Does it matter, now that the slippery slope has been set?

 

Agree.

 

And I will add JD, I think your question belongs in the other thread vs. this one.

Yes big difference in not covering preventative birth control which is taken for medical necessity by many women and not covering the "Oops Pill" that stops a birth after conception.

 

No slippery slope here IMO opinion...very distinct difference.

 

You are spilling gas everywhere...

You are spilling gas everywhere...

Doing what I can!

Doing what I can!

 

For the other side! :thumb:

Burying one's head in the sand or being dismissive adds fuel too.

 

Disagree but if so, so be it.

 

What about truth?

Nobody has ever explained why birth control needs to be covered by a company's insurance?

 

I would think that there would be cost issues as well.

 

What's cheaper - monthly birth control or a couple of pregnancies?

I would think that there would be cost issues as well.

 

What's cheaper - monthly birth control or a couple of pregnancies?

Isn't refreshing that they are doing what they think is right instead of what is the most "Cost Effective".

 

No one really answered this are we talking monthly birth control or after conception control. I read that their coverage does cover almost all monthly type birth control...it's the other that they didn't want to fund.

Disagree but if so' date=' so be it. What about truth?[/quote']

 

I am all ears, what is the truth?

Everyone knows Hobby Lobby has paid for birth control long before ACA - right?

 

In that sense they are far more 'progressive' than the vast majority of 'for profit' or even all companies.

 

What was at stake was erosion of personal rights under ACA - personal rights including running YOUR business that puts food on YOUR table as according to your PERSONAL beliefs. If employees do not like it they can always leave - they are not indentured servants under contract.

 

This author was way off the mark.

Everyone knows Hobby Lobby has paid for birth control long before ACA - right?

I take it that most think they didn't and didn't want to be forced to. I think like most subjects there is a lot of uninformed on both sides. I am, knew next to nothing about this until I started reading about it today.

I take it that most think they didn't and didn't want to be forced to. I think like most subjects there is a lot of uninformed on both sides. I am, knew next to nothing about this until I started reading about it today.

Democrats will spend millions between now and 2017 to make sure that people are misinformed about the Hobby Lobby decision. "Women's health issues" is a campaign euphemism for a license to kill.

A lot of the women I know consider their birth control as a part of their routine health care. To that line of thinking, it's hard to see why so many things are covered but not this.

 

If birth control is to be considered part of routine heath care, why does the ACA require the products to be covered with a $0.00 co-pay. Routine blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, etc.. do not have such a stipulation.

The medication is not just for pregnancy prevention. A variety of gynecological issues are treated with it.

 

As I posted in the other thread, I have never had an instance when a company that had a general exclusion of not covering "oral contraceptives" refused to pay when the doctor provided a diagnosis that involved gynecological issues (cramping, bleeding, endometriosis). This includes patients employed by Catholic Hospitals and the Diocese of Covington.

As I posted in the other thread, I have never had an instance when a company that had a general exclusion of not covering "oral contraceptives" refused to pay when the doctor provided a diagnosis that involved gynecological issues (cramping, bleeding, endometriosis). This includes patients employed by Catholic Hospitals and the Diocese of Covington.

 

Unless you're a policy-making health-care executive, it's kind of hard to use that as absolute assurance.

Everyone knows Hobby Lobby has paid for birth control long before ACA - right?

 

In that sense they are far more 'progressive' than the vast majority of 'for profit' or even all companies.

 

What was at stake was erosion of personal rights under ACA - personal rights including running YOUR business that puts food on YOUR table as according to your PERSONAL beliefs. If employees do not like it they can always leave - they are not indentured servants under contract.

 

This author was way off the mark.

This!