Domino's Pizza founder sues federal government over mandated contraception coverage

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,217
Reaction score
18,303
Location
A dark, evil place.
So, if he doesn't own the company, what is his legal standing in filing this suit? Is it just the real estate?
Domino's Farms is a large office park north of Ann Arbor, Michigan. He also has a petting zoo there, a Christmas lighting display to die for and a bunch of Frank Lloyd Wright wannabe buildings. That includes his old headquarters (don't know if the current Domino's is still there or not).

My former company once held a retreat in his headquarters building. It was, to say the least, ostentatious. His office had a leather carpet and his office bathroom had gold plated fixtures.

Plus the guy's a bazzilionairre. He had other interests as well. I'm honestly not sure which one(s) he's suing for.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
So, if he doesn't own the company, what is his legal standing in filing this suit? Is it just the real estate?

They're just mentioning the fact that he founded Domino's as a head line / attention-getter. Otherwise, it'd be "Some rich guy you've never heard of sues over Obamacare."
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
They're just mentioning the fact that he founded Domino's as a head line / attention-getter. Otherwise, it'd be "Some rich guy you've never heard of sues over Obamacare."

Well, yes, but then the question is, why is he suing, if he no longer owns Dominoes? How is he affected by this?
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,865
Reaction score
4,640
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
If birth control was available over the counter, would it no longer be covered by health insurance? That's how it worked with my allergy medication...
Same here. My prescription plan won't cover OTC medications so I have to pay for my low-dose aspirin.

But if it were available over the counter, people would still sue to restrict its access.
 

Atlantis

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
1,146
Reaction score
103
Well, it's not as if birth control is only available to those who have it paid for by someone else.


According to Planned Parenthood:
  • Easy to get with a prescription
  • Cost about $15–$50 each month
Condoms are even more economical.

I don't see how Dominoes refusing to pay for its employees birth control is "denying" it to its employees any more than not paying its employee's food bills is denying them food.

Condoms don't always work you know. They can break. When a company refuses to pay for a woman's BC pills they are taking away her decision to be in control of her own body and are forcing her to depend on the male in the relationship to take responsibility for contraception. That's not fair. Also lots of women need BC pills for other reasons than contraception. I don't see how how anyone should be able to weigh into the decision to let someone have birth control or not. If a woman wants it she should be able to get it - period. No questions asked. It's her body, her life, her choices.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
If birth control was available over the counter, would it no longer be covered by health insurance?

Probably. But it would also probably be a hell of a lot less expensive, once the cost of obtaining a physician's prescription is figured in.

I take into account, and respect, previous comments here about the potential side-effect issues with current birth-control meds. But I also must point out that aspirin and other pain relievers have potential side effects for many people, as do allergy meds, mucus-control meds, skin rash meds, gastric meds, all of which have plain warnings of such on their labels.

A few years ago I developed a severe seasonal allergy which produced dangerous asthma reactions, for which I ultimately got prescribed a major prescription pharmaceutical steroid inhaler which is intensely advertised these days on TV. The docs didn't tell me shit about possible side effects, which include severe irrational mood swings and anxiety reactions, which I experienced and couldn't understand, and only discovered through second-hand information. I have refused to use this product ever since, despite physician recommendations.

All kinds of meds have side effects, prescription or otherwise.

caw
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Condoms don't always work you know. They can break. When a company refuses to pay for a woman's BC pills they are taking away her decision to be in control of her own body and are forcing her to depend on the male in the relationship to take responsibility for contraception. That's not fair. Also lots of women need BC pills for other reasons than contraception. I don't see how how anyone should be able to weigh into the decision to let someone have birth control or not. If a woman wants it she should be able to get it - period. No questions asked. It's her body, her life, her choices.

If you can't get free contraception, that strikes me as a tax on your freedom.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
Except that anything related to men's sexual health, such as viagra and vasectomies, are covered by health insurance. If those things are covered, and birth control for women is not, then it's a double standard, and it's unfair to women.
I'm covered by two insurances, mine and my wife's. Neither of them cover Viagra. Birth control and hormone replacement therapy are covered as are hysterectomies and tubal ligations. So in general, I don't see a double standard.

To show a double standard, you'd have to look at the specific plan provided by Monaghan to see if vascetomies are covered. Since he is a strict Catholic, I'd guess they are not, but I don't know.
 
Last edited:

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
So we can take this as you agreeing with the concept of National Health Coverage?

caw
You take it wrongly. My point is that if the federal government feels so strongly about birth control, it should push for direct implementation of it rather than forcing individual businesses to provide it even if it violates their religious principles.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
Condoms don't always work you know. They can break. When a company refuses to pay for a woman's BC pills they are taking away her decision to be in control of her own body and are forcing her to depend on the male in the relationship to take responsibility for contraception. That's not fair. Also lots of women need BC pills for other reasons than contraception. I don't see how how anyone should be able to weigh into the decision to let someone have birth control or not. If a woman wants it she should be able to get it - period. No questions asked. It's her body, her life, her choices.
There is a difference between "letting" women get birth control and paying for someone else's birth control. Personally, I don't think women are that helpless.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
You take it wrongly. My point is that if the federal government feels so strongly about birth control, it should push for direct implementation of it rather than forcing individual businesses to provide it even if it violates their religious principles.

If the federal government feels so strongly about healthcare, it should push for implementation of a single-payer national healthcare system that is free at the point of delivery; and free birth control ought to be part of that. (What you've actually got is probably the best political compromise possible under the circumstances, but it is going to throw up some problems.)
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
You take it wrongly. My point is that if the federal government feels so strongly about birth control, it should push for direct implementation of it rather than forcing individual businesses to provide it even if it violates their religious principles.

That's a valid position, but many of the self-same legislators who object to the mandated coverage oppose the government paying for such coverage.

There's also the paradox that since government paying for it would be funded by taxation, no one no matter what their religious views would be able to avoid paying for it.

Please note: I am very much in favor of single-payer and think that the current system is half-baked.

In a different direction, how much right attaches to the payer, when paying for someone else?

Suppose instead of the employer paying for the insurance, the employee were the official buyer thereof, but the employer was mandated to give the employee enough money to purchase insurance. Would that give the employer the same moral right to object to what the insurance covered?

And if it does wouldn't that give employers a moral right to object to whatever theirs employee do with their salaries?

At what point in the payment for labor process does the employer cease to have control over what is done with the money?
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
I take into account, and respect, previous comments here about the potential side-effect issues with current birth-control meds. But I also must point out that aspirin and other pain relievers have potential side effects for many people, as do allergy meds, mucus-control meds, skin rash meds, gastric meds, all of which have plain warnings of such on their labels.

Yes, but those are all medications that you take as needed. Just like emergency contraception, which is why it is available over the counter. But we take regular birth control pills every day. And, as someone said upthread, different pills work for different people. We do need doctors to help us find the right one. It isn't really comparable to the types of medications you've listed.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
In a different direction, how much right attaches to the payer, when paying for someone else?

Suppose instead of the employer paying for the insurance, the employee were the official buyer thereof, but the employer was mandated to give the employee enough money to purchase insurance. Would that give the employer the same moral right to object to what the insurance covered?

And if it does wouldn't that give employers a moral right to object to whatever theirs employee do with their salaries?

At what point in the payment for labor process does the employer cease to have control over what is done with the money?
All I can say is.... EXACTLY.

There is no point, imo, when an employer should have a right to say what an employee does with his or her paycheck or benefits. The employer has a say over what happens at his place of employment or while representing the company during employment. End of story.

Unfortunately, some people seem to feel they are obligated (morally or otherwise) to control other people's personal choices. And to that I say, get over it. Please.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
That's a valid position, but many of the self-same legislators who object to the mandated coverage oppose the government paying for such coverage.

There's also the paradox that since government paying for it would be funded by taxation, no one no matter what their religious views would be able to avoid paying for it.

Please note: I am very much in favor of single-payer and think that the current system is half-baked.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying I'm in favor of government funded birth control. I'm saying that if the government wants to fund birth control they should do it directly rather than mandating that someone else do it. Personally, I am equally against both. Not because I'm against birth control, but because a significant portion of Americans are and they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

In a different direction, how much right attaches to the payer, when paying for someone else?

Suppose instead of the employer paying for the insurance, the employee were the official buyer thereof, but the employer was mandated to give the employee enough money to purchase insurance. Would that give the employer the same moral right to object to what the insurance covered?

And if it does wouldn't that give employers a moral right to object to whatever theirs employee do with their salaries?

At what point in the payment for labor process does the employer cease to have control over what is done with the money?
Some time ago, there was a thread about Germany making circumcisions illegal. Many people (a majority it seems to me) were in favor of it. Suppose an employer had a strong objection to circumcision. Should the employer be force to pay for them through their insurance contributions?

Let's not get into the inevitable "circumcisions are not the same as birth control" arguments. Obviously they are not, but it doesn't matter. The issue is whether an employer must fund medical procedures with which he or she disagrees.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Let me be clear. I'm not saying I'm in favor of government funded birth control. I'm saying that if the government wants to fund birth control they should do it directly rather than mandating that someone else do it. Personally, I am equally against both. Not because I'm against birth control, but because a significant portion of Americans are and they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Some time ago, there was a thread about Germany making circumcisions illegal. Many people (a majority it seems to me) were in favor of it. Suppose an employer had a strong objection to circumcision. Should the employer be force to pay for them through their insurance contributions?

Let's not get into the inevitable "circumcisions are not the same as birth control" arguments. Obviously they are not, but it doesn't matter. The issue is whether an employer must fund medical procedures with which he or she disagrees.

But you're not answering the question of at what point is it the employer funding it. Can an employer demand that an employee not use their salary for medical procedures they disapprove of?
 
Last edited:

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
Yes, but those are all medications that you take as needed. Just like emergency contraception, which is why it is available over the counter. But we take regular birth control pills every day. And, as someone said upthread, different pills work for different people. We do need doctors to help us find the right one. It isn't really comparable to the types of medications you've listed.
Heart patients take asprin every day. Arthritis patient take asprin, ibuprophen, or naproxin every day. Allergy suffers take over the counter medications (Clariton, etc.) every day. All of these (except aspirin) were at one time prescription and should still used at a doctor's recommendation because some work better than others for different people and they all have side effects that differ with individuals. They're also not covered by insurance.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
Roger J Carlson7818040 said:
Some time ago, there was a thread about Germany making circumcisions illegal. Many people (a majority it seems to me) were in favor of it. Suppose an employer had a strong objection to circumcision. Should the employer be force to pay for them through their insurance contributions?
To this, I would say if the country doesn't make it illegal, then NO, the employer has no right to deny "funding" of a legal medical procedure. (And let's face it: is the employer really funding it, or is the insurance simply part of the compensation package, of which "net pay" is going to have to take into account the expense of providing medical coverage?)

We as a society have to decide what is legal and what is not. If circumcision is not illegal, it should not then fall into some subset of "employer authority."
 
Last edited:

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
But your not answering the question of at what point is it the employer funding it. Can an employer demand that an employee not use their salary for medical procedures they disapprove of?
No.

On the other hand, the employee (or the federal governent) should not demand that the employer pay for a precedure the employer disapproves of.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
No.

On the other hand, the employee (or the federal governent) should not demand that the employer pay for a precedure the employer disapproves of.

Okay. But the government isn't asking that they pay for the procedure itself. They are asking that they pay for insurance that pays for the procedure. How is that different from paying a salary which the employee then uses to pay for the procedure?

In each case there is a different entity doing the paying and in each case the employer does not perform the specific act of payment.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
To this, I would say if the country doesn't make it illegal, then NO, the employer has no right to deny "funding" of a legal procedure. (And let's face it: is the employer really funding it, or is the insurance simply part of the compensation package, of which "net pay" is going to have to take into account the expense of providing medical coverage?)

We as a society have to decide what is legal and what is not. If circumcision is not illegal, it should not then fall into some subset of "employer authority."

Thanks for this.

Alternatively, perhaps the system should not be configured such that it becomes an employer's decision to have to make?