It is really a case of "A Bridge To Far". The law just went a bit too far and that is what caused the ruling.
Yes, I fully agree with that. Let me better describe why I take
such issue with this. Obama (or some group on the far left) decided to mandate that insurance companies had to provide FDA approved birth control with no copay, at no cost, to the women who wanted it. That's my reading of this convoluted, confusing law, anyway. But I would say that the overwhelming majority of women who take birth control pills (and 100% of those who take morning after pills) do so for the intended purpose of the drugs: to prevent unwanted births. Some small percentage may take birth control pills (not morning after pills, which were the primary focus of this decision) because of gynecological problems. But the majority simply have this as a preferred method of birth control... preferred = preference, not medical, life-saving necessity.
But, why are high blood pressure drugs, diabetic/high-low blood sugar drugs and cancer drugs not also mandated to be provided without a copay??? I mean, we're talking about drugs that are
100% necessary for the preservation of a person's life. It's not an option, a choice or a preference. You either take them or you eventually get sick and die.
Do you see what I'm driving at here? Do you understand why I find this to be three shades of ridiculous? Again and again, we end up with one side or the other playing politically correct, gender politics with
our money and
our lives. And this constant whining by the far left, that without
no cost birth control there is a "war on women", has completely played out with me. I have
truly heard enough of that whiny bullshit. The drugs are still available. No one has banned or outlawed anything at the Federal level. And even with this decision, the drugs will still be covered by insurance (or the government), though maybe not completely at no cost in some very limited cases. But until someone can give me a clear, rational explanation of the logic behind mandating drugs of preference to be covered at no cost, while drugs that provide day-to-day life continue to cost hundreds of dollars per month (or whatever the deductible or copay may be), I'm calling "rat!" on this deal. I just want an explanation (logical and rational) of the reasoning behind these complaints and (false) claims. But I cannot imagine that anyone can give that to me. It makes no sense to me. Neither does the expansion of Medicaid at the expense of Medicare - the same holds true for Social Security vs. SSI. That seems to be taking from those who have paid in, in order to give more to those who have not paid in, or have (for
whatever reason) paid in very little. I place no blame on people who are truly disabled or disadvantaged. But come on, we all know people who are "make believe" disabled. That's not all people on disability, but it is a significant and growing percentage. People once got on and then got back off disability (in the 1970's, for instance) - it was more short term/temporary in nature. Now they stay on it until the grave... it's their "right" - it has become another entitlement.
![Facepalm :facepalm: :facepalm:](https://media.freeones.com/forum/data/assets/smilies/picardfacepalm.gif)
They just find a slick lawyer, who sends them to a slick doctor, and for a 33% cut, all of a sudden, they get these lazy slobs on disability. I can think of three guys right now, my age and younger, who are drawing full benefits because of bad knees. Hell, my knees are a lot worse than theirs and I've been logging 70-80 hour weeks for the past couple of months!
Where does it stop???!!!
When does it stop???!!! If 5 are putting something
in the pot, you cannot (for very long) have 10 taking
from the pot. Obama may be very good at understanding the law. But I don't think he (or Pelosi) is very good at basic math or Econ 101.
SCOTUS needs to be careful with these Corporation rulings. Corporations should not be confused with people and we're dong this. IMO, once a corporation is formed, it is formed for legal reason Therefore, it must be treated as a legal entity and not given any personification. To do so would think that stock holders would be altruistic and they never will be. If a company does not incorporate for legal protection, then I would agree with the way these ruling are being passed.
I think there should be three levels. First, a company that is own by a person or group of people that is not fully incorporated and those people are liable for the company. Those companies, since the people who own them are liable, should have a direct legal human ownership categorization. Secondly, once a company incorporates and protection for the owners is put into place the owners really should give up their personal rights in legal issues. Meaning, in my opinion, Constitutional rights can not be given to the company where the owners are employees are protected because of the incorporated status. Thirdly, a publicly traded company should have the most strict guidelines and IMO, should be barred from making any political contributions or from claiming any rights like are being posted in this thread.
I also agree with this. I strongly object to the favoritism shown to publicly traded corporations under this SCOTUS and this and other administrations. There really is no legal protection for a sole proprietorship. A Sub-S or an LLC is typically a means for a closely held company to offer the small number of owners some protection. But a publicly traded C should not be seen as a "person". But in light of the BNP Paribas, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Banco Santander, Barclays, Wells Fargo/Wachovia, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. cases involving fraud, cartel money laundering, tax evasion and market manipulation... as much as Obama and Holder like to play to the populist crowd, they have clearly given favorite treatment to these huge C corporate interests... no different than Romney or anyone else on the big business/U.S. Chamber of Commerce loving right would have done. Who has gone to jail? Who? Apart from maybe a janitor who happened to be walking by the C suite when this foul shit was being done, who has Obama/Holder sent to jail for these
blatant criminal acts??? But if you or I had done anything even approaching money laundering or tax evasion, I promise you, we'd be spending time in Club Fed right now.
Man, I take a few days off and do I get wound up. I need to switch to decaf, I guess.
![Big grin :D :D]()