Oh So Godly Hobby Lobby Holy Hobbie Horse Decision Discussion

[ksen]

So the "right" that they don't have is the "right" to demand that their employer provided health insurance, paid for by both parties, include something the employer doesn't want to include.

They are having their "right" to dictate how their employer spend the employer's money.

If you were right about how the employer is denying them the right to specific forms of healthcare, then the employer would be saying "you may not take your pay, after it has landed in your bank account and we no longer have any control over it, and spend it on specific healthcare practices."

I don't see Hobby Lobby inserting clauses into their employees paycheck dictating what their employees are allowed or forbidden to buy with their pay.

It sounds like you are suggesting that Hobby Lobby is offering their employees a kick-back of the money that should be spent on healthcare and is not so that the employees are now able to direct it. Is that what you are claiming? I did not hear that Hobby Lobby was offering that. I heard that they were simply reducing benefits without increasing pay.


edited to add:


When you are offered employment, you are offered a "compensation package". AND YOU ARE TAXED ON IT because it is YOUR compensation. It is compensation. Not a corporate expense. Compensation. To YOU. See the tax code on this. It is not rocket surgery.

I was wrong on the above. Normal plans are not taxed as wages. I still maintain that they are part of the benefits package that is used to compensate employees and as such are considered as part of a compensation conversation in all employment discussions.

Of course they are. I've worked for a number of companies where I had to put together a sheet at the end of each year totaling the wages/salary, employer paid insurance, workman's comp, and unemployment insurance so that the bosses could tell the employees the total amount of their compensation. Management clearly views benefits paid by the employer as part of the employee's compensation . . . until that view doesn't suit their needs anyways.

eta: and those sheets were invariably used by the bosses to justify not having to give raises

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A common excuse for not giving raises is benefit cost hikes. (Meanwhile profits are screaming forward....)

 

[steve_bnk]

Forcing businesses to pay for what amounts to abortion drugs, day after pill for example, goes far beyond nay reasonable exercise of federal power.

from what is reported the company will still pay for birth control that serves toprevent pregnancy.


Federal agencies run by appointees cannot enact such requirements outside of congress.

Obama istrying his best to enact his progessive agenda by executive orderand govt agencies.

if we had a single payer system instead of the Obama hc mess that presumed to specify what insurance companies provide andwhat businesses had to provide and forcing people to buy insurance we would not have these issues.


Obama went too far and SCOTUS is reining in POTUS as it should.


We elect a president, not El Presidento who rules by decree ad ignores the legislature.

 

[Rhea]

Forcing businesses to pay for what amounts to abortion drugs, day after pill for example, goes far beyond nay reasonable exercise of federal power.

from what is reported the company will still pay for birth control that serves toprevent pregnancy.

The day after pill IS NOT A FUCKING ABORTION DRUG. It prevents a pregnancy. This is their wrong and uninformed argument. It's just all kinds of wrong.

 

[ksen]

A common excuse for not giving raises is benefit cost hikes whatever excuse the boss can dream up at that moment. (Meanwhile profits are screaming forward....)

:nada:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Forcing businesses to pay for what amounts to abortion drugs, day after pill for example, goes far beyond nay reasonable exercise of federal power.

from what is reported the company will still pay for birth control that serves toprevent pregnancy.

Supreme Court says it doesn't have to to that either.

Federal agencies run by appointees cannot enact such requirements outside of congress.

This was voted on by Congress.

Obama istrying his best to enact his progessive agenda by executive orderand govt agencies.

Obama, progressive agenda.

if we had a single payer system instead of the Obama hc mess that presumed to specify what insurance companies provide andwhat businesses had to provide and forcing people to buy insurance we would not have these issues.

Yes we would. Government would need to decide what was covered, what wasn't and the anti-Obama crowd would take it to court still.

Obama went too far and SCOTUS is reining in POTUS as it should.

Not really. The Supreme Court ruled that publicly held companies have to offer the birth control drugs as required under the law. SCOTUS just created a small area where "closely held" corporations that have found god don't have to. What they didn't do is set a wall indicating where a corporation's religion couldn't infringe on health care coverage.

We elect a president, not El Presidento who rules by decree ad ignores the legislature.

You have to be smoking to actually believe that Obama is acting like a dictator and the amount of power he allegedly has with Executive Orders.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So the "right" that they don't have is the "right" to demand that their employer provided health insurance, paid for by both parties, include something the employer doesn't want to include.

It doesn't matter what the employer *wants* to include. If the employer doesn't want to follow the laws regarding employment, then they need not be an employer. There is no religious compulsion to become an employer, so there is no infringement on the exercise of religion here. What the employer *wants* or *believes* is not protected by the Constitution.

 

[RavenSky]

Hobby Lobby... they believe in Pro-Choice... they feel that they reserve the right to choose your reproductive choices.

How is "I'm not going to pay for it for you" equivalent to "you can't have it at all"?

When health insurance is tied to one's employer, and that employer refuses to carry a comprehensive policy (goes to court to get out of said comprehensive coverage), the net effect is to, in fact, say "you can't have it at all."

 

[steve_bnk]

Forcing businesses to pay for what amounts to abortion drugs, day after pill for example, goes far beyond nay reasonable exercise of federal power.

from what is reported the company will still pay for birth control that serves toprevent pregnancy.

The day after pill IS NOT A FUCKING ABORTION DRUG. It prevents a pregnancy. This is their wrong and uninformed argument. It's just all kinds of wrong.

As I understand it, it can terminate the process of fertilization which is what the objection was about. Regardless in thus case religion is a secondary issue. The issue is about the scope of federal and presidential power.

The HC bill and following actions were ill conceived and poorly enacted with a patchwork of exceptions. While I am not a religious person, Obama by a wave of his presidential hand has granted exemptions to groups and changed timing , so in the bigger context this narrow religious exception is not really all that exceptional no pun intended.

And govt mandated HC by businesses is not free. In end it gets paid for increasing prices. We should have had a single payer system.

You can frame it as secular vs Christian or people vs big business, but the real issue is about federal power side stepping congress.

I do not like the idea that the govt says company supplied plans must pay for birth control.

 

[maxparrish]

Yahoo says SCOTUS (probably 5 justices) says Hobby Lobby can exclude it. Corporations can now believe in god. So how long until corporations can own guns?

Two caveats:
- the decision only applies to "closely held corporations".
- according to ScotusBlog quoting Kennedy government does have the remedy of giving these corporations the same figleaf as they do religious non-profits. I wonder if that has any implications to the "Little Sisters of the Poor" case.

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.

...in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court held 5-4 that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide coverage for contraception services for their employees if the owners object to such coverage on religious grounds. Contrary to some early reports, this decision is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and not the First Amendment. (In other words, this is a statutory decision, not a constitutional one.) According to the court the contraception coverage mandate is not the least restrictive means for ensuring access to contraception. In order to reach this conclusion, the court concluded that the RFRA applies to closely held corporations. Justice Alito wrote this opinion, as well. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the primary dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in full and Justices Kagan and Stephen Breyer in part. Justices Kagan and Breyer wrote separately to note that they saw no need to decide whether for-profit corporations or their owners could bring claims under RFRA. I suspect some of us will have more to say about this decision soon. [UPDATE: Here's a list of recent VC posts on Hobby Lobby, including Eugene's analysis of the opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-court-rules-for-hobby-lobby-against-unions/

As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.”

But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another.

When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations’ financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.

(The dissent argued that there is no proof that Congress intended provide protection to corporations).

2. The Affordable Care Act substantially burdens these particular claimants’ practice of religion (as to the requirement that they provide insurance plans that pay for contraceptives that they view as abortion-producing): Here’s a key excerpt from the majority:

Because RFRA applies in these cases, we must next ask whether the HHS contraceptive mandate “substantially burden” the exercise of religion. 42 U.S.C. §2000bb– 1(a). We have little trouble concluding that it does….

...As we have noted, the Hahns and Greens have a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception. They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that, as HHS acknowledges, may result in the destruction of an embryo. By requiring the Hahns and Greens and their companies to arrange for such coverage [on pain of severe financial levies; details omitted-EV], the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs….

Similarly, in these cases, the Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial. Instead, our “narrow function … in this context is to determine” whether the line drawn reflects “an honest conviction,” and there is no dispute that it does.

(The dissent argued that their religious belief was not logically consistent with their policy).

3. Applying the ACA’s requirement is not the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest: [I'll blog about this shortly.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-required-to-provide-contraception-coverage/

The take away is that this is NOT a first amendment issue for the court. Even if the first amendment did not exist the religious accommodation act provides protection, and that the argument that it did not intend to extend to persons in corporate form, or that the "logic" of the policy was not consistent with religious beliefs was rejected.

Of course, had Roberts had gone mousy regarding the ACA mandate, none of this would be vexing the courts.

 

[steve_bnk]

Supreme Court says it doesn't have to to that either.

Federal agencies run by appointees cannot enact such requirements outside of congress.

This was voted on by Congress.

Obama istrying his best to enact his progessive agenda by executive orderand govt agencies.

Obama, progressive agenda.

if we had a single payer system instead of the Obama hc mess that presumed to specify what insurance companies provide andwhat businesses had to provide and forcing people to buy insurance we would not have these issues.

Yes we would. Government would need to decide what was covered, what wasn't and the anti-Obama crowd would take it to court still.

Obama went too far and SCOTUS is reining in POTUS as it should.

Not really. The Supreme Court ruled that publicly held companies have to offer the birth control drugs as required under the law. SCOTUS just created a small area where "closely held" corporations that have found god don't have to. What they didn't do is set a wall indicating where a corporation's religion couldn't infringe on health care coverage.

We elect a president, not El Presidento who rules by decree ad ignores the legislature.

You have to be smoking to actually believe that Obama is acting like a dictator and the amount of power he allegedly has with Executive Orders.

Obviously metaphor and hyperbole. However you must not be paying attention. Obama has been quite explicit saying if he can't get his way with congress he will govern by decree.

In one of his sound bites he said ' I have a telephone and a pen'.

His selective enforcement of drug laws and immigrant laws is probely impeachable, but there would not be enough votes.
A
nd if you follow the news, right now democrats as well as republicans have issues with Obama's scope. He is setting precedents that future republican presidents can expand on.

Pelosi's words are burned into my brain, the hc bill isocfull of good stuff, but we will explain it after it gets passed. Obama may not be a dictator, but his attitude and persona often reflects the attitude of superiority and presumption of a singular morality to be enacted by fiat. third world politics.

The fact that he thought there would be no blow back on requiring contraceptives in plans shows an utter lack of understanding American political and social dynamics.

 

[fromderinside]

The best answer for those who Work for the companies is to judge with their feet and leave the company. Then when the company is only hiring those who agree with the court's definition and accept their coverage that one among those who applied sue for discrimination on the basis of religious conviction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Two caveats:
- the decision only applies to "closely held corporations".
- according to ScotusBlog quoting Kennedy government does have the remedy of giving these corporations the same figleaf as they do religious non-profits. I wonder if that has any implications to the "Little Sisters of the Poor" case.

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.

 

[ksen]

Page 3 of this general ledger report I'm working on just told me it's converting to Taoism. Should I be concerned?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Supreme Court says it doesn't have to to that either.

This was voted on by Congress.

Obama istrying his best to enact his progessive agenda by executive orderand govt agencies.

Obama, progressive agenda.

if we had a single payer system instead of the Obama hc mess that presumed to specify what insurance companies provide andwhat businesses had to provide and forcing people to buy insurance we would not have these issues.

Yes we would. Government would need to decide what was covered, what wasn't and the anti-Obama crowd would take it to court still.

Obama went too far and SCOTUS is reining in POTUS as it should.

Not really. The Supreme Court ruled that publicly held companies have to offer the birth control drugs as required under the law. SCOTUS just created a small area where "closely held" corporations that have found god don't have to. What they didn't do is set a wall indicating where a corporation's religion couldn't infringe on health care coverage.

We elect a president, not El Presidento who rules by decree ad ignores the legislature.

You have to be smoking to actually believe that Obama is acting like a dictator and the amount of power he allegedly has with Executive Orders.

Obviously metaphor and hyperbole.

No, not obviously!

However you must not be paying attention. Obama has been quite explicit saying if he can't get his way with congress he will govern by decree.

Actually Obama said if Congress won't act on anything, he has to try and do something on his own. It wasn't like he was tossing out Exec Orders left and right the moment he took office.

His selective enforcement of drug laws and immigrant laws is probely impeachable, but there would not be enough votes.

No. If one remembers the whole "Loyal Bushies" thing, that is clearly not the case!!!

And if you follow the news, right now democrats as well as republicans have issues with Obama's scope. He is setting precedents that future republican presidents can expand on.

Not really. Executive Orders are limited in their scope and power.

Pelosi's words are burned into my brain, the hc bill isocfull of good stuff, but we will explain it after it gets passed. Obama may not be a dictator, but his attitude and persona often reflects the attitude of superiority and presumption of a singular morality to be enacted by fiat. third world politics.

Good point. It was amazing how no one allegedly knows anything about a bill that took 14 months to sign into law!

The fact that he thought there would be no blow back on requiring contraceptives in plans shows an utter lack of understanding American political and social dynamics.

Obama could try to name the White House after Ronald Reagan and he'd receive blowback and potential impeachment hearings.

- - - Updated - - -

Page 3 of this general ledger report I'm working on just told me it's converting to Taoism. Should I be concerned?

Pre- or post-alchemy Taosim?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The day after pill IS NOT A FUCKING ABORTION DRUG. It prevents a pregnancy. This is their wrong and uninformed argument. It's just all kinds of wrong.

As I understand it, it can terminate the process of fertilization which is what the objection was about. Regardless in thus case religion is a secondary issue. The issue is about the scope of federal and presidential power.

Actually it isn't. The case didn't not bring up any issues of presidential power. In a fantasy world maybe. Also the prevention of a pregnancy is not the same as an abortion. Condoms prevent a pregnancy, they do not abort one. You may need to review your information on the fundamentals of human reproduction.

The HC bill and following actions were ill conceived and poorly enacted with a patchwork of exceptions. While I am not a religious person, Obama by a wave of his presidential hand has granted exemptions to groups and changed timing , so in the bigger context this narrow religious exception is not really all that exceptional no pun intended.

You might also want to review how a bill becomes law.

And govt mandated HC by businesses is not free. In end it gets paid for increasing prices. We should have had a single payer system.

Agreed. We should implement one. Jehovah Wittiness owned businesses can refuse to pay for blood transfusions after car accidents, and probably fire or refuse to hire anyone who has had one because they are going to Hell.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As I understand it, it can terminate the process of fertilization which is what the objection was about. Regardless in thus case religion is a secondary issue. The issue is about the scope of federal and presidential power.

Actually it isn't. The case didn't not bring up any issues of presidential power. In a fantasy world maybe. Also the prevention of a pregnancy is not the same as an abortion. Condoms prevent a pregnancy, they do not abort one. You may need to review your information on the fundamentals of human reproduction.

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

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Slut pills.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Slut pills.

People complain that the women should just use birth control and not have abortions or have babies on welfare, because they are cheap. Yet when legislation says that birth control will be made available at no additional cost (in addition to health care premiums), the same people seem to revolt. Odd that is.

 

[Toni]

one thought is that either way it goes, it shows a need - a desperate need - to get corporations the hell out of the insurance providing industry.

Your employment should not be a prerequisite to insurance access, nor a shackle that binds you to a corporation. When I wanted to go look on the exchange for an insurance policy, I am _prevented_ from accessing those plans because my corporation offers insurance. I am shackled to the corporation and unable to buy independently at any group ("exchange") price.

Changing jobs, starting new businesses, economic freedom, it's still under the thumb of a corporation that may have destructive personal views. Medicare for all... make it happen now.



Also, I really REALLY hope that if HL wins the case, people everywhere start targeting the owners PERSONALLY for liability, since they have torn down their own separation between personal and corporate identities. If your personal religious views are strong enough to reach into my vagina, then my personal injury case ought to be able to reach into your pocket.

The alternative that I see is to have universal government paid health insurance. I have two problems with this and only two, really:

1. For the purposes of reproductive rights, it leaves those rights to the political whim of whoever is elected. I am not comfortable with that at all.
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.

Meanwhile, health insurance companies record record profits and those who manage them take home enormous compensation packages.