BY MICHELLE GARCIA
JULY 01 2014 2:04 PM ET

Monday's Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case honestly makes me sick.

As a woman, some guy who pays me can now also tell me that my hard-earned company health insurance can't cover my no-baby-candies because he thinks it might have some sort of voodoo power that kills phantom babies. Fortunately, I work at a company where that wouldn't be the case. (Uh, right?)

As a queer woman, it makes me want to shake every LGBT person who doesn't see the broader implications of this. What if a company could tell employees that they won't pay for insurance that covers HIV treatment or health care to transgender people because of owners' "sincerely held religious beliefs"? Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, promised its scope was "very specific." Still, some of us side with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and foresee a potential onslaught of legal challenges testing the limits.

More: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/07/01/op-ed-hobby-lobby-and-constitutional-right-be-stupid

Lobby Hobby is not against birth control. They provide for several kinds of birth control. Their limitations are for medications that can kill fertilized eggs. However, those items are still available to anybody who wants to purchase them.

What is wrong with paying for your own preventive care? Why should it be somebody else's responsibility? When I was young everybody had to pay for all of their own medical and dental care. There was no such thing as medical insurance. You can also purchase coverage in addition to that which your employer provides.

It should be an employers option as to what they are willing to provide. You can always work for another employer. There is nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that limited the availability of the medication or your right to take such medication.

Firstly the problem is that it should not be up to an employer to decide what medication its staff takes, secondly, perhaps more importantly and something that you did not address, it opens some very scary doors. What about blood transfusions, capsulated tablets (with gelatin - which is most of them), or even treating LGBT people all together? What about when this applies to areas other than healthcare.

Like the guy said on the chat show program that somebody posted, insurance and laws are like a buffet, you might not like beets, but that does not mean that you don't have to pay for them or tell anyone else they are not allowed to have them. You pay the ticket price like everyone else and that's it. Whether you have beets or not is a personal choice, not one you make for others.

Personally I have always paid for my own insurance. What I want covered and that is usually extremely high deductables in case something catastrophic happens. Everything else I pay for out of pocket and usually by paying cash its a lot cheaper than going through the insurance company.

For prescriptions, I always ask for the older medications that have been out for a while instead of all the new cutting edge stuff. Sometimes the new stuff my be 90% more than the stuff that has been around a while. And the new stuff seems to have some pretty unintentional consequences even though it has been cleared by the FDA . The stuff that has been around a while usually has all the possible side effects found that have been associated with it.

But that is me and I am on my own but even if I worked for a business or corporation, I would still get insurance on my own for the simple reason I know what and how to take care of myself, I like the doctor I go to and don't want my healthcare influenced by what someone else may or may not believe in. And, a great big AND, I would not want the company that I worked for to know every little thing about my health.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 02, 2014, 05:40:21 AM
Still, some of us side with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and foresee a potential onslaught of legal challenges testing the limits.

I see the slippery slope/unexpected consequences thing coming into play here. Everyone is focused on the contraceptive issue and is discussing that aspect, but i think that this decision is a lot bigger than just birth control. The court has set a precedent that companies are the same as individuals, and thus companies have a right to claim a religious exemption to certain laws that they believe infringe on those religious beliefs.

An example - what would stop any company from claiming a religious exemption when they want to discriminate against TLGB employees? Currently that action cannot be justified solely from the Hobby Lobby decision, but I think that it is just a matter of time until a company tries this in court and claims the Hobby Lobby decision as a precedent.

I believe that this decision will open the floodgates for companies to legally have the right to discriminate against whoever they choose and claim a religious exemption to justify it. Suddenly, it's 1950 once again.

Quote from: Eva Marie on July 02, 2014, 08:46:28 AM
I see the slippery slope/unexpected consequences thing coming into play here. Everyone is focused on the contraceptive issue and is discussing that aspect, but i think that this decision is a lot bigger than just birth control. The court has set a precedent that companies are the same as individuals, and thus companies have a right to claim a religious exemption to certain laws that they believe infringe on those religious beliefs.

An example - what would stop any company from claiming a religious exemption when they want to discriminate against TLGB employees? Currently that action cannot be justified solely from the Hobby Lobby decision, but I think that it is just a matter of time until a company tries this in court and claims the Hobby Lobby decision as a precedent.

I believe that this decision will open the floodgates for companies to legally have the right to discriminate against whoever they choose and claim a religious exemption to justify it. Suddenly, it's 1950 once again.

I really hope you are wrong about the 1950 part but have a strange feeling that you may be right.

Ok this is what I really don't understand about the whole religious freedom debate. Ok it is an extremely good thing that we have freedom of religion and free to practice whatever relgion even if it is our own beliefs that no one else in rest of the country share.

Ok, so the people who own Hobby Lobby are religious and hold certain views. I don't care, they can really believe in and have the morals they feel right about. If their religion condemns the use of birth control or whatever else, other religions may not. Ok say that we can call Atheism a belief system, no haters please just hypothetically speaking. So are the heads of Hobby Lobby infringing on other's rights to freedom of religion or even those that choose to be atheist? To me this is an interesting thought and we are heading down a slippery slope. To me this shouldn't even be an issue. The heads of Hobby Lobby believe a certain way then follow those beliefs for yourselves and families and relgious establishment. Other's belief systems may have other opinions and beliefs about it and infringing on those beliefs of other's is not securing the the Freedom of Religion that was set forth in the Bill of Rights. So even though the Supreme Court, head of the judicial branch of government is supposed to rule on these types of constitutional battles it really seems to me that they picked one set of beliefs over others and I really think they crossed the boundry of Separation of Church and State.

What really irks me about the whole situation is that we cherish the thought of having the Freedom of Religion and everyone else to have that same freedom as long as it falls in line with our own. They don't like BC or other aspects of the abortion debate. Fine they do not have to practice them. But they really shouldn't infringe on other's belief systems. Just my opinion.

Quote from: mac1 on July 02, 2014, 07:09:12 AM
Lobby Hobby is not against birth control. They provide for several kinds of birth control. Their limitations are for medications that can kill fertilized eggs. However, those items are still available to anybody who wants to purchase them.

What is wrong with paying for your own preventive care? Why should it be somebody else's responsibility? When I was young everybody had to pay for all of their own medical and dental care. There was no such thing as medical insurance. You can also purchase coverage in addition to that which your employer provides.

It should be an employers option as to what they are willing to provide. You can always work for another employer. There is nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that limited the availability of the medication or your right to take such medication.

Well it's not the employer's decision how you live your life, and not everyone has the magical ability to leap from job to job so easily. All of those things are required to be covered under that law, and a corporation is not a person. Nobody should be exempt from the law because they claim it goes against their beliefs. Also, where does it stop? If transgender surgery and treatment were covered, any business could easily say "It goes against my beliefs" And leave a person without necessary coverage. If blood transfusions go against a company's "Beliefs" Then should we just let that person die? And it's wrong to assume that everyone is going to be able to pay out of pocket. My mom has a hysterectomy ((A more drastic measure of contraception)) and she can barely afford food, this surgery could save her life and if it wasn't covered, she would have a few months to live.

By the way, male methods of contraception are still covered in Hobby Lobby. Also, birth control pills are often used for reasons other than contraception, the cost of IUD's can come up to $1000, and abortions can prevent an another unloved baby from being born into this world. There are no bosses in my bedroom. A fetus is a clump of human cells, it is not a person with "beliefs". A company is a place that provides products or services, it is not a person with "beliefs". A woman however is a person, with beliefs. :/

What is wrong about being thankful for what your employer or somebody else is willing to provide for you? Some of us have to pay the full premium for our medical insurance and still not have the same degree of coverage that many employers provide for their employees.

The more I read the more it seems to be because of a morning after or abortion pill, not birth control.

Quote from: LordKAT on July 03, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
The more I read the more it seems to be because of a morning after or abortion pill, not birth control.

That agrees with my previous post. They still provide for several feminine birth control methods in their medical coverage. They just refuse to provide the coverages which you mentioned. However, that medication is still available at the employee's individual cost, separate from the employer paid provided coverage.

mac1 are you concerned at all that this may set an unfortunate precedent?

I feel the most common corporate religion is the worship of money...

You and your doctor should be the only ones that decide what form of birth control are right for you. Your boss shouldn't even be in the loop. Medical records are confidential. This sets a dangerous precident IMO.

Some of you must have wonderful employers. My company "provided" insurance costs me money every paycheck. Sadly it excludes ALL trans specific care. Luckily I work for a good company and HR knows I'm trans, so maybe that will change next year.

Those of you who pay all your own insurance, I'm amazed, kudos, I don't see how you can afford it.

Quote from: Dee Walker on July 03, 2014, 01:59:53 PM
Some of you must have wonderful employers. My company "provided" insurance costs me money every paycheck. Sadly it excludes ALL trans specific care. Luckily I work for a good company and HR knows I'm trans, so maybe that will change next year.

Those of you who pay all your own insurance, I'm amazed, kudos, I don't see how you can afford it.

High deductable catostrophic insurance. For the really bad things in life like heart trouble, cancer, stokes, and other illnesses that may come down the line that will really break you in the end. After I meet my 3500 dollar deductable insurance kicks in 100%. The money I save per month more than makes up for paying out of pocket cash. And like I said earlier the Doctors will give one hell of a break costwise because they get paid right then and there and do not have to wait on the insurance companies and so. On Dr visit costs me cash 50 dollars If I claim it through insurance to add toward the deductable, that same visit wold cost me payable to the insurance company around 80 dollars. And there is not doubt in my mind legal or illeagal that the insurance company negotiates and ends up paying the doctor less than 80 Dollars. Legal or not, etical or not there are loopholes I am sure the insurance companies lawyers have covered. If I had twenty or thirty million dollars in the bank I wouldn't even have health insurance. I am fairly healthy now and if it wasn't for being a little older and the chances of bad illnesses and so on I wouldn't even have it now. I definately wouldn't have it if I was still in my twenties.

My combined medical insurance premiums for my wife and I for this year are $7,568.57 and there is a lot that they don't cover. Recently when my wife was in ER because she was unable to breathe and one of the items which she was provided was a take home inhaler. Guess what, that was classified as a self administered medication and it was not covered by any insurance coverage. The ER did not give her a choice as to whether she wanted the item and the hospital subsequently billed us $467.00 for it. We don't have any recourse and must pay for it.

I actually have no idea if HRT or SRS is covered, but therapy is. I suspect the others are too, bit I'm not even sire how to find out.

Quote from: awilliams1701 on July 03, 2014, 01:54:16 PM
You and your doctor should be the only ones that decide what form of birth control are right for you. Your boss shouldn't even be in the loop.

I agree.  Neither the government nor your employer should be a part of your healthcare at all.  It's only because of government that your employer is a part of your healthcare.  Healthcare should be a free market.

Since healthcare is not a free market, and is not likely to be a free market in the near future (read: my projected lifetime) then let's discuss this ruling.  The problem with this ruling is that there is nothing stopping people from coming up with any sort of denial of coverage for any or no reason, and then taking that to court.  There are people whose "sincerely held beliefs" include not having blood transfusions.  There are people's whose "sincerely held beliefs" include avoiding modern medicine entirely because they believe that ONLY god should be trusted to take care of you.  Can they be exempt from paying for blood transfusions or, for the latter, any and all healthcare conceivable?  If not, how is that any different than what Hobby Lobby is doing right now?

Get the government out of healthcare, and this problem would solve itself.  A company that wants to be competitive would offer more benefits, and thus attract more skilled workers.

Tbh this is a very alien subject to me, due to living in the uk that has public funded healthcare. I don't really understand how a country that pumps so much money into war doesn't even care to attempt to organize a basic level of tax payer funded national healthcare.

All I know is I'm staying put right here with the NHS lol

Allowing healthcare to be a commercial privatized market has major moral conflicts, in my view it removes the care from healthcare, because noone cares, they just want your money.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 04, 2014, 12:52:22 AM
Tbh this is a very alien subject to me, due to living in the uk that has public funded healthcare. I don't really understand how a country that pumps so much money into war doesn't even care to attempt to organize a basic level of tax payer funded national healthcare.

All I know is I'm staying put right here with the NHS lol

Allowing healthcare to be a commercial privatized market has major moral conflicts, in my view it removes the care from healthcare, because noone cares, they just want your money.

Oooh I am a uk girl too and tbh I think the whole privatisation of health is just.... what?

I think get the businesses out of healthcare (or at least only for an optional route) that way everyone is covered. Separation of church, state, media and business is the way forward. If you own a business/run an organisation in one or work as an elected member, then you should not be owning or running an organisation in any of the others/working as an elected member. There are too many conflicts of interest and opportunities for corruption otherwise.  But that's just what I think and what do I know, hey? :-)

Quote from: mac1 on July 02, 2014, 07:09:12 AM
It should be an employers option as to what they are willing to provide.

Except when the law requires that it be provided by all companies. Claiming a religious justification should not exempt any company from following the law. This is a bad decision made by conservative members of the Supreme court to support their individual political agendas in violation of their solemn oaths as judges. They should all be impeached.