• 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

Can we just stop all this craziness and get a single payer (govt or private, whatever, just do it) system that doesn't tie insurance (a right, as in LIFE, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) to the employers?
 
Fair enough. But I think it is worth emphasizing that all of the women who work at HL are going to be entitled to the exact same benefits as everyone else. They are not going to be denied access to a single covered contraception, including the (arguable) abortifacients at issue in the decision. The national media outlets either don't understand this or are intentionally obfuscating what is really going on here because "the SCOTUS' war on women" makes for a better story.

One of the possible outcomes of the HL decision is that the government will be the one paying for female HL employees' (arguably) abortifacient contraception. Frankly, I would have thought this would be some sort of silver lining for the single payor crowd.

I understand the limitations of the HL case, but I also think the narrative of "don't worry, it's so limited, nothing to see here" is disingenuous. I guaran-damn-tee you there are Catholic businesses that will sue to get out of all contraceptive coverage and put that on the taxpayer, too, and based on HL the SCOTUS will allow that. Allowing these religious exceptions makes a bigger hash out of an already f'ed up law, and adds more cost to the taxpayer. So all taxpayers are now subsidizing the religious business owner's religiously-driven choices. How is that not an establishment clause problem? There's no silver linings here, just an overall fouled up situation getting worse by the day (or case).
 
Yeah I think there are some interesting embedded legal issues in the government subsidizing areas of closely-held corporations' insurance because of their religious views.
 
First filing after Monday's decision:

"The new case now unfolding in the Court involves Wheaton College, a religiously affiliated college of about 3,000 students located in Wheaton, Ill. The college’s officials object to two specific forms of birth control — the “emergency” oral contraceptives, ella and Plan B. Their religious views, they have said, consider those to be ways to end a developing pregnancy, and they thus refuse to include those drugs in their health plans for employees and students.

As the college’s legal plea reached the Supreme Court, it focused on the government’s “accommodation” plan for non-profit religious institutions. Under that approach, if they file a government-prescribed form seeking to be exempted themselves from providing the birth-control methods to which they are opposed, it will be up to the insurance company or administrator of the health plan to provide the coverage — for free — to women employees (and, in this case, students).

But Wheaton College, like many other non-profits, take the position that even filing this form is a way to “trigger” the coverage that offends their religious beliefs. Thus, their argument continues, the “accommodation” itself imposes a substantial burden on their faith, and that, too, violates RFRA. After that argument failed in lower federal courts, Wheaton took the issue on to the Supreme Court, and on Monday got a temporary delay by the Supreme Court of the July 1 deadline for them to act to take advantage of the “accommodation.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/u-s-no-expansion-of-hobby-lobby-exemption/

So merely filing the application also "burdens" their religious beliefs? This is silly.
 
Supreme Court Rules JCPenney Allowed to Sacrifice Employees to Appease Cthulhu

71579.jpg
 
The whole point of insurance is to pool risk. Many insureds are riskier than others for one reason or another, often because of their personal behavioral choices. Under the logic of these posts, people who ride motorcycles should not be insured for their injuries, and people who eat themselves into diabetes should not be able to access insurance for their care. Which may well be the desired outcome for these two posters. If so, they should just say they're against all insurance and want everyone to pay for their own health problems out of their own resources, or die if they're unable to do so. If we're going to have insurance, there is no reason that insurance should not cover against the risk of pregnancy (or endometriosis, or menstrual pain) in the same way that it covers the risk of motorcycle injuries or gluttony-induced diabetes.

Limiting this argument solely to female sexual behavior and reproductive health doesn't make any logical sense. When people attempt to make this argument, most rational observers will conclude that the proponent either has not thought their position through or that the proponent is a sexist ass.

I thought the whole point of insurance is to price risk. There is not much point to "insuring" birth control that costs $10/month; the insurance for that will cost a little more than $10/month. In a free country, people would insure themselves against financial disaster in case of medical problems, but would pay everyday medical costs out of pocket and save gobs and gobs of money. Only a greedy politician trying to get elected would force insurance companies to include birth control, chiropracty and other ridiculous items in every single plan.
 
I don't know that it's necessarily a major financial burden. I read 923's post to indicate that he is opposed to the taxpayers subsidizing these religious choices period, regardless of amount.
 
Take on the case from Chemerinsky, a well known federal jurisdiction guy:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-20140701-story.html

"“[d]espite all of the claims that its holding was narrow, the Supreme Court’s decision is the broadest in American history in providing corporations the ability to claim an exemption to a law based on the religious beliefs of their owners”"

Chemerinsky was one of my professors and I think he is brilliant, but this is a pretty blatant "no shit, Sherlock" statement.
 
OMG A SLIPPERY SLOPE! AND AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

Even assuming HL will be extended to contraception generally (and that's not a foregone conclusion with Kennedy), do some math on this. How many closely held, for-profit corporations that employ more than 50 people (and are this subject to the employer mandate) are going to claim (and prove it's sincerely held) an exemption? 85% of large employers provided contraception coverage before Obamacare required it. The burden on the taxpayer--which will include the exempted company--is going to be negligible.

As for your other point, an accommodation--which is available to all comers who can satisfy RFRA's test--does not an establishment make.


You're the one using all caps and exclamation points, not me. I am not predicting an rj-pocalypse, just pointing out that the narrative of "nothing to see here folks" is at least as disingenuous as the "war on women" narrative. Like all SCOTUS decisions, this decision will have ramifications and it will take years to determine the contours thereof.
 
Take on the case from Chemerinsky, a well known federal jurisdiction guy:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-20140701-story.html

"“[d]espite all of the claims that its holding was narrow, the Supreme Court’s decision is the broadest in American history in providing corporations the ability to claim an exemption to a law based on the religious beliefs of their owners”"

Let me get this straight. When I said the same thing earlier, I was crazy and wrong. But now that he says what I said, he's right and i'm still wrong.
 
You didn't say this. You said it opens the door for people to discriminate in areas where the court is going to strike down that type of animus. His point is that this is the first time ever that corporations have been recognized as having religious protection under the first amendment which is the broad part.
 
My religion doesn't believe in social security.
 
My religion doesn't believe in social security.

If you're clergy, you actually can opt out of social security. I forget the specifics, but you have to opt out within the first 5 years or so, and you're never allowed back in (except that one time Congress temporarily let clergy who opted out to opt back in).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
If you're clergy, you actually can opt out of social security. I forget the specifics, but you have to opt out within the first 5 years or so, and you're never allowed back in (except that one time Congress temporarily let clergy who opted out to opt back in).

The Lord wants you to opt out, Rev. When you get to Heaven, somebody is going to ask you what you did with the opportunity you were provided.
 
You didn't say this. You said it opens the door for people to discriminate in areas where the court is going to strike down that type of animus. His point is that this is the first time ever that corporations have been recognized as having religious protection under the first amendment which is the broad part.



"the Supreme Court’s decision is the broadest in American history in providing corporations the ability to claim an exemption to a law based on the religious beliefs of their owners”"

I even gave these examples:

"It would allow any company to cut off all insurance by simply saying, "My religion precludes me from paying for it."

How could you stop any company from saying they have a Christian Scientist CEO who thinks God will cure you?

What stops any company from cherry-picking other parts of policy. "

What's even weirder is that about 30 posts later you said "I agree with you"
 
Let me get this straight. When I said the same thing earlier, I was crazy and wrong. But now that he says what I said, he's right and i'm still wrong.

Chemerinsky, who is by all accounts brilliant, made a not very brilliant statement that amounts to: "This is the broadest decision the court has ever made when deciding this exact issue which it has never decided before."

It's also the narrowest decision the Supreme Court has ever issued recognizing religious rights for for-profit corporations
 
"the Supreme Court’s decision is the broadest in American history in providing corporations the ability to claim an exemption to a law based on the religious beliefs of their owners”"

I even gave these examples:

"It would allow any company to cut off all insurance by simply saying, "My religion precludes me from paying for it."

How could you stop any company from saying they have a Christian Scientist CEO who thinks God will cure you?

What stops any company from cherry-picking other parts of policy. "

What's even weirder is that about 30 posts later you said "I agree with you"

Chemerinsky didn't say any of those things though, and despite the hyperbole in his column I doubt he actually believes any of those things will come to pass.

I don't see Roberts or Kennedy going any further down that road.
 
It opened a door that many thought would never and should never be opened. People from Justices of the Supreme Court to scholars have been quoted here as saying this.

They also agree that any opening can be easily widened.
 
Back
Top