• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

RJKarl said:
When I said Hobby Lobby would have greater impact many here said how wrong I was. Hmmmmmm......
Click to expand...

Not to rain on your self-parade, but this could have been done with or without the Hobby Lobby ruling.
 
i don't want to toot my own horn but I feel pretty good about my "trump will be terrible for humanity" prediction
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Not to rain on your self-parade, but this could have been done with or without the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Click to expand...

Without HL, there would be no basis for it. The likelihood of such a plan being upheld would be much less.

This is another step towards "religious freedom laws".
 
RJKarl said:
Without HL, there would be no basis for it. The likelihood of such a plan being upheld would be much less.

This is another step towards "religious freedom laws".
Click to expand...

DHHS doesn't need a "basis" to do what they just did. They have authority under the ACA to mandate what needs to be covered under Obamacare, and what exemptions to that coverage are allowed.
 
They would have no standing to use religion as a basis without the ruling.
 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
"No contraceptives for you, no choice for you, and we don't care about your child after we force you to carry the burden of carrying it inside your body. Love, OWGs who love limited government"
Click to expand...

"You should have had some personal responsibility not to fuck up your life."
 
RJKarl said:
They would have standing to use religion as a basis without the ruling.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean wouldn't.

If you read the proposed rule, you'll see they don't rely on HL. The cite many other factors, including the ACA itself and the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
 
One of the biggest issues IMHO with the ACA is how much of the law was "written" through guidance regulation by HHS, DOL and the IRS, literally tens of thousands of pages of guidance. Make no mistake about it, an R led DHHS can undue numerous ACA components should they so desire. And it works in reverse too. Congress defers too much lawmaking to the non elected agencies.
 
WakeandBake said:
What is the upside of this? People getting into heaven?
Click to expand...

Well, women at those companies will have:

less money to spend
More kids, so they will use more healthcare, thus raise peremiums
have more kids and miss more days of work
Be less productive because of having more kids
Make the company less productive by moving to a company that does provide contraceptives

Seems to be all good.
 
Yeah I mean the obvious repercussions to this is that there will be more babies, more STDs, higher premiums, and just higher medical expenses across the board.

...wait a minute...is the GOP simply trying to legislate....MORALITY HERE? Oh it can't be because I've heard you simply can't legislate morality...but it seems that the only thing they want to have happen is for women to not have sex, or perhaps, have sex more "responsibly" (from their point of view of course). This is despite 9/10 women in America taking some form of birth control in their lifetime, a lot of them for causes that aren't just to avoid pregnancies, but include endometriosis or even to stop menstrual cramps.

Damn.
 
Seriously, what is the point of this? To move away from a perceived welfare state that Republicans believe is being primarily caused by Planned Parenthood and support for contraceptives? I know they are masking it behind a religious overture, but surely that's not what the end game is...but what is the end game?

If they truly wanted to "cut the deficit" (which we know is just complete and utter bullshit that is spewed when they aren't in office), then there are thousands of other places to start rather than healthcare for women. Completely and absolutely absurd.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Yeah I mean the obvious repercussions to this is that there will be more babies, more STDs, higher premiums, and just higher medical expenses across the board.

...wait a minute...is the GOP simply trying to legislate....MORALITY HERE? Oh it can't be because I've heard you simply can't legislate morality...but it seems that the only thing they want to have happen is for women to not have sex, or perhaps, have sex more "responsibly" (from their point of view of course). This is despite 9/10 women in America taking some form of birth control in their lifetime, a lot of them for causes that aren't just to avoid pregnancies, but include endometriosis or even to stop menstrual cramps.

Damn.
Click to expand...

I have no issues with the mandate but I do object to covering many of these services at no cost to the patient. But remember, most all insurance covered these services pre ACA. The ACA just mandated it and removed cost share for some services. I'd suspect very few groups actually opt out of this. We will see.
 
I agree that it shouldn't just be free to everybody, but I assume the mandate was issued for a reason.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I agree that it shouldn't just be free to everybody, but I assume the mandate was issued for a reason.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing for the same reason that preventive checkups are free. If you want to encourage people to do something, make the barrier to entry as low as possible.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
I’m guessing for the same reason that preventive checkups are free. If you want to encourage people to do something, make the barrier to entry as low as possible.
Click to expand...

Right, I mean we want as many women as possible to have the easiest access to healthcare, contraceptives, birth control, and pre natal checkups for obvious reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top