Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

My bad. The ruling still sucks and anyone who bitches about the ability of people to get life saving drugs also sucks

I'm not rich. I can't afford to support other people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In a group plan stuff isn't free.

If the ACA says it's free, it is free

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not rich. I can't afford to support other people.

No one is asking you to. You still seem to be unable to understand how insurance works. Not my problem.

 

[meaner gene]

I'm not rich. I can't afford to support other people.

People like the US Army.

Per person everybody pays over $2,000 a year on DOD.

How does that compare to what you spend on health insurance.

 

[ClaireH]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

Let states determine the specifics of HIV treatment before insurance conglomerates legally bribe the fossils on the hill for a “one size fits all” federal bill. Which would make the insurance companies have more money in the end? That is the exact determinate they will be pushing for in with dealing with the politicized fossils with clout. Term limits.

 

[bravoactual]

You're poorly trying to defend discrimination. America isn't supposed to work that way. It only serves to put people against other people and we're the United States of America. Hatred, ignorance and bigotry is trying to make us the divided States of America.

This also mean conversly that a business doesn't have to fund a religiously based club or organization. This ruling cuts both ways.

 

[skews13]

This is just playing wrong on so many fronts it isn't funny. Another poster on here said this judge has made a lot of other erroneous rulings,he's quite a character. I can't understand why he's still allowed to be a judge.

They're all free market capitalists until they're not.

I'm waiting for this judge to decide what the stores in the neighborhood can and cannot sell, based on one of his ignorant fools belief system.

I wonder if that judge, and his ignorant fools understand why we left Europe, and made religious freedom a thing over here?

So judges, and ignorant fools wouldn't oppress free people, like this judge and his ignorant fools want to do.

Looks like we need another revolution to rid ourselves again from religious tyrants, and fools that want us to bow before a crown.

More thoroughly this time.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

People like the US Army.

Per person everybody pays over $2,000 a year on DOD.

How does that compare to what you spend on health insurance.

I spend more than that on insurance.

 

[Couchpotato]

No one chooses to get HIV. And even if that were true, what about the other 1% in your statement. Aren't they being treated unfairly by the group insurance. See the whole matter boils down to is you can't judge other people. It just makes you look bad. And once this garbage get started how do we stop it.

Sure you do. You contract HIV through sexual contact, intravenous drug use, blood transfusion or being attacked by a rabid HIV infected person and you come in contact with their bodily fluids enough for you to get infected. According to the CDC there's a 1 in 1.5 million chance of getting HIV through a blood transfusion which is a very conservative estimate. I don't know what the chances of being attacked by someone infected with HIV and coming in contact with their bodily fluids but I imagine those chances are rather low. The other 2 ways account for 99.99999% of HIV cases. What to do you figure the chances of contracting HIV in the confines of a monogamous sexual relationship? 0% or somewhere in that area? So that leaves us with people having promiscuous sex and intravenous drug use. Both choices. All choices come with risk. No one wants to get into a car accident but if you drive on the wrong side of the road or speed, or drive drunk.....

This employer has decided they arent going to fund the treatment for a disease you contracted based on YOUR choices. Seems fair so long as it applies to everyone.

Tell you what. I'd support a bill in Congress that created a fund to pay for the treatment for everyone who gets HIV through blood transfusion and being attacked by an HIV infected person. All the other people who get HIV can pay for it themselves. Deal?

 

[braalian]

This employer has decided they arent going to fund the treatment for a disease you contracted based on YOUR choices.

Ok, so let’s stop paying for meds/treatments for workers with type2 diabetes. They CHOSE not to exercise or eat right. They let their disease get out of control. Same thing, right?

 

[Couchpotato]

Ok, so let’s stop paying for meds/treatments for workers with type2 diabetes. They CHOSE not to exercise or eat right. They let their disease get out of control. Same thing, right?

An employer could certainly choose to do that.

 

[Muhammed]

Ok, so let’s stop paying for meds/treatments for workers with type2 diabetes. They CHOSE not to exercise or eat right. They let their disease get out of control. Same thing, right?

Why the fuck should an employer have to pay for that?

 

[Stann]

Sure you do. You contract HIV through sexual contact, intravenous drug use, blood transfusion or being attacked by a rabid HIV infected person and you come in contact with their bodily fluids enough for you to get infected. According to the CDC there's a 1 in 1.5 million chance of getting HIV through a blood transfusion which is a very conservative estimate. I don't know what the chances of being attacked by someone infected with HIV and coming in contact with their bodily fluids but I imagine those chances are rather low. The other 2 ways account for 99.99999% of HIV cases. What to do you figure the chances of contracting HIV in the confines of a monogamous sexual relationship? 0% or somewhere in that area? So that leaves us with people having promiscuous sex and intravenous drug use. Both choices. All choices come with risk. No one wants to get into a car accident but if you drive on the wrong side of the road or speed, or drive drunk.....

This employer has decided they arent going to fund the treatment for a disease you contracted based on YOUR choices. Seems fair so long as it applies to everyone.

Tell you what. I'd support a bill in Congress that created a fund to pay for the treatment for everyone who gets HIV through blood transfusion and being attacked by an HIV infected person. All the other people who get HIV can pay for it themselves. Deal?

Most people with HIV / AIDS that aren't indigent and are able to work have group insurance at their work. That's how group insurance works. To say one particular condition is not covered because they may or may not be homosexual and the employer disagrees with that sexual orientation is PURE BULLSHIT. The fact that this is coming from a supposedly religious group makes it even more disgusting. It won't stand, it will be challenged. This judge is known for such antics, he needs to be taken off the bench. Hatred and prejudice doesn't belong in our courts.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your first reaction is to say that it is terrible that people who oppose homosexual behavior would not be forced to pay for the consequences of that behavior. But then someone makes a libertarian argument and you do a 180. It's almost like you thought, 'oh, that's right. I claim to be libertarian even though I agree with very single Democratic Party position supporting post.'

Good morning,

My first reaction was that using religion to stop companies being forced to pay for something in an insurance policy was a terrible ruling. That allows for two levels of "justice", those religious companies do not have to pay and the heathen companies do.

My argument was that it is wrong for the Govt to force people to pay for this, no matter what their religions views are. The ruling was bad for this reason.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Good morning,

My first reaction that using religion to stop companies being forced to pay for something in an insurance policy was a terrible ruling. That allows for two levels of "justice", those religious companies do not have to pay and the heathen companies do.

My argument was that it is wrong for the Govt to force people to pay for this, no matter what their religions views are. The ruling was bad for this reason.

Fair enough.

That's the problem, I guess, with being a libertarian and participating in debates among statists of different stripes.

Suppose two different sets of parents object to their public school children being required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. One family objects because their religion forbids worshiping "false idols," and another objects because they are loyal to Texas, are hoping for secession, and don't want the U.S. to be "indivisible."

One statist might say, "Allow the religious exemption, but not the one about secession, that's treason." Another statist might say, "no exemptions, let them go to private school if they want their own way in everything." A third might say, "fine, just allow any parent to opt out of the pledge without giving a reason. Who cares? It's three minutes out of the day, let's focus on them learning the rest of the day."

A libertarian says what?

"Why are we taking people's money to build public schools that we force them to send their kids to? That's theft and kidnapping!" The arguments are not even in the same ballpark.

I'm just as guilty of joining in. Right now, I'm supporting the statist Trump because the only alternative offered is the end of the republic and the acceptance of fascism. That has me arguing in support of this statism vs. that statism more often than I'd like to.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'm just as guilty of joining in. Right now, I'm supporting the statist Trump because the only alternative offered is the end of the republic and the acceptance of fascism. That has me arguing in support of this statism vs. that statism more often than I'd like to

And this is where we differ the most, I see no fundamental difference between Trump's statism and Biden's. I see no difference in the level of acceptable fascism between the two factions.

One nice side benefit of the week away is it really showed me how little the things we talk about on here impact my life at all.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And this is where we differ the most, I see no fundamental difference between Trump's statism and Biden's. I see no difference in the level of acceptable fascism between the two factions.

One nice side benefit of the week away is it really showed me how little the things we talk about on here impact my life at all.

I commend you for your rare integrity in taking that week. Rare among posters, I mean, not rare for you.



There is truth to what you say about Trump and Biden both being equally statist. But we live in a statist world and I have to recognize that the combination of resentment of Trump by establishment GOP politicians and the COVID pandemic pretext for clampdowns on liberty have taken the statism of the Democratic Party to a new level. Since we will likely have to live with statism pretty much forever, better it be in a democratic republic than the ideological police state Team Biden envisions.

But yes. Not only are our every day lives little affected by what we say here, what we say here has even less of an effect on what we talk about on here.

 

[braalian]

In regards to this case, the argument was that people should receive free HIV meds. Under Obamacare, it's free because other insurance buyers are paying for it. This ruling says that's unconstitutional and the ruling is absolutely correct.

Here’s how it works:

People pay into an insurance plan. The insurance company takes a certain amount of money each paycheck for each employee participating in the plan.

The employees under the plan use their insurance coverage to pay for medications and treatment.

Sometimes said coverage includes covering prescription medication.

People who get meds paid for by their employer’s insurance aren’t getting “free” meds. They *paid* into the insurance plan same as you.

How is any of this unconstitutional?

 

[Couchpotato]

Most people with HIV / AIDS that aren't indigent and are able to work have group insurance at their work. That's how group insurance works. To say one particular condition is not covered because they may or may not be homosexual and the employer disagrees with that sexual orientation is PURE BULLSHIT. The fact that this is coming from a supposedly religious group makes it even more disgusting. It won't stand, it will be challenged. This judge is known for such antics, he needs to be taken off the bench. Hatred and prejudice doesn't belong in our courts.

So if the reason was its too expensive or they just didn’t want to cover it that would be ok?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The bigger the employer, the more likely they are self-insured. Think about it. Who can afford to be self-insured? Big corporations. Who ends up paying less for medical costs per employee? Big corporations. Who do you support?
Google says:

According to the data, among all firms the percentage of employees covered by self-funded plans had increased from 44 percent in 1999 to a record high of 67 percent in 2020 before decreasing slightly to 64 percent in 2021.

What percentage of employees covered by self-funded plans were self-funded? Zero.
How many from the remainder said they "support" small businesses? 100%
How many employees can afford to be self-insured? [How many billionaires are there?]

Who's a little fascist?
Ahh, such a cute boy!
There ya go.. Yeah..

Anyone else?
C'mon reveal yourselves..
You know you can never resist..