Hobby Lobby

[Resha Caner]

Hobby Lobby case: 9 justices to watch - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Kagan: “One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.”

I don't care for Kagan's views, but she gets the prize for pinpointing the actual issue in this case. My reply would be, "Yep, that's what's going to happen." The Feds should never have taken on this issue in the first place.

 

[poolerboy0077]

The Feds should never have taken on this issue in the first place.

What do you mean? Hobby Lobby was the one who file the lawsuit, no? Or did you mean to say the SCOTUS should have never granted cert.?

 

[Psalm 91]

Hobby Lobby case: 9 justices to watch - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Kagan: “One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.”

I don't care for Kagan's views, but she gets the prize for pinpointing the actual issue in this case. My reply would be, "Yep, that's what's going to happen." The Feds should never have taken on this issue in the first place.

They should have taken this case IMO because otherwise, Hobby Lobby would be fined millions of dollars by a tyrannical anti-Christian government. There is no one who is fair-minded in the government and that is why they had to go this far.

Eric Holder is the anti-Christian mouthpiece for an anti-Christian Obama. He's not only a poor Attorney General, he's a poor attorney.

And Elena Kagan is simply a left-winger. She is a pro-Democrat, left wing apologist. Her comment was only an attempt to sway the court. Obama doesn't just choose liberals, he chooses extreme liberals.

 

[poolerboy0077]

They should have taken this case IMO because otherwise, Hobby Lobby would be fined millions of dollars by a tyrannical anti-Christian government. There is no one who is fair-minded in the government and that is why they had to go this far.

Eric Holder is the anti-Christian mouthpiece for an anti-Christian Obama. He's not only a poor Attorney General, he's a poor attorney.

And Elena Kagan is simply a left-winger. She is a pro-Democrat, left wing apologist. Her comment was only an attempt to sway the court. Obama doesn't just choose liberals, he chooses extreme liberals.

Yak, yak, yak, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

This is why I often hate politics.

 

[katautumn]

This would have never been an issue if medical insurance had continued to be treated as an employment perk rather than some inalienable right.

 

[Resha Caner]

What do you mean?

I basically meant what KatAutumn is saying. The Federal government shouldn't be in the business of trying to guarantee medical insurance.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I basically meant what KatAutumn is saying. The Federal government shouldn't be in the business of trying to guarantee medical insurance.

Well that's because it's an historical accident in this country that healthcare is attached to employers. We've been, up till recently, the only advanced industrialized nation that permits large numbers of its people to languish without health insurance. But I think this is beside the point. This issue would persist even without government giving companies the option to either pay a tax or provide certain care to employees because the deeper principle, it seems, is about the scope of religious liberty in society. As Justice Sotomayor asked, "[W]e have a tax code that applies to everybody, but we have a million exemptions. Does the creation of the exemption relieve me from paying taxes when I have a sincere religious belief that taxes are immoral?" The same principle applies to the heated issue of businesses and their ability to associate with whomever they wish and provide services that go against their religious conscience, like baking cakes for certain weddings. Methinks this was just a matter of time before it reached the courts.

 

[sculleywr]

The problem I have with this issue is that religious freedom does not extend you the right to prevent women from receiving treatment that can restore their fertility (the reverse of contraception).

The birth control pill is used, in 58% of cases, as a means to "reboot" an unstable menstrual cycle, or for other treatments that don't actually involve birth control as the end goal.

In addition, the language of their proposal also gives them the right to revoke coverage for hysterectomies, oopherectomies, and other surgeries that have the result of infertility, as they could, theoretically, be used as a means of contraception. This despite the fact that they are used mostly as life saving procedures

 

[bhsmte]

I basically meant what KatAutumn is saying. The Federal government shouldn't be in the business of trying to guarantee medical insurance.

Why not?

 

[Billnew]

Because its none of thier business.

What we needed was limitation on Medical insurance power and consequences for the companies actions. We didn't need a take over of the whole industry.

Insurance perks are an agreeement between the worker and their employer.
Now its a mandate that keeps being moved back.

If government requires specific items to be included in health insurance, then it will infringe on someones religious beliefs. Then the employer and employee will be worse off, because they agreed to great coverage without certain things, but if they can't limit those things, they can't offer anything.

Government requirements should be the minimal, not the most they can get away with.

 

[Resha Caner]

The problem I have with this issue is that religious freedom does not extend you the right to prevent women from receiving treatment that can restore their fertility (the reverse of contraception).

I'm not preventing women from seeking that treatment. If they can pay for it, they can get the treatment. The way you phrase it, however, you are claiming a right - an entitlement - to take my money and use it to pay for someone else's treatment even if I think that treatment is immoral.

If my money is involved, I have a right to participate in the decision for how it is spent - unless you're going to deny me that right.

Methinks this was just a matter of time before it reached the courts.

It was. Pluralism is certain to always have this conflict. You seem to think employers are not the right people to offer health care benefits (and I agree), so who would you offer as the alternative? In reality, it's not employers anymore, but government working through employers. So, I don't see (secular) government as a solution either. IMO churches would be the better option. I haven't studied the history of church hospitals, but they used to be the major caregiver in western nations.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The problem I have with this issue is that religious freedom does not extend you the right to prevent women from receiving treatment that can restore their fertility (the reverse of contraception).

The birth control pill is used, in 58% of cases, as a means to "reboot" an unstable menstrual cycle, or for other treatments that don't actually involve birth control as the end goal.

Well, birth control in my family has caused way more issues with fertility than anything else.

Plus, no one is preventing women from getting this treatment.

IUDs and the morning after pill generally aren't given for hormone treatment. IUDs often CAUSE hormonal imbalances.

Remember, Hobby Lobby provided 16 out of the 20 birth control options already. Doesn't seem like they're trying to prevent anything.

In addition, the language of their proposal also gives them the right to revoke coverage for hysterectomies, oopherectomies, and other surgeries that have the result of infertility, as they could, theoretically, be used as a means of contraception. This despite the fact that they are used mostly as life saving procedures

I think that's a stretch of the language.

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to prevent surgeries that may result in infertility. They merely don't want to pay for four drugs that they deem are pregnancy-ending drugs. Let's face it - especially with the morning-after pill - these drugs aren't used as life-saving drugs.

Birth control really was the wrong mountain for ACA to make its stand on.

 

[HannahT]

In addition, the language of their proposal also gives them the right to revoke coverage for hysterectomies, oopherectomies, and other surgeries that have the result of infertility, as they could, theoretically, be used as a means of contraception. This despite the fact that they are used mostly as life saving procedures

Yet, they never used that right (as you put it) prior to the law....AND that is not what the lawsuit is about. Note: Those things are already covered PRIOR to the law on their plan. Also I'm not sure I agree with your opinion.

They don't wish to offer 4 our of 20 forms, because of their religious beliefs. They are in the category of the Morning After bill.

Remember we have the exchange available, and if the employees feel the MUST have those things - they can use it. Its not like they are barred from this.

I may not like parts of this law either, but we all have to bend a little here. I can't tell you how many headlines I read on this subject that claimed they wanted to take away birth control altogether. That a deceptive practice gets people all worked up into a lather, and sadly that is NOT what the issue is.

Why is it most media outlets don't think people are smart enough to reach the 'right' opinion without twisting the truth? Maybe because people wouldn't get so rightly upset over taking it 'all' away? Because it doesn't say that, and could be viewed a bit more reasonable compared to the way they presented this!

I swear the media are getting worse in the drama queen antics. People may not still like the 'truth', but at least they heard it. Yesh!

Do the employees still have options if this lawsuit is successful? Yes. That was NOT taken away.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Kagan: “One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.”

I don't care for Kagan's views, but she gets the prize for pinpointing the actual issue in this case. My reply would be, "Yep, that's what's going to happen."

Yep, if corporations win this 'religious freedom', companies that are Jehovah's Witnesses will be able to remove blood transfusions from their employees' insurance coverage. Who knows, maybe faith-healing companies will be able to get out of Obamacare altogether.

 

[cow451]

Because its none of thier business.

What we needed was limitation on Medical insurance power and consequences for the companies actions. We didn't need a take over of the whole industry.

Insurance perks are an agreeement between the worker and their employer.
Now its a mandate that keeps being moved back.

If government requires specific items to be included in health insurance, then it will infringe on someones religious beliefs. Then the employer and employee will be worse off, because they agreed to great coverage without certain things, but if they can't limit those things, they can't offer anything.

Government requirements should be the minimal, not the most they can get away with.

The ACA is the best thing that happened to insurance companies since the first car wreck with injuries. The only real insurance companies have is the cap on the percentage of claims dollars that can be used for "non-claims" purposes.

 

[HannahT]

Yep, if corporations win this 'religious freedom', companies that are Jehovah's Witnesses will be able to remove blood transfusions from their employees' insurance coverage. Who knows, maybe faith-healing companies will be able to get out of Obamacare altogether.

Well there is always the government exchange right? (shrugs) People can dream up all kinds of things, but they always have the exchange...and that way they are not 'out' anything.

The option is NOT off the table here. Health insurance has been used as a tool to recruit in the past, and that may not be that big of a option anymore. So even if you do work for the Jehovah's Witnesses - they can't stop you from the blood transfusions. The faith-healing companies may not exercise their USE of the healthcare, but according to the law everyone must have some sort of plan. That's a bad example. We are talking procedures, or products - not completely opting out.

 

[Paulos23]

Hobby Lobby has a choice under the current law, they can pay the pentlty tax for not giving required coverage, or they can drop the insurance and give their employees the money the insurance would have cost them and let them go on the exange. They might even get away with conecting themsleves to a church and call what they do outreach.

What Hobby Lobby wants is to keep control of the insurance plan (and their employees) as well as getting a tax break for giving employee's insurance that doesn't meet ACA requirements. They want to have their cake and eat it too, even though the law gives them an option that would meet the owners religious requirements.

It comes down to some people at the top of Hobby Lobby wanting to enforce their religious believes on their company while getting the benifits of being a public company.

 

[HannahT]

Hobby Lobby has a choice under the current law, they can pay the pentlty tax for not giving required coverage, or they can drop the insurance and give their employees the money the insurance would have cost them and let them go on the exange. They might even get away with conecting themsleves to a church and call what they do outreach.

What Hobby Lobby wants is to keep control of the insurance plan (and their employees) as well as getting a tax break for giving employee's insurance that doesn't meet ACA requirements. They want to have their cake and eat it too, even though the law gives them an option that would meet the owners religious requirements.

It comes down to some people at the top of Hobby Lobby wanting to enforce their religious believes on their company while getting the benifits of being a public company.

even though the law gives them an option that would meet the owners religious requirements.

What option?

In order to 'keep control of their employees' you would be forced to show HOW they do that, and you can't. They do have other options available to them. They have state and federal exchanges - so there is no 'control' here.

The federal government stated that they would work with companies on issues like that, and they should. They have given 'opt out' for loads of other circumstances, and they have to show now how this circumstance is different. Just because people don't agree with their views doesn't make it malicious. I swear the definition of tolerance today is hypocritical.

Claiming they want to 'control' their employees isn't going to fly in court. They also are not forced to give the employees the money to go on the exchange to get a policy that more suits their family, but if I were guessing they may do that anyway.

My goodness you would think this company is asking for the MOON here.

 

[Resha Caner]

It comes down to some people at the top of Hobby Lobby wanting to enforce their religious believes on their company while getting the benifits of being a public company.

I find this statement curious. So, if they were a private company, you would be OK with them opting not to provide this service?

So, what "benefit" exactly are they getting as a public company that is connected to the issue of health care? It seems to me the benefit of being a public company is largely the ability to attract investors ... which is not some type of communal ownership that places them under the will of the people.

I mean, you mention the choices Hobby Lobby has. The employees also have choices - such as not working for a company who does something they disagree with. Their customers have choices - not to buy from them. So what benefit are you referring to? I'm not a business expert so you might know of something I'm unaware of.

 

[Paulos23]

I find this statement curious. So, if they were a private company, you would be OK with them opting not to provide this service?

So, what "benefit" exactly are they getting as a public company that is connected to the issue of health care? It seems to me the benefit of being a public company is largely the ability to attract investors ... which is not some type of communal ownership that places them under the will of the people.

I mean, you mention the choices Hobby Lobby has. The employees also have choices - such as not working for a company who does something they disagree with. Their customers have choices - not to buy from them. So what benefit are you referring to? I'm not a business expert so you might know of something I'm unaware of.

Public as in open to the public. They sell to the public, not just to Christians. The benift is being able to attract more customers outside their religion, while pushing Christian theamed products on them.

Look, if they could get every employee to agree to work under Christian values and stated that not using contracepives what one of their values, I bet they wouldn't have as many employees as they have now.

And you know that in this econamy that even if you have a job, finding another one is still very hard. The 'choice' you state for some of them is the choice of starving and loosing a roof over their heads and working for a company that they don't agree with every value. So I find the choice arguement a bit week for those close to the poverty line.