SCOTUS decisions

[Deacon923]

But we should totally overreact and freak out about it now? Maybe including mandated free birth control in already contentious legislation when a large portion of the country thinks birth control is immoral wasn't the best idea. I don't happen to agree with those people but I will also refrain from accusing them of waging a war on women

No need to freak out. But let's not pretend it's not relevant to the question at hand.

As for the rest, all these issues are highly emotionally and politically charged. However, it is not really debatable that restricting access to birth control has a disproportionate impact on women. Men and women engaging in the same behavior suffer very different outcomes when birth control is unavailable. The religious right (as a political movement, which is distinct from religious people, a category that includes many, many Americans who do not agree with the stance of the religious right on this subject) shows little interest in curbing the sexual behaviors of men; or rather, they want women to be primarily responsible for curbing the unholy behavior of both sexes.

[Deacon923]

No, it's not relevant. The opinion says there are not going to be exemptions from the tax laws for this. Raising it is fear mongering, pure and simple.

The issue I am discussing was not before the court in this opinion. It may well be before the court next term.

But even if the exemption stands, what Hobby Lobby has succeeded in doing is shunting off its responsibility to provide comprehensive health coverage for its female employees on to either the federal taxpayers (Hobby Lobby is one of those, of course), its insurance company, and by extension the other non-religious policyholders paying premiums to its insurer. So, good job, Hobby Lobby - in the name of your First Amendment freedoms, you just got the rest of us on the hook to subsidize your religious beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Well done!

[RJKarl]

Why would they be able to see those payments? The employer isn't making the payment. Anyone with knowledge of the insurance industry care to weigh in? I'm almost certain an employer doesn't have access information on the specific services its employees end up using.

The costs of IUDs are extremely high. HL has over 20,000 employees. If even 1000-2000 of those employees use these devices, the company would have a right to ask for giant premium cutbacks.

Then add the other types of contraception that have been OK'd to deny and there are more savings.

[WFU71]

The costs of IUDs are extremely high. HL has over 20,000 employees. If even 1000-2000 of those employees use these devices, the company would have a right to ask for giant premium cutbacks.

Then add the other types of contraception that have been OK'd to deny and there are more savings.

8% of women use IUD's. IUD's cost between $500 and $1000, but last up to 12 years. The pill costs between $10 and $50 per month. That's $120-$600 a year.

[RJKarl]

That's still a lot of money that they will save. Wouldn't a wise company demand a cut in premiums?

[jhmd2000]

8% of women use IUD's. IUD's cost between $500 and $1000, but last up to 12 years. The pill costs between $10 and $50 per month. That's $120-$600 a year.

Being ugly is free, and it works for most of this Board.

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

The issue I am discussing was not before the court in this opinion. It may well be before the court next term.

But even if the exemption stands, what Hobby Lobby has succeeded in doing is shunting off its responsibility to provide comprehensive health coverage for its female employees on to either the federal taxpayers (Hobby Lobby is one of those, of course), its insurance company, and by extension the other non-religious policyholders paying premiums to its insurer. So, good job, Hobby Lobby - in the name of your First Amendment freedoms, you just got the rest of us on the hook to subsidize your religious beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Well done!

That assumes that Hobby Lobby should have a "responsibility" to provide this particular coverage at all. This particular inclusion was an HHS administrative determination, not a requirement under the text of the ACA, correct? So we're not talking about an actual component of the law, we are talking about the administrative extension of that law, and adminsitrative positions get expanded and contracted all the time. So this is some lifelong Washington bureaucrat getting overturned, not Congress itself.

Furthermore, as most on this thread point out (I think including even yourself), Obamacare's doubling down on an already bassackwards link of health coverage to employment was absolutely ridiculous. I think the HL decision is pretty weak from a policy standpoint operating under the current (though IMO incorrect) reality that Obamacare is enforceable, but I'm in favor of anything that kicks sand in Obama's face with respect to the ACA. The more spokes that get pulled out of its wheels, hopefully the sooner it will get replaced with something worthwhile.

[WFU71]

That's still a lot of money that they will save. Wouldn't a wise company demand a cut in premiums?

How many HL employees are women? How many of them work enough hours to be eligible for health care? How many of them are in their child bearing years?

[meandmyuncleDeac]

I know Scalia is a devout Roman Catholic. Is Alito as well?

[Deacon923]

Did you read the opinion yet? That's not in dispute.

*Ahem*

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...orkers/373725/

The suggestion of the “accommodation” sounds statesmanlike, but at oral argument Hobby Lobby’s lawyer had refused to stipulate that his clients would accept it. Indeed, the religious nonprofits themselves are resisting the “accommodation,” since the certification itself would “facilitate” employees’ access to the forbidden contraception. And the Court explicitly said Monday that it wasn’t committing itself to approve the accommodation either. In fact, within hours after the decision, the Eleventh Circuit had granted a religious non-profit’s request for an injunction against the “accommodation,” arguing that Hobby Lobby meant that it could not survive RFRA either.

So the best offer from the majority was, either let the government pay for whatever the families don’t want to, or offer the families an accommodation that they haven’t asked for, won’t commit to accepting, other religious groups have already declined, and the Court itself may not approve.

[FuckmouthedRube]

I know Scalia is a devout Roman Catholic. Is Alito as well?

All five conservative justices plus Sotamayor are Catholic.

[Deacon923]

That assumes that Hobby Lobby should have a "responsibility" to provide this particular coverage at all. This particular inclusion was an HHS administrative determination, not a requirement under the text of the ACA, correct? So we're not talking about an actual component of the law, we are talking about the administrative extension of that law, and adminsitrative positions get expanded and contracted all the time. So this is some lifelong Washington bureaucrat getting overturned, not Congress itself.

Furthermore, as most on this thread point out (I think including even yourself), Obamacare's doubling down on an already bassackwards link of health coverage to employment was absolutely ridiculous. I think the HL decision is pretty weak from a policy standpoint operating under the current (though IMO incorrect) reality that Obamacare is enforceable, but I'm in favor of anything that kicks sand in Obama's face with respect to the ACA. The more spokes that get pulled out of its wheels, hopefully the sooner it will get replaced with something worthwhile.

I suspect you'll get your wish.

And here’s a second common feature of both of Monday’s opinion: both, in essence, beg the conservative advocacy groups to bring new challenges to public-employee unions and the contraceptive mandate. Harris does not overturn Abood, but the majority directs a torrent of abuse toward the case and suggests it’s only leaving it alone because it doesn’t have to do otherwise to decide this particular case. The Court hinted that challenges to the “mandate” would be limited to “closely held” corporations, but it explicitly refused to rule out challenges by corporate giants like Exxon.

Bring us a case and we will wipe out the “agency fee” altogether, their opinion hints. And bring us Obamacare cases, lots of Obamacare cases.

In that sense, both opinions are like time bombs; they will keep exploding for a number of terms to come.

I agree that Obamacare is bad legislation and a step in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, it seems that all the "spokes" that the conservative wing of SCOTUS is pulling out of it result in poor people and women getting the shaft. It is possible to simultaneously believe that Obamacare is bad legislation, but also to think it is unfortunate that hundreds of thousands of poor Southern blacks have been deprived of healthcare by the Supreme Court (when they overturned the Medicaid mandate).

I also think that bad cases make bad law, and despite Alito's protestations to the contrary at the end of this opinion, you can bet your ass that this opinion will open the door for plenty of "conscientious objector" litigation by corporations who suddenly find religion. Whether rjkarl-esque doomsday scenarios will come to pass is unknown, but it is certain that a lot of ink and legal fees will be spilled finding out.

[RaleighDevil]

The issue I am discussing was not before the court in this opinion. It may well be before the court next term.

But even if the exemption stands, what Hobby Lobby has succeeded in doing is shunting off its responsibility to provide comprehensive health coverage for its female employees on to either the federal taxpayers (Hobby Lobby is one of those, of course), its insurance company, and by extension the other non-religious policyholders paying premiums to its insurer. So, good job, Hobby Lobby - in the name of your First Amendment freedoms, you just got the rest of us on the hook to subsidize your religious beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Well done!

The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.

You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.

[RJKarl]

The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.

You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.

but it's OK to pay for men's Viagra and our prostate exams.

The reality is contraception is a cost inhibitor for insurance companies and employers.

[ImTheCaptain]

The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.

You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.

lol unreal. i often wonder how the sexual assault stats are so high and yet keep climbing then i read posts like this

[ONW]

The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.

You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.

1917, the good old days, when women didn't have right to vote. Good call.

[Liquid Karma]

Being ugly is free, and it works for most of this Board.

So sayeth the ginger.

[CHDeac]

but it's OK to pay for men's Viagra and our prostate exams.

The reality is contraception is a cost inhibitor for insurance companies and employers.

The issue, IMHO, wasn't that contraception was a essential health benefit per most state regs. I think what caused the issue to explode was to mandate it be covered at no charge. And make no mistake about it...Covering it at 100% increases premiums and underlying costs. Not a lot. But it certianly doesnt decrease it.

[CHDeac]

I suspect you'll get your wish.



I agree that Obamacare is bad legislation and a step in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, it seems that all the "spokes" that the conservative wing of SCOTUS is pulling out of it result in poor people and women getting the shaft. It is possible to simultaneously believe that Obamacare is bad legislation, but also to think it is unfortunate that hundreds of thousands of poor Southern blacks have been deprived of healthcare by the Supreme Court (when they overturned the Medicaid mandate).

I also think that bad cases make bad law, and despite Alito's protestations to the contrary at the end of this opinion, you can bet your ass that this opinion will open the door for plenty of "conscientious objector" litigation by corporations who suddenly find religion. Whether rjkarl-esque doomsday scenarios will come to pass is unknown, but it is certain that a lot of ink and legal fees will be spilled finding out.

2 Quick thoughts.

-All eyes are now on HHS as they will set the rules for how this will work. I suspect, and I may be wrong, we wont see a lot of opt outs, esp if insurers can charge for the administrative costs of carving it out. Very few traditional religious orgs we cover carve it out now as allowed. We might see some high profile cases but I think this will be a minor issue in a year.

-Completely agree on the bad legislation and the lack of Medicaid expansion being equally bad. Id argue the law was written so poorly it allowed this huge screw over for people under 100% of the FPL...Why did they drop the subsidies to 100% of FPL from 138% when Medicaid wasnt expanded...Why not drop it to $0? Equal blame here...

[RaleighDevil]

There was a revolution somewhere in 1917. Maybe you were out of school that week they covered it in World History.

I wouldn't worry too much if I were a progressive. Obama will just issue a royal decree. He is good at that stuff.

Along these lines, an interesting story from Israel. Seems like the homosexuals over there are using the law to drive certain Christian and Orthodox businesses into financial ruin. It's all of a piece. I have a right, and you have a right to pay for it or take part in it..

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsIte...=popular_posts