OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

So, say a closely held family corp is against vaccines and refuse to cover them, could they do that?

 

No, right? Gov't would need to pick up bill for that too. I understand when splitting down to individual policies they can argue there are less intrusive ways, but in my mind this is just regulating insurance by hitting a basic minimum coverage.

 

They explicitly said in the ruling that they were ruling solely on a religious objection to contraceptives. It seems silly that they refused to provide any guidance on obviously related claims, but that's what they did.

[bmags]

They explicitly said in the ruling that they were ruling solely on a religious objection to contraceptives. It seems silly that they refused to provide any guidance on obviously related claims, but that's what they did.

 

Ugh, I hate this court.

[Jenksismyhero]

Good decision. I don't think it's right to force a company to provide things to its employees that religiously they do not agree with.

[StrangeSox]

Ugh, I hate this court.

Yeah, I'm not sure why evangelical objections to some forms of contraceptive drugs that they were providing a few years earlier on the grounds that they're abortifacients (they're not) is more legitimate of a claim than Christian Scientists rejecting most modern medicine all together, or Jehovah's Witnesses rejecting blood transfusions. I don't see how they could allow Hobby Lobby's objection to stand but still require a for-profit company owned by JW's to provide insurance with blood transfusion coverage.

[cabiness42]

Yeah, I'm not sure why evangelical objections to some forms of contraceptive drugs that they were providing a few years earlier on the grounds that they're abortifacients (they're not) is more legitimate of a claim than Christian Scientists rejecting most modern medicine all together, or Jehovah's Witnesses rejecting blood transfusions. I don't see how they could allow Hobby Lobby's objection to stand but still require a for-profit company owned by JW's to provide insurance with blood transfusion coverage.

 

Well, for one, a blood transfusion is in most cases a necessary life-saving procedure. I'm not aware of any situations where birth control pills are a requirement to save a life.

[StrangeSox]

Well, for one, a blood transfusion is in most cases a necessary life-saving procedure. I'm not aware of any situations where birth control pills are a requirement to save a life.

So? You're violating their religious beliefs. What about anti-vaccination people? Or Christian Scientists?

[bmags]

The ruling seemed to indicate they agreed that the government has an interest in regulating this, so I'm not sure that one is lifesaving and one is not is relevant.

[cabiness42]

So? You're violating their religious beliefs. What about anti-vaccination people? Or Christian Scientists?

 

I don't have the time to look this up right now, but I think there are court precedents that spell out that 1st amendment religious freedoms do not supersede basic preservation of life. Parents have been jailed for failing to seek appropriate medical attention for their kids and hiding behind religious freedom.

 

Also, there is a free market risk with going too far in asserting religious freedom. If there really is such a thing as a sizable private JW owned company and they actually try to provide health insurance that does not cover things like blood transfusions, I think they have a hard time finding many non-JW people to work there.

 

While I'm not trying to downgrade the necessity of birth control, it clearly isn't as critical as something like a blood transfusion, plus there are plenty of resources for securing birth control aside from via insurance (Planned Parenthood, etc.), so I don't see Hobby Lobby losing a lot of employees over this decision.

[bmags]

I find Ginsburg's dissent much more compelling.

[StrangeSox]

I don't have the time to look this up right now, but I think there are court precedents that spell out that 1st amendment religious freedoms do not supersede basic preservation of life. Parents have been jailed for failing to seek appropriate medical attention for their kids and hiding behind religious freedom.

 

FWIW the court refused to rule on 1st amendment grounds. This was strictly a RFRA ruling. The court said in its opinion that this ruling couldn't be extended to racial discrimination RFRA claims (e.g. "my religion means I don't have to follow EEO or other labor laws" or undermining public accommodations laws), but they notably didn't mention anything other than race. More importantly, the RFRA isn't just about medical claims or requirements.

 

 

 

Also, there is a free market risk with going too far in asserting religious freedom. If there really is such a thing as a sizable private JW owned company and they actually try to provide health insurance that does not cover things like blood transfusions, I think they have a hard time finding many non-JW people to work there.

 

A substantial number of people work without any form of employer-provided health insurance at all as it is. Either way, that's more of a public policy argument than a legal rights argument.

 

While I'm not trying to downgrade the necessity of birth control, it clearly isn't as critical as something like a blood transfusion, plus there are plenty of resources for securing birth control aside from via insurance (Planned Parenthood, etc.), so I don't see Hobby Lobby losing a lot of employees over this decision.

 

They probably won't. We'll just be subsidizing their newly found religious objections now.

[StrangeSox]

Ginsburg makes the point in her dissent:

 

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

 

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

 

Whether or not RFRA should apply in those hypotheticals is both a policy and a legal question, but the majority did a disservice by refusing to offer guidance on anything other than objections to (what some people claim are) abortifacients.

Edited June 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[illinilaw08]

Good decision. I don't think it's right to force a company to provide things to its employees that religiously they do not agree with.

 

Two points...

 

(1) You haven't weighed in on the JW blood transfusion issue. Is it your position that a closely held corp owned by JW's can refuse to provide insurance that covers blood transfusions?

 

(2) I think this quote from Ginsburg sums up my thoughts on the issue: "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."

 

I really, really do not like this decision...

[cabiness42]

Two points...

 

(1) You haven't weighed in on the JW blood transfusion issue. Is it your position that a closely held corp owned by JW's can refuse to provide insurance that covers blood transfusions?

 

(2) I think this quote from Ginsburg sums up my thoughts on the issue: "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."

 

I really, really do not like this decision...

 

Quote from Ginsburg saved in order to be shoved back into her face when she inevitably rules against religious institutions when their case hits the Supreme Court.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Quote from Ginsburg saved in order to be shoved back into her face when she inevitably rules against religious institutions when their case hits the Supreme Court.

 

When what case hits the Supreme Court?

[cabiness42]

When what case hits the Supreme Court?

 

Religious nonprofits have the same case pending as Hobby Lobby.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Religious nonprofits have the same case pending as Hobby Lobby.

 

The nuns who don't want to have to sign a waiver? Or something else?

[cabiness42]

The nuns who don't want to have to sign a waiver? Or something else?

 

I think there's that one plus a university or two.

[Jake]

More reasons for federally-run single payer.

[EvilMonkey]

More reasons for federally-run single payer.

or more reasons for the Federal Guvmint to get the hell out. Would have been cheaper and less disruptive to have just done a means testing for an insurance rebate, or to let all the people they give subsidies to onto the governmental insurance programs with the rest of the Fed workers. They all suck at the same teat.

[Balta1701]

or more reasons for the Federal Guvmint to get the hell out. Would have been cheaper and less disruptive to have just done a means testing for an insurance rebate, or to let all the people they give subsidies to onto the governmental insurance programs with the rest of the Fed workers. They all suck at the same teat.

You realize that the former is exactly what this case involves and the latter was the "evil socialist evil evil evil public option"?

[EvilMonkey]

You realize that the former is exactly what this case involves and the latter was the "evil socialist evil evil evil public option"?

the evil socialist evil public 'option' was never really an option, but the ONLY choice. if you had 8 million uninsured people, would have been easier to somehow subsidize them to get them insured rather than screwing the whole country so that the feds can have their fingers in medicine as well.

[Balta1701]

the evil socialist evil public 'option' was never really an option, but the ONLY choice. if you had 8 million uninsured people, would have been easier to somehow subsidize them to get them insured rather than screwing the whole country so that the feds can have their fingers in medicine as well.

So...Medicaid?

[Balta1701]

Religious nonprofits have the same case pending as Hobby Lobby.

 

 

The nuns who don't want to have to sign a waiver? Or something else?

 

 

I think there's that one plus a university or two.

It's worth noting the text that Justice Alito wrote would suggest that the justices find the exemption the administration gave to non-profits (but not to for-profit companies) to be compelling.

The court, however, suggested other ways that the government could meet its goal without burdening employers. The justices suggested that the accommodation the government offered to religiously affiliated nonprofits would have been a more acceptable way for the government to approach the contraception rule when it comes to for-profit employers. "[The government] could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion. The court's opinion said it wasn't commenting on whether the accommodation provided enough protection for the religious-affiliated nonprofits, though.

 

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, which supports the contraception policy, said she read the court's comments "as a signal" that the justices would rule against the nonprofits if their cases reached the Supreme Court. "There's certain signs ... that would indicate the accommodations are acceptable and that the kinds of burdens that these employer entities are complaining about would not be viewed as substantial enough," she said.

Of course, it's probably a safe assumption that when a case actually arrives that exemption won't matter either.

[farmteam]

Good decision. I don't think it's right to force a company to provide things to its employees that religiously they do not agree with.

A corporation can't religiously agree or disagree with anything. It's a corporation.

[Jenksismyhero]

A corporation can't religiously agree or disagree with anything. It's a corporation.

 

Disagree. This is a closely held corporation. They don't have hundreds of subsidiaries or sister-companies or anything like that. It's one company that happens to have a lot of stores. It's the same as a mom and pop shop in that respect. I think it's crazy that anyone would think that a person or business like this would have to pay for something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, especially when it's not a health risk or a life and death situation. You want birth control or the morning after pill? Go pay for it yourself. Vaccines would work the same way, assuming you have a company that is in a similar situation.

 

I mean at some point when you start implementing policies and laws that force people to give up their own rights in favor of someone else's, you all realize that's LESS democratic and LESS progressive, right? You guys don't see that as at least a fundamental diversion from liberalism, even if you don't ultimately agree with the result here?