Oh So Godly Hobby Lobby Holy Hobbie Horse Decision Discussion

[NobleSavage]

Maybe if Hobby Lobby had to pay for daycare they would feel different.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe if Hobby Lobby had to pay for daycare they would feel different.

Right-Wing Credo

Life begins at conception, while social obligations to the baby end at birth.

 

[ksen]

2. Health care providers already struggle to stay afloat with large numbers of medicare patients and often limit the number of medicaid patients they can take. This is not out of maliciousness but because medicaid reimbursements often fall FAR short of actual cost of treatment and medicare is following close behind, with other insurers following medicare's lead. This is why so many health care providers struggle and why there is an increasing push to have most medical care provided by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. I used to be in favor of nurse practitioners taking over many of the basic exams, etc. but in the last 10 years or so, locally I know of many cases where the nurse practitioners exceed their training and are unwilling to entertain that the patient might be presenting with something more serious, requiring more in depth medical exams. I am quite confident that they experience pressure from the clinic management to keep visits at the lowest level possible. After all, most patients do only simply have common, every day minor illnesses. But I know of multiple cases of serious medical conditions where diagnosis was delayed because the nurse practitioner would not refer to a physician, including more than one patient with cancer, and more than one patient who ended up dying unnecessarily.

I hear what you're saying but how much of that exorbitant cost of treatment is due to bloated prices of drugs and high prices set by profit-seeking entities?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

2. Health care providers already struggle to stay afloat with large numbers of medicare patients and often limit the number of medicaid patients they can take. This is not out of maliciousness but because medicaid reimbursements often fall FAR short of actual cost of treatment and medicare is following close behind, with other insurers following medicare's lead. This is why so many health care providers struggle and why there is an increasing push to have most medical care provided by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. I used to be in favor of nurse practitioners taking over many of the basic exams, etc. but in the last 10 years or so, locally I know of many cases where the nurse practitioners exceed their training and are unwilling to entertain that the patient might be presenting with something more serious, requiring more in depth medical exams. I am quite confident that they experience pressure from the clinic management to keep visits at the lowest level possible. After all, most patients do only simply have common, every day minor illnesses. But I know of multiple cases of serious medical conditions where diagnosis was delayed because the nurse practitioner would not refer to a physician, including more than one patient with cancer, and more than one patient who ended up dying unnecessarily.

I hear what you're saying but how much of that exorbitant cost of treatment is due to bloated prices of drugs and high prices set by profit-seeking entities?

One of the worst parts of our system is that we have no idea how much any of this stuff actually costs!

 

[fromderinside]

Well, the good news is, they ruled that any type of birth control can be axed.

Is that a premeptive against the government or is it an invitation to other closely held to not bother sing since you're already protected.

I'm interested in what "tightly held" means.

 

[maxparrish]

This is a very narrow opinion, intentionally crafted to provide a five vote majority by dodging broader constitutional issues. Volokh Conspiracy does an excellent job summarizing the opinion and dissent. To my mind, it is of very minor significance with regards to ACA.

No it didn't.

And this isn't quite so narrow as the procedures in which a closely held corporation that has apparently found god can reject in coverage has not been established! The only narrow thing is that five justices felt it necessary to create an arbitrary demarcation between closely held corps and otherwise corporations, which seems quite ummm... arbitrary.

Whether this is a 1st Amendment or otherwise issue is irrelevant as either case requires one to view a piece of paper as having a religion, which is preposterous.

Under the majority opinion the relevancy of 1st Amendment protection was NOT decided upon because the RFRA already protects religious exercise (acts motivated by religious conviction), which (by the way) says nothing about pieces of paper holding a system of religious belief. Th RFRA makes clear that what is protected is religious exercise by a legal "person" whether or not such excerciseis compelled by a system of religious belief.

So the question was on of determination if the conduct is a religious exercise, for whom, and the criteria to be met by government in order to ignore its RFRA protections.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,”42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Admin

I somewhat agree with the arbitrariness (in reality, they should explicitly protected any form of organization) BUT it is actually HHS that started making arbitrary designations; apparently they decided that RFRA exercise protections cover persons are both individuals and organizations, including non-profit corporations BUT not for profit corporations. One wonders, what definition of a "person" includes corporate non-profits but not for profits?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No it didn't.

And this isn't quite so narrow as the procedures in which a closely held corporation that has apparently found god can reject in coverage has not been established! The only narrow thing is that five justices felt it necessary to create an arbitrary demarcation between closely held corps and otherwise corporations, which seems quite ummm... arbitrary.

Whether this is a 1st Amendment or otherwise issue is irrelevant as either case requires one to view a piece of paper as having a religion, which is preposterous.

Under the opinion the 1st Amendment protection was NOT decided because the RFRA already protects religious exercise (acts motivated by religious conviction) - it says nothing about pieces of paper holding a system of religious belief. does it? It makes clear that what is protected is religious exercise by a legal "person" whether or not it is compelled by a system of religious belief.

But a corporation can't have beliefs. A corporation is a legal entity that exists only on paper. A corporation is shielded from certain liabilities and is also required to meet certain regulations. A corporation can not have religious affiliation as it is anthropomorphic.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,”42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Admin

Here is the rub, what exactly is restrictive about a health care provider providing a service? Health care provider gives the birth control to the patient. The insurance provider subsequently reimburses for the birth control. At what point is the privately held corporation involved at all in that process?

 

[Togo]

Well, the good news is, they ruled that any type of birth control can be axed.

Is that a premeptive against the government or is it an invitation to other closely held to not bother sing since you're already protected.

I'm interested in what "tightly held" means.

Usually it is a reference to absolute control of the company resting in a majority shareholder, or group of majority shareholders. In other words, a diverse population of decision-makers can't be said to have a religious conviction, but a single person/group with the majority of the shares can.

Whether that's the case here, is another matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is that a premeptive against the government or is it an invitation to other closely held to not bother sing since you're already protected.

I'm interested in what "tightly held" means.

Usually it is a reference to absolute control of the company resting in a majority shareholder, or group of majority shareholders. In other words, a diverse population of decision-makers can't be said to have a religious conviction, but a single person/group with the majority of the shares can.

Whether that's the case here, is another matter.

But isn't that most companies, especially the smaller ones? Is non-profit applicable here in the definition?

 

[ksen]

Here is the rub, what exactly is restrictive about a health care provider providing a service? Health care provider gives the birth control to the patient. The insurance provider subsequently reimburses for the birth control. At what point is the privately held corporation involved at all in that process?

And let's not forget that the insurance company Hobby Lobby is paying money to is still using that money to reimburse for birth control on everyone covered by that company that is not a Hobby Lobby employee. So the only logical thing to do is for Hobby Lobby to stop doing business with any insurance company that reimburses anyone for birth control.

Unless it was never really about that in the first place. :hmmm:

 

[Shadowy Man]

Under the majority opinion the relevancy of 1st Amendment protection was NOT decided upon because the RFRA already protects religious exercise (acts motivated by religious conviction), which (by the way) says nothing about pieces of paper holding a system of religious belief. Th RFRA makes clear that what is protected is religious exercise by a legal "person" whether or not such excerciseis compelled by a system of religious belief.

Exactly which exercise is being infringed here? How are the owners of Hobby Lobby unable to exercise their religion?

 

[coloradoatheist]

But a corporation can't have beliefs. A corporation is a legal entity that exists only on paper. A corporation is shielded from certain liabilities and is also required to meet certain regulations. A corporation can not have religious affiliation as it is anthropomorphic.

Every single corporation/organization/group has its own set of culture and beliefs. KMart has different beliefs than Walmart. The NRA believes different things than Planned Parenthood. How does one group decide whether it will care about issue X. By your reasoning, they can't.

]Here is the rub, what exactly is restrictive about a health care provider providing a service? Health care provider gives the birth control to the patient. The insurance provider subsequently reimburses for the birth control. At what point is the privately held corporation involved at all in that process?

Condoms aren't provided by health care providers. Every time a company chooses which insurance policy they will offer their employees, they have to decide what they offer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Every single corporation/organization/group has its own set of culture and beliefs. KMart has different beliefs than Walmart. The NRA believes different things than Planned Parenthood. How does one group decide whether it will care about issue X. By your reasoning, they can't.

A company can be guided by people based on a mission statement, but a company itself can not have religious beliefs. Corporations have to meet regulations.

]Here is the rub, what exactly is restrictive about a health care provider providing a service? Health care provider gives the birth control to the patient. The insurance provider subsequently reimburses for the birth control. At what point is the privately held corporation involved at all in that process?

Condoms aren't provided by health care providers. Every time a company chooses which insurance policy they will offer their employees, they have to decide what they offer.

But they are typically uninvolved with the providing of health care. The corporation doesn't know who is using what. So how in the world can it be restrictive on them?

Here is the rub, what exactly is restrictive about a health care provider providing a service? Health care provider gives the birth control to the patient. The insurance provider subsequently reimburses for the birth control. At what point is the privately held corporation involved at all in that process?

And let's not forget that the insurance company Hobby Lobby is paying money to is still using that money to reimburse for birth control on everyone covered by that company that is not a Hobby Lobby employee. So the only logical thing to do is for Hobby Lobby to stop doing business with any insurance company that reimburses anyone for birth control.

Unless it was never really about that in the first place. :hmmm:

Just imagine how many alleged babies were lost because of the emergency contraception that Hobby Lobby was helping to pay for by doing business with a godless insurance company!

 

[ksen]

Hobby Lobby's statement of purpose:

Statement of Purpose

In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.

Offering our customers an exceptional selection and value.

Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals, and nurture families.

Providing a return on the owners' investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.

We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.

I gotta say that nothing builds character like denying your employees access to insurance provided birth control.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A company can be guided by people based on a mission statement, but a company itself can not have religious beliefs. Corporations have to meet regulations.

The question isn't that groups have to meet regulations, it's what those regulations can be and what happens when they compete with something protected.

But they are typically uninvolved with the providing of health care. The corporation doesn't know who is using what. So how in the world can it be restrictive on them?

Because for most health care services, they aren't questionable, except a few of them are to certain groups.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I gotta say that nothing builds character like denying your employees access to insurance provided birth control.

They aren't hiding their beliefs. I won't shop at Hobby Lobby.

 

[ksen]

The question isn't that groups have to meet regulations, it's what those regulations can be and what happens when they compete with something protected.

But they are typically uninvolved with the providing of health care. The corporation doesn't know who is using what. So how in the world can it be restrictive on them?

Because for most health care services, they aren't questionable, except a few of them are to certain groups.

It doesn't seem to bother Hobby Lobby to give money to cover the birth control of all the other insurance company's members. Don't you think if it was a sincerely held religious belief that they'd stop doing business with any insurance company that follow the birth control mandate?

- - - Updated - - -

I gotta say that nothing builds character like denying your employees access to insurance provided birth control.

They aren't hiding their beliefs. I won't shop at Hobby Lobby.

You may not be buying their goods but you certainly are buying their bullshit argument about why they don't want to have birth control in their employees' health insurance policies.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This doesn't have to do with Hobby Lobbys religious beliefs. If it did they would be heavily invested in companies that make contraception and abortion equipment. (OOPS!)

This only has to do with their political beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question isn't that groups have to meet regulations, it's what those regulations can be and what happens when they compete with something protected.

Such protections become questionable when a corporation is formed because a corporation is a compromise with the Government, which trades away some rights in the form of regulations for certain protections from liabilities.

But they are typically uninvolved with the providing of health care. The corporation doesn't know who is using what. So how in the world can it be restrictive on them?

Because for most health care services, they aren't questionable, except a few of them are to certain groups.

What Hobby Lobby was protesting wasn't even an "abortion drug". The drug busted its buns to prevent a pregnancy from happening, not aborting one. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called the Morning After Pill, because if it waited a few weeks or a month, it wouldn't work!

So clearly even where there is a non-controversial health care service, there can be controversy attached to it. Want another example, vaccinations. Vaccinations have undoubtedly save tens to hundreds of thousands to maybe even millions of lives (in America alone), and protect tens to hundreds of millions of people (in America alone) from very bad diseases. They have been proven, as in actually proven or at least as proven as science can reach, to be safe. Yet there is controversy over them with some people.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This doesn't have to do with Hobby Lobbys religious beliefs. If it did they would be heavily invested in companies that make contraception and abortion equipment. (OOPS!)

This only has to do with their political beliefs.

And if that's the case, which I have no problem either, was a big fight for something very small.