[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I don't understand how the government has the right to tell private companies what they must provide for their employees. Somewhere along the line, we somehow lost sight of our constitution which was written to place restrictions on our federal government.

[kittygilchrist]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I don't understand how the government has the right to tell private companies what they must provide for their employees. Somewhere along the line, we somehow lost sight of our constitution which was written to place restrictions on our federal government.

We'll said.

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by blueash

Sorry, but there is so much misinformation in that post that it should not be left unanswered. Start with the obvious that you have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra. You might start with Medicare and then check every other health insurance policy in America. I doubt you will find hardly any that do NOT cover drugs for ED.

In fact it is a duty for corporations to provide health care to their employees if those corporations are large enough to be covered by the ACA. And the corporation gets to take a huge tax deduction equal to the cost of those non-Cadillac plans so in fact the corporation is providing it at a very discounted rate. The law, affirmed by the court, sets minimum standards as to what that insurance must cover to be in compliance with the ACA requirement. A company is free to offer some less useful insurance if it chooses but the company pays a penalty for failing to provide adequate insurance. The insurance must cover preventive care, vaccinations, and all the components of care everyone would expect as being usual and customary.

So to say that the corporation exists in a vacuum with no social responsibility ignores decades of law. Corporations would make more money if we let them pollute, ignore safety and employee work conditions, exploit children, the list is endless. So corporations are interwoven into our society as much more than income generating tools. We give corporations special rights in exchange for their role.

The history of health insurance differs from your presentation. Coverage was driven by unions, yes unions, negotiating with large employers as a way to increase the benefits to workers without raising their earned income. If the employee got a raise then bought insurance the income was first taxed thus the insurance was bought with after tax dollars. Wages controls during WW2 limited the wage increases employers could offer but did not limit the health insurance benefits. If the corporation used before tax dollars the employee was ahead and the corporation got a tax deduction. So it could spend a dollar on salary or a dollar on insurance, a wash for the corporation. And health insurance has been paying for outpatient non catastrophic care for decades before the 90's.

Thank you. Maybe there is a role for Federal oversight? Very well said!

[perrjojo]

Originally Posted by Deseylou

I'm going to be hated here, but I am in agreement with the SCOTUS
I'm not going to defend my point of view
I worked for Chick Fil A
You know what type of company it is when you choose to work there
You may work for a variety of reasons, but no one makes you stay
So,if having that type of coverage is important to you. ....LEAVE

Amen!
No hate from me..I agree. I believe in birth control. I took birth control pills. No body paid for it but me. No one is denying your right to birth control. If you work there, you know what the benefits are.

[biker1]

Nonsense - this is absolutely not true. Check your facts.


[quote=buggyone;902650]

Originally Posted by biker1

As has been already noted, the ruling only affects 4 abortion causing forms of birth control, out of 20. I suspect that the vast majority of people whining about the Hobby Lobby decision don't know the facts of the case or the law that the ruling was based on and almost certainly didn't read the decision but based their opinion on biased and disingenuous "news" reporting."

Negatory, good buddy(as we used to say on the CB radio). The Supreme Court has told all lower courts to re-hear all cases regarding all forms of birth control. This is the minefield that Justice Ginsberg was referring to in her dissent. It very well might push into other healthcare issues such as transfusions, vaccines, mental health, or preventive medicine.

[biker1]

This is nonsense. The rights of women are not being affected. Nobody is saying they can't get whatever birth control they want. Hobby Lobby just doesn't want to pay for abortion inducing forms of birth control.

Originally Posted by 44Ruger

Hummmm. I like way you talk paleface. It's not taking away the freedom from the owner of Hobby Lobby. It's allowing him to take away the rights of hundreds of women.

[biker1]

This is not rocket science. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to be involved in paying for abortion-inducing forms of birth control. Vasectomies are not abort-inducing. Hobby Lobby has and will continue to pay for non abortion-inducing forms of birth control. Why is it so difficult to see the distinction? This is not really all that difficult to understand.

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Here are a couple of the problems with the stupid Supreme Court decision..First, the insurance plan provided to Hobby Lobby employees has coverage for vasectomies ( a form of birth control) yet they will now deny certain birth control methods for women. Is this not discrimination ???
Secondly and more important is the fact that there are thousand of religous sects in America who own busineses. Some sects are major religous groups that oppose any medical intervention in any form. These are interventions such as vaccinations. blood transfusions, transplants, and surgeries. Does this decision now allow these religious owned businesses to now deny coverage for such medical procedures??
And thirdly, the "Decision" uses th term "sincerely religous" owners of specific businesses. Whe is to decide who meets this provision.
I can forsee a couple of owners suddenly becoming "saved" over night.

[Halibut]

It's interesting to note that with all the hullabaloo about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay insurance for birth control for women, they will pay for a man's Rx to take Viagra, Cialis, etc.

That seems consistent with what I understand their beliefs to be, no? They're not against birth control per se, but against drugs that act once conception has taken place.

I'm not saying their stand is right or wrong. I just think they have a right to decide.... Just as they have a right to decide to close on Sunday when that is also outside the norm.

But corporations also must abide by all applicable Federal and State laws, so they don't have the right to fully decide how to run their businesses. The Hobby Lobby owners felt strongly enough about this to pursue it and get the law changed, and I personally don't have a quarrel with it except for the "can of worms" aspect as noted by Judge Ginsburg.

Not to put words in Redwitch's mouth, but this may be what she was alluding to -- that this opens the door for any privately-held company owned by zealots of any stripe to claim that they shouldn't be forced to comply with XYZ law because of their own religious or moral beliefs. And their beliefs could be any danged thing. I don't think that's gonna happen because, well, judicial bias comes into play again.

[Gah, sorry to rehash. I just realized I missed a page of posts, so some of this has already been said.]

[wendyquat]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

We may as well be out on the back porch talking to the dog. We aren't ever going to change anyone's mind on religion or politics but we are going to ruin someone's day.

The amount of days left on this earth is diminishing.

Good Morning everyone.

We'll said Gracie but to get my 2% in, I love Hobby Lobby and admire their stance! I don't expect everyone to agree with me, even though I'm right!

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by 44Ruger

When looked at in that way, you make a perfect excuse. I still feel we are looking at discrimination and that is a bad thing. Should they be allowed to require all new employees to convert to their specific beliefs to obtain employment.

They have no expectation for employees to convert to their beliefs; just for the government not to expect HL to convert to Obama's beliefs.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Halibut

That seems consistent with what I understand their beliefs to be, no? They're not against birth control per se, but against drugs that act once conception has taken place.



But corporations also must abide by all applicable Federal and State laws, so they don't have the right to fully decide how to run their businesses. The Hobby Lobby owners felt strongly enough about this to pursue it and get the law changed, and I personally don't have a quarrel with it except for the "can of worms" aspect as noted by Judge Ginsburg.

Not to put words in Redwitch's mouth, but this may be what she was alluding to -- that this opens the door for any privately-held company owned by zealots of any stripe to claim that they shouldn't be forced to comply with XYZ law because of their own religious or moral beliefs. And their beliefs could be any danged thing. I don't think that's gonna happen because, well, judicial bias comes into play again.

[Gah, sorry to rehash. I just realized I missed a page of posts, so some of this has already been said.]

There is a legal difference between a publicly traded corporation and a closely held family corporation. That was a key determinant of this case.

[gomoho]

I think what all this really comes down to is what one believes an employer is responsible to provide in your life. I never really expected much more than a fair wage for a fair day's work. Anything else was a bonus.

[perrjojo]

Originally Posted by gomoho

I think what all this really comes down to is what one believes an employer is responsible to provide in your life. I never really expected much more than a fair wage for a fair day's work. Anything else was a bonus.

I agree 100% but it seems, .....the times! they are a changin.

[Carl in Tampa]

I take a different approach to analyzing this decision.

1. Critics of the decision object to the view that a corporation should be regarded as a "person." However, it is long established law that a corporation has legal standing as a person.

2. As I understand it, the decision relied heavily upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed into law by President Clinton, which applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."

The law is aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

Apparently the writers of Obamacare failed to "explicitly exclude" application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Obamacare, so the rights of the "person" (Hobby Lobby) were preserved in this case.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Hobby Lobby's insurance does provide for sixteen different methods of birth control. What they objected to paying for was four methods that destroy a fertilized egg, which they regarded as abortion, contrary to their religious beliefs.

The issue was not about birth control, but about abortion.

3. People who object to the decision based upon concerns about employers whose religious beliefs might make them object to paying for insurance that provides blood transfusions, etc. miss the point.

The point is that the law as currently written was followed. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to decide.

What might the court decide in a future case about other closely held corporations with different religious beliefs remains to be seen. It could take years for a similar case to work its way up through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

If it is foreseen that the law as currently written and enforced could have extremely negative consequences in the future it is the duty of the Congress to change the laws, not of the Supreme Court to make a decision contrary to current law.

.

[Halibut]

There is a legal difference between a publicly traded corporation and a closely held family corporation. That was a key determinant of this case.

We're certainly familiar with those.