When do we find out the outcome of the case?
Sure, but I think the employer should pay a surcharge to cover the costs to the government. Wait a minute, that's getting the employer to pay for it anyway, although indirectly, right? :lol: Really, why should the rest of us subsidize those religious fruitcakes? OccamI don't think we should have to, but if a Supreme Court decision in favor of a religious exemption means millions of people are literally thrown to the wolves, shouldn't we do something? We will certainly be on the hook to support the unplanned babies that will be born to parents who can't support them as a result of such a decision--and we won't be asked if we want to do it. We will pay one way or another. We wouldn't be subsidizing the fruitcakes, anyway, we'd be subsidizing the victims of such a decision. The fruitcakes would be off the hook whether the rest of us pick up the tab or not. We wouldn't be helping the fruitcakes with a subsidy--a Supreme Court decision allowing a religious exemption would do that. Lois
If the Supreme Court, in its lack of wisdom, goes so far as to rule that employers don't have to include certain health care products and services in their health care benefits, the Affordable Care Act could be rewritten to provide these things free to any employee who requests it and whose employer does not provide it in the company health care plan. They would be able to do this without the knowledge or involvement of the employer. Does anyone think this would not work? LoisThat depends. Who's going to pay for that? If the public has to then pick up the cost of those free services lots of companies might claim exemptions to save money and dump the cost on the rest of us and it rewards companies for being discriminatory. So you would prefer to allow the damage such a decision would do to our society, including all of the unplanned babies that would be born as a result, which we'd all wind up supporting whether we agree to or not? Do you really think we'd pay less under such a scenario? We'd pay a lot more than the cost of subsidizing their birth control. Refusing that would amount to "saving" a dollar here so we can be required to spend $10 over there. Lois
So you would prefer to allow the damage such a decision would do to our society, including all of the unplanned babies that would be born as a result, which we'd all wind up supporting whether we agree to or not? Do you really think we'd pay less under such a scenario? We'd pay a lot more than the cost of subsidizing their birth control. Refusing that would amount to "saving" a dollar here so we can be required to spend $10 over there. LoisThe problem is that it gives carte blanche to companies to shift the cost of their employees medical care to the rest of society just by saying they have a religious objection to this or that medical service. It would create a completely piecemeal approach to medical coverage across the country. Every company could have a different menu of services that they agree to cover and employees would then have to scramble to patch the holes in their coverage through some sort of government plans. I don't honesty think the Court is going to allow the Hobby Lobby claim, but if they do open this can of worms then congress should create a safety net plan to cover those services and tax every company that claims a religious objection to fund the plan.
Hobby Lobby buys most of its product in China which has unarguably some of the most draconian family planning laws in the world, including forced abortion, and invests a huge chunk of its pension money in the very American companies producing birth control, but they want to make their own workers access to them as expensive as possible. Not a peep about Viagra after ‘god’ has determined men are ‘too old’ to be sexually active however…
they want to make their own workers access to them as expensive as possible. Not a peep about Viagra after 'god' has determined men are 'too old' to be sexually active however..This has always been an issue for me. Some insurance companies until recently did not pay for birth control and most wont pay for drugs that help you quit smoking but they will cover viagra which is basically a recreational drug. Unfortunately Hobby Lobby is not the only entity that uses an inconsistent approach to health care.
So you would prefer to allow the damage such a decision would do to our society, including all of the unplanned babies that would be born as a result, which we'd all wind up supporting whether we agree to or not? Do you really think we'd pay less under such a scenario? We'd pay a lot more than the cost of subsidizing their birth control. Refusing that would amount to "saving" a dollar here so we can be required to spend $10 over there. LoisThe problem is that it gives carte blanche to companies to shift the cost of their employees medical care to the rest of society just by saying they have a religious objection to this or that medical service. It would create a completely piecemeal approach to medical coverage across the country. Every company could have a different menu of services that they agree to cover and employees would then have to scramble to patch the holes in their coverage through some sort of government plans. I don't honesty think the Court is going to allow the Hobby Lobby claim, but if they do open this can of worms then congress should create a safety net plan to cover those services and tax every company that claims a religious objection to fund the plan. You're right, it would give carte blanche to companies to shift the cost of their employees' medical care to the rest of society--but it's a Supreme Court decison, not a democratic one. We have nothing to say about it, we just have to live with the consequences. Congress can't impose a tax only on companies that claim a legal religious deduction. That, too, would be unconstitutional. The tax would have to be on all companies or all individuals. I would like it no better than you would, but we have to work with what we have and do what we can to protect society. Sometimes society has to be protected from the effects of Supreme Court decisions Lois
You're right, it would give carte blanche to companies to shift the cost of their employees' medical care to the rest of society--but it's a Supreme Court decison, not a democratic one. We have nothing to say about it, we just have to live with the consequences. Congress can't impose a tax only on companies that claim a legal religious deduction. That, too, would be unconstitutional. The tax would have to be on all companies or all individuals. I would like it no better than you would, but we have to work with what we have and do what we can to protect society. Sometimes society has to be protected from the effects of Supreme Court decisions LoisGood lawyers can come up with ways around most things. We could perhaps leave religion out of it and give companies a choice of plans. Some of those plans would have be bare bones packages that don't cover anything but hospitalization and basic medical care. Companies would have to chose between those plans or other comprehensive plans for their employees. if they choose the bare bones package they would have to give their employees a voucher which could be used to purchase a supplementary plan that provided more comprehensive coverage. If they worded it that way there is no religious discrimination and they could not claim they are being forced to provide care that goes against their religious belief since employees are free to do whatever they want with those vouchers just like they can do whatever they want with their paychecks.
Maybe an even better option would be to require all employers to simply give a voucher to their employees for health insurance and let the employees chose which plan they want. This way the employer is entirely removed from the choice and can;t make a claim that they are being forced to buy something which goes against their religious beliefs since the employer isn’t buying anything at all. They are just giving the employee a form of payment that is more limited than the paycheck they give them every week.
Funny that Hobby Lobby et al have no problem subsidizing vasectomies, Viagra, Cialis etc. And they were paying for birth control without complaint before the mandate became law.I hadn't thought of that, but you are correct. we haven't heard any information saying that the complain includes those things. It certainly shows that they are discriminating based on gender. I don't understand enough law to know if it wold make sense for the governement to bring that up in their arguments or if it would distract from the main argument by doing so. This makes the most sense; that way the employer will not feel the moral burden they evidently feel. Also, it makes sense to remove the employer from the equation of deciding what should and should not be covered. Regardless, I think most people find it a bit odd that their employer is somewhat of a gatekeeper to their medical care and what types they can or cannot receive, at least it seems odd to me. As we discussed earlier...the manner in which a pay check is spent is not controlled by the employer, so why can't the health plan be the same--and a voucher seems like a viable option, at least for those employers that feel they cannot handle offering health plans without inserting their own ideas on and "medical expertise" on what should be acceptable vs. not.
Check this out:
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Regardless, I think most people find it a bit odd that their employer is somewhat of a gatekeeper to their medical care and what types they can or cannot receive, at least it seems odd to me.Yes it all goes back to the fact that the employee's job and benefits are a privilege and not a right. You don't have a right to health care. You have a job with the privileges/benefits that the employer is willing to mete out to you. The answer to this problem is simple. Everyone should have healthcare under one umbrella. The people are able to choose the doctors that suit them and any administrative/insurance system under this umbrella should pay for any medical needs that the person and their doctor decide on together. A simple system can be put in place to reduce frivolity or discretionary wants by patients and or doctors. This includes everything from nose jobs to end of life treatments. Yeah, you can call them "Death Panels"..whatever! An example would be this...a standardized life expectancy figure. Then a sliding scale equation to determine costs vs. time left on expected life expectancy. Yes. This would need to be addressed. The patients life expectancy number could be given bonus points in relation to how much of a burden the person was on the insurance system over their lifetime. As a society we have to face the facts. How much is it worth to keep someone alive for 3, 5 or 10 more years? That's where the sliding scale comes in. Of course people can supplement any care with their own money, or use the system less in their peak years to acquire bonus points for use in hospice or end of life treatments etc.. Perhaps when population is more controlled and "booms" and "plumes" are reduced greater discretion can be used.
Regardless, I think most people find it a bit odd that their employer is somewhat of a gatekeeper to their medical care and what types they can or cannot receive, at least it seems odd to me.Yes it all goes back to the fact that the employee's job and benefits are a privilege and not a right. You don't have a right to health care. You have a job with the privileges/benefits that the employer is willing to mete out to you. The answer to this problem is simple. Everyone should have healthcare under one umbrella. The people are able to choose the doctors that suit them and any administrative/insurance system under this umbrella should pay for any medical needs that the person and their doctor decide on together. A simple system can be put in place to reduce frivolity or discretionary wants by patients and or doctors. This includes everything from nose jobs to end of life treatments. Yeah, you can call them "Death Panels"..whatever! An example would be this...a standardized life expectancy figure. Then a sliding scale equation to determine costs vs. time left on expected life expectancy. Yes. This would need to be addressed. The patients life expectancy number could be given bonus points in relation to how much of a burden the person was on the insurance system over their lifetime. As a society we have to face the facts. How much is it worth to keep someone alive for 3, 5 or 10 more years? That's where the sliding scale comes in. Of course people can supplement any care with their own money, or use the system less in their peak years to acquire bonus points for use in hospice or end of life treatments etc.. Perhaps when population is more controlled and "booms" and "plumes" are reduced greater discretion can be used. That would be ideal, and a single payer plan was discussed when a national health plan was being considered by bi-partisan panels. As usual, the Republicans did not want such a system and they fought tooth and nail against every plan that would have provided it. Socialism! they said. So we have the mish mash we have under the Affordable Care Act. It was the best that could pass Congressionsl muster. It was that or nothing. A camel is a horse built by a committee. The affordable Health Care Plan is a health plan is a far odder and more dysfunctionsl animal than a camel. A sane and functioning healthcare plan never got out of the committee room. And to this day, the crippled ACA is trashed by the Republicans as socialism, even though they had a hand in creating it--or at least in preventing a single payer plan. The choice was never between a sane and functioning healthcare plan and a crippled one. It was a choice between a crippled one and none at all. Which would you have chosen? Lois
Funny that Hobby Lobby et al have no problem subsidizing vasectomies, Viagra, Cialis etc. And they were paying for birth control without complaint before the mandate became law.I hadn't thought of that, but you are correct. we haven't heard any information saying that the complain includes those things. It certainly shows that they are discriminating based on gender. I don't understand enough law to know if it wold make sense for the governement to bring that up in their arguments or if it would distract from the main argument by doing so. This makes the most sense; that way the employer will not feel the moral burden they evidently feel. Also, it makes sense to remove the employer from the equation of deciding what should and should not be covered. Regardless, I think most people find it a bit odd that their employer is somewhat of a gatekeeper to their medical care and what types they can or cannot receive, at least it seems odd to me. As we discussed earlier...the manner in which a pay check is spent is not controlled by the employer, so why can't the health plan be the same--and a voucher seems like a viable option, at least for those employers that feel they cannot handle offering health plans without inserting their own ideas on and "medical expertise" on what should be acceptable vs. not. It would be interesting to see if such a plan would pass Republican muster, which is doubtful, considering their track record on health care proposals and on the ACA. Lois
That would be ideal, and a single payer plan was discussed when a national health plan was being considered by bi-partisan panels. As usual, the Republicans did not want such a system and they fought tooth and nail against every plan that would have provided it. Socialism! they said. So we have the mish mash we have under the Affordable Care Act. It was the best that could pass Congressionsl muster. It was that or nothing. A camel is a horse built by a committee. The affordable Health Care Plan is a health plan is a far odder and more dysfunctionsl animal than a camel. A sane and functioning healthcare plan never got out of the committee room. And to this day, the crippled ACA is trashed by the Republicans as socialism, even though they had a hand in creating it--or at least in preventing a single payer plan. The choice was never between a sane and functioning healthcare plan and a crippled one. It was a choice between a crippled one and none at all. Which would you have chosen? LoisIf the ACA has any faults(and I suppose it does from a few perspectives)it's because of Republican/Establishment obstruction. Period. Nevertheless I view at as a stepping stone towards Universal Health. The ACA is going to solidify. It will iron out. Let's see who in the future wishes to reduced or eliminate it's benefits. I'm off topic here. These bumps in the road concerning reproductive rights will not stand. This is just another attack on the ACA from yet another angle.
That would be ideal, and a single payer plan was discussed when a national health plan was being considered by bi-partisan panels. As usual, the Republicans did not want such a system and they fought tooth and nail against every plan that would have provided it. Socialism! they said. So we have the mish mash we have under the Affordable Care Act. It was the best that could pass Congressionsl muster. It was that or nothing. A camel is a horse built by a committee. The affordable Health Care Plan is a health plan is a far odder and more dysfunctionsl animal than a camel. A sane and functioning healthcare plan never got out of the committee room. And to this day, the crippled ACA is trashed by the Republicans as socialism, even though they had a hand in creating it--or at least in preventing a single payer plan. The choice was never between a sane and functioning healthcare plan and a crippled one. It was a choice between a crippled one and none at all. Which would you have chosen? LoisIf the ACA has any faults(and I suppose it does from a few perspectives)it's because of Republican/Establishment obstruction. Period. Nevertheless I view at as a stepping stone towards Universal Health. The ACA is going to solidify. It will iron out. Let's see who in the future wishes to reduced or eliminate it's benefits. I'm off topic here. These bumps in the road concerning reproductive rights will not stand. This is just another attack on the ACA from yet another angle. That's true. They will try anything to trash it. Lois
For those who aren’t familiar with the “We The People Podcasts” from the National Constitution Center, they a generally very interesting. Their March 26th episode deals with the Hobby Lobby case and features a couple of constitutional experts ( Ilya Shaprio from the Cato Institute and David Gaines form the Constitutional Accountability Center) from each side of the issue.
http://constitutioncenter.org/experience/programs-initiatives/podcasts/
Many republicans despise the idea of national healthcare coverage. I believe the current administration would be in favor of a single payor, national healthcare system; however, they knew that that would be too radical for many Americans. Many republicans have said that there needs to be compromise on the ACA; however, as far as I am concerned the Affordable Care Act IS THE COMPROMISE. If the current administration wished not to compromise, they would have probably just implemented a national healthcare system! But we have settled for this piecemeal system known as the ACA because it is the best we can do at this time in history…it’s probably just a stepping stone. One day, there probably will be national healthcare in the US.