<p>
</p>
<p>calmom, can the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby be brought into the case? Obviously, if the company really stood by its religious principles, how could it in good conscience (since corporations are people now and thus might have a conscience) source products primarily from a country that has seen 336 million forced abortions over the past 30 years?</p>
<p>“Why should women have the burden of funding their own contraception?!”</p>
<p>Okay, speechless. Personal responsibility, maybe? In any case, it’s pretty tough to argue that it’s their employer’s responsibility unless they are sleeping with the boss.</p>
<p>Once again, contraception is NOT just used for preventing pregnancy. Even if it was, so what? </p>
<p>And it’s no one’s damn business whether or not a woman uses it to prevent pregnancy or to prevent a cyst/acne/whatever. </p>
<p>I’m speechless that this is still an issue in 2014. </p>
<p>Romani, the reason it’s an issue in 2014 is because in 2013 the government decided to order employers to provide it. That was not previously the case. It may or may not have been included in various insurance plans. It was not included in mine so I paid. Again, not a crisis. </p>
<p>The ACA mandates that insurance cover reproductive health care. 'Cuz it’s, y’know, health care, so it should be covered by health insurance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re saying it should be the man’s responsibility? OK, let’s argue it that way then. The whole point is: women don’t get pregnant all by themselves. The burdens should not fall entirely on them.</p>
<p>@sally305 – during oral argument, one of the Justices noted that Hobby Lobby was paying for insurance pre-ACA that covered contraception – so I’m assuming the hypocrisy issue was briefed… but it isn’t really legally relevant. That is, it would make no sense to have a legal ruling based on a determination that one plaintiff’s belief wasn’t sincere, only to leave open the question of what would happen if a sincere plaintiff came along. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point was in response to your comparison of birth control coverage and the higher premium that young men pay for car insurance. I was making the point that the responsibility should be shared equally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks to this thread (many, many posts ago), I decided to get my shingles vaccine, too; told my PCP today that I wanted it and I got it at his cost, which was $160. I suspect it gave me peace of mind well beyond $160 worth!</p>
<p>I’m kind of surprised the shingles vaccine isn’t covered under the ACA as part of preventive care.</p>
<p>How old is the shingles vaccine and how popular is it? I find that surprising too but I wonder if it will be added later.</p>
<p>^^^^Ema, wikipedia has a history. I can’t attest to the accuracy, but here it is.</p>
<p><a href=“Zoster vaccine - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoster_vaccine</a></p>
<p>I wasn’t sure so I just looked it up (I work with adolescents so my knowledge of later-life vaccines is not that good lol) </p>
<p>Apparently it’s been on the market for almost 10 years (came out in 06 like the HPV vaccine which is covered) and is recommended for all those over 60 (some docs recommend 50). </p>
<p>ETA: Didn’t see Nrdsb4’s post, sorry. </p>
<p>Luckily, my insurance covered mine.</p>
<p>I asked my PCP at my last physical why 60 is the magical age for the shingles vaccine. FWIW, the gist of his explanation was that the older you are the worse the symptoms can be. So 60 is the optimum age for protection between toughing out the symptoms and preventing severe suffering, since the effectiveness of the vaccine probably does not last forever (as “confirmed” by the Wikipedia article linked above): </p>
<p>“The duration of protection beyond 4 years after vaccination with the zoster vaccine is unknown.”</p>
<p>SnLMom - what I think I read earlier on this thread was that, initially when they developed the vaccine, reserves were low/there was a shortage, so they decided to make the recommendations for those over 60 only; otherwise, many younger people getting it might limit supplies for older people who are more at risk for severe complications. However, as the supplies have caught up with demand, the recommendations have not shifted; my bet is that, within five years, the majority of insurance carriers will cover it, and doctors will start recommending it for people younger than 60. As I also learned on this thread, many people have gotten very severe cases under the age of 60, so I decided to err on the side of caution. There are also many contraindications with the vaccine, so at least if I were to develop any of those conditions/diseases in the next four years or so, I needn’t be told I can’t get the vaccine - I already have it and the protection that comes along with it (not that I plan on contracting anything, but you just never know).</p>
<p>Edited to add:
From: <a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/shingles/hcp-vaccination.htm”>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/shingles/hcp-vaccination.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are kids allowed to go to school if they are not vaccinated? Aren’t vaccinations mandatory?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on the state, county, and/or school district. No uniform national policy (unfortunately) </p>
<p>GMT, good question. I wonder if we will reach a point where unvaccinated kids are not allowed in public schools, at least. Of course the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more legal challenges on the basis of “religious freedom.” Or in the case of the brainless celebrities spreading untruths, “freedom to be a complete selfish idiot.”</p>
<p>“I’m assuming the hypocrisy issue was briefed… but it isn’t really legally relevant. That is, it would make no sense to have a legal ruling based on a determination that one plaintiff’s belief wasn’t sincere, only to leave open the question of what would happen if a sincere plaintiff came along.”</p>
<p>You have the law backwards. The US Supreme Court is <em>required</em> to decide the case based on the plaintiffs before it, even if that leaves open the question of what would happen with different plaintiffs. So if the law says that sincerity matters, then the court must examine this plaintiff’s sincerity, and if the case fails on that point, it fails. We have to wait for new, better plaintiffs to get a real answer from the court.</p>
<p>This isn’t true of many state courts, but it is true of federal courts. It’s called the case or controversy doctrine. Federal courts cannot issue what are called “advisory” opinions stating what the law is if the question isn’t presented by the particular parties before them. It is true that this rule “makes no sense” from an efficiency standpoint; it serves other ideals.</p>
<p>On a related note, it doesn’t necessarily follow that a religious belief is insincere because it is novel. The fact that you believed X last year and Y this year doesn’t mean you’re faking your belief in Y. Individuals have sincere spiritual epiphanies and join entirely new religions all the time. I happen to think that Hobby Lobby is politically motivated in this case, but others with new beliefs may be sincere.</p>