RevDeac06
OGBoards Chaplain
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.
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.
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”"
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.
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”"
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).
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.
Point of clarification--the opinion didn't say HL had first amendment free exercise rights. It said HL had rights under RFRA, a statute enacted in 1993.
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.
"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"