SCOTUS-Obamcare Can't Mandate Small Companies Pay for Birth Control
- Thread starter CUNCTiger
- Start date
I expect lots of cheap companies to find god and takes this benefit away to save a couple pennies per employee
It's called a free market. No one is forced to either work or shop there. Too many people in this country want their cake and want to eat it too.
The court overstepped? The fed govt overstepped and was brought back in line. What is even more incredible is the other ruling that came out today on the union. It blows my mind how a private entity such as a labor union could take fees from a non members check.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
They didn't open any Pandora's box; the ruling is extremely narrow and limited to closely held corporations. It also explicitly says it only applies to contraception and not blood transfusions, vaccines, etc. and cannot be a shield for otherwise discriminatory practices. The Court explicitly declined to consider publicly held corporations. Obama will probably use regulations to fill the gap in coverage (i.e. general taxation will pay for the contraceptives in this case and not the business), so this is a very limited ruling in practice.
Very pleased with the ruling. Because of the contents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the notion that the government must use the least restrictive means of intruding on religious liberty in matters deemed to be of compelling public interest, this in no way should have been a 5-4 decision.
While the question regarding boundaries of religious practice is an interesting one, one of at least equal importance is the question of boundaries regarding government intervention into private activities.
and what about people who take it for something other than contraception? My wife still takes it despite the fact that (snip, snip) its no longer a contraceptive measure. She takes it because, without it, she is in excruciating pain every month. It regulates her hormones and makes her life bearable. Before discovering this, she literally couldn't get out of bed because of the pain every month.
If she worked for Hobby Lobby, she would have to choose between paying for it completely out of pocket or live with incredible pain every month. Nice.
If she worked for Hobby Lobby, she would have to choose between paying for it completely out of pocket or live with incredible pain every month. Nice.
The entire thing is an issue because the government overstepped in the first place. The whole problem was caused decades ago when the US Government allowed companies to tax deduct insurance plans but didn't allow people to do the same thing. This created the "insurance tied to where you work" system that we live in today and Obamacare further MANDATED that.
Simply allowing people to tax-deduct their own insurance coverage could have largely solved the problem years ago. That would have forced insurance companies to compete in a consumer centric marketplace instead of getting locked into all of the employees at a business with a multiyear contract.
The solution has not ever been "force businesses to provide X". The solution has always been "get the government out of the way and let people make the decision that is best for them."
Well - in this case, it is only 4 of 20 contraceptives that Hobby Lobby objected to. If it were any of the other 16 contraceptives, it would not be an issue at all.
I don't think the ruling allows for all you are claiming TBH.
I thought it was a very fair ruling considering the arguments that were made, and one that is going to keep the SCOTUS busy for a while. I don't see it as much of a win for "religious freedom" as some will lead the populous to believe. The narrow scope of the ruling means that the courts are probably going to start more broadly defining the relationship between public/private companies and how much religious principals should/can interplay with them (through other cases obviously).
If I was religious, I don't think I would be too happy about that...
Personally, I don't give a shit about who believes what, but I do want minimum wage workers to have access to birth control so I don't end up paying for their kids.
Someone remind me why Harry Reid keeps getting voted into office. His comment on the SCOTUS decision? "Its time 5 men quit deciding what is best for women". There is no end to the sensationalist things politicians will say to get attention. I don't know why I expect our politicians to act better than this.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This case has never had anything to do with limiting access to anything. It has everything to do with who pays for it.
Access = someone else paying for it in this case. If they are having to come out of pocket, its not going to happen. I have not read what exact contraceptive devices have been questioned, but I'm in favor of paying for birth control if it means keeping an unwanted and uncared for child of welfare.
Or someone could change employers.
This would be like any other "benefit" that companies use to hire and recruit prospective employees. People would have to weigh their options. Are the other benefits worth not having this one.
Jesus. I'm not here to argue the decision either way, but do you think a HL employee has a ton of options??? Do you think that individual is choosing between employment at HL, Target, Best Buy, etc.?
They are against abortion pills, not run of the mill birth control. The companies that make it want to paint it in a positive light so they call it "birth control". Since when is abortion considered a viable form of birth control?
Interesting definition of access. I can't believe this country is denying my access to a lake house.
Well, if an employee doesn't like the benefits, or lack of benefits, then they can change jobs. How hard is that to understand?
How many employment opportunities do you think the employee taking the bus or walking to their job at HL has?
Are you freaking kidding? Did you use the term "pandora's box" when ACA was seen constitutional by the court. Does the idea that the Sec. of Health gets to interpret the law anyway they see fit open a "pandora's box"? What if the next President is a Republican and his/her Sec. of Health interprets the law to be non-executable? Shoe's on the other foot then, huh?
This is not so much a reaction to the ruling as question about the circumstances. If Mr. Green were a Muslim would Christians be so quick to defend his 'religious freedoms?" I hate to be cynical, but I doubt it.
I share your concern UNC. There are other laws and other religions. The court can limit this decision for now, but it years to come it will likely be a basis of other decisions. You can not limit corporate business concerns to "right to life/birth control" decisions. Secondly, corporations are created to separate the owners from the businesses for reducing the personal liability of the owners. This decision allows personal religious issues to negate the application of a law. Just seems this law raises many more issues than just Obamacare. I have always resented other peoples religious beliefs infringing on other peoples' lives, i.e. Blue laws and Sunday alcohol sales. This decision, as it is likely to be applied down the road, may be as big a problem as Obamacare.
Classic ignorant conservative post. Who wants to pay for health insurance? Nobody. So why do it? If you don't have much in terms of possessions, just go without insurance, pile up the bills when you go to the hospital, and then declare bankruptcy. Everyone else will pick up the tab.
If you got rear-ended by someone, would you want to pay for your car to get fixed? I'm guessing not. That's why people are forces to get car insurance. Same applies to health insurance. This way, we don't get stuck with someone's medical bill.
Now you're gonna say "well, we're probably paying their health insurance." Well, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The ACA is the only way (it is far from perfect) that we could start getting health care costs in line. Do give me this personal choice BS. You see where it got us in the last 3 decades.
If you got rear-ended by someone, would you want to pay for your car to get fixed? I'm guessing not. That's why people are forces to get car insurance. Same applies to health insurance. This way, we don't get stuck with someone's medical bill.
Now you're gonna say "well, we're probably paying their health insurance." Well, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The ACA is the only way (it is far from perfect) that we could start getting health care costs in line. Do give me this personal choice BS. You see where it got us in the last 3 decades.
BAM! No fvcking shit. I love to hear people that insist that Government is good. It's good for nothing. States Rights, or the interference of the Fed, will once again ignite this country....soon.
Virtually all of today's liberal posts are "classically ignorant". They ALWAYS lose in a rational argument. The only thing they now to do in a debate is to resort to personal attacks. They are devoid of common sense.
Maybe you should take time to read about it before posting 5 times in a thread about it. The ruling said that HL, as an entirely privately held entity, was exempt from ACA provisions compelling them to pay for a select number of BC options because they held a sincere belief that those BC options were contrary to their religion. Ruling doesn't apply to anyone other than entirely privately held entities. Doesn't apply to all BC. The court ruled that way because there's no compelling reason for the government to force HL to pay for those specific types of BC. No compelling reason equals someone else, most likely the government, will pay for it. Exactly zero additional children are going to be born on this earth because of today's ruling. Zero.
