drsmooth wrote:May I quote your post over into the health reform thread?

Werthless wrote:

lethal wrote:Just because Target or Walmart offer $9 generics instead of a $90 prescription, doesn't mean that Fluke could've used any of those that Target offered. Every person reacts to different medications differently. Maybe the one that works for a certain woman's body isn't on the Target $9 generic list. So you punish her for that?

I don't think that just because a big box retailer or drug store offers cheap generics makes the $3,000 in 3 year of law school argument invalid or wrong.

This is sort of where I'm on the fence. Does $9 or $90 actually matter? If she could buy it for $9 instead of $90, is she now out of line? This is where I'm struggling, because it's a very distracting red herring in my opinion. The main issue at hand is whether Georgetown should be compelled to offer this type of medication in its insurance plan, and so I think the cost should be a separate consideration. Eh, I dont know exactly what I think.

lethal wrote: But if you extend that to any employer with any moral beliefs, you go too far. Where is that line that makes it too far? Is it even before religion? And isn't this discrimating against women since men are unaffected?

lethal wrote:

Werthless wrote:And FFS, spend $1000 and get a dishwasher installed.

I doubt its a money thing. The building is probably older and the plumbing can't support a dishwaher or there's no space in the kitchen for one (I read it again, its only 1200 square feet he lives in. Kitchen might be tiny.)

TenuredVulture wrote:The issue of religious employers goes beyond this though--the question is to what extent can you cite "free exercise" to exempt you from obeying laws?

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The issue of religious employers goes beyond this though--the question is to what extent can you cite "free exercise" to exempt you from obeying laws?

not very far. You want your bedpans emptied, anyone doing that's an employee first, and a minister, rabbi, acolyte, mad monk, etc afterward

unless they're ceremonially imbibing the contents while videorecording the proceedings then posting the mpegs to rushlimbaugh.com, in which case they're engaging in political speech

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:why should i care what aipac has to say? the president's speech was decent. this weird thing that we're somehow at risk of a war with iran is crazy. the only way we have a war is if we start it. if israel does their version of a pre-emptive attack, i feel no reason to back them in their stupid endeavor.

You should care what they have to say because they have more influence on American foreign policy than you do.

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The issue of religious employers goes beyond this though--the question is to what extent can you cite "free exercise" to exempt you from obeying laws?

not very far. You want your bedpans emptied, anyone doing that's an employee first, and a minister, rabbi, acolyte, mad monk, etc afterward

unless they're ceremonially imbibing the contents while videorecording the proceedings then posting the mpegs to rushlimbaugh.com, in which case they're engaging in political speech

But that's the real issue here--churches mostly have to obey the same employment laws as everyone else.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Wasn't Fluke testifying about her friend that was prescribed "the pill" for ovarian cysts (which is a commonly prescribed treatment/prevention), who subsequently lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford it out of pocket? IOW, the friend needed "the pill" for a legit health reason, not because she liked to fuck (as per Rush)?

In that case, could it be a different or special prescription of "the pill" (ie, no week of placebos, different dosages not available in generics, etc.)?

jerseyhoya wrote:This Newt is insane