Political Vids/Images

[runawayjimbo]

What exactly about the case relegates women to "meh" status?

[PIE-GUY]

What exactly about the case relegates women to "meh" status?

That they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

[runawayjimbo]

What exactly about the case relegates women to "meh" status?

That they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

And how does the case do that? Contraceptives haven't been banned, have they?

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

[runawayjimbo]

Also, the thing about closely held corporations pretty much kicks the "corporate personhood" argument in the nuts too. The scope of the decision was limited to private companies because it is nearly impossible to separate the owners' religious beliefs from that of the company (it's in their goddamned mission statement). The focus is on the individual rights, not the rights of the corporation. It would be much harder to separate individual interests of a large, publicly traded company, hence the distinction.

[PIE-GUY]

What exactly about the case relegates women to "meh" status?

That they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

And how does the case do that? Contraceptives haven't been banned, have they?

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

You know, I started writing out an argument, but it's not worth my time. I really don't understand why this is even a debate, honestly. One person's morals over another should not be the basis of a SCOTUS decision. It's the same reason drugs should be legal. Some find drug use immoral. Others do not. That's fine, but laws that favor one set of morals over another are, by nature, discriminatory.

[runawayjimbo]

What exactly about the case relegates women to "meh" status?

That they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

And how does the case do that? Contraceptives haven't been banned, have they?

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

You know, I started writing out an argument, but it's not worth my time. I really don't understand why this is even a debate, honestly. One person's morals over another should not be the basis of a SCOTUS decision. It's the same reason drugs should be legal. Some find drug use immoral. Others do not. That's fine, but laws that favor one set of morals over another are, by nature, discriminatory.

I agree with you. But don't you think by forcing people too violate their beliefs you are pushing your morality on them?

If the GOP were smart, they'd put up a bill to make contraceptives OTC today. But they're not, so they won't.

[PIE-GUY]

Here's the thing - the system by which women get prescriptions for the pill is really good for women. It gets them checked up on a regular basis which keeps them healthy and catches things like cancer early and actually saves lives... and, by the way, saves money in the long run for their insurance provider. All of this should be encouraged... and nothing discourages behavior quite like prohibitive costs.

The goal of Hobby Lobby is to discourage the women who work at Hobby Lobby from using contraceptives because "every sperm is sacred" in their eyes. But what they are really doing is making health care decisions for these women that the women should be allowed to make themselves. Contraception is a health care issue, in other words, not a moral one.

[runawayjimbo]

The goal of Hobby Lobby is to discourage the women who work at Hobby Lobby from using contraceptives because "every sperm is sacred" in their eyes. But what they are really doing is making health care decisions for these women that the women should be allowed to make themselves. Contraception is a health care issue, in other words, not a moral one.

This is not true. Hobby Lobby provided 16 of the 20 contraceptives required by the ACA (a little discussed fact in the case, as evidenced by the prominent placing in the 3rd to last paragraph in a fairly lengthy write-up). They said they have no problem continuing to offer these benefits.

[VDB]

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

Making benefits available to someone is not the same as requiring a person to avail herself of said benefits. The autonomous ability to make health care decisions remains in place.

[runawayjimbo]

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

Making benefits available to someone is not the same as requiring a person to avail herself of said benefits. The autonomous ability to make health care decisions remains in place.

What if my autonomous health care decision is to not purchase insurance? Or buy a plan that only covers catastrophic claims? Or a plan that doesn't include maternity?

Herein like the problem once you start telling people that they lack the basic understanding of the insurance marketplace and that a centralized body should decide what is and is not "essential."

[PIE-GUY]

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

Making benefits available to someone is not the same as requiring a person to avail herself of said benefits. The autonomous ability to make health care decisions remains in place.

What if my autonomous health care decision is to not purchase insurance? Or buy a plan that only covers catastrophic claims? Or a plan that doesn't include maternity?

Herein like the problem once you start telling people that they lack the basic understanding of the insurance marketplace and that a centralized body should decide what is and is not "essential."

One of the reasons I really don't want to debate this with anyone is that I think we should have a single payer system. Fuck the health insurance industry. Fuck 'em.

[VDB]

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

Making benefits available to someone is not the same as requiring a person to avail herself of said benefits. The autonomous ability to make health care decisions remains in place.

What if my autonomous health care decision is to not purchase insurance? Or buy a plan that only covers catastrophic claims? Or a plan that doesn't include maternity?

Herein like the problem once you start telling people that they lack the basic understanding of the insurance marketplace and that a centralized body should decide what is and is not "essential."

That's a broader conversation though. I was responding to your comment that making an employer offer full contraception benefits as a feature of its health insurance coverage is the equivalent of taking away health care decisions from the individual. If anything, it's expanding choice and the opportunity to make individually tailored decisions.

[runawayjimbo]

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

Making benefits available to someone is not the same as requiring a person to avail herself of said benefits. The autonomous ability to make health care decisions remains in place.

What if my autonomous health care decision is to not purchase insurance? Or buy a plan that only covers catastrophic claims? Or a plan that doesn't include maternity?

Herein like the problem once you start telling people that they lack the basic understanding of the insurance marketplace and that a centralized body should decide what is and is not "essential."

One of the reasons I really don't want to debate this with anyone is that I think we should have a single payer system. Fuck the health insurance industry. Fuck 'em.

That's fine. As I've said before, single payer, though I am not in favor of it, would have been more of a change to the health care delivery system than the ACA. As would severing the ties to employer-provided health care. Unfortunately, when discussing recent developments, we can only debate what we have, not what we want.

Also, to be clear, I am not trying to debate anyone per se. I am not trying to change anyone's mind and I respect differing POVs. I am simply pointing out specific claims that I find to be somewhat inconsistent or misleading. YMMV.

[PIE-GUY]

Honesly, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should mean that we don't let people die from lack of money. Just as we must provide public education, so must we provide public health care. That's how I see it.

[runawayjimbo]

Also, aren't you saying they can't make their own health care decisions by allowing the gov't to tell you what essential benefits you are required to have?

Making benefits available to someone is not the same as requiring a person to avail herself of said benefits. The autonomous ability to make health care decisions remains in place.

What if my autonomous health care decision is to not purchase insurance? Or buy a plan that only covers catastrophic claims? Or a plan that doesn't include maternity?

Herein like the problem once you start telling people that they lack the basic understanding of the insurance marketplace and that a centralized body should decide what is and is not "essential."

That's a broader conversation though. I was responding to your comment that making an employer offer full contraception benefits as a feature of its health insurance coverage is the equivalent of taking away health care decisions from the individual. If anything, it's expanding choice and the opportunity to make individually tailored decisions.

I wasn't trying to say it's the equivalent of taking them away, I was responding to the idea that the Hobby Lobby decision has anything to do with the relegating women to "meh" status. Once HHS is granted such broad sweeping authority, it pretty much negates the "they can't be trusted to make their own decisions" argument IMO.

Honesly, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should mean that we don't let people die from lack of money. Just as we must provide public education, so must we provide public health care. That's how I see it.

I agree, it is hard to pursue happiness if you are sick or dying. I just don't believe the gov't can/should/is able to provide that effectively.