IUDs are also an option for the treatment of endometriosis, oftentimes for women who, for whatever reason, have unpleasant side effects on the pill. My understanding is that IUDs are one of the forms of BC that Hobby Lobby believes to be abortifacient (which they are not, but that's a separate point). The larger issue is: why shouldn't a person's health insurance, which they are paying for, cover medications that their doctor deems necessary?
Sure, IUDs may be able to help too, but they are not necessary if they are an option, right?
Again, you are free to purchase this product directly if you so choose which lasts 3-5 years. Sounds like a good personal investment. Or, if you really don’t like the idea of your employer not covering certain items through insurance, find another employer who will. Sounds pretty simple. Did you know that some employers like Google and Microsoft give you free drinks and even food while working there? Does that mean every employer should or can do the same? No, it doesn’t.
Remember, you generally are paying only a part of the insurance premiums at your job. All this talk about demanding this and that in your company subsidized insurance is going to put an end to the employer-paid insurance and you’re going to have to pay for everything yourself out of pocket. This, of course, is all part of the grand scheme of things for Democrats. They want you off your employer’s insurance and onto their even worse form. Sure, they’ll give you all the birth control (and probably abortions) you want, but they’re going to make cuts elsewhere.
I hope that you would please address these concerns about your last HL post. 1. health insurance is employee compensation. It is up to the employer, however, to determine how they wish to compensate said employee. Simply stating it’s “employee compensation” doesn’t wash away the fact that the employer gets to determine how they wish to compensate the employee and the employee decides whether or not that is adequate enough for their needs.
(cont.) 2. Your second point seems to be poorly sourced. Where you get 40% I have no idea… In fact when I search for it the first article that pops up is yours where you explain that people “were promised”.. but doesn’t say who they were promised to or by and for what…
Yes, I got your question the first time you sent it. I’m a bit ticked that you are more concerned with getting me to explain myself than in re-reading the original post, but I’ll try to re-explain this as simply as possible for you.
First of all, yes, health insurance is part of an employee’s compensation. But when employers restrict access to birth control, they are not determining “how much” to compensate their employee, they are determining howthat compensation isused.
An employer can decide to compensate their employees less by moving to a cheaper healthcare plan that requires their employees to pay more of their healthcare costs out-pocket. But employers would not be picking and choosing which benefits they will and will not pay for. They would simply be cutting their overall contribution to an employee’s healthcare. The Hobby Lobby decision allows for-profit companies to say that they are going to make a value judgement about a certain service and then interfere with the services the health insurer provides their employees.
Which brings me to those pesky numbers you’re so confused about. If you read my original post, I specifically said that I made up the 40% figure to illustrate a point about how those benefits operate. Since you didn’t understand my original illustration, I’ll make it even simpler for you.
Imagine you have a job where your employer compensates you with $100 a month (this isn’t a realistic figure, but I’m using 100 to make it easier to show percentages).
Your employer pays you $50 in cash. He then puts $10 in a retirement account you set up. Finally, he gives $40 to a health insurance company to provide health insurance. This is all part of YOUR compensation. The employer isn’t paying for health care out of the goodness of his heart, but because it is a benefit you earned. Employers pay this directly to the insurer on behalf of all of the employees to negotiate a lower rate for the entire group; that’s why they don’t simply give you the money as an additional part of your paycheck.
This works out fine for awhile. You use the paycheck to buy rent, food, and clothes. You need to buy allergy medicine and birth control every month, and sometimes you need to go to the doctor. Thankfully, your employer was able to negotiate a good group rate with the health insurance company, so you only pay about $10 out of pocket for co-pays and the like.
But after the Hobby Lobby decision, your employer comes back to you and says, “Sorry, but we’ve told the health insurance company that they can no longer provide you with birth control. You’re going to have to pay for it yourself.”
You reply, “But I was paying for it myself! When I signed up, 40% of my overall compensation was going directly to the health insurer to pay for my birth control!”
Your employer replies, “Well, the Supreme Court says we get to control how that money is spent. We don’t like birth control, so we told the health insurer not to provide it. But we can’t control how you spend your paycheck, so you’ll just have to pay for it with that.”
You might ask, “Well, then can you give me some of that money back on my paycheck? Since you’re forcing the health insurer to refuse to provide me birth control, the value of my health insurance has gone down.” But of course, your employer will refuse.
And it’s not like you can pay for your birth control with your paycheck. You’re already spending it on rent, food, clothing, and for your co-pays for the health care your insurer can still provide. When you took the job, 40% of your overall compensation was going to be provided directly for health insurance. Now that compensation buys you less. Therefore, employees are being denied their fair compensation.
But here’s the kicker. It’s not actually about money, or about who pays for the birth control. It’s about control, and using any means necessary to prevent everybody from being able to use birth control.
Because at that point in our story, President Obama comes along. He tells businesses, “Don’t worry, I got this. We’ll just have the insurer pay for it themselves. None of the money you provide for an employee’s health care will go towards providing birth control.”
But the businesses don’t want this either. They go back to the Supreme Court arguing that the President’s accommodation still violates their religious beliefs. They refuse to even fill out the paperwork necessary for this accommodation, because it means that eventually their employees will be allowed to have access to birth control. They’re not even shy about their intentions anymore; Wheaton College wants to refuse to provide ALL forms of birth control.
So it’s not about compensation. It’s not about who pays for birth control. It’s about a few people using their religious beliefs and dubious legal reasoning to restrict access to birth control for millions.
your pink rant makes no sense we're trying to promote a world where women have choices for their actions yet y'all always find a way to say women are not responsible for their over sexualisation when actually in a lot if cases we are
look I never said women aren’t responsible for their own choices, but in our society (and I can only speak of Western society cause that’s what I live in and I won’t speak for other cultures etc) there’s a very stringent line that’s fed to women that influences the choices they make
Does that make more sense?
I’m not saying women aren’t in control of their lives, we make choices everyday but those choices are based on outside influences. I don’t believe in the concept of 100% free will because we are influenced by millions of various things everyday of our lives that in turn shape us as people and thus our choices.
Sometimes I wonder if I shave my underarms because I want to or because I’ve grown up with the belief that women have to.
Does that make more sense?
Because women are bombarded by a society that tells us be white, but be tan too, be blonde, but don’t be a dumb blonde, be skinny, but don’t be anorexic, be “sassy/fierce” black, but don’t actually be black, be submissively cute and asian, but don’t actually be asian, be hot and spicy sexy latinas, but don’t actually be latina, wear cute and sexy clothes, but don’t wear clothes men don’t like, wear makeup, but look natural, be sexually available to men, but don’t be a slut, be chaste, but don’t be a prude, have confidence in yourself, but don’t be a bitch
there are so many guidelines women have to follow that it does affect the choices women make on the day-to-day. Women may actively choose to be sexy, but they didn’t create a society that sexualizes them for the male gaze.
We just live in it and for the women that chose to be sexy it’s hard to know if they’re being sexy for themselves, or if they’re being sexy because that’s what men want
Does that make more sense?
Do women chose to be consistently sexualized on the covers of magazines, or is that the only way they can get on that magazine? Do women chose to dress in skimpy outfits and parade around in music videos as nothing more than a sex object, or is that the only dance related work they can get? Do women chose to be painted orange, wear booty shorts and be hyper sexualized in movies, or is that the best acting gig they can get?
I don’t know, I don’t have those answers, but to say that women contribute to their own sexualization in the media off puts me. I know there are women right now that are famous that DO NOT chose to be sexualized and yet are anyway. And others who want to be sexy and are sexy, but then get labels as sluts and sexpots and reduced to body parts which is something they DIDN’T chose. A woman may chose to put on a sexy outfit, she may chose to look sexy, but that doesn’t mean she’s choosing to be sexualized.
Sharing a blog post I wrote on my professional site. If you follow the link, you can read a very interesting comment that someone left in response:
Transmedia—telling stories across multiple platforms and formats like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other social media—is very trendy right now. You’ve got the success of shows like The Lizzie Bennett Diaries and East Los High, in which fans got to interact with characters in “real time,” making them not only consumers of the content but story tellers as well.
As a relative newbie to transmedia, I’ve been feeling psyched about the possibilities, particularly when it comes to storytelling for non-profits. Think of the possibilities for engaging donors and volunteers, bringing organizations’ missions to life in a visceral way.
But when a friend of mine shared my obsession with her 17-year-old daughter, this was her response:
“Transmedia is a word for old people.”
What?? Aside from making me feel about 100 years old, what did my friend’s daughter mean by that?
My friend’s daughter explained that young people don’t need a word to describe transmedia because this is how they live every day. The narrative of their own lives unfolds across different social media platforms and they consciously create identities for themselves depending on where, what, how and with whom they share information.
So a younger person may have one persona on Tumblr, another for Facebook (where their parents and grandparents hang out), yet another for Instagram, and so forth. And they take in information in the same way: watching a series on Hulu while IM’ing a friend or scrolling through animated gifs on Tumblr or watching reaction videos on YouTube. The idea that there is just one way to consume content is just flat-out incomprehensible to them.
So that’s why transmedia is a word for old people—if you’re older than age 30 or so, you grew up in a broadcast world where you watched whatever the networks or cable channels chose to beam at you with no easy way to beam back at them or communicate with like-minded folks consuming the same content (though some folks tried their best—I’m looking at you, old-school Star Trek fans).
Of course, nowadays nearly everyone consumes content the way younger people do. For example, the NY Times recently redesigned their news pagers so that comments appear to the right of the original article, giving both equal visual weight on the page. But while older consumers are “doing” transmedia, they don’t live it the way younger folks do.
You can see this playing out in organizations because the primary decision makers—senior executives and CEOs—generally Don’t Get It. They still think of marketing and communications as a one way street. They treat social media channels as PR tickers. Most importantly, they still think of people as audiences rather than as co-collaborators in creating a shared experience—which is how younger folks see themselves.
In order for companies and non-profits to succeed, they need to reevaluate where and how they tell their organizational stories. It’s not just from a narrative perspective. For example, something that drives me crazy is how brands promote themselves on Tumblr. Some companies like General Electric and IBM are producing cool gifs and graphics, but they never share anyone else’s content. The whole ethos of Tumblr revolves around endless sharing, so why aren’t companies participating in that? It isn’t just about what you put out there, it’s about what you pass along.
As content creators, we need to make the case for true multichannel, multidirectional storytelling that is collaborative and gives folks a chance to share their own stories in turn. This isn’t a nice-to-have opportunity, it’s an absolute must-be-done to survive. Remember my friend’s daughter. She’s not waiting around for us to “get it.”
This isn’t what Transmedia storytelling means. Transmedia storytelling is not your characters interacting with fans on Facebook, unless those interactions become canon and have a direct and significant effect on the story. If your various media do not directly effect the story, then you’re not telling a Transmedia story, you’re just doing Transmedia marketing.