Page 20 of 169 FirstFirst ... 1015161718192021222324253070120 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 3371

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    So you don't think these forms of contraception are compelling? Compelling is obviously subjective but is above rational basis as far as a test goes. It's certainly no "gimme" or anything.

    Yes, not surprising at all that an older Catholic male is dismissive of the government having a compelling interest in issuing some forms of contraceptives to women. Not surprising in the least.
    I'll bet these forms of contraception would be compelling if ELC had ovaries.
    We're going to be good again.

  2. #382
    Do you have a link to this Junebug? I'm curious which methods the ruling applied to and which it didn't. And yes I'm too lazy to read the decision.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  3. #383
    Sorry to interrupt but can someone please tell me what happened that may effect me and my slingbox?

  4. #384
    10,000th post, and that's the gem you trot out?
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  5. #385
    hahahaha...to be honest it is more important than any of the other dribble I post. Slingbox is very important in my life. It is the only way I get through trips to Pittsburgh to see my in-laws.

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by Strickland33 View Post
    I'll bet these forms of contraception would be compelling if ELC had ovaries.
    I bet they wouldn't. I don't feel the govt has a compelling interest in mandating that my insurance cover rubbers or Viagra or any number of things, should you deem those comparable. Not sure if Plan B is one of the 4 objectionable things covered here, but my experience is that if there's an oops, you go fork out a couple bucks at planned parenthood or the pharmacy for it. That has been my experience 3 times and I never felt the govt had a compelling interest in making my insurance cover it. I don't think it's any of their business, and I don't think anybody else's insurance rates should be affected by the actions of my pecker or my girlfriend's vag.

  7. #387
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinsNDeacs View Post
    hahahaha...to be honest it is more important than any of the other dribble I post. Slingbox is very important in my life. It is the only way I get through trips to Pittsburgh to see my in-laws.
    I get through my Western PA "vacations" with Xanax and booze.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  8. #388
    Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighDevil View Post
    The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.

    You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.
    Rather than forcing nonparticipants to pay for her recreational copulation, why can't Sandra charge admission to her vagina?

  9. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by tjcmd View Post
    Rather than forcing nonparticipants to pay for her recreational copulation, why can't Sandra charge admission to her vagina?
    This isn't Amsterdam
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  10. #390
    Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,301
    Maybe the demand at that price was low.

  11. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    I bet they wouldn't. I don't feel the govt has a compelling interest in mandating that my insurance cover rubbers or Viagra or any number of things, should you deem those comparable. Not sure if Plan B is one of the 4 objectionable things covered here, but my experience is that if there's an oops, you go fork out a couple bucks at planned parenthood or the pharmacy for it. That has been my experience 3 times and I never felt the govt had a compelling interest in making my insurance cover it. I don't think it's any of their business, and I don't think anybody else's insurance rates should be affected by the actions of my pecker or my girlfriend's vag.
    Quote Originally Posted by tjcmd View Post
    Rather than forcing nonparticipants to pay for her recreational copulation, why can't Sandra charge admission to her vagina?
    The whole point of insurance is to pool risk. Many insureds are riskier than others for one reason or another, often because of their personal behavioral choices. Under the logic of these posts, people who ride motorcycles should not be insured for their injuries, and people who eat themselves into diabetes should not be able to access insurance for their care. Which may well be the desired outcome for these two posters. If so, they should just say they're against all insurance and want everyone to pay for their own health problems out of their own resources, or die if they're unable to do so. If we're going to have insurance, there is no reason that insurance should not cover against the risk of pregnancy (or endometriosis, or menstrual pain) in the same way that it covers the risk of motorcycle injuries or gluttony-induced diabetes.

    Limiting this argument solely to female sexual behavior and reproductive health doesn't make any logical sense. When people attempt to make this argument, most rational observers will conclude that the proponent either has not thought their position through or that the proponent is a sexist ass.

  12. #392
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by ONW View Post
    This isn't Amsterdam
    tj couldn't get laid in Amsterdam with a pocket full 1000 Euro notes.

  13. #393
    I'm curious if there are other portions of the ACA which these types of companies might also find objectionable on religious grounds but weren't brought up in this case. In other words I wonder if this issue could feasibly be framed as an attack on women or not.

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    And under the HL decision, HL's female employees will be entitled to recieve the exact same measure of reproductive choices, without cost sharing, as any other company's employees.
    This thread left the Hobby Lobby station a long time ago and entered Limbaugh territory. I was responding to the posts I quoted, not talking about Hobby Lobby.

  15. #395
    What insurance also does is charge higher premiums to known risks. Car insurance rates are higher for inexperienced drivers or those who have had accidents than they are for experienced drivers with a clean record. ACA doesn't allow that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon923 View Post
    The whole point of insurance is to pool risk. Many insureds are riskier than others for one reason or another, often because of their personal behavioral choices. Under the logic of these posts, people who ride motorcycles should not be insured for their injuries, and people who eat themselves into diabetes should not be able to access insurance for their care. Which may well be the desired outcome for these two posters. If so, they should just say they're against all insurance and want everyone to pay for their own health problems out of their own resources, or die if they're unable to do so. If we're going to have insurance, there is no reason that insurance should not cover against the risk of pregnancy (or endometriosis, or menstrual pain) in the same way that it covers the risk of motorcycle injuries or gluttony-induced diabetes.

    Limiting this argument solely to female sexual behavior and reproductive health doesn't make any logical sense. When people attempt to make this argument, most rational observers will conclude that the proponent either has not thought their position through or that the proponent is a sexist ass.

  16. #396
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Well that settles it. I know lots of men who have to take the pill or other reproductive medicines. Are they also offering vasectomies to the women employees?

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by The Mangler View Post
    What insurance also does is charge higher premiums to known risks. Car insurance rates are higher for inexperienced drivers or those who have had accidents than they are for experienced drivers with a clean record. ACA doesn't allow that.
    ACA's a dumb bill that I have never supported. But I do believe that healthcare is a public good so generally speaking I have no problem with all beneficiaries of the system contributing more or less equally instead of parsing it through insurance company risk algorithms. What I do have a problem with is the concept that health care should be provided or withheld based on one group's personal moral code, which code is almost always applied in an irregular and discriminatory manner to disfavored groups.

  18. #398
    Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    tj couldn't get laid in Amsterdam with a pocket full 1000 Euro notes.
    Uhhh, actually, if I can recall correctly, many years ago,..

  19. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    I'm curious if there are other portions of the ACA which these types of companies might also find objectionable on religious grounds but weren't brought up in this case. In other words I wonder if this issue could feasibly be framed as an attack on women or not.
    Probably stem cell related treatment. If not now, then in the future I would imagine.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10....99-013-0191-0#

    Life support would be another, but I think less and less religions object to that nowadays.

  20. #400
    Yeah I was just wondering if there were other exemptions that under HL's rationale should have also exempted the company but they chose not to pursue it, instead simply sticking with the contraception issue.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •