ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case

[Skip8282]

No, bad news for America too

Rather than having a private employer pay a few dollars for contraception now we can all pay more to help support all these unwanted kids.  Also, the insurance companies get to pay a lot more for pre and post natal care and of course health care for all of these kids.

Of course, maybe a black market abortion system will just crop up like is starting to happen in Texas. 

Drama Queen #2

They objected to 4 of the 20 medicines required by Obamacare.  Yes - they're irrational with their religious beliefs, but there's still 16 other options being carried.

But yeah, let's act like we'll see a bunch of unwanted children now. 

[Straw Man]

Drama Queen #2

They objected to 4 of the 20 medicines required by Obamacare.  Yes - they're irrational with their religious beliefs, but there's still 16 other options being carried.

But yeah, let's act like we'll see a bunch of unwanted children now. 

No drama Skippy.  Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies

And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
 http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

[avxo]

No drama Skippy.  Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies

And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
 http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

Why should we as a society have to pay at all? I can see the case for having catastrophic health insurance available to everyone via something like Medicare. But why should employers and employees be compelled to offer health care coverage and to accept such coverage respectively?

Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to be able to forego the insurance my employer provides and negotiate a higher salary instead. Then I can choose the insurance company I think best suits my needs - if I even want health insurance to begin with. For some women, that might be health insurance that covers birth control; for others it might not.

[Straw Man]

Why should we as a society have to pay at all? I can see the case for having catastrophic health insurance available to everyone via something like Medicare. But why should employers and employees be compelled to offer health care coverage and to accept such coverage respectively?

Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to be able to forego the insurance my employer provides and negotiate a higher salary instead. Then I can choose the insurance company I think best suits my needs - if I even want health insurance to begin with. For some women, that might be health insurance that covers birth control; for others it might not.

let them skip insurance and we can just all pick up the bill the emergency room

Seriously though, what's a few pennies worth of contraception to this company.  I'm sure the insurance companies would rather provided pennies worth of contraception than thousands of dollars worth of pre/post natal insurance + ongoing costs after that.

This entire "religious freedom" argument is nonsense anyway.    Corporations can't have a religious point of view.
Maybe a Jewish owned corporation should look at this ruling and require all of their employees to stop eating pork.
Same goes for Muslim owned corporations. 

At the present time we have a conservative leaning court so we get conservative leaning decisions.  If the next POTUS is a Democrat then we will get a liberal leaning court and more liberal decisions.

I personally haven't followed any of these decisions.  I've got better things to do with my time

[Dos Equis]

Why should we as a society have to pay at all? I can see the case for having catastrophic health insurance available to everyone via something like Medicare. But why should employers and employees be compelled to offer health care coverage and to accept such coverage respectively?

Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to be able to forego the insurance my employer provides and negotiate a higher salary instead. Then I can choose the insurance company I think best suits my needs - if I even want health insurance to begin with. For some women, that might be health insurance that covers birth control; for others it might not.

I have no problem with contraception, but we should't be forced to provide it to anyone. 

[avxo]

I have no problem with contraception, but we should't be forced to provide it to anyone. 

I don't either. And if a company wants to provide it to employees, it should be able to, in the same that it's able to offer them free donuts, chips, coffee and soda, or discounts to a gym, or a local restaurant or whathaveyou. I do have a problem with a company being forced to provide such services to employees however.

let them skip insurance and we can just all pick up the bill the emergency room

False dichotomy. If the government wishes to cover catastrophic care, then it can do so through existing mechanisms, such as Medicare. A program aimed at providing such coverage would almost certainly meet with much broader support. But the government doesn't wish to do that. It wishes to cover everything and it wants to force health insurance down everyone's throat because of this "government knows best" mentality that has become prevalent.

Seriously though, what's a few pennies worth of contraception to this company.  I'm sure the insurance companies would rather provided pennies worth of contraception than thousands of dollars worth of pre/post natal insurance + ongoing costs after that.

The pennies worth of contraception are not the relevant issue. Neither is the "pennies now, or thousands later" bit.

 

This entire "religious freedom" argument is nonsense anyway.    Corporations can't have a religious point of view.

But the owners of that privately held corporation can - and some do.

Maybe a Jewish owned corporation should look at this ruling and require all of their employees to stop eating pork.

The better analogy would be: "this corporation is privately held and the owners are Jewish and they should not be forced to provide bacon if they wish to give their employees free breakfast." But you wouldn't want to use the better analogy would you?

Same goes for Muslim owned corporations.

I agree: corporations that are privately held by Muslims should not be forced to provide bacon if they choose to offer breakfast.

I personally haven't followed any of these decisions.  I've got better things to do with my time

In other words: I don't know what the fuck is going on, and I don't want to know since I've got better things to do with my time, like make comments on this topic which I haven't followed and I know little about.

[Soul Crusher]

 

I don't either. And if a company wants to provide it to employees, it should be able to, in the same that it's able to offer them free donuts, chips, coffee and soda, or discounts to a gym, or a local restaurant or whathaveyou. I do have a problem with a company being forced to provide such services to employees however.


False dichotomy. If the government wishes to cover catastrophic care, then it can do so through existing mechanisms, such as Medicare. A program aimed at providing such coverage would almost certainly meet with much broader support. But the government doesn't wish to do that. It wishes to cover everything and it wants to force health insurance down everyone's throat because of this "government knows best" mentality that has become prevalent.


The pennies worth of contraception are not the relevant issue. Neither is the "pennies now, or thousands later" bit.

 
But the owners of that privately held corporation can - and some do.

The better analogy would be: "this corporation is privately held and the owners are Jewish and they should not be forced to provide bacon if they wish to give their employees free breakfast." But you wouldn't want to use the better analogy would you?

I agree: corporations that are privately held by Muslims should not be forced to provide bacon if they choose to offer breakfast.


In other words: I don't know what the fuck is going on, and I don't want to know since I've got better things to do with my time, like make comments on this topic which I haven't followed and I know little about.

[Straw Man]

I don't either. And if a company wants to provide it to employees, it should be able to, in the same that it's able to offer them free donuts, chips, coffee and soda, or discounts to a gym, or a local restaurant or whathaveyou. I do have a problem with a company being forced to provide such services to employees however.


False dichotomy. If the government wishes to cover catastrophic care, then it can do so through existing mechanisms, such as Medicare. A program aimed at providing such coverage would almost certainly meet with much broader support. But the government doesn't wish to do that. It wishes to cover everything and it wants to force health insurance down everyone's throat because of this "government knows best" mentality that has become prevalent.


The pennies worth of contraception are not the relevant issue. Neither is the "pennies now, or thousands later" bit.

 
But the owners of that privately held corporation can - and some do.

The better analogy would be: "this corporation is privately held and the owners are Jewish and they should not be forced to provide bacon if they wish to give their employees free breakfast." But you wouldn't want to use the better analogy would you?

I agree: corporations that are privately held by Muslims should not be forced to provide bacon if they choose to offer breakfast.


In other words: I don't know what the fuck is going on, and I don't want to know since I've got better things to do with my time, like make comments on this topic which I haven't followed and I know little about.[/i]

this just happened today and I haven't been following it or anything else that happened in the news today.

BFD

Part of the reason that companies incorporate is so that the the owners can avoid personal liability.   If they want to avoid personal liability then I say they lose their ability to force their personal religious beliefs onto to their employees.  This is a company and not a church or religious institution.

4 justices ruled against Hobby Lobby and If I actually feel like investing some time maybe I'll read Bader Ginsbergs dissent and comment on it here but it's not likely.   

I also have less and less interest in this board and I'll post when/if it interests and entertains me to do so.

Just so there is no confusion I don't buy ANY of the religious arguments for any company or institution that doesn't want to comply with the ACA.   

I'd be fine if employers were completely out of the insurance business and I believe they should be but that's not going to happen any time soon

[Soul Crusher]

Poor obama must be wishing for a refund from harvard law no?

this just happened today and I haven't been following it or anything else that happened in the news today.

BFD

Part of the reason that companies incorporate is so that the the owners can avoid personal liability.   If they want to avoid personal liability then I say they lose their ability to force their personal religious beliefs onto to their employees.  This is a company and not a church or religious institution.

4 justices ruled against Hobby Lobby and If I actually feel like investing some time maybe I'll read Bader Ginsbergs dissent and comment on it here but it's not likely.   

I also have less and less interest in this board and I'll post when/if it interests and entertains me to do so.

Just so there is no confusion I don't buy ANY of the religious arguments for any company or institution that doesn't want to comply with the ACA.   

I'd be fine if employers were completely out of the insurance business and I believe they should be but that's not going to happen any time soon

[Straw Man]

Poor obama must be wishing for a refund from harvard law no?

4 justices voted against Hobby Lobby

We have a conservative leaning SC

if anyone should get a refund for law school it's a closet queen who spends 24 hours a day making pretty much the same posts over and over again

[flipper5470]

Even a liberal is smart enough to figure out that buying your own fucking birth control is cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy

[flipper5470]

WTF am I saying..that would require a sense of personal responsibility and self-reliance....those are completely foreign concepts to the average "where's my check" Obama voter.

[Princess L]

No drama Skippy.  Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies

And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
 http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

let them skip insurance and we can just all pick up the bill the emergency room

Seriously though, what's a few pennies worth of contraception to this company.  I'm sure the insurance companies would rather provided pennies worth of contraception than thousands of dollars worth of pre/post natal insurance + ongoing costs after that.

This entire "religious freedom" argument is nonsense anyway.    Corporations can't have a religious point of view.
Maybe a Jewish owned corporation should look at this ruling and require all of their employees to stop eating pork.
Same goes for Muslim owned corporations. 

At the present time we have a conservative leaning court so we get conservative leaning decisions.  If the next POTUS is a Democrat then we will get a liberal leaning court and more liberal decisions.

I personally haven't followed any of these decisions.  I've got better things to do with my time

Just HOW does NOT paying for contraception equate to more pregnancies or emergency room visits?

[avxo]

Just HOW does NOT paying for contraception equate to more pregnancies or emergency room visits?

You see... when mommy and daddy love each other too much, well... sometimes they get stuck together and doctors must help make them love each other less. This is called penis captivus.

[Straw Man]

Just HOW does NOT paying for contraception equate to more pregnancies or emergency room visits?

ok, this board is starting to get interesting at the moment

we're talking about a "relatively" small population (employee's of Hobby Lobby)

yes or no?

[flipper5470]

Not sure that matters...Court ruled "closely held" companies were exempt so in the end, the number of owners or shareholders is more important than the number of employees

[Princess L]

ok, this board is starting to get interesting at the moment

we're talking about a "relatively" small population (employee's of Hobby Lobby)

yes or no?

ahhhh... that would be a NO.   Again (think big picture), just how does NOT PAYING FOR it equate to more unwanted pregnancies and all that goes with it?

No drama Skippy.  Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies

And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
 http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

[Dos Equis]

Some pretty extreme misinformation out there:

"The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

[Archer77]

Birth control when used for the purposes of preventing pregnancy is not being prescribed to treat a medical condition.  The person is choosing to take the drug but it is not necessary for the health of the person.   When a woman is prescribed birth control medication for a condition like excessive cramping it should be covered by medical insurance because its treating an actual medical condition.

[Archer77]

No drama Skippy.  Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies

And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
 http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

The whole back alley abortions will become rampant is an old worn out slippery slope argument overused by the left.

[I ETA PI]

Even a liberal is smart enough to figure out that buying your own fucking birth control is cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy

A liberal would just think that evil rich people should pay for both anyway

[Princess L]

A liberal would just think that evil rich people should pay for both anyway

[GigantorX]

Only certain birth control methods were exempt from being paid for.

Plan B, IUD's and one or two others.

As far as I know the lil' chickadee's can still get the pill and such. Not like the pill is all that expensive anyways.

[RRKore]

Hmmm.  Think I've just changed my mind about this issue:

Supreme Court Upholds Little Caesar’s Right to Feed Christian Employees to Lions
July 1, 2014 by Matt Horgan



WASHINGTON, DC–The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Roman-owned pizza chain Little Caesar’s was within its rights to place Christian employees in an arena and then unleash starved, vicious lions and lionesses upon them. The court cited religious freedom as its guiding principle. The 5-to-4 ruling opened the door to potentially thousands of Christian Little Caesar employees nationwide being immediately fed to the top predators of the African savannah.

Little Caesar’s argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty.

The 5 conservative Justices agreed. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, the author of the majority opinion, wrote:

    "While it is debatable that some harm may come to any Christians fed to a lion or lioness, there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires."

A Christian employee of the company, Ed Broyles, expressed dismay at the decision. “They’re gonna fuckin’ feed me to a motherfucking lion? But I only ever go to church on like Easter!”, he said, shaking visibly and sweating. “Jesus H Christ on a cracker, I’ve got a fucking family!”

Little Caesar owner and CEO, Little Caesar himself, applauded the ruling. When asked how soon his company would begin killing off its Christian employees he responded, “Carpe Diem.”

http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court-upholds-little-caesars-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/

[RRKore]

Some pretty extreme misinformation out there:

"The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

That the ruling only applied to 4 of the 20 methods of birth control was my understanding, too, until I saw this today:

Justices act in other health law mandate cases
Associated Press
July 1, 2014 10:23 AM


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.

Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.

More here:
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html