Supreme Court to hear ACA case mandatory contraception

[Wakeforest22890]

Churches shouldn't get exemptions, religion shouldn't get exemptions, nobody should get exemptions on the basis of religious beliefs. I'm with RJ how does this prevent a corporation from claiming religious freedom for doing anything? Also where do you draw the line at what is or is not a religion?

 

[RJKarl]

Why won't anyone address this?

Could a corporation run by Jehovah's Witnesses demand not to cover transfusions or any other blood products?

Could a company declare itself a Christian Science company and thus not cover any health insurance?

Or is this only about abortion and contraception?

The craziest position is held by those who oppose abortion and oppose contraception.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Churches shouldn't get exemptions, religion shouldn't get exemptions, nobody should get exemptions on the basis of religious beliefs. I'm with RJ how does this prevent a corporation from claiming religious freedom for doing anything? Also where do you draw the line at what is or is not a religion?

That's what the IRS is for (determining what's a religious organization).

Look, the Catholic Church has longstanding objections to contraception. This isn't about somebody making shit up. You can't dismiss a legitimate objection on the basis that illegitimate objections may subsequently sprout up. The government made up this stupid ass policy and forced it down the throat of the Catholic Church, so forgive me if I'm not particularly sympathetic toward the government here. It's up to it to find a way out of a mess of its own making. In this case, it isn't even about exemptions to coverage anyway-- it's about mandating contraception coverage. This is a fight that didn't even need to be fought.

 

[DeacMan]

They are a non-profit, religious based organization.

And a "corporation" under the law you dip shit.

 

[Deacon923]

That's what the IRS is for (determining what's a religious organization).

Look, the Catholic Church has longstanding objections to contraception. This isn't about somebody making shit up. You can't dismiss a legitimate objection on the basis that illegitimate objections may subsequently sprout up. The government made up this stupid ass policy and forced it down the throat of the Catholic Church, so forgive me if I'm not particularly sympathetic toward the government here. It's up to it to find a way out of a mess of its own making. In this case, it isn't even about exemptions to coverage anyway-- it's about mandating contraception coverage. This is a fight that didn't even need to be fought.

The Catholic Church is one thing, Hobby Lobby is something completely different. One is an identified major church subject to all the regulation and restrictions that accompanies tax exempt status in the US. Hobby Lobby is a for profit business that happens to have owners with certain religious scruples.

For the record, I think my non-legal arguments in a prior post (about the silliness of ignoring the agency of the employee) apply with equal force to the Catholic Church as to Hobby Lobby, but legally they are quite different.

Also for the record, this whole structure is messed and up and ridiculous because for some reason we can't get away from a dumb system designed in the 1940s of providing health care through employers. Get the health care system out of the employment system and all this nonsense goes away. The McCain platform sought to accomplish that in 2008, and single payer would accomplish that, but instead we're stuck with this bastardized hybrid that doubles down on the biggest core problem.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

This is less about the religion and more about the government stipulating you must do X or face a penalty (and not only do X, but do it in a manner that we say is "right."). Prior to the ACA, a Jehovahs Witness company could refuse to offer insurance and make their employees buy it on the individual market. There would be no penalty to the company for not offering insurance.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

That's what the IRS is for (determining what's a religious organization).

Look, the Catholic Church has longstanding objections to contraception. This isn't about somebody making shit up. You can't dismiss a legitimate objection on the basis that illegitimate objections may subsequently sprout up. The government made up this stupid ass policy and forced it down the throat of the Catholic Church, so forgive me if I'm not particularly sympathetic toward the government here. It's up to it to find a way out of a mess of its own making. In this case, it isn't even about exemptions to coverage anyway-- it's about mandating contraception coverage. This is a fight that didn't even need to be fought.

The government "made up this stupid policy?" That's the way our government works. We elect legislators who then pass laws. If they're unconstitutional then they will be ruled so. How is the government "finding a way out of its own mess?" Laws regularly are challenged and go to the SCOTUS. I don't think the "government" is really too concerned about a "mess" they "made."

So you're just against laws you don't like. That's about it then.

I'm not against a particular department having the right to determine what a religious organization is, I'm against any department from doing so. Being a religious group should not entitle you to any sort of ridiculous advantages. Furthermore there is a HUGE difference between the Catholic Church and the private company Hobby Lobby.

People shouldn't be able to create corporations to shield themselves from complying with the 14th amendment.

 

[Deacon923]

This is less about the religion and more about the government stipulating you must do X or face a penalty (and not only do X, but do it in a manner that we say is "right."). Prior to the ACA, a Jehovahs Witness company could refuse to offer insurance and make their employees buy it on the individual market. There would be no penalty to the company for not offering insurance.

Correct, and prior to the ACA, any individual Jehovah's Witness (or anyone else) could refuse to be insured for religious or any other reason. The SCOTUS found the individual mandate to be constitutional. I am not sure how the SCOTUS can parse the difference between the individual mandate being constitutional but the employer mandate not being constitutional. They might say that the religion issue was not before the court in the individual mandate case (not sure whether or not that is true) but if they do they throw the doors wide open for a religious exception to the individual mandate. The issues are exactly the same - I have to buy insurance, if I don't I pay a fine, and that fine goes to help pay for other people to buy that evil contraception.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

Just another reason why this law is a piece of crap.

 

[Deacon923]

I'm not against a particular department having the right to determine what a religious organization is, I'm against any department from doing so. Being a religious group should not entitle you to any sort of ridiculous advantages.

Off topic, but did you see the recent district court case deciding that the tax exemption for clergy compensation is unconstitutional? http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/11/23/judge-declares-exclusion-for-clergy-housing-payments-unconstitutional/

 

[RJKarl]

Can a corporation owned by Christian Scientists deny all insurance coverage to their employees?

If they can't, then there is no logical reason to all special handling to anti-contraception people.

If the SC overturns this. Hillary is the lock of all locks in 2016. She will get 70+% of the under 40 women's vote.

 

[Deacon923]

Snort. Lot of time between now and November 2016.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

There's a very easy way out of this, and it is for the government to (1) recognize and (2) respect that there are going to be objections to contraceptive coverage. You'd think that would be pretty easy. I guarantee if a union made such objections, they would have been recognized and respected. The administration forced this policy upon religious organizations and did not need to. It was very foreseeable that this problem would arise.

I do think there's a difference between the Catholic Church and Hobby Lobby, but I also think that it isn't particularly relevant. If the government had done what it should have and respected that contraceptive coverage shouldn't be mandated, then we aren't even having this debate.

And if anybody thinks single payer is going to solve this, I submit that it will only make things worse in all the ways ObamaCare is failing now. Controversial mandates, underpayment of doctors, death panels debates, etc... ObamaCare is a mini version of single payer.

 

[DeacMan]

Correct, and prior to the ACA, any individual Jehovah's Witness (or anyone else) could refuse to be insured for religious or any other reason. The SCOTUS found the individual mandate to be constitutional. I am not sure how the SCOTUS can parse the difference between the individual mandate being constitutional but the employer mandate not being constitutional. They might say that the religion issue was not before the court in the individual mandate case (not sure whether or not that is true) but if they do they throw the doors wide open for a religious exception to the individual mandate. The issues are exactly the same - I have to buy insurance, if I don't I pay a fine, and that fine goes to help pay for other people to buy that evil contraception.

They'll have the same problem under the individual mandate. If I'm a devout Catholic why should I have to pay for birth control coverage. I think one way around this on the individual market is that no one is forcing you to use the birth control. In the employer market that is a tougher argument to make. Then again I think this whole thing is a sham and that the initial ruling was wrong.

 

[DeacMan]

Can a corporation owned by Christian Scientists deny all insurance coverage to their employees?

If they can't, then there is no logical reason to all special handling to anti-contraception people.

If the SC overturns this. Hillary is the lock of all locks in 2016. She will get 70+% of the under 40 women's vote.

I have no idea what "then there is no logical reason to all special handling to anti-contraception people" means. Can you clarify the point you are trying to make?

 

[Deacon923]

They'll have the same problem under the individual mandate. If I'm a devout Catholic why should I have to pay for birth control coverage. I think one way around this on the individual market is that no one is forcing you to use the birth control. In the employer market that is a tougher argument to make. Then again I think this whole thing is a sham and that the initial ruling was wrong.

Wait, hold on. Who is forcing anyone to use birth control in the employer market? This goes back to my original point, which is that it seems nonsensical to argue that if my employees use insurance I pay for to buy contraception, I am going to hell, but if they use cash money from their paycheck to buy contraception, I go to heaven.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

I have no idea what "then there is no logical reason to all special handling to anti-contraception people" means. Can you clarify the point you are trying to make?

Here is a hint, DeacMan. Don't argue with idiots.

 

[RJKarl]

Snort. Lot of time between now and November 2016.

She will run on replacing Scalia and Kennedy. Each will 80 within weeks of her election.

Add to all the other advantages she has and this would make it a wipeout.

 

[DeacMan]

Wait, hold on. Who is forcing anyone to use birth control in the employer market? This goes back to my original point, which is that it seems nonsensical to argue that if my employees use insurance I pay for to buy contraception, I am going to hell, but if they use cash money from their paycheck to buy contraception, I go to heaven.

In the employer market it is perfectly legitimate for the Catholic church to not want to provide birth control to its employees. And the employees know if they go to work for the Catholic church they will not receive this benefit. That is far different than a single individual buying the coverage mandated by the law and then electing NOT to use part of the coverage. The Catholic church is required to make a shitty choice under ObamaCare. Don't provide healthcare (pay a tax), provide it without contraception (pay a tax, assuming anyone even offers such noncompliant coverage), or provide it with contraception.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

There's a very easy way out of this, and it is for the government to (1) recognize and (2) respect that there are going to be objections to contraceptive coverage. You'd think that would be pretty easy. I guarantee if a union made such objections, they would have been recognized and respected. The administration forced this policy upon religious organizations and did not need to. It was very foreseeable that this problem would arise.

I do think there's a difference between the Catholic Church and Hobby Lobby, but I also think that it isn't particularly relevant. If the government had done what it should have and respected that contraceptive coverage shouldn't be mandated, then we aren't even having this debate.

And if anybody thinks single payer is going to solve this, I submit that it will only make things worse in all the ways ObamaCare is failing now. Controversial mandates, underpayment of doctors, death panels debates, etc... ObamaCare is a mini version of single payer.

You don't think the difference between a classified religious organization and a for-profit corporation is particularly relevant in this discussion?

Also why would the government have not mandated contraceptive coverage when it wanted it to be mandated? You think that they "should have" done it because that's what you want, not because the government shouldn't have done it given the majority they had to pass it.