07-18-2014 04:07 PM
484 12345 ...
tools
  1. pappy53's Avatar
    Oh if you had ask me my answer would of been the same.

    Funny how you don't want to address a fundamental problem with the current court. Those 2 need to be replaced even if it was same ideological lines for the same fact that then questions of conflict of interest does not come up.

    Robert court is by far the most corrupt court and will go down is one of the worse.

    There is a belief on ACA that part of Roberts ruling was he did not want to get known for having such a bad court. Sadly it is getting worse. Even if he ruled that way it would still have the 2 corrupt justices that their ruling will always be question.



    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Was there any conflict of interest in this case? No, so it doesn't matter.
    06-30-2014 01:54 PM
  2. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Was there any conflict of interest in this case? No, so it doesn't matter.
    Fact of the matter that they did not recluse themselves on crystal clear conflict of interest everything should be subject.
    It speaks volumes of their lack of characters on those cases.

    Simple fact is this court will go down as one of if not the most corrupt courts in history.
    Roberts court has earn it's reputation of being crap.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    06-30-2014 01:59 PM
  3. pappy53's Avatar
    Fact of the matter that they did not recluse themselves on crystal clear conflict of interest everything should be subject.
    It speaks volumes of their lack of characters on those cases.

    Simple fact is this court will go down as one of if not the most corrupt courts in history.
    Roberts court has earn it's reputation of being crap.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    It's still strange that you didn't mention this until after the ruling, and I am willing to bet that you wouldn't have mentioned it at all if the ruling had gone your way.
    06-30-2014 02:27 PM
  4. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Looks like Hobby Lobby will be saving some money this year! Anyone who says otherwise is naive or just another religious fox news pundit. I am absolutely disgusted by this.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    06-30-2014 02:38 PM
  5. Timelessblur's Avatar
    It's still strange that you didn't mention this until after the ruling, and I am willing to bet that you wouldn't have mentioned it at all if the ruling had gone your way.
    This is not the first time nor will it be last time I attack the poor quality of the Roberts court.
    It would of been good they over came the 2 corrupt justices that do not belong in the court.
    I noticed again you dodging the fact that 2 of the Justices do not belong their.
    Any 5-4 ruling with this 2 should be question after citizen united.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    06-30-2014 02:40 PM
  6. nolittdroid's Avatar
    The bottom line is that insurance should not have to pay for an abortion pill or anything else pertaining to abortions.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Then maybe you should turn off the Fox News and do some research before commenting. This ignorance is absolutely disgusting and is everything wrong with this country.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    A895, msndrstood and rexxman like this.
    06-30-2014 02:41 PM
  7. nolittdroid's Avatar
    The bottom line is that insurance should not have to pay for an abortion pill or anything else pertaining to abortions.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The bottom line is that insurance shouldn't cover elderly boners.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    msndrstood and rexxman like this.
    06-30-2014 02:41 PM
  8. pappy53's Avatar
    Then maybe you should turn off the Fox News and do some research before commenting. This ignorance is absolutely disgusting and is everything wrong with this country.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    If a woman is on birth control, then the "morning after" pill is not needed.


    The bottom line is that insurance shouldn't cover elderly boners.
    So you think that it only happens to elderly men?
    06-30-2014 03:00 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I just wish the idea of if contraceptives should be covered at all would get resolved soon. I need to know if I should fight my car insurance company to cover changing my oil and tires.
    06-30-2014 03:07 PM
  10. SteveISU's Avatar
    The bottom line is that insurance shouldn't cover elderly boners.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app

    So elderly in your eyes is what? 40's? 50's? Just to be clear Medicare part D doesn't cover drugs for ED and some private insurers don't either as they are deemed "Lifestyle" drugs. You may want to rephrase the statement about the ignorance and whats wrong with this country when your very next post you display that which you are chastising some for.
    Scott7217 and rusty502 like this.
    06-30-2014 03:31 PM
  11. SteveISU's Avatar
    If a woman is on birth control, then the "morning after" pill is not needed.

    Just to be clear, no BC method is 100% effective outside of not having sex and/or strutting around in a members only jacket. There have been women who have gotten pregnant while taking the pill. The "morning after" pill is nothing more than a super dose of a birth control pill. It is not RU-486 and won't end a pregnancy.
    06-30-2014 03:47 PM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Just to be clear, no BC method is 100% effective outside of not having sex and/or strutting around in a members only jacket.
    Side effects may include rejection, loneliness, inflated ego, permanently stuck up chin, greasy hair, and Brooklyn accent.

    06-30-2014 04:14 PM
  13. pappy53's Avatar
    This is not the first time nor will it be last time I attack the poor quality of the Roberts court.
    It would of been good they over came the 2 corrupt justices that do not belong in the court.
    I noticed again you dodging the fact that 2 of the Justices do not belong their.
    Any 5-4 ruling with this 2 should be question after citizen united.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    How about your beloved liberal Justice Sotomayor? She helped to write Obamacare, and has not recused herself from anything. What goes around comes around.
    06-30-2014 05:44 PM
  14. Timelessblur's Avatar
    How about your beloved liberal Justice Sotomayor? She helped to write Obamacare, and has not recused herself from anything. What goes around comes around.
    Read up on it. Multiple one had conflict there and Roberts told them pretty much hell no on being allowed to recluse themselves.
    Try again.


    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    06-30-2014 05:52 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    Do you realize how silly that sounds? Do you consider sex between man and wife as "recreational"? A lot of married men have a problem, and these drugs are a tremendous help.
    Hobby Lobby agrees to pay for birth control, but it is the "abortion" or "morning after" pill that they have a problem with, and that is a pill that women should pay for if they are not smart enough to use some method of contraception.
    Kind of funny how you put the onus all on the woman's shoulders. And yes, if a man and a wife are having sex without the intention of procreating, exactly how is that different than a man and a woman not married? The Catholic church used to be against birth control of any kind. So why are we only abiding by one church's "moral code"?

    I always find it interesting that the right wing wants less regulation on big business, but are perfectly ok with legislation on personal freedoms.
    06-30-2014 10:44 PM
  16. anon8126715's Avatar
    I wonder did people say things like this when people were against GM going bankrupt. That's your number times 10 or more.

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    I'm willing to bet that he thought the government bailout of GM was a mistake, mostly because his corporate masters sheepled him into believing that it was the right thing to do, because GM employs unions, and unions are bad!
    A895 likes this.
    06-30-2014 10:48 PM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You should ask yourselves what business does the government have picking winners and losers in the first place.
    06-30-2014 11:36 PM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    This court is beyond crap. The Roberts court will go down in history as the worst.
    We can also thank Bill Clinton. In 1993, he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Today, in 2014, the Supreme Court followed the RFRA to vote in favor of Hobby Lobby.

    Congress Actually Decided The Hobby Lobby Case Decades Ago -- Forbes (article link here)
    07-01-2014 12:45 AM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    Funny how you don't want to address a fundamental problem with the current court. Those 2 need to be replaced even if it was same ideological lines for the same fact that then questions of conflict of interest does not come up.
    In certain cases, you can impeach a Supreme Court justice. You just need to get a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.
    07-01-2014 01:00 AM
  20. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I wasn't paying real close attention when one of the protest leaders supporting the decision spoke to this, but she was saying something about how a large number of women, including judges, did support this. So doesn't sound like this was purely a gender lines issue.
    Okay. But that didn't answer the first questions I had for you regarding how any of the gay cases are different from this one?

    I also have concerns about a company not covering HIV related prevention drugs like PrEP for instance leading to HIV cases that could have been prevented.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-01-2014 01:02 AM
  21. pappy53's Avatar
    Kind of funny how you put the onus all on the woman's shoulders. And yes, if a man and a wife are having sex without the intention of procreating, exactly how is that different than a man and a woman not married? The Catholic church used to be against birth control of any kind. So why are we only abiding by one church's "moral code"?

    I always find it interesting that the right wing wants less regulation on big business, but are perfectly ok with legislation on personal freedoms.
    It's different because sex is a part of marriage.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    07-01-2014 01:32 AM
  22. Scott7217's Avatar
    Okay. But that didn't answer the first questions I had for you regarding how any of the gay cases are different from this one?
    The distinction may be in how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is written. Currently, the ACA allows exemptions for religious groups and non-profit organizations on funding contraceptives. The Hobby Lobby case just extends the exemption to for-profit companies.

    With respect to HIV drugs, there is no exemption on their funding in the ACA, so I don't think organizations can opt-out of funding for them.

    If you try to apply the same reasoning to gay rights, you would probably need to check if the current law allows exemptions to gay rights. If you have a specific law in mind, we can check if there is a government exemption in place.
    07-01-2014 01:44 AM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Okay. But that didn't answer the first questions I had for you regarding how any of the gay cases are different from this one?
    Totally separate issue. The companies wouldn't be providing anything to gays, unless you were to suggest employers cover wedding costs too. I could maybe see covering for spousal insurance in states that allow gay marriage, but I'm not sure that would win unless the court also ruled a national recognition of gay marriage. To do that starts playing in the realm of activist judges. Now you're really getting things murky. So to me, that argument is not related to this case. Remember, this case is about forcing companies to provide something to employees, not what employees do on their own dime.

    I also have concerns about a company not covering HIV related prevention drugs like PrEP for instance leading to HIV cases that could have been prevented.
    I haven't heard about any HIV prevention drugs on the market or looked into anything about that particular drug and its efficacy ratings, so I'm speaking in generalities when I address this. Again, this would be a completely separate issue from exempting on religious grounds. If PrEP, or any drug for that matter, is still considered experimental, it often isn't covered by insurance. It's just that, experimental. Even existing drugs aren't covered for "off label" uses, meaning the side effect of a drug may help a different ailment even though the drug isn't meant for, or labeled for the other uses. Using aspirin as a blood thinner for people with high blood pressure is a good example (though enough testing has now been done and a low dose pill is available just for this use).

    Even drugs that are past the experimental stage may have such low efficacy ratings that insurance companies won't cover them without a fight. If a drug only has a small chance of helping and you're spending your own money, you've got to make a judgment call. Would you spend hundreds on something that may only have a 5% success rate? Thousands? Tens of thousands? At some point you have to decide if you're just throwing money away that could have been put to better use. Why should we expect the insurance companies to be any different?

    But how about this, advocate for more STD testing and for people to check their partners' results before getting it on. That would also prevent the spread of these kinds of diseases. Or is that a no-no because it means promoting personal responsibility?
    07-01-2014 01:51 AM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    If Hobby Lobby wins, if they are ok with paying for Viagra or Cialis or other ED medication (medications that are explicitly used for recreational sex), then EVERY WOMAN needs to boycott their store and drive them into bankruptcy.
    I haven't heard an official word on Hobby Lobby's beliefs with regards to drugs that treat erectile dysfunction. Perhaps they might believe that such drugs could help in the procreation of children.

    In any case, I would expand on your previous statement on a store boycott. Both men and women can boycott Hobby Lobby. It is their right to boycott businesses that engage in conduct that they find objectionable.
    07-01-2014 02:38 AM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Totally separate issue. The companies wouldn't be providing anything to gays, unless you were to suggest employers cover wedding costs too. I could maybe see covering for spousal insurance in states that allow gay marriage, but I'm not sure that would win unless the court also ruled a national recognition of gay marriage. To do that starts playing in the realm of activist judges. Now you're really getting things murky. So to me, that argument is not related to this case. Remember, this case is about forcing companies to provide something to employees, not what employees do on their own dime.



    I haven't heard about any HIV prevention drugs on the market or looked into anything about that particular drug and its efficacy ratings, so I'm speaking in generalities when I address this. Again, this would be a completely separate issue from exempting on religious grounds. If PrEP, or any drug for that matter, is still considered experimental, it often isn't covered by insurance. It's just that, experimental. Even existing drugs aren't covered for "off label" uses, meaning the side effect of a drug may help a different ailment even though the drug isn't meant for, or labeled for the other uses. Using aspirin as a blood thinner for people with high blood pressure is a good example (though enough testing has now been done and a low dose pill is available just for this use).

    Even drugs that are past the experimental stage may have such low efficacy ratings that insurance companies won't cover them without a fight. If a drug only has a small chance of helping and you're spending your own money, you've got to make a judgment call. Would you spend hundreds on something that may only have a 5% success rate? Thousands? Tens of thousands? At some point you have to decide if you're just throwing money away that could have been put to better use. Why should we expect the insurance companies to be any different?

    But how about this, advocate for more STD testing and for people to check their partners' results before getting it on. That would also prevent the spread of these kinds of diseases. Or is that a no-no because it means promoting personal responsibility?
    I know for a fact that PrEP regiments are covered by a number of insurance companies now as I have friends using them. The success rate is quite high from what I've heard.

    As for your personal responsibility bit, I could see a company using that same argument to not cover, leading to HIV infections. HIV can linger in a body awhile before it shows up on test, making your STD results wait rather impractical when it comes to matters of the heart or other parts which often wait for no one. It's just reality. People are going to have sex. And they won't always wait until marriage or for an STD testing phase which makes things a little too scheduled and planned out. Sex is usually spontaneous.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-01-2014 03:37 AM
484 12345 ...

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