Political Cartoons

They aren't covered, because most of them are over the counter, as the contraceptives. Antibiotics are covered and they are prescription.

From:

The government that can tell someone how to worship can also tell someone how not to. If the government can mandate to someone to violate their religious beliefs, what if it goes in the opposite direction? Should someone who sees religion as a cancer have to accommodate prayer nooks in their store? An extreme example, yes, but as an example off the top of my head...

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

The whole point of "subcontracting" and privatising the public workforce has been to remove union protections and employee rights. We now have people here who work for the same person, on the same site, doing the same job *every day*, but are considered a subcontracter. This means they have to pay their own public liability insurance, OH&S insurance, superannuation, do all of their own tax collection and don't get any sick or holiday pay. They can also be dismissed on the spot, whereas an employee in the same position would have unfair dismissal and notice rights. Nearly the entire construction industry has gone that way here.

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

Plan B is OTC, Ella is not, and needs a prescription. Since it's a prescription it should be covered like antibiotics, right?

And the ~$1,000 IUDs? That's a prescription too.

From:

chron-job.livejournal.com

How would that help balance the equation? Non-union employees who benefit from Union negotiated contracts can still be free riders on union efforts, and its a cultivated free ridership aimed at undercutting Union power.

If we were truly Laissez-faire, Employees would be free to join or not join Unions, but Unions would also be free to insist on selectively beneficial treatment for their own members over non-union employees, to recoup their organizational costs, or, indeed, use their bargaining power to prevent non-union employees altogether... after all, management doesn't HAVE to enter into such an agreement. If it did, it must be consensual, right?

Interesting that we have an À la carte application of Laissez-faire principle, where we site Laissez-faire economic theory to strengthen management (Employee Choice!), yet abandon it for state compulsion (no agency shop agreements allowed!) when it weakens labor. Tail's I win, Heads you loose.

Edited Date: 2014-07-01 12:33 am (UTC)

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

The government that can tell someone how to worship can also tell someone how not to.

Well, they do that already - Satanists can't perform human sacrifices, etc. But to your larger point, you seem to be speaking about people, individuals. This is about corporations.

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

You seem to always miss the point that they don't *have* to run the business. If providing government mandated protections to their workers is against their religion then they can make a *choice* between their religion and their business.

They are *choosing* to*force* their religion on their employees. I'm pretty sure people left England for the Americas for precisely this reason.

From:

You seem to always miss the point that they don't *have* to run the business

Conversely, the employees don't have to work at a religiously-oriented organization. Besides, the regulation comes from the government, who cannot infringe on religious beliefs by law. So the "you don't have to do it" argument doesn't hold weight here like it would if it were a private group imposing this.

If providing government mandated protections to their workers is against their religion then they can make a *choice* between their religion and their business.

That directly violates our Constitution, just so you know.

They are *choosing* to*force* their religion on their employees. I'm pretty sure people left England for the Americas for precisely this reason.

No, the religion is not forced on the employees. The employees are still able to purchase and consume contraceptives to their heart's desire.

From:

How would that help balance the equation? Non-union employees who benefit from Union negotiated contracts can still be free riders on union efforts, and its a cultivated free ridership aimed at undercutting Union power.

It would mean that unions would no longer be the exclusive negotiators of these contracts with people, and we wouldn't have the free rider problem or the compelled union payment issue.

If we were truly Laissez-faire, Employees would be free to join or not join Unions, but Unions would also be free to insist on selectively beneficial treatment for their own members over non-union employees, to recoup their organizational costs, or, indeed, use their bargaining power to prevent non-union employees altogether... after all, management doesn't HAVE to enter into such an agreement. If it did, it must be consensual, right?

I'm on board, as long as employers don't need to get involved either.

From:

Well, they do that already - Satanists can't perform human sacrifices, etc

Meh, to a point. Religions cannot violate the rights of other people, that's where the line sits. That people aren't allowed to consent to be human sacrifices is a different problem, but there are a lot of ways we treat death that is borderline immoral anyway.

But to your larger point, you seem to be speaking about people, individuals. This is about corporations.

Corporations are groups of individuals.

From:

No, not necessarily, there are some formulary drugs that aren't covered insurances. I don't think IUD-s require prescription, but they are covered by most insurances.
Come on, this is total non issue. It is cheap. After all, you can't afford it - don't do it.
There are a lot more important thing in this world. This is demeaning to women.

From:

oslo.livejournal.com

It's probably the only way Alito got Kennedy to join the majority in full. Tough cookies!

From:

hardblue.livejournal.com

I would think atheism better protected if the Supreme Court refused to sanction any supernaturalism, period. This way, it opens the door, or opens it further, to more sectarian demands. It makes religion stronger, and hence further marginalizing atheism.

From:

chron-job.livejournal.com

> It would mean that unions would no longer be the exclusive negotiators of these contracts with people,
> and we wouldn't have the free rider problem or the compelled union payment issue.

In right to work states, Non-union members must be included in the contracts that Unions negotiate. That is a free rider problem. What about right-to-work makes that go away?

From:

Can I get HBC over the counter, like I can with aspirin and cough medicine?

From:

You can still pay for your own statin medication too. The problem is having a misinformed reason for denying an employee coverage for a certain kind of preventive medicine and rolling with it.

From:

I don't think

See, here's a neat way of demonstrating a problem. You aren't sure about something, yet you're still basing your argument on it.

From:

At least this helps demonstrate how stupid it is to maintain a system where people rely on their employer for medical coverage.

From:

Yes, I can if my insurance decides not to. What's the big deal? What's that coverage prevents again?

From:

Are you not aware of what prescriptions cost out of pocket? I really don't know what to say to you if someone having access to affordable healthcare obstructed for ignorant reasons is not a big deal in your eyes.

From:

We are talking about contraceptives. What you are talking about?

From:

That's what I'm talking about. What are you missing?

EDIT: Oh... are you pretending prescription birth control are not legitimately inclusive in women's general health care? Is that the issue?

Edited Date: 2014-07-01 03:13 am (UTC)

From: