Throbbing Member
Are healthcare benefits treated differently from wages/salaries/leave entitlements etc? What is the effective difference between an employer dictating what your earned health coverage includes and dictating how you spend your earned wages? Honest question.
Active Member
Your question doesn't really match what is going on. Let me rephrase it to fit properly.Originally Posted by xmd 5a
Try this:
"What is the effective difference between an employer dictating what health coverage they will pay for and dictating how much they will pay you?"
Granted, this was all settled with ACA. People are now just using religious claims to counter the decision in some limited situations.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 07-01-2014 at 10:29 AM.
Throbbing Member
"You spend $x on drinking and gambling per month. Because these activities are against our beliefs, we will dock your pay by $x per month accordingly. Religious freedom!"
Is that closer to the mark? (I'm legit trying to understand how this works. It's a bit alien from a public healthcare moocher perspective)
Active Member
No, it's not. They aren't directly paying for the things you buy. But they are directly paying for the healthcare you receive."You spend $x on drinking and gambling per month. Because these activities are against our beliefs, we will dock your pay by $x per month accordingly. Religious freedom!"
Is that closer to the mark? (I'm legit trying to understand how this works. It's a bit alien from a public healthcare moocher perspective
It's worth noting, again, that this religious exception was signed into law by Clinton... A fairly liberal president. That thing has probably caused more problems than any good it created. This religious shit would have had a much harder time if they were to use the Constitution to support their case.
edit: actually, it looks like SCOTUS actually said that HobbyLobby would NOT have won if this was decided based on the Constitution.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 07-01-2014 at 02:11 PM.
Active Member
The dissent on the Hobby Lobby ruling is an interesting read.
I believe you guys opened Pandora's Box.
If Christian Scientists own a closely held corporation and one of their employee suffers Type 2 diabetes. Will they refuse paying for medicine she would have normally been able to benefit under ACA?
What about Orthodox Jews. Aren't they against blood transfusion or whatnot?
I understand the current ruling is specifically targeting contraceptives but that's just for now. It sets a precedent.
I don't believe the Constitution allows for religious discrimination. So it's just a matter of time when the next corporation with different beliefs decides to stop paying for something that goes against their religious beliefs.
Bite me
This isn't really about religious freedom; it's about money. Because it's always about money.
Here's the Opinion.
Read the rest of the Opinion for an in-depth explanation.JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.
Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.
Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.
In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious non-profit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.
As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 1 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “disadvantages . . . on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.” Post, at 1–2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that “RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.” Post, at 2.1 The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.
Hobby Lobby isn't against all forms of birth control. They did not argue about paying for insurance coverage for prophylactics, the Pill, or any other non-abortive forms of birth control. They only claimed that four "abortive" forms of birth control violated their evangelical religious beliefs, and they specified these four forms in their briefs. What this means is that the Federal government and the insurance companies now have to kick in and pay for this coverage, per the terms of the ACA. So the women don't actually lose anything in this deal. Also, the Opinion specifically states that blood transfusions and immunizations are not addressed by the Court in this Opinion.
Last edited by allegro; 07-01-2014 at 05:31 PM.
Active Member
^ It's almost like all angles of news coverage almost never come remotely close to the actual truth!
Active Member
Also, I came across another interesting angle that nobody has touched on. I'm still trying to validate it though.
http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/06/30/...out-obamacare/
Basically, (according to Napolitano) this decision has nothing to do with ACA/ObamaCare, no matter how much as conservatives want it to be. The requirement for employers to pay for contraceptives was NOT part of the ACA. It was an edict that HHS released. The difference is, of course, that ACA is now a law that Congress passed. An edict from a government agency is NOT something that can trump Congressional law (The 90's RFRA).
If this mandate was actually not part of ACA, then that makes this entire case incredibly simple.
Bite me
From the Opinion:^ It's almost like all angles of news coverage almost never come remotely close to the actual truth!
HHS and the principal dissent argue that a ruling in favor of the objecting parties in these cases will lead to a flood of religious objections regarding a wide variety of medical procedures and drugs, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions, but HHS has made no effort to sub- stantiate this prediction. HHS points to no evidence that insurance plans in existence prior to the enactment of ACA excluded coverage for such items. Nor has HHS provided evidence that any significant number of employers sought exemption, on religious grounds, from any of ACA’s coverage requirements other than the contraceptive mandate.
It is HHS’s apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA—no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers—that would lead to intolerable consequences. Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome.
In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
Bite me
I was nobody. Nothing.
- @allegro... it's always about money.
i am realizing this more and more, regarding EVERYTHING.
Active Member
This whole thing would be a nonissue if all these contraceptives were over the counter BUT GOD FORBID WE DO THAT.
Active Member
@allegro - do you know of any judicial geeks in the "left" that are heavy Constitutionalists? Basically an Andrew Napolitano with a bit more of a liberal angle. Seems hard to find any such type unless you give up on them being, primarily - first and foremost, a Constitutionalist.
I hate that this is slowly becoming more perceived as a right-wing attribute.
Active Member
I know the ruling doesn't concern vaccines, blood transfusions or whatnot.
It's just a matter of time that someone cites this case law and applies it to his own set of religious beliefs.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was pretty worried about this in her dissent.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...+Article+Feed)
And of course it's about the money. Especially since Hobby Lobby retirement funds have $37M invested in abortion and contraceptive products.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/
Bite me
Dude I just linked that Forbes article ...
(See #1480)
Also, someone can "cite the case law" but no judge is going to BUY that shit and Ginsburg KNOWS it. That's the lamest dissent ever, especially when the Opinion clearly points out that this is not the intent (which Judges will point out to morons thinking about citing this in a suit re vaccines or blood transfusions ).
Last edited by allegro; 07-01-2014 at 10:35 PM.
Bite me
It's kinda, hard to get an over-the-counter IUD (ouch!)
Last edited by allegro; 07-02-2014 at 03:10 PM.
Bite me
Yes, lots!!! Especially Jews. Thousands of Jewish liberal Constitutionalist lawyers in Chicago. I know ONE Jewish Republican lawyer. ONE. Even his Jewish liberal wife thinks he's a weirdo. He also happens to be my Boss LOL.
Constitutionalists and Civil Rights Activists aren't too far apart, except for gun issues.
Last edited by allegro; 07-01-2014 at 10:23 PM.
Bite me
I believe this is EXACTLY the case. If you read the Opinion carefully, this is obvious.
Active Member
Yes, but do any of them have media presence like Napolitano? I'd love to find someone else to follow for these types of things. Napolitano is pretty solid on most of these things, but seeing alternate angles (while retaining a strict constitutional focus) would be awesome.
I'm always amused when Fox decides to not ask Napolitano to weigh in on certain topics. It's almost always because it clashes with the rhetoric they are trying to push.
Active Member
So only Christians have the rights to single out some type of medicine that are against their beliefs?
I believe I am missing something or there's something I'm not understanding correctly. Anyways ... I'll move on.
Bite me
Yes, you're misunderstanding.
This whole thing relates SOLELY to employer-mandated health insurance coverage. Solely. Nothing more. And this case was brought before the SCOTUS solely for the issue of CONTRACEPTION. Nothing else. So another case cannot spin it to cover car tires, vaccinations, snake oil, baby legs, chicken fat, pork loin, whatever. It has to be about CONTRACEPTION. SPECIFICALLY. SOLELY. Because that's how legal citation works.
Plus, I believe the SCOTUS points out that the RFRA has been law since 1993 and no entity -- not-for-profit or for-profit -- has used it to deny their employees specific healthcare coverage, therefore setting legal precedent. If that was an issue, it would have happened by now; those entities would not need THIS case for precedent (they already had the RFRA).
Last edited by allegro; 07-02-2014 at 01:26 PM.
Active Member
I get it.
Do you believe that a similar claim for a different type of health insurance coverage and based on different religious beliefs would have more chance of being successful in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling?
Basically, a Muslim files a claim stating "Look, these guys are Christians and you say it's ok for them not to have to pay for those very specific contraceptive products because it goes against their religious beliefs. Consequently, medicine/treatment X goes against the Quran and my beliefs and therefore, I should not have to pay health coverage to my employees for said treatment"
Bite me
They'd have to file a lawsuit in a lower court, then it would have to work it's way up through an appellate court, then to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS would have to accept hearing the case under these same ground. This particular issue wasn't really about "the ACA violates my religious beliefs." It was PRIMARILY that the RFRA already specifies relating to not-for-profits, and a for-profit entity was ordered by the Dept of HHS mandated that for-profit entities cover it and these entities said WHOA, the RFRA should cover me, too. So, it's really a matter of the RFRA. If the RFRA hadn't been there, in the first place, this probably wouldn't even be a case.
You have to understand something: HARDLY ANY HEALTH INSURANCE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER COVERED CONTRACEPTION FOR WOMEN. EVER. EVER. We've always had to pay for our own contraception, out of pocket.
So contraception suddenly being covered by ANYBODY --- even the government (which it will be, if your employer's religion doesn't like it) -- is new for us.
But something like blood transfusions is life-saving so no employer can say "nope, sorry, can't cover that" because it's going to put insurance company's liability on the line. So no court is going to prevent an employer from ala carte picking and choosing lifesaving methods, because that was NEVER a part of the the RFRA. And "vaccines" generally falls into family coverage, which most employees have to pay for THEMSELVES, anyway, so the employers are generally off the hook (the employers don't pay for that, the cost is passed on to employees).
Worst cost scenario re blood transfusions is that the patient will get a bill in the mail post-hospitalization for the blood transfusion. That's if the your horror-story situation happens and some church goes to court under the RFRA and sues and the SCOTUS says yup, you can't be forced to pay for a blood transfusion. So, the insurance company doesn't pay for the blood transfusion.
When I go to the doctor, a bunch of stuff is covered by insurance and bunch of stuff ISN'T, and I get billed -- PERSONALLY -- for what isn't. That's how it works.
Actually, according to the ACA rules, what the employer doesn't cover per religious reasons, THE GOVERNMENT COVERS or the insurance company must absorb and the patient can't be forced to co-pay anything. So, the patient still isn't screwed either way.
Last edited by allegro; 07-02-2014 at 03:00 PM.
Active Member
Thanks for this message. Everything is suddenly clearer.
Is it me or did the media fail at presenting the true facts behind this ruling?
Bite me
Media failed.
Right now, a female Hobby Lobby employee will still be able to get an IUD under her Hobby Lobby insurance and either the Government or the insurance company must pay for it, but Hobby Lobby won't have to pay for it.
But, the female employees will still be able to get contraceptives totally free. WHICH NONE OF US HAVE EVER BEEN ABLE TO GET, BEFORE, EVER.
Active Member
Yea, but then ACA came along and created a national mandate that people buy something. That is going to be a ton of cans of worms, from the legal perspective. There are going to be plenty more interesting cases as HHS rolls out more edicts.
Also, this may not set a legal precedent for other religious complaints, but it very likely will open up a whole series of similar complaints under RFRA that may end up being tried. I really dislike the idea of forcing people to buy things. I also think RFRA has caused more problems than it is worth. All of this is such a cluster fuck that I just want to stand on the side and watch these fascinating SCOTUS opinions unfold while the media looks like children.
Active Member
Has that been finalized? I mean, it certainly seems like this is the way it will have to go, but HHS probably needs to officialize that. This would also create an additional incentive to obtain exemptions, as a company. Eventually, there is going to be a threshold where this costs the government too much money and something has to change. Dems will probably want it to be handled by shifting the entire thing over to the government and businesses simply pay by proxy through taxes. Meanwhile, Republicans will have an opportunity to starve the beast by blocking those attempts as much as possible. </random thoughts>
Bite me
Yes, the language is specified in the ACA according to the SCOTUS decision. It was a big reason for the decision.
Active Member
I hate Tapatalk.........
Last edited by Dra508; 07-02-2014 at 06:05 PM.
Active Member
....... Edited
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
