*shaking head*

[DanaC]

And you don't see the hypocrisy of allowing viagra but not an IUD?

[tw]

The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees. The Court has said yes in general. But details apply. And not just that this is an privately held company. This may not apply to publically held companies since a public does not have a religion. Or do they? This court reversed years of principles in saying companies are people too.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by DanaC

And you don't see the hypocrisy of allowing viagra but not an IUD?

Viagra is for having sex and IUDs are for having sex, so they are the same.

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken, and IUDs are for breaking something that works. They are opposites.

Which is it?

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by glatt

Viagra is for having sex and IUDs are for having sex, so they are the same.

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken, and IUDs are for breaking something that works. They are opposites.

Which is it?

What's opposite is covering Viagra AND vasectomies. Whatever the male wants, is good with them.

In other words: Viagra is for having sex and vasectomies are for having sex (without those pesky pregnancies.)

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are for breaking something that works.

Which is it?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are for breaking something that works.

Which is it?

It's both. Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are birth control. If female birth control isn't covered, then it's hypocritical to cover male birth control. But Viagra shouldn't come into it at all unless you want to mock men with health problems.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by glatt

Viagra is for having sex and IUDs are for having sex, so they are the same.

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken, and IUDs are for breaking something that works. They are opposites.

Which is it?

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

What's opposite is covering Viagra AND vasectomies. Whatever the male wants, is good with them.

In other words: Viagra is for having sex and vasectomies are for having sex (without those pesky pregnancies.)

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are for breaking something that works.

Which is it?

Originally Posted by glatt

It's both. Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are birth control. If female birth control isn't covered, then it's hypocritical to cover male birth control. But Viagra shouldn't come into it at all unless you want to mock men with health problems.

I'll tell you what, I won't mock men who may have health problems if you won't mock women who may also have health problems that would make pregnancy a risk.

[henry quirk]

Clod,

"..employer-provided coverage is the norm..."

I agree, and I should clarify: 'mandatory' (as I use it) is not only the legal mandate (law) but also the cultural imperative (this is now things are done).

Where we disagree: if you want services and products to assume 'proper value' in a market, take out as many of the extraneous players in the market as you can.

If the market (buyer and seller; demand and supply) is allowed to operate with only minimal restraint all products and services assume a proper value, a value that may fluctuate wildly for any number of reasons, but a value in keeping with the buyer and the seller; demand and supply.

Every extraneous player simply adds to 'cost' without adding to 'value'.

#

Dana,

"they are doing so on the grounds of something that is untrue"

I get that and -- within the context of the SC ruling -- I see your point.

Which, again, is why I think the ruling is a fertile ground for unintended consequence.

If HL had taken the route of property ownership instead of religious objection then -- as I say up-thread -- 'how a body uses his or her property may not make any sense to me, but it doesn't have to make sense to me cuz it ain't 'my' property'.

I got an idea why the HL folks didn't assert this as a property matter, but I'll leave that for another time.