07-18-2014 04:07 PM
484 ... 1516171819 ...
tools
  1. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Please tell me the legitimate medical benefits of a diaphragm, condom, IUD, sponge, or other methods of birth control that are not the pill. Birth control is more than just the pill. You tell me to do my research when you clearly have not done your own. Even when referring to the pill only, the numbers using it for non birth control reasons are very small. Those numbers as percentages of the whole drop substantially when you add in other forms of birth control. Then, we must look at the obvious, IT'S CALLED BIRTH CONTROL. The name alone says it's purpose is to control birth.
    So you didn't do any research on the benefits of taking estrogen or progesterone? You have no idea what PCOS, endometriosis, PMDD, or ovarian cysts are, do you? Of course not! You're not a doctor...but you are ignorant. Condoms prevent pregnancy and protects against STDs. The sponge prevents pregnancy. The IUD is used to prevent pregnancy. IUDs have benefits other than protecting from pregnancy.

    I can't with you willfully ignorant and deluded people sometimes. But by all means, carry on being selectively clueless. The idea that we need to rebrand birth control as hormone therapy because people are too stupid to understand how it is ridiculous and insulating.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-13-2014 07:29 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    Please answer the following for each of the 4 methods that Hobby Lobby no longer has to provide for its employees:

    1) What are the other health benefits of each?

    2) is there any other medication that will perform the same function?
    While we're asking questions, have you ever seen a corporation inside a church worshiping?
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-13-2014 07:34 PM
  3. toober's Avatar
    So you didn't do any research on the benefits of taking estrogen or progesterone? You have no idea what PCOS, endometriosis, PMDD, or ovarian cysts are, do you? Of course not! You're not a doctor...but you are ignorant.
    I am not denying the use of the pill for things other than birth control. My sister as well as a very close friend were on the pill for years to help with endometriosis. I am not ignorant, I just refuse to confine the discussion to only one form of birth control and it's uses outside of recreational sex.

    Condoms prevent pregnancy and protects against STDs. The sponge prevents pregnancy. The IUD is used to prevent pregnancy. IUDs have benefits other than protecting from pregnancy.
    So, the purpose of condoms, sponges, and IUDs are to prevent the unwanted consequences of sex. It is still an undeniable fact that any sex without the intent of procreation is for recreation. You are still telling me that you believe insurance companies should subsidize people's recreational behaviors.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-13-2014 07:44 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    So, the purpose of condoms, sponges, and IUDs are to prevent the unwanted consequences of sex. It is still an undeniable fact that any sex without the intent of procreation is for recreation. You are still telling me that you believe insurance companies should subsidize people's recreational behaviors.
    And yet arguing that Viagra should be allowed because somehow it's something more than recreational sex isn't hypocritical?
    07-13-2014 07:52 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    I think something was said... ah yes, here it is:

    Thread is re-opened. In order to remain that way, we're going to have to remember the big message on the top of every page and avoid the trolling and try to stay productive and on topic. Checking out the PUPPAH section of the forum rules doesn't hurt either.
    So we have some good examples since then....

    This can easily be construed as a personal attack:

    You're not a doctor...but you are ignorant
    Following this statement:

    IUDs have benefits other than protecting from pregnancy.
    this becomes trolling:

    IUDs are to prevent the unwanted consequences of sex.
    And this:

    It is still an undeniable fact that any sex without the intent of procreation is for recreation.
    Is undeniably an opinion. One that's been stated a few times. I have no interest in joining this debate, but can point out two similar extra categories that are missed, even when broad stroking everything into giant buckets (so we'll leave therapy and concepts of addiction, as well as other psychological based concepts out) and add the two categories as follows: sex can be a crime and it can be an invasion. I think we'd mostly all agree that in cases of consensual sex you could over-generalize into two broad categories.... but it's not all consensual.

    Nevermind, carry on.
    Scott7217 and A895 like this.
    07-13-2014 07:59 PM
  6. nolittdroid's Avatar
    I am not denying the use of the pill for things other than birth control. My sister as well as a very close friend were on the pill for years to help with endometriosis. I am not ignorant, I just refuse to confine the discussion to only one form of birth control and it's uses outside of recreational sex.


    So, the purpose of condoms, sponges, and IUDs are to prevent the unwanted consequences of sex. It is still an undeniable fact that any sex without the intent of procreation is for recreation. You are still telling me that you believe insurance companies should subsidize people's recreational behaviors.
    A) Is anyone complaining about Cialis? Or Viagra? Nice job with the hypocrisy.

    B) EVERYONE benefits when people use hormonal birth control, condoms, sponges, IUDS, etc. That's kind of how you eliminate unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases.

    C) I don't ask what you do in the bedroom with your partner, so please stop assuming I(and "most" women) take birth control because I want to sleep around. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    A895 likes this.
    07-13-2014 08:05 PM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    I think something was said... ah yes, here it is:



    So we have some good examples since then....

    This can easily be construed as a personal attack:



    Following this statement:



    this becomes trolling:



    And this:



    Is undeniably an opinion. One that's been stated a few times. I have no interest in joining this debate, but can point out two similar extra categories that are missed, even when broad stroking everything into giant buckets (so we'll leave therapy and concepts of addiction, as well as other psychological based concepts out) and add the two categories as follows: sex can be a crime and it can be an invasion. I think we'd mostly all agree that in cases of consensual sex you could over-generalize into two broad categories.... but it's not all consensual.

    Nevermind, carry on.
    While I can't speak for anyone else, I can say that it does get a little frustrating at times when some posts do sound like trolling (as you have pointed out). I have learned to consider the source for the most part.


    As for the original topic, I can't help wonder if those arguing for this ruling would be ok if recreational sex while married was also being scrutinized under a more orthodox Catholic ideology. Or, what if Hobby Lobby was owned by a Muslim family and they said that none of their employees could eat pork and women had to be covered in a Burka?
    07-13-2014 08:09 PM
  8. toober's Avatar
    And yet arguing that Viagra should be allowed because somehow it's something more than recreational sex isn't hypocritical?
    I don't believe Viagra should be covered either. It's only my opinion, but when the thing stops working, it's time to find a new hobby.
    07-13-2014 08:40 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I don't believe Viagra should be covered either. It's only my opinion, but when the thing stops working, it's time to find a new hobby.
    Maybe Hobby Lobby can sell you a replacement? Hehe

    (Sorry if in bad taste, just trying to lighten the mood here a little. )
    toober and rexxman like this.
    07-13-2014 08:59 PM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    I don't believe Viagra should be covered either. It's only my opinion, but when the thing stops working, it's time to find a new hobby.
    I'm willing to bet that you won't find many people on the right agreeing with you. And I've already seen some people insist that since Viagra can be used to treat other things, that it should be covered. Pretty much the same argument made for birth control, but because they choose not to see it, they don't.
    07-13-2014 09:00 PM
  11. toober's Avatar
    A) Is anyone complaining about Cialis? Or Viagra? Nice job with the hypocrisy.
    I wish someone would. I don't think insurance should pay for ED meds either.

    B) EVERYONE benefits when people use hormonal birth control, condoms, sponges, IUDS, etc. That's kind of how you eliminate unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases.
    You should stop using words like EVERYONE. I am sure that we can find a substantial amopunt of people that use none of the products listed and still manage to live their lives. My wife and I have not used any form of birth control at all in the past 10 years and have had no STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

    C) I don't ask what you do in the bedroom with your partner, so please stop assuming I(and "most" women) take birth control because I want to sleep around. You have no idea what you are talking about.
    I have not heard anyone asking what happens in anyone's bedroom or saying that anyone was sleeping around. I have always said it's none of my business what anyone does behind closed doors as long as I am not asked to subsidize it.

    This discussion is over for me. I have said my piece and will not post in this thread again.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-13-2014 09:07 PM
  12. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Then your logic is flawed. Once I've picked my insurance of choice, why would I want to buy other, similar, policies from other companies? Heck, doing that would be counterproductive because if you get hurt, the companies would start fighting to say they aren't the primary insurer and thus shouldn't pay the claim.

    Choice =/= reliance
    You picked it for some reason over the other choices therefore you were relying on it for something. Less money out of pocket? Better coverage? You relied on and used it for some reason. And if it were not there, it would have made your circumstances different in some way, else you wouldn't have picked it to begin with.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-13-2014 11:23 PM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    There might have been other options, but you were not using them at the time clearly, therefore, at that moment in time you relied on it because you were using it.
    I think we need to make the distinction between relying on health insurance and merely using it. I will illustrate with an example.

    Bill Gates, the former CEO of Microsoft, is a wealthy individual. He probably has enough money where he can afford any form of medical treatment. In theory, he could pay for all his medical needs with cash, so he doesn't need health insurance. In this case, he does not rely on insurance.

    However, there's nothing to prevent Bill Gates from enrolling in an insurance plan. He could go back to working at Microsoft and use the company's plan, or he could just buy his own private insurance. Depending on his plan, he could use his insurance to help pay for doctor's visits, prescription drugs, and hospital stays. In this case, he is using health insurance, but again, he doesn't rely on it. If the insurance company decided to drop him, Bill Gates can go back to paying with cash.

    Other people are not so fortunate. They may not be able to pay for their health care with their limited financial resources. This is where insurance really helps. It makes medical treatments more affordable. So, in cases where people come down with a serious illness, they are not forced to spend their entire savings (or even declare bankruptcy).

    If the insurance companies suddenly decided to drop coverage for patients, the patients would be in a tough situation. They simply cannot afford medical care, so they will probably have to go without it. These people truly rely on health insurance.

    So, we need to look at people's financial situation before we can say they do or do not rely on health insurance.
    A895 likes this.
    07-14-2014 12:12 AM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    I heard some references to a Scalia quote involving Native Americans that were fired from their jobs because they smoked Peyote (religious ceremonies) and were not allowed to collect unemployment. His quote pretty much contradicts his decision on the Hobby Lobby case and IMO makes him a hack.

    I guess it's ok to allow religion to supersede "law of the land" if that religion is your religion.
    It helps to frame Scalia's remarks in context.

    In Employment Division v. Smith (494 U.S. 872 (1990)), Scalia's position is that a neutral law of general applicability does not violate the First Amendment. This is why the Native Americans lost their case.

    (I would take the position that if Hobby Lobby brought their case in 1990, they would have lost on the grounds that the Affordable Care Act could be viewed as a neutral law of general applicability.)

    Now, what has changed between 1990 and the Hobby Lobby case? It would be the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 (Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488).

    Under the RFRA, the federal government needs to conduct a series of balancing tests to see if they infringe on the First Amendment. Is the government serving a compelling state interest, and is the government pursuing a method that places the least amount of burden on religion?

    The federal government has demonstrated that giving people access to health care is a compelling state interest. Therefore, the Affordable Care Act passes that test.

    However, the ACA is not pursing a method that places the least amount of burden on religion. If we look at the ACA itself, we will find that the government if perfectly fine with exempting non-profit and religious groups from the contraceptive mandate. If the government felt that giving these groups an exemption would conflict with the compelling state interest, it would not have allowed the exemption to exist in the first place.

    Hobby Lobby makes the argument that a for-profit group could get the same exemption without conflicting with the compelling state interest, which is why it won its case.

    Therefore, Scalia is merely making a judgment based on the law, which is what all court justices must do. In theory, if Congress passes an amendment to the ACA, they could make Hobby Lobby pay for all contraceptives. Whether or not an amendment would succeed depends on whether it passes the balancing tests of the RFRA.
    07-14-2014 12:36 AM
  15. Scott7217's Avatar
    As for the original topic, I can't help wonder if those arguing for this ruling would be ok if recreational sex while married was also being scrutinized under a more orthodox Catholic ideology.
    Can you explain your interpretation of orthodox Catholic ideology with respect to sex for married couples? Married Catholics can have sex, but almost all forms of contraception is prohibited. In spite of that, a lot of people choose to stay with the Catholic church. For those that are not happy, they can (and often do) leave the church.
    07-14-2014 12:47 AM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    Or, what if Hobby Lobby was owned by a Muslim family and they said that none of their employees could eat pork and women had to be covered in a Burka?
    The Affordable Care Act doesn't have a clause that allows an employer to prohibit employees from eating pork, nor does it have a clause that allows an employer to force its female employees to wear burkas. This is why the Hobby Lobby case is limited. It is also why many of the Democrats are interested in amending the ACA. By fixing the ACA, you can reverse the Hobby Lobby decision.
    07-14-2014 12:56 AM
  17. Scott7217's Avatar
    I don't believe Viagra should be covered either. It's only my opinion, but when the thing stops working, it's time to find a new hobby.
    Besides, not all men have insurance plans that will pay for Viagra. This is why some men pay for Viagra with cash.
    07-14-2014 01:00 AM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    I'm willing to bet that you won't find many people on the right agreeing with you. And I've already seen some people insist that since Viagra can be used to treat other things, that it should be covered. Pretty much the same argument made for birth control, but because they choose not to see it, they don't.
    I would be interested in seeing the data on how many people oppose Viagra.

    With respect to Hobby Lobby, we know that it will pay for 16 out of 20 forms of contraception, and some of these methods use hormones. These hormones could be used to treat conditions like endometriosis, so it's not like Hobby Lobby is offering zero methods of treatment.
    07-14-2014 01:23 AM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    You have no idea what PCOS, endometriosis, PMDD, or ovarian cysts are, do you?
    I think a lot of people would be interested in what could treat these conditions.

    For example, some women use LoEstrin 24 Fe to treat polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). I believe Hobby Lobby can pay for that.

    Some women use Microgestin Fe 1/20 to treat endometriosis. I believe Hobby Lobby can pay for that.

    Some women use Yaz to treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). I believe Hobby Lobby can pay for that.

    Some women use Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo to treat ovarian cysts. I believe Hobby Lobby can pay for that.

    If you want, we can discuss more products that treat various conditions and see if Hobby Lobby will pay for them, too.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    07-14-2014 01:45 AM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    EVERYONE benefits when people use hormonal birth control, condoms, sponges, IUDS, etc. That's kind of how you eliminate unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases.
    We also have 2 other options available.

    If you are looking to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, being in an exclusively monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner can help with that.

    If you are looking to avoid unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, or both, abstinence can help with that.

    Obviously, these options are not for everyone, but they are choices people can take if they want. If people don't like them, they can choose something else, including one of the 16 methods of birth control that Hobby Lobby pays for.
    07-14-2014 01:56 AM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I think we need to make the distinction between relying on health insurance and merely using it.
    Fair point. In the way her original question was laid out...
    Have you at anytime in your life relied on an employer based health plan? Most people in this country can answer yes to that question.
    That implied that an employer based plan was the only option I would have had. Meaning no private options, no spousal employer options, no subsidized options, no associations offering group coverages, etc.

    That's different than asking if I ever had insurance cover an ailment (who hasn't, in some form or another). But in the long run, her question had nothing to do with my post that she quoted that I could tell, and we're just going in circles now. So I'm out on that issue.
    07-14-2014 01:59 AM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    Can you explain your interpretation of orthodox Catholic ideology with respect to sex for married couples? Married Catholics can have sex, but almost all forms of contraception is prohibited. In spite of that, a lot of people choose to stay with the Catholic church. For those that are not happy, they can (and often do) leave the church.
    The word "orthodox" may have been applied incorrectly on my part. I do recall hearing that the Catholic church has loosened its stance on birth control over the past few decades, but I do recall that at one point any form of birth control was not allowed.

    Hair splitting aside, my original contention still stands, what if the religion in question was a more hard line religion, say one that doesn't believe in modern medicine? The problem I have with this decision is it makes an exception for one specific religion. Why this specific religion and that specific method of birth control?

    The Affordable Care Act doesn't have a clause that allows an employer to prohibit employees from eating pork, nor does it have a clause that allows an employer to force its female employees to wear burkas. This is why the Hobby Lobby case is limited. It is also why many of the Democrats are interested in amending the ACA. By fixing the ACA, you can reverse the Hobby Lobby decision.
    I'm not speaking in terms of the ACA, I'm speaking in terms of what rights employers have been given over their employees based on this decision. Don't kid yourself in thinking this decision is cut and dry. I've already heard reports that people would like to re-examine older rulings based on this decision. Don't employers have enough control over its employees' lives? Where do we draw the line?

    To me the decision goes beyond just insisting that a corporation can be moral. It means that a corporation can legally impose its "morality" onto its employees, which is IMO a dangerous precedence.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-14-2014 06:15 AM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    To me the decision goes beyond just insisting that a corporation can be moral. It means that a corporation can legally impose its "morality" onto its employees, which is IMO a dangerous precedence.
    But they aren't imposing morality onto anyone. If anything, all they are saying to women is if they want what amounts to abortive birth control, the company won't support support the decision. It's been pointed out several times that there's nothing stopping these women from getting those forms of birth control through other means.

    This is part of why I went Libertarian. Instead of arguing back and forth on what you do and don't deserve from government, people need to grow up and work for it. If it's really that important to you to get recreational birth control, then why are you waiting around for the government to order someone else to give it to you? What sacrifices are you making to afford it, or your other important expenses? Considering this forum's purpose, I think it's safe to assume that most anyone here has a smart phone they can give up, and can go to a basic phone on a dirt cheap line that will get them by so they can afford contraception if it really came to it. The government never should have got into this in the first place, but it's this entitlement mentality of society today that's drug us into this mess.

    *rant mode off*

    Ok, I think I'm getting tired of running in circles in this thread, so I'm out. For now, anyway.
    07-14-2014 07:09 AM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    Ok, I think I'm getting tired of running in circles in this thread, so I'm out. For now, anyway.
    We're nearly all there.
    davidnc and msndrstood like this.
    07-14-2014 07:21 AM
  25. Live2ride883's Avatar
    While we're asking questions, have you ever seen a corporation inside a church worshiping?
    I worship with a few owners of closely held corporations.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-14-2014 11:11 AM
484 ... 1516171819 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Cases for the OnePlus One?
    By rkleung in forum OnePlus One
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-02-2014, 05:52 PM
  2. anyone think Razr M Battery Case will be too late?
    By antonywan in forum Droid RAZR M
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2014, 01:17 AM
  3. Best Nexus 7 cases?
    By RaginCajun2OI8 in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 10:53 AM
  4. HTC One M8 Cases and Screen Protectors
    By Wildo6882 in forum Marketplace Archive
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-06-2014, 01:51 PM
  5. Samsung keyboard autocorrect random case errors
    By mdye in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 11:35 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD