• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

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.

The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.
 
The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.

Are you saying Hobby Lobby saved millions by not covering it? Not sure if I follow.
 
The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.

Are you saying Hobby Lobby saved millions by not covering it? Not sure if I follow.

RJ, what the fuck are you talking about?
 
Are you saying Hobby Lobby saved millions by not covering it? Not sure if I follow.

They will save money by not covering these expenses. Or are you saying that insurance don't those millions in costs into the premiums they are charged?

Clearly they had no moral problem profiting from contraceptives.
 
RJ, what the fuck are you talking about?

HL made multiple large investments in a range of companies that make and distribute contraceptives.

How can the company take a "moral" and "religious" stance against providing contraceptives as a benefit but find it not morally offensive to make off of selling them to others?
 
They will save money by not covering these expenses. Or are you saying that insurance don't those millions in costs into the premiums they are charged?

Clearly they had no moral problem profiting from contraceptives.
Have you lost sight of the fact that only IUD's and the morning pill are affected, that only 8% of women use IUD's and IUD's last up to 12 years?
 
Let's say only 8% of their women use it. That would be about 800-1000 women. At your stated prices of $1000-1500, we're likely talking about saving the insurance company over $1M/year. It would not be good business to leave that kind of money on the table.
 
Have you lost sight of the fact that only IUD's and the morning pill are affected, that only 8% of women use IUD's and IUD's last up to 12 years?

Yeah, I don't find much to be upset about in the specificities of how Hobby Lobby applies this ruling, what I am worried about is the slippery slope of private companies using RFRA to pick holes in the ACA, specifically in regards to conception and birth related medical coverage.
 
They will save money by not covering these expenses. Or are you saying that insurance don't those millions in costs into the premiums they are charged?

Clearly they had no moral problem profiting from contraceptives.

Wait. Im still confused. You aid contraception saves millions to insurers. Yet, HL will save millions by carving it out? Not sure I follow.
 
"he justice goes on to criticize the opinion's interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that "until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'"

The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight."

"Ginsburg opens with a bang, immediately describing the decision as one that will have sweeping consequences:

In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

She frames the decision as one that denies women access to healthcare, rather than as one that upholds religious liberty:

The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.

In a similar vein, she rejects that the birth control mandate should be seen as an act of government coercion, describing it instead as one that provides women with the ability to make their own choice:

Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults. "

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. … The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight."
 
Let's say only 8% of their women use it. That would be about 800-1000 women. At your stated prices of $1000-1500, we're likely talking about saving the insurance company over $1M/year. It would not be good business to leave that kind of money on the table.

For the third time - IUD's last up to 12 years. It isn't an annual expense
 
OK. my bad, but still why leave money on the table.

Plus they have no more repugnance to making more money from the products. You cant' get much clearer transactional morals than HL is showing here.
 
The issue was a lying company (who were to make millions from companies that produced contraceptives) wanted to save some money under the guise of religion.

The same Justice Ginsburg you've used as the arbiter of truth and light for every single other point you've made on this thread said in her opinion, "I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families' religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held."

Does "But I guess [you] know more than she and three other Justices" ring a bell?
 
The same Justice Ginsburg you've used as the arbiter of truth and light for every single other point you've made on this thread said in her opinion, "I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families' religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held."

Does "But I guess [you] know more than she and three other Justices" ring a bell?

They could have deep beliefs and be total hypocrites.They aren't mutually exclusive.
 
PJacGEw.gif
 
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.

You're making a comparison between the ACA and the Bolshevik Revolution...interesting.

"Homosexuals Destroy Israeli Messianic Business" is the title of your link..."The Jerusalem District Court has ordered Moshav Yad Hashmonah, a community of Messianic Jews and Evangelical Christians, to pay compensation to two lesbians after it refused to host a same-sex wedding reception. "We knew we were breaking the law. Somebody needed to do it." says Ayelet Ronen, general secretary for the village.


That translates to homosexuals are abusing a law to destroy businesses in your world?

You really are a condescending, misleading piece of work.
 
Last edited:
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/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24704/Default.aspx?hp=popular_posts

So this is pretty much bullshit. Take a look at the number of executive orders issued by previous presidents.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html
 
Back
Top