• 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

RJKarl said:
They also agree that any opening can be easily widened.
Click to expand...


dbnkq.gif
 
So out of an entire bible worth of doctrine and sin, why are abortion and homosexuality seemingly the most important political topics for Christian literalists?
 
tjcmd said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought about it (wondering if it would be there when I retired), but decided against it because 1) who knows what retirement will look like, 2) it also opts you out of Medicare, which is big, but mostly 3) clergy shouldn't be exempt from the ills/pains of society (taxes, etc) and I'm more than happy to support a system that (tries) to support seniors.
 
Junebug said:
So the senate, which passed the ENDA with the same exemption, is also bigoted?
Click to expand...

It's an absurd addition that's for sure. Again, I agree with Scalia that neutrally applicable laws should not have religious exemptions nor should they implicate free exercise concerns in any way. If you can show that the law was applied to intentionally favor one religion (or no religion) over another then go for it, but RFRA is an absolutely ridiculous piece of legislation.
 
Apparently, this ruling may not apply just to abortofecitiouses or whatever they're called.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
The day after handing down the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, the court issued orders pertaining to six pending cases in which employers claimed religious objections to allcontraceptive services required under the Affordable Care Act. The court either ordered appeals courts to reconsider their rejection of the employers' claims in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, or let stand lower courts' endorsement of those claims.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider-impact-of-hobby-lobby-ruling/
The Supreme Court sent a fairly strong signal on Tuesday that its ruling giving some for-profit businesses a right not to provide birth control services to their female workers goes beyond the specific methods at issue in that decision. It issued a series of orders on six cases, each of which involved owners who objected to all of the pregnancy-related services mandated under the new federal health care law.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
So out of an entire bible worth of doctrine and sin, why are abortion and homosexuality seemingly the most important political topics for Christian literalists?
Click to expand...

Because those are the ones straight males don't have to worry about.
 
PhDeac said:
Apparently, this ruling may not apply just to abortofecitiouses or whatever they're called.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
The day after handing down the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, the court issued orders pertaining to six pending cases in which employers claimed religious objections to allcontraceptive services required under the Affordable Care Act. The court either ordered appeals courts to reconsider their rejection of the employers' claims in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, or let stand lower courts' endorsement of those claims.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider-impact-of-hobby-lobby-ruling/
The Supreme Court sent a fairly strong signal on Tuesday that its ruling giving some for-profit businesses a right not to provide birth control services to their female workers goes beyond the specific methods at issue in that decision. It issued a series of orders on six cases, each of which involved owners who objected to all of the pregnancy-related services mandated under the new federal health care law.
Click to expand...


Of course it applies more broadly. The more effort the court must put into trying to narrow an opinion, the broader the opinion's reach. They had to establish a general principle on corporate religious liberty to hold as they did. They had no other way to reach the decision. Frankly, they would probably have an easier time ruling for a broad contraceptive coverage ban than they did reaching this supposed specific (as mud) holding with the abortofascient distinction.
 
RevDeac06 said:
I thought about it (wondering if it would be there when I retired), but decided against it because 1) who knows what retirement will look like, 2) it also opts you out of Medicare, which is big, but mostly 3) clergy shouldn't be exempt from the ills/pains of society (taxes, etc) and I'm more than happy to support a system that (tries) to support seniors.
Click to expand...

God provided you a path from iniquity but you were sorely afraid. Fortunately, the Lord your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon or destroy you even though you plan to be a burden to the rest of His children in your old age.
 
tjcmd said:
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.
Click to expand...

This only works in a country where everyone is an upper-middle class 6-figure earner who can actually afford to pay "every day" medical costs out of pocket, plus the cost of a catastrophic care policy. Have you checked the bill statements your doctor sends and your insurance pays? Most Americans can't afford to pay out of pocket for even basic preventive care, or pay for their prescriptions for chronic illness. That's what happens when wages stay flat for 30 years and health costs rise at a rate far exceeding inflation. The result is that insurance becomes not only catastrophic care, but a "pay as you go" system for basic care as well.

Further, insurance coverage of preventive care wasn't invented by "greedy politicians". It was invented by insurance companies. It is in the financial interest of insurance companies to make sure everyone gets preventive care, so as to decrease the payouts for catastrophic illness later. Long before Obamacare, insurance companies got the idea on their own to cover preventive care. That includes contraception, since pregnancy is expensive.
 
Junebug said:
I'm not sure I'm being clear.

I'm saying the request for an EO exemption by the religious entities 923 highlighted in his post shouldn't be all that surprising considering the version of the ENDA--the bill to protect gays in employment--passed by the senate already has an exemption for religious entities.

I know that you love throwing the B word around, but consider that a logical consequence of that appellation is that the senators who voted for the ENDA (all of the senate democrats (minus 1 not voting)) are also bigots.

ETA: this is directed at numbers.
Click to expand...

I understand and no I don't believe that because if the options are to pass a bill with the language in or not pass it at all the better option is clearly to pass the bill.

If you're starving and the options are to eat seven slices of pizza after someone took the eighth piece, you don't refuse to eat, you just take what is there.
 
But i do not believe that at this stage of the bill negotiations that the clause should be added. If it's the only way the bill ends up getting pushed through because of obstructionist opposition then that's a different story.
 
Deacon923 said:
This only works in a country where everyone is an upper-middle class 6-figure earner who can actually afford to pay "every day" medical costs out of pocket, plus the cost of a catastrophic care policy. Have you checked the bill statements your doctor sends and your insurance pays? Most Americans can't afford to pay out of pocket for even basic preventive care, or pay for their prescriptions for chronic illness. That's what happens when wages stay flat for 30 years and health costs rise at a rate far exceeding inflation. The result is that insurance becomes not only catastrophic care, but a "pay as you go" system for basic care as well.

Further, insurance coverage of preventive care wasn't invented by "greedy politicians". It was invented by insurance companies. It is in the financial interest of insurance companies to make sure everyone gets preventive care, so as to decrease the payouts for catastrophic illness later. Long before Obamacare, insurance companies got the idea on their own to cover preventive care. That includes contraception, since pregnancy is expensive.
Click to expand...

Insurance works just fine when greedy politicians do not get involved. Real insurance (as opposed to prepayment of routine medical care) was affordable for all but the poorest Americans a generation or two ago when there were no coverage mandates . And routine medical care was affordable as well. As recently as the 1970's a visit to a pediatrician or primary care physician cost $4-5. After the wholesale takeover of most of health care by the government in order to make it "affordable" very few can afford routine health care or the product you are calling "insurance". Now statists are bellowing for the state to subsume the rest of health care in order to make it more "affordable." Forcing one person to pay another person's bills only makes the bills affordable for those on the dole. But it greatly increases the cost in general.

Further, if preventive care is something insurance companies offer on their own to their customers then there should be no need for greedy politicians to force the companies to provide it. Some states have up to 70 mandates for every policy sold including things like chiropracty and infertility treatment and more are added all the time in a process combining politicians seeking to win elections and money wielding lobbyists. If I don't plan on having more children or having a quack adjust my back why should I have to pay outrageous bills for those who do?
 
That was about the response I expected. It's the generalized libertarian response. The problem is that you cannot prove the counterfactual upon which your argument rests, namely, that if the gummint had just stayed out of it, healthcare would still be affordable for all. On the contrary, there is a large amount of evidence against your counterfactual. After all, the rest of the Western world has gone much farther toward government control of health care, and they all get health results as good or better than the US at a fraction of the cost per capita. There is no country that has a libertarian system of healthcare that delivers anything like good health results. Most of the models for your system are in sub-equatorial Africa. It's a rather large problem for the libertarian position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top