies. I am lucky to live in a state that had a high risk insurance pool. I got insurance that was partially covered under medicaid. Without so called obamacare, I would not be have gotten on my employers insurance plan.

That is insane. I always thought that you could get insurance through your employer (assuming they offered it) if you had a pre-existing condition that meant individual coverage was denied. That's not the case? What if the insurance is part of your salary package? Do they give the money that would have been spent on insurance to you in your pay cheque?

[JenniferJuniper]

That is insane. I always thought that you could get insurance through your employer (assuming they offered it) if you had a pre-existing condition that meant individual coverage was denied. That's not the case? What if the insurance is part of your salary package? Do they give the money that would have been spent on insurance to you in your pay cheque?

This isn't directed to me, so I don't know if the poster was trying to get an employer-sponsored plan or a policy on her own, but up until 1996 when HIPAA was passed it was not uncommon for a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. I believe HIPAA only allows insurance companies to go back 6 months to determine if a condition is pre-existing. Of course, that's all changing now. :D

[kb2]

Troll or not, I think it's worth discussing simply because so many other people out there have the same simplistic, knee jerk opinions on the topic which are based solely on random bits of things they overhear. This individual is not using facts and reason and she should be called out for it.

I just felt like arguing tonight. :) But I have been known to not pick up on trollness, so I appreciate the warning.

[DarkAnts]

That is insane. I always thought that you could get insurance through your employer (assuming they offered it) if you had a pre-existing condition that meant individual coverage was denied. That's not the case? What if the insurance is part of your salary package? Do they give the money that would have been spent on insurance to you in your pay cheque?

For part of the time, I was in college and had to have individual health insurance but could not get it. For the other part of the time, HiPPA allowed my employers insurance to see that I was taking medicine for my asthma during the 6 months leading up to my employment. That allowed them to deny me insurance coverage based on the laws in my state.

[rock_girl]

Wow, crazy. So prior to Obamacare someone with mild asthma was just sol and had to hope for the best unless they found a high-risk pool to buy into?

I can't think of a more effective way to waste money. Someone who's young and otherwise healthy (bar a mild pre-existing condition) is probably not going to need their insurance unless something catastrophic happens. So if you got hit by a car or caught up in a house fire you'd have no insurance to pay for a week or two in intensive care, another month or so in hospital and subsequent outpatient care needed to go back to being a productive tax-paying adult. Meanwhile the bills would just pile up and presumably the only way to deal with them would be to declare bankruptcy so that the hospital and government are left holding the tab.

From the viewpoint of someone who is as cheap as all fuck, that is just so stupid. Glad to hear that Obamacare was able to help you.

[DarkAnts]

Wow, crazy. So prior to Obamacare someone with mild asthma was just sol and had to hope for the best unless they found a high-risk pool to buy into?

I can't think of a more effective way to waste money. Someone who's young and otherwise healthy (bar a mild pre-existing condition) is probably not going to need their insurance unless something catastrophic happens. So if you got hit by a car or caught up in a house fire you'd have no insurance to pay for a week or two in intensive care, another month or so in hospital and subsequent outpatient care needed to go back to being a productive tax-paying adult. Meanwhile the bills would just pile up and presumably the only way to deal with them would be to declare bankruptcy so that the hospital and government are left holding the tab.

From the viewpoint of someone who is as cheap as all fuck, that is just so stupid. Glad to hear that Obamacare was able to help you.

I thought it was crazy that I was lumped into the same category as people with serious conditions like cancer. But, its all about numbers for insurance companies. The same is true for pharmaceutical companies. There is a shortage of methotrexate because the companies that make it are not getting enough of a profit margin for it. The drug is an inexpensive medicine that treats childhood leukemia and autoimmune diseases. I know two people who had to switch meds because of the shortage.

[Arete]

I thought it was crazy that I was lumped into the same category as people with serious conditions like cancer. But, its all about numbers for insurance companies. The same is true for pharmaceutical companies. There is a shortage of methotrexate because the companies that make it are not getting enough of a profit margin for it. The drug is an inexpensive medicine that treats childhood leukemia and autoimmune diseases. I know two people who had to switch meds because of the shortage.

This must have been some particularly crazy loophole in your state's insurance laws, because I know people with MS and lupus that changed jobs and got on their employer's insurance within 6 months. They would use COBRA to cover the gap. This is prior to OC. Of course prior to OC these same people would not have been able to get an individual policy in the states they lived in.

[Kitty]

Wow, crazy. So prior to Obamacare someone with mild asthma was just sol and had to hope for the best unless they found a high-risk pool to buy into?

I can't think of a more effective way to waste money. Someone who's young and otherwise healthy (bar a mild pre-existing condition) is probably not going to need their insurance unless something catastrophic happens. So if you got hit by a car or caught up in a house fire you'd have no insurance to pay for a week or two in intensive care, another month or so in hospital and subsequent outpatient care needed to go back to being a productive tax-paying adult. Meanwhile the bills would just pile up and presumably the only way to deal with them would be to declare bankruptcy so that the hospital and government are left holding the tab.

From the viewpoint of someone who is as cheap as all fuck, that is just so stupid. Glad to hear that Obamacare was able to help you.

You think being denied insurance because of asthma is bad, one if my moms old insurers once tried to deny me coverage because I had bad acne. Yes, bad acne. Guess how old I was. Go on. Guess. Hint: not even in high school.