Outrage over Hobby Lobby's "cotton plants"

[Schattenlied]

Under the Affordable Care Act, birth control had to be a covered expense by insurance plans. Hobby Lobby fought tooth & nail against it. And yeah, insurance companies do actually pay for "men's birth control". Its called a vasectomy.

Many insurance companies, and the affordable care act itself, don't pay for ANY men's birth control, including a vasectomy.


So again why should they have to pay for women's birth control when they don't have to pay for men's?


Optional procedures and medications, that aren't in any way remotely needed, should not be covered by tax payer funded healthcare, or be forced to be provided by employers, including birth control for both genders. If you cant afford birth control and don't want kids, don't have sex, that goes for both genders, or is that too an extreme idea for you?


By the way, if they are only gonna cover a vasectomy for men, a basically permanent birth control, then should only cover the permanent solution for women too. If they want it to also cover birth control pills for women, it should then also cover condoms for men(especially since they help prevent STDs, which prevents future strain on the medical system for treating those, in that way it makes MORE sense for condoms to be covered than pills, yet only pills are covered, which is stupid), that is equality.


Cover both, or none, equality either way.

[Antius]

We should as a nation just ban cotton, chicken wings, watermelon, tacos, rice and crackers. Then no one will be offended.

You forgot grape soda.

[Polyxo]

If they're just cotton plants, I don't really see any reason for outrage. However, if they're part of some 'antebellum south/plantation chic' kind of display, I could definitely see how that'd piss a lot of people off, and rightfully so.

[Mormolyce]

The irony here is that you failed to notice that the Blaze said the actual "news" about Hobby Lobby isn't worth talking about and the only interesting thing about the "controversy" is that only in a society where everyone is (relatively speaking) wealthy, healthy and safe can something this trivial seem important. But all you can complain about is that there is no serious attempt to link it back to the article. What would the sense of that be given the Hobby Lobby "story" is a non event?

Note that I said "serious attempt". That line was basically just the author's shitty opinion.

[Tijuana]

Under the Affordable Care Act, birth control had to be a covered expense by insurance plans. Hobby Lobby fought tooth & nail against it. And yeah, insurance companies do actually pay for "men's birth control". Its called a vasectomy.



Dude you really need to change your signature. Hillary Clinton isn't under FBI investigation. Bernie Sanders isn't under FBI investigation. Donald Trump more than likely is under FBI investigation that hasn't bee made public. Donald Trump's whole cabinet & family are under FBI investigation too.

There is nothing non-factual about my sig. If you have a source that says otherwise, feel free to provide it.

[Gamer8585]

HL dose a lot of stupid and insensitive things. This is not one of them.

Although if people are getting this reactionary about something you did that was so benign, maybe you should examine your past actions to figure out why people would be prone to reading malicious intent into something so banal.

I'm going to get mad at Hitler because of the Totalitarianism, Racism, Imperialism, Megalomania, and Genocide, but I'm not going to take it out on the multiplication tables that he probably had to recite in school.

(Also; GOODWIN'D!)

[shadowmouse]

A bit of a blend to reduce wrinkling is OK, but generally cotton pants are my favorites.

I may also need a new pair of reading glasses.

[Freighter]

What's wrong with having cotton plants as decor?

[Dextroden]

What's wrong with having cotton plants as decor?

Nothing. A grouping of idiots who are worse than civil war reenactors about focusing on the past can't not here slave hymnals being sung when they see cotton.

[Katchii]

Many insurance companies, and the affordable care act itself, don't pay for ANY men's birth control, including a vasectomy.


So again why should they have to pay for women's birth control when they don't have to pay for men's?


Optional procedures and medications, that aren't in any way remotely needed, should not be covered by tax payer funded healthcare, or be forced to be provided by employers, including birth control for both genders. If you cant afford birth control and don't want kids, don't have sex, that goes for both genders, or is that too an extreme idea for you?


By the way, if they are only gonna cover a vasectomy for men, a basically permanent birth control, then should only cover the permanent solution for women too. If they want it to also cover birth control pills for women, it should then also cover condoms for men(especially since they help prevent STDs, which prevents future strain on the medical system for treating those, in that way it makes MORE sense for condoms to be covered than pills, yet only pills are covered, which is stupid), that is equality.


Cover both, or none, equality either way.

Some women have a viable medical reasons to be on birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with it being a contraceptive.

Men do not have a similar need. So therefore don't need access to the same thing.

Equality vs Equity

[Xandrigity]

Some women have a viable medical reasons to be on birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with it being a contraceptive.

Men do not have a similar need. So therefore don't need access to the same thing.

Equality vs Equity

“Some” and those some should be covered following that narrative. But, purely for birth control is unfair to men.

[Schattenlied]

Some women have a viable medical reasons to be on birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with it being a contraceptive.

Men do not have a similar need. So therefore don't need access to the same thing.

Equality vs Equity

If and only if they have said viable medical reason should it be covered by insurance. Purely for the purposes of fucking without having kids (and this is what most want it free for), they don't need it, so they shouldn't get it for free unless men do too.


*Everyone has a viable medical reason for using a condom, STD prevention.

Equality vs Equity

https://youtu.be/bawVQ7fkOfA?t=13s

I'm sorry, but this is all I could think of when I saw the picture at the bottom of the page.

[BuckSparkles]

Some women have a viable medical reasons to be on birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with it being a contraceptive.

Men do not have a similar need. So therefore don't need access to the same thing.

Equality vs Equity

Equality Vs More Equal than others. Yep.

[Katchii]

“Some” and those some should be covered following that narrative. But, purely for birth control is unfair to men.

Why is it unfair though? Men can buy condoms over the counter from a huge range of places with no prescription for ~$20 for a box of 36 (~$0.50 each). Prices will vary based on where you get them, but that's a pretty typical price from a cursory look after googling "box of condoms."

Most insurance companies don't cover the full cost of the medications. The majority of women on birth control...or person on any other medication, are still required to pay a small amount to the pharmacy to pick it up. With good/ high end insurance coverage, this typically ranges from $10-30 for each prescription period. In the case of birth control it's usually in monthly packages and are typically packaged in groups of three to cover 3 months at a time, so $30-$90. This requires a prescription, which needs to come from a doctor, and most health providers won't fill a prescription without you being seen by a doctor every so often. These doctor visits typically require a co-pay, I'm not sure what the range is but mine is $25. Let's say the prescription requires you to see a doctor once a year, and you want a years supply and each prescription filled is in toward the low side at ~$45 every 3 months. That's $25 for the copay and 4 x $45 for the prescriptions for a total of $205 a year for birth control.

Assuming a man has sex literally ever day (which doesn't happen) to equate to the woman taking a birth control pill every day, at ~$0.50/ condom that's $182.50 (365 x $0.50) vs the woman's $205.

So, in this instance, the opportunity for access to male birth control is more than fair, IMO. There's no need for health insurance to cover men's birth control when there's no medical need for them to have it and there's already a over the counter option that's cheaper or equivalent to the female equivalent.

This is a stupid argument.

- - - Updated - - -

If and only if they have said viable medical reason should it be covered by insurance. Purely for the purposes of fucking without having kids (and this is what most want it free for), they don't need it, so they shouldn't get it for free unless men do too.


*Everyone has a viable medical reason for using a condom, STD prevention.


https://youtu.be/bawVQ7fkOfA?t=13s

I'm sorry, but this is all I could think of when I saw the picture at the bottom of the page.

Well played sir, great reference.