Will Hobby Lobby lead to Universal health care?

[Rhea]

As I read that Kennedy seems to be asking questions as if this is an abortion case, and he apparently hates abortion, which means the people may lose on this case... will that show us all that the only way to provide health care for all is to make it single payer so that no religious folk can deny contraception, transfusions, mental health care and surgery?

 

[laughing dog]

Wouldn't that be the ultimate in ironic justice?

 

[Derec]

As I read that Kennedy seems to be asking questions as if this is an abortion case, and he apparently hates abortion, which means the people may lose on this case...

You can't always go by what questions justices ask. Did the government lawyers explain the difference though?

will that show us all that the only way to provide health care for all is to make it single payer so that no religious folk can deny contraception, transfusions, mental health care and surgery?

Even with 60-40 majority in the Senate and 257-178 majority in the House Democrats were only able to enact ACA as it is. What makes you think they could enact Single Payer with Republican House or even with the likely Republican Senate after the 2014 elections?

All this brings up another question. What happens if a justice dies or is incapacitated between arguments and the decision? Do the 8 justices take a vote or do they wait untgil the new justice is sworn in?
With 4 of the justices being over 75 that is not that unlikely. See also The Supreme Court Justice Death Calculator, although they give probabilities by 2017 (end of Obama's term).

 

[+or-1]

You know, I just can't see how Hobby Lobby's denying someone else their religious freedom can possibly enhance their own. How is this even an argument? Am I the stupid one here?

 

[Bronzeage]

You know, I just can't see how Hobby Lobby's denying someone else their religious freedom can possibly enhance their own. How is this even an argument? Am I the stupid one here?

That is not a valid representation of Hobby Lobby's position. What they want is a special "conscientious objector" status, which will exempt them from a legal obligation. In all previous CO cases, the objector's actions had little effect beyond their own life. There is always some hardship. The question at hand right now is whether an objector can make other people share the hardship.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The Hobby Lobby case is about to lead us down the rabbit hole. And make no mistake, these personhood cases for corporations are going to do much more harm than good and that hardcore tea party crowd, even though they are gonna hurt too, will rejoice in the pain. What is going on in America right now has nothing to do with reason and everything to do religion, and not the kind necessarily found in a church.

 

[Zeluvia]

The Hobby Lobby case is about to lead us down the rabbit hole. And make no mistake, these personhood cases for corporations are going to do much more harm than good and that hardcore tea party crowd, even though they are gonna hurt too, will rejoice in the pain. What is going on in America right now has nothing to do with reason and everything to do religion, and not the kind necessarily found in a church.

Ah, Ask Alice!

But meanwhile, down on the Total Hypocrite Ranch; while Hobby Lobby is screaming about not providing contraception to employees, the 401K it offers to employees has always invested in companies that produce birth control

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

The information on Hobby Lobby's 401(k) investments is included in the company's 2013 annual disclosure to the Department of Labor. The records contain a list, dated December 31, 2012, of 24 funds that were included in its employer-sponsored retirement plan. MorningStar, an investment research firm, provided Mother Jones with the names of the companies in nine of those funds as of December 31, 2012. Each fund's portfolio consists of at least dozens if not hundreds of different holdings.

All nine funds—which have assets of $73 million, or three-quarters of the Hobby Lobby retirement plan's total assets—contained holdings that clashed with the Greens' stated religious principles.

So, are corporate persons allowed to be hypocrites? Or should "conservative" companies only be allowed to invest in companies that meet the criteria they are going to impose on their employees? That should make the crazy stop.

 

[Underseer]

As I read that Kennedy seems to be asking questions as if this is an abortion case, and he apparently hates abortion, which means the people may lose on this case... will that show us all that the only way to provide health care for all is to make it single payer so that no religious folk can deny contraception, transfusions, mental health care and surgery?

I hope not.

I want to see employers who are Jehova's Witnesses kill a few employees by denying them blood transfusions, let some Scientologist employers kill employees by denying them mental health care, maybe a few individual pastors and imams kill a few children by denying them vaccines, let a few Christian Science employers kill employees by denying them health care altogether. Let's face it, we're going to need a pretty big body count to motivate this electorate to do anything. School shootings have become mundane and no one will even consider improving mental health care or make it harder for crazy people to buy guns.

 

[TV and credit cards]

My concern is the personhood status the SCOTUS assigns to S Corps. While there may be no precedence for an individual pressing their religious convictions beyond the self, with the SCOTUS recent definition of person, an S Corp is about the closest damn thing to being just a group of individuals. The SCOTUS painted themselves and of course US in to a corner.

 

[Nexus]

let a few Christian Science employers kill employees by denying them health care altogether.

If Hobby Lobby wins I'd like to see the SCOTUS have a case with a Christian Science corporation that doesn't want to provide health insurance at all. It would force the SCOTUS to reverse itself on either the Hobby case or Obamacare rulling.