(Closed) So Disappointed in the US Supreme Court's Ruling…

posted 6 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 152
Member
7976 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2013 - UK

View original reply
pandabee:  Really? I was fairly sure that you could get it at Brooke, for starters, at any age? The only information I can find on age restrictions online is about the ethics of giving it to under 14s without parental knowledge/consent. You can even get it from most school nurses. I don’t remember it being in the news last year, either, but I could be wrong! I did find an article about allowing women to stockpile it, and the controversy surrounding that.

… or are you talking about age restrictions in the USA? Because I’m in the UK.

Post # 153
Member
2196 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

View original reply
AirLaw:  YES. Just yes.  I mean, where did the idea about tying employment and healthcare come from in the first place and who thought it a good idea? Seems like a lose/lose – causes a lot more paperwork/hassle for the employer and obviously a great deal for the employee who loses a great deal of liberty. Basically everyone i know here who follows US news & politics is gobsmacked over how ridiculous this is.

Post # 156
Member
1987 posts
Buzzing bee

View original reply
goingtotherooftopoflove:  
View original reply
AirLaw:  I totally agree with your bafflement/frustration.  Alas, the founding mixture of American morality includes the belief, derived from certain types of 18th c. Protestant thinking, that there is something inherently moral about work and something inherently immoral about not working.  However, for a number of reasons, many types of work, like creative professions, retail/service jobs, and jobs that typically employed women (teachers and nurses), had their status diminished so they were seen as “not real work,” thus diminishing the moral status–and perceived “entitlement” to things–of those who hold those jobs.  Just read the comments on any article where artists, writers, teachers, etc. express a desire for better salaries, benefits, etc., and you will see a whole load of responses claiming that their jobs are “real” work and thus they are less worthy of things like benefits or a living wage (one sees a similar trend in threads about the way wages and tips work for waitrons in the US).  One must earn through work because it is through work that one earns entitlement to anything over the most minimal standard of existence; there is no history, like we see in Europe, of citizenship in and of itself entitling one to certain material benefit.

But, since so many jobs are dismissed as “not real work” and thus the holders of those jobs are perceived as somehow deficient, morally or otherwise (think about the power of stereotypes like the lazy McDonald’s worker, the alcoholic writer, the irresponsible artist), you will see many Americans basically suggest that these people–all of whom do VALID WORK–should be grateful to get a salary at all and are not worthy of benefits like health insurance that should go to people who have “real” jobs.

EDIT: to be very, very clear, I do not want to assert that early modern Protestantism drew the line between “real work” and “not real work” that I’ve discussed above.  I would argue that the capital-owning classes exploited the American belief in the necessary morality of work in order to create division among the working classes that they could use to minimize wages, benefits, etc.

Post # 157
Member
219 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: June 2015

View original reply
eilean:  I don’t disagree with social responsibility, I disagree with the outrage that this causes. Let me give you an example, because I’m really not loving that you keep acting like I’m just lucky to have caught enough breaks to make it in the world. I had the privilege of watching my brother die of cancer at 37 years old. He was fighting for about a year, and in this time there were meds and services that were covered, were partially covered, and some not covered at all, by his company’s insurance policy, and it was a decent policy. His employer paid a lot of money for the particular plan, my brother paid into it just like anyone else. I promise you, there was not a single person attacking his employer and demanding all his medical bills be covered. Also, no one questions why meds aren’t covered. Why is it ok for an employer not to elect to purchase an insurance premium that fully covers meds & services provided to cancer patients, because they either can’t afford it, don’t feel like it, or just don’t give a shit… but people want Hobby Lobby (corporation as a person) to put aside their belief system in order to fully cover ANY and ALL methods of contraception and are plain outraged that they would have the nerve to use religious freedom as a reason for not providing it.

I want to stress that I do not agree with their particular set of beliefs, I am on the pill, I’ve taken the morning after pill a time or 2, and I’ve sat with my friends at the women’s clinics and battled the nasty protesters for them. I just don’t understand why just because most people disagree with their beliefs, it suddenly isn’t allowed to be a reason to not provide a benefit to their employees. 

So I am glad for your friend, that she is ok and is able to inexpensively & safely get her contraception. My concern is why that is a priority over the enormous amount of people out there shelling out money for things they also NEED, some simply to survive, that the employer does not cover for WHATEVER reason they see fit?? How am I automatically lumped into the ‘must be a priviliged rich person who’s never had a problem in her life’ category simply because I disagree that contraception (regardless of reasons for use!!) should be held to a higher standard then literally any other med. Why am I a ‘misogynist’ just because I don’t think free contraception should trump any other medical benefit? It’s absolutely not socially generous to mandate all contraception be covered by an employer and then not blink and eye when employers are then choosing to decrease coverage in areas that other people in your workplace may be benefitting from, or may simply be using to stay ALIVE.

Post # 158
Member
147 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: October 2014

View original reply
Rachel631:  This is in the US.

Post # 159
Member
2196 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

I’m sorry guys, this has me fired up and I’m on a roll (I just HATE injustice and health care is a particularly sore spot for me given i have health issues myself & would be suffering without our public system).

more enlightenment: “SYDNEY, Australia — Here’s a damning statistic: Australia spends 8.7 percent of its GDP on health care and covers everyone, irrespective of their employment status. The U.S., meanwhile, spends 16 percent of its GDP on health care — far more than any other industrialized country — yet 47 million of its citizens lack health insurance while millions more are underinsured.” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/asia/090819/what-can-americans-learn-aussie-health-care

Ugh. I honestly don’t know how you’re going to dig yourselves out of this mess and to be honest I doubt it will ever happen given the state of politics in the US. It’s just sad to see such blunt statistics and think of all the people suffering due to lack of access to healthcare.

Post # 160
Member
94 posts
Worker bee

View original reply
Mrs.Sawyertobe:  I don’t need the plan either, not because I can’t have children but I likely will be child free because I’ve never wanted children.  But it’s nice to know I’m not going to have to go on government assistance if BC fails and I have a change of heart and decide to carry a pregnancy to term. I don’t even know if that would be my situation because even though I am unemployed I will have a higher earring potential in the future. 

The problem with the market this year is that many people did not know how they could get a cheaper plan. I participated in some of the volunteer healthcare navigator stuff, but never became certified because I couldn’t put in the hours to certify. The implementation of the ACA was not without major faults this fall. However, I had the resources and time to get my policy at almost same rate as my policy the previous year. It took me two months to accomplish this using the online market and filling out paperwork to prove I had no income (just graduated in May) to get a subsidy. I also had the help of a family member who is an independent insurance agent. 

This is the point I’m making. because I had time to do this, I benefit. Others did not, or are maybe in a state that offered almost no options through the online market. maube they are poor and don’t have the time or resources. We shouldn’t have to piecemeal coverage, and even though the point was to make healthcare affordable and accessible, it still wildly varies depending on your location and financial situation. The industry is so problematic for the average person. 

View original reply
goingtotherooftopoflove:  I am choosing my future employment partly based on this. Luckily my SO had a health problem this past year when he is currently working a good job (terrible to wish for) but his 36 hour stay in the hospital is still costing us 10k, and that’s with insurance covering most of it. And we are the people who are covered by insurance!!!!! The system only benefits insurance company profits.

Post # 161
Member
7976 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2013 - UK

View original reply
pandabee:  Ah, I thought so! I got confused because I was sure that my friend who took it 10+ years ago wasn’t 17 yet, although it would have been around the time of her 17th birthday, so I couldn’t quite be sure. I also didn’t remember it being mentioned in the newspapers last year, although I couldn’t be 100% sure.

I just find it odd that contraception is even an issue. I genuinely don’t understand. I can understand why a Catholic organisation wouldn’t want to fund an abortion, for example, but the rest of it is just plain odd to me. I really don’t understand how the American right think…

Post # 162
Member
186 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: July 2014

View original reply
Car7yn44:  The ACA defines contraception as “preventative care” and it provides coverage for preventative care. Preventative care is very different from a cancer treatment, which I think we can both agree is necessarily more expensive and more involved than the pill and the IUD.

I’m sorry for your loss, but I think you should know that, at least in many countries that provide single-payer insurance coverage, your brother would have received better and more affordable health care, care that could have prolonged his life, if not have saved it. How can you be against that? How can you not question the fact that part of the reason he died was because he could not afford to live? Just because that happened to you, you think that should be the world we all live in, especially when we have the chance to change it?

I raise the bus issue because if you’re gonna talk the talk, then walk the walk. It sounds like you are deeply uncomfortable with the benefits you receive through your insurance. You don’t have to receive that, you know? You can always opt you, pay the fee, and the pay for everything yourself. Take personal responsiblity in the most literal sense.

Post # 163
Member
285 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2015

Only on page 5 of the comments…but wanted to say….the thing that gets me is all the religious people who want to force women to have babies (meaning being against abortions for others and themselves) but also want to cut funding for social programs and are FOR the death penalty. So it is like, you want the baby to be born but don’t care about the mom or how it will be taken care of and if that kid grows up to do something horrible, then we can kill the kid. I don’t know…I am just afraid of the religious right and their desire to run the country and my body. 

Post # 164
Member
94 posts
Worker bee

View original reply
PunkRockPrincess:  this is going to be controversial to say but if you look to the “personal responsibility” mantra this will answer all questions. 

Have sex? Your responsibility (your consequences, must have child because you created life)

Poor? Your responsibility (need to work harder/get a job/you should find resources to fix this because you created your problem)

Do a crime? Your responsibility (need to not do it, never mind there might be circumstances related to lack of resources, like homelessness, which is a big problem in my area, obv not talking about dangerous felonies here)

et cetera. 

I don’t subscribe to this. I am of the belief that some people can never pull themselves up by their bootstraps (due to mental illness, incompetency, lack of family support, brought up in poor financial conditions that cannot be dug out of). I believe in supporting our greater society, and letting people make their own choices about sex, healthcare, and issues that aren’t crimes according to their own religion or lack thereof. 

Edit: I know someone will say the employer shouldn’t have to pay for something they dont believe in. We all pay for things we don’t believe in and we can’t just opt out of them. Please look to the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution and the analysis surrounding it and the Hobby Lobby case. If we had single payer no employer would ever have to directly pay for BC via insurance, just sayin

  • This reply was modified 6 years ago by  .
Post # 165
Member
1119 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

You know something? I just realized that with my settlement visa and subsequent move to the UK with my husband, I won’t have to purchase my birth control pills from outside of the country just to be able to afford the out of pocket expense. And I won’t have to save for months just to get a proper eye exam and pair of glasses. And I won’t have to search for a job based mostly on the insurance they provide instead of the salary, just so I can be sure that the medications I need in order to live a healthy, productive life will be covered under a combination of the employer contribution and my own premiums.

Post # 166
Member
3355 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

I’d like to point out, amid the hysteria, that they’re not covering contraceptives that (in their opinions) “cause abortions”. So no Plan B, for example. The regular birth control like the IUD and pill are still covered.

Even so, this has set a legal precedent for any and all companies to come forward saying that they’re covering something against their religious beliefs. WTF happened to separation of church and state?!

It boggles my mind. Yes birth control = no abortions. No birth control = more abortions!

The topic ‘So Disappointed in the US Supreme Court's Ruling…’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors