Hobby Lobby

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I believe in a medium. I believe there should be world sex education and reproductive education that teaches people that sexuality isn't shameful, reproductive rights are important, having children is a choice and not a requirement or obligation, and children are preventable without abstinence, more people in the world need to be given the resources to make reproductive choices rather than mistakes. I'm tired of people acting as though having children is required and unavoidable. I'm tired of people acting like they don't know how reproduction happens as though children just show up at their doorsteps. I'm tired of people making womanhood synonymous with motherhood; and adulthood synonymous with parenthood. And I'm tired of parents around the world spending more time planning when and how they will defecate than they spend planning to have children and learning that parenting is way more stress than it is romanticized fun and cuteness.

[agzg]

Also, vasectomies and viagara are a false comparison to most hormonal forms of birth control, as they don't treat any other condition besides what they are known for. Hormonal birth control treats a ton of conditions, which is why it is considered preventative care.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by agzg

Also, vasectomies and viagara are a false comparison to most hormonal forms of birth control, as they don't treat any other condition besides what they are known for. Hormonal birth control treats a ton of conditions, which is why it is considered preventative care.

Viagra can also treat other conditions, mainly some dealing with blood (pressure) and the heart. It's original purpose wasn't even for ED.

ETA:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_...y-hypertension

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by agzg

Also, vasectomies and viagara are a false comparison to most hormonal forms of birth control, as they don't treat any other condition besides what they are known for. Hormonal birth control treats a ton of conditions, which is why it is considered preventative care.

I was just providing examples of injecting a business leader's morality into health coverage, not saying it was the equivalent.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So irishpipes, don't you wish you could choose any insurance you wanted so you didn't have those limitations imposed on you by your employer's choice of health insurance?

Applicants should be given information regarding company benefits, not new hires. They need to know before they accept a job.

But as far as your son's inhaler goes, any insurance will pay if your son's doctor gets on the phone with them and fights for it. You need to insist on that. Medications that are not on the formulary can be covered if there are no alternatives and the doctor provides medical proof of that. My gastro has buggered them relentlessly until they paid.

Actually, I would rather remove insurance from my compensation altogether, earn more, and buy insurance on my own so I don't have to pay for options I don't want or need.

Also, my husband is a physician. We have done all we can about coverage for my son. It's a no go. It's frustrating, but I view insurance as protection for major medical issues (like his surgery) and not for day to day medications.

[AGDee]

That's what I mean. Remove it from employer control and let us choose our own completely.

I'm really surprised they won't pay with such a compelling argument. My day to day (ok, one bi-weekly injection) medication costs $2600 a month so without insurance, I wouldn't be able to take it at all.

[DrPhil]

Some companies allow employees to choose the type of insurance coverage or opt out of company sponsored insurance.

But there are issues with having the ability to opt out. It sometimes benefits the company and employees to have the consistency of the company sponsored insurance. Also, some employees who opt out are reminded of why they wanted an employer that provides insurance in the first place. The average employee would struggle if they had to get their own insurance.

[DrPhil]

New opinion pieces:

http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...ngNewsCarousel

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...-case/7031187/

[Tulip86]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Remove it from employer control and let us choose our own completely.

This is what they did in the Netherlands a while ago, just after I moved here first. They went from a system where the employer provides health insurance, to a system where the individual is responsible for selecting their insurance, and paying for it. Health insurance is mandatory for every citizen and if you have a lower income, you get a compensation so it becomes affordable. The compensation is provided by the government.

They all cost about the same, and get more expensive if you want a lot of coverage, but you can strip it down to the bare necessities. For example you chuck out pre-natal care, opticians, orthodontic care and homeopathy, but you have to be insured for the dentist, medical emergencies, hospital stay, any illness (mental and physical) and most medications. Children under 18 are insured for free.

I'm not saying it will work in the US, and it is by no means perfect, but it does allow you to customize insurance to your needs and employers don't have any influence on which insurance you pick.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Tulip86

I'm not saying it will work in the US, and it is by no means perfect, but it does allow you to customize insurance to your needs and employers don't have any influence on which insurance you pick.

It most likely wouldn't work in the US given the history of health care, insurance, and stratification. There's a reason many Americans prefer insurance through an employer rather than individual insurance and that includes cost and having a liaison. Plus, government subsidized insurance for the poor would be viewed as an unworthy handout worse than TANF, The Affordable Care Act, and the medical/health organizations that struggle to service underserved populations.

[DubaiSis]

When I started my new job and asked about insurance, my employer said they offer it but it's crazy expensive and recommended I look into Obamacare. It is very affordable for me ($200/month) and I don't have the hassle of what happens to my insurance if...
This IS probably an alternative for employees at places like Hobby Lobby. And since they get paid crap they would probably have very cheap insurance, especially if this Hobby Lobby job isn't a 2nd or 3rd income in the household.

But to me that shouldn't mean Hobby Lobby gets let off the hook. They should provide full health coverage, which includes well-woman services, which includes reproductive control. I'm sorry to the world that women are more expensive than men. But for a company who probably 99% of their customers are women, they should be more in tune with women's issues. Support the home team and all that.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by Tulip86

Health insurance is mandatory for every citizen and if you have a lower income, you get a compensation so it becomes affordable. The compensation is provided by the government.

They all cost about the same, and get more expensive if you want a lot of coverage, but you can strip it down to the bare necessities. For example you chuck out pre-natal care, opticians, orthodontic care and homeopathy, but you have to be insured for the dentist, medical emergencies, hospital stay, any illness (mental and physical) and most medications. Children under 18 are insured for free.

I'm not saying it will work in the US, and it is by no means perfect, but it does allow you to customize insurance to your needs and employers don't have any influence on which insurance you pick.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It most likely wouldn't work in the US given the history of health care, insurance, and stratification. There's a reason many Americans prefer insurance through an employer rather than individual insurance and that includes cost and having a liaison. Plus, government subsidized insurance for the poor would be viewed as an unworthy handout worse than TANF, The Affordable Care Act, and the medical/health organizations that struggle to service underserved populations.

It sounds to me like most people who oppose universal health care argue it based on cost, personal freedoms, and/or a belief that the government will screw up anything it gets it's hands on.

I was doing a lot of campaign work in 2012 in Northern Virginia, where we'd get lots of tourists from other parts of the U.S. and the conservative ones loved to argue with me. All of the arguments I heard were a combination of those three things above.

I like the Dutch example. I think the only way a semi-universal healthcare system will work in our country is if you allow people to upgrade their coverage if they can afford it. Otherwise the roadblock will be people complaining they have to wait 184 months to get a triple bypass they needed yesterday (my disagreements with those kinds of arguments will be saved for another time).

[DubaiSis]

That system works well for the Brits too. Most of my friends had extra coverage, but when they lost jobs or whatever, they were thrilled to have the perfectly good state-sponsored coverage. The Brits I know LOVE their insurance system.

My presumption has been all along that we would start with a lousy ass insurance system to be the least objectionable option and move toward single payer over, say, 20 years. Or 50. I don't think any, even the hardest lefties among us, think this system is great. But this is what was able to get through Congress. It's not going away but there ARE fixes to be made. The conservatives who don't like it should start working for fixes that don't involve letting poor people die in the streets or depend on the kindness of strangers.

[DrPhil]

Do the Dutch and the Brits have the same underlying factors as the US? The answer is "no" for most factors and "yes" for some factors.

Attempting to mirror other countries' practices only works when controlling for other factors and addressing a number of problems. However, the US struggles with gun control, reproductive rights, health insurance, public education, a living wage, and tons of other issues. When the US struggles for common ground in those regards it is impossible to mirror the Dutch and Brits.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

When I started my new job and asked about insurance, my employer said they offer it but it's crazy expensive and recommended I look into Obamacare. It is very affordable for me ($200/month) and I don't have the hassle of what happens to my insurance if...
This IS probably an alternative for employees at places like Hobby Lobby. And since they get paid crap they would probably have very cheap insurance, especially if this Hobby Lobby job isn't a 2nd or 3rd income in the household.

But to me that shouldn't mean Hobby Lobby gets let off the hook. They should provide full health coverage, which includes well-woman services, which includes reproductive control. I'm sorry to the world that women are more expensive than men. But for a company who probably 99% of their customers are women, they should be more in tune with women's issues. Support the home team and all that.

If Hobby Lobby employees apply for ACA coverage, they won't be eligible for subsidies. If your employer (or your spouse's) offers coverage, you are not eligible for a subsidy. This is problematic for many of my company's lower paid employees who can't afford our premiums or our $3,000 deductible, but aren't eligible for a decent rate under the ACA.