Hobby Lobby Decision

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/30/326926331/companies-can-refuse-to-cover-contraception-supreme-court-says

I respect the decision by the court, but I am having a hard time seeing anything but a ridiculously slippery slope here.

What will employers reject on religious grounds next?

The unintended effects of the Aereo decision are already reverberating, and that just came out a few days ago. How long until the first religious objection suit is filed for "x" issue?

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Here's a great quote that should sit really well with our Libertarian/Conservative friends:

goofyboy · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:00 am Post subject:

Good decision. I can't wait until the next religious suit is filed. Maybe a Jahovah Witness can claim exemption for transfusions.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

goofyboy, well, you'd be talking about a corp that was majority owned by Jehovahs, but yes, that is certainly a possibility.

I'm wondering what would stop a corp's management from using religion to claim any number of things violate their beliefs.

They flat out said that the Aereo decision was limited to Aereo. Then, a day later, Fox is suing Dish on the basis of Aereo...

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:18 am Post subject:

Why can't health insurance be an individual purchase? Takes all this Bull away. If your a fat Bubb Rubb your insurance is more, keep medicare for the uninsurable. Probably just too damn logical to work. Laughing

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

eeven73, that would be fine, so long as it was not a voluntary system. It would also penalize the poorest, as well as penalize for issues beyond the control of some.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

What about vaccinations?

Or, could a company refuse to provide insurance covering prenatal visits for single mothers?

Could they agree to pay for prenatal visits only if the single mother agrees to give the child up for adoption?

How about HIV meds?

Or any health care for homosexuals?

Could a company refuse to pay for treatment for a condition if they don't approve of the behavior that resulted in the condition? (an infected tattoo, an STI?)

Should the Hobby Lobby have to provide 2-5 days off with pay for women who were using birth control pills to regulate their periods, who now might be in pain during their periods?

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:47 am Post subject:

Agreed. with Chavez

Make it mandatory. Not sure why you say penalizes the poorest, unless you mean it penalizes the poorest the same way $4 gas and $5 hamburger penalize the poorest. As far a penalizing those with issues beyond there control life isn't fair, it doesn't make any sense to me that insurance shouldn't/can't be sold based on the quantifiable risk of the individual. If it started today those that are uninsurable go into Medicare.

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

eeven73, I dunno about you, but I'd rather the pool be massive and everyone be included so the costs can be spread out among the largest amount of people. It is sold based on quantifiable risk, it's just that risk is a pool, not an individual.

The way I see it, if as a country I was looking to cut costs, I'd want every last person to be insured, even if that meant supplementing the lower income, so that their medical bills didn't become obligations of the treasury. That is the very essence of the ACA.

What you are offering is one step away from single-payer. You shove a massive chunk of folks into Medicare/caid - you shove a massive chunk of people into a single-payer system. Why not, right? People over 65 and veterans are already there.........

brew · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 11:13 am Post subject:

Unless I missed it, isn't this primarily directed at Plan B type contraception, not birth control in general?

Does that then mean a Catholic controlled company could remove coverage for all contraceptive means and mandate the pull and pray method?

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Nor*Cal, I know this. That's beside the point. The point is for-profit corporations just got the green light to skirt the law based on religious "objections".

How do you quantify what is a valid religious objection and what is not? We can't! The courts will ultimately have to decide. This has clusterfvck (plus BONUS, law firms get PAID) written all over it.

It is not the job of SCOTUS to write law, so I can't totally fault them for the mess of unintended consequences they create. But damn, they are really good at creating them.

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

chavez, Single payer if done properly actually costs far less per capita than ACA or status quo prior to ACA. Once the insurers went neutral on ACA the public was F'd!.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 11:21 am Post subject:

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

eeven73, it would take a strong setup, meaning the penalties for stepping out of line (fraud, incompetence, mismanagement) would need severe penalties. The VA clearly needs reforms like those, and I'm guessing that some steps will be taken to make it less dysfunctional given the scandalous way it's been run.

But I digress, we've gone a bit off tangent here.

I think where we diverge mostly is the idea of risk classification. The idea that you give a private company the power to decline someone and force them on to gov't rolls is not really a good one. The insurers would just accept the healthiest and leave the rest for the taxpayers to pay for. It's a bad idea for medical insurance, but a great idea for life insurance, car insurance, heck, pretty much any P&C line where the alternative isn't the taxpayers footing the bill.

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 11:41 am Post subject:

I don't care if the death penalty is the result of stepping out of line, without a profit motive markets don't work. I would bet big that we are right back here with the VA within 10 years no matter what marvelous reforms are made.

I get it and the line of demarcation for Uninsurable would have to be steep.

It ain't happening anyway so there is that. I guess my thesis is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have employers involved in an individuals health care.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

jason_ssr · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 1:26 pm Post subject:

Not a big deal. I realize that the way we are headed we may no longer get to choose our employment, but as of right now we still can still choose to only work for companies that provide the benefits we want.

Companies like Hobby Lobby wont be able to find anyone to work for them so they will either change or go under, right? Isn't that how free markets work?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

That would be true if the economy was not in a bad way.

I wonder if this will effect mostly poor people. I'm not sure many people would choose to work at hobby lobby if they could get better employment with better pay.

At least they still will fund other contraceptives. Though, doesn't this set a precedent that they could choose not to?

The idea that there is really a "free" market is an illusion. The further the separation between haves and have-nots, the less "free" the market becomes.

brew · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 4:32 pm Post subject:

nmballa · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 5:47 pm Post subject:

nmballa · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 6:01 pm Post subject:

jgriffith · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 6:15 pm Post subject:

nmballa, highest cost and the best...ill take it

Where do rich people from other countries go for healthcare? Idea

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Why do people use that argument? We have a mediocre record on outcomes. And that is being generous. It doesnt matter that wealthy people can pay for better service if we can't even take care of our own.

The more time I have to think about the potential future lawsuits using this as precedent, the more I think the justices royally fuxed this up. Job security for lawyers though, hurray for that. :/

jgriffith · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 6:50 pm Post subject:

Why do people make that argument? Maybe Because it's true???

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

RampageWake · Posted: Jun 30, 2014 7:03 pm Post subject:

We don't need government sponsored contraception, we need government sponsored sterilization!

jason_ssr · Posted: Jul 01, 2014 7:52 am Post subject:

Well, the free market has two sides, buy and sell. The sell side is manipulating the market to their benefit. The buy side (us) is not using its buying power to balance it. We dictate the actions of companies with our buying practices. If you don't like Hobby Lobby, Walmart, Chick-fil-A, or any other establishments practices, stop shopping there. They will change. We are too lazy to exercise our side of the free market, yet complain when businesses act in a way we disagree with.

I want to support manufacturing in the US, so I try to buy American when I can. I shop at family owned stores when I can. I would say I'm 80% successful. Is it more expensive? Sometimes. Is it harder? Yes, the chain HW stores are both closer than the family owned HW store. Am I making a difference? Maybe.... but its all I can do.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

This is very similar to the ruling regarding Prop 8. If a law directly infringes on rights that are protected by the Constitution, it shouldn't be upheld. They ruled correctly against Prop 8 and ruled correctly, along the same lines, here.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

I just read that this decision includes the IUD.

Well, that puts me over the top.

Bad decision.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Neognosis, no kidding. A completely passive form of BC and it's a no go. Idiotic.

Mark my words, there will be a suit from a "closely held" company owned by Catholics that will attempt to remove all forms of BC from their plan.