|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Nov 27, 2013 16:11:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Nov 27, 2013 17:25:17 GMT -6
I don't give a damn what any corporation-owning family's beliefs are; they have no right to impose their own beliefs upon their employees.
They can't legally discriminate on a religious basis in hiring, so they don't get to dictate what they'll allow employees when the program stipulates free birth control.
Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by gormsionnach on Nov 27, 2013 17:31:42 GMT -6
Indeed, religious freedom ends where the fellow next to you begins.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Nov 27, 2013 17:57:57 GMT -6
The solution here seems fairly obvious to all but Catholics and politicians. Birth control is an essential health service for women that decreases healthcare costs throughout the system. Any policy which does not cover it discriminates against women and adds to unnecessary healthcare spending.
Perhaps CCC will stop back to tell me why I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 27, 2013 19:28:42 GMT -6
What if a company that provides birth control as part of its health benefits is bought out by a so called Christian company, do the bought out company employees lose their birth control benefits?
|
|
|
Post by gormsionnach on Nov 27, 2013 21:06:03 GMT -6
They would have to Steve, or they'd be guilty of persecuting the purchasing firm; that is, after all, how persecution works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 10:38:59 GMT -6
I don't give a damn what any corporation-owning family's beliefs are; they have no right to impose their own beliefs upon their employees. They can't legally discriminate on a religious basis in hiring, so they don't get to dictate what they'll allow employees when the program stipulates free birth control. Plain and simple. Hi Dot: In my view this is not at all plain and simple. From the Hobby Lobby Family's perspective the issue is not one of "imposing their own beliefs upon their employees" but rather whether the government can force them to spend their money on certain types of drugs and devices which prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The plaintiffs sincerely believe that those drugs and devices are immoral. From FB's link: "The justices chose two cases in which the companies object to only a few of the 20 forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In a third case in which the court took no action Tuesday, Michigan-based Autocam Corp. doesn't want to pay for any contraception for its employees because of its owners' Roman Catholic beliefs.
The emergency contraceptives Plan B and Ella work mostly by preventing ovulation. The FDA says on its website that Plan B "may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg ... or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus)," while Ella also may work by changing the lining of the uterus so as to prevent implantation.
Hobby Lobby specifically argues that two intrauterine devices (IUDs) also may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The company's owners say they believe life begins at conception, and they oppose only birth control methods that can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, but not other forms of contraception."
Given the tight facts of the cases selected for review by the Supremes, I predict a loss for the administration. But then again, I thought the Patriots would lose to the Broncos. Your "I don't give a damn what any corporation-owning family's beliefs are..." attitude is fine I guess, but I would suggest that it is short-sighted. If I understand the Hobby Lobby facts correctly, and if I understand the ACA (highly unlikely, like everyone in Washington, I have not read it); it is not mandatory that Hobby Lobby offer health insurance at all. They could chose to pay the fine and toss their employees onto the exchange. That would be a shame. they could choose to close their doors - I suppose that is pretty far fetched, but it is possible. In any event they appear to be corporate good guys: "Hobby Lobby contributes generously to charities and starts full-time employees at nearly double the minimum wage. When the Greens and Hobby Lobby do this, and many other things, they are living out their faith and exercising their religion.
Hobby Lobby also provides excellent health insurance, which includes coverage for most — but not all — contraceptives. However, because of the Greens' firm belief in the dignity of human life and about when and how it begins, Hobby Lobby cannot provide coverage for some of the required drugs because they could cause an abortion."
www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garnett-obamacare-contraception-surpreme-cou-20131205,0,2899.story#ixzz2mcQCTPdx In my opinion, companies whose owners have sincerely held religious objections to certain types of birth control should not be forced to pay for insurance providing same. It is important to note that Hobby Lobby's 13,000 employees fully knew the religious values of the company owners when they hired on. They do not have the objectionable coverage in their policies today, and if that is a problem for the actual employees, (as opposed to a "problem" for the federal government) I have not read of it. These issues are anything but plain and simple. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 10:51:58 GMT -6
The solution here seems fairly obvious to all but Catholics and politicians. Birth control is an essential health service for women that decreases healthcare costs throughout the system. Any policy which does not cover it discriminates against women and adds to unnecessary healthcare spending. Perhaps CCC will stop back to tell me why I am wrong. Hi FB: I certainly can not tell you that you are wrong on this matter. Like the plaintiffs in the Hobby Lobby case, I have no problem with birth control although I believe abortion to be immoral. Your post does swing wider than the actual issue before the Supreme Court however - see my post in reply to Dot 1. Do you think that the Owners of Hobby Lobby should be forced by the Federal Government to pay for insurance that will pay for abortions? that is the issue from Hobby Lobby's perspective. Obviously there is an issue of whether devices and drugs which prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg cause abortions. But, that issue is a social/political/religious issue and I am not in favor of the Feds running roughshod over Hobby Lobby's owner's sincere opinion on the matter. Jim 1. "Hobby Lobby also provides excellent health insurance, which includes coverage for most — but not all — contraceptives. However, because of the Greens' firm belief in the dignity of human life and about when and how it begins, Hobby Lobby cannot provide coverage for some of the required drugs because they could cause an abortion." www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garnett-obamacare-contraception-surpreme-cou-20131205,0,2899.story#ixzz2mcQCTPdx
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 11:00:23 GMT -6
The solution here seems fairly obvious to all but Catholics and politicians. Birth control is an essential health service for women that decreases healthcare costs throughout the system. Any policy which does not cover it discriminates against women and adds to unnecessary healthcare spending. Perhaps CCC will stop back to tell me why I am wrong. Here is the solution: The Administration should allow companies and individuals who have sincerely held religious objections a waiver to the ACA's birth control requirements. The administration could then provide funds to PP or a similar organizations to provide free or cheap birth control to the relatively small population of women insured by companies with waivers. I think that those funding mechanisms are already in place. 28 years ago when we were just starting out and did not yet have a family doctor my wife got cheap or free birth control from PP. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 5, 2013 11:38:02 GMT -6
Easier solution: single payer. It bothers me not one bit that the owner of Hobby Lobby has personal convictions about abortion. What is bothersome is that the owner is effectively saying that his convictions must be binding on his employees. I personally think he'll lose the argument, but why not get employers out of the health care business altogether?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 12:16:45 GMT -6
Easier solution: single payer. It bothers me not one bit that the owner of Hobby Lobby has personal convictions about abortion. What is bothersome is that the owner is effectively saying that his convictions must be binding on his employees. I personally think he'll lose the argument, but why not get employers out of the health care business altogether? "What is bothersome is that the owner is effectively saying that his convictions must be binding on his employees." Not at all! "Binding" may not have been the word you were looking for. The owner is not threatening to fire anyone or basing hiring decisions on his employee's position with respect to abortion. The owner here appears to be offering a better than average plan, presumably because he values his employees ' well-being and because it gives him marketplace advantage. Yes, the owner does not want to provide insurance that pays for abortifacient drugs and devices, but that is not a viewpoint that is binding on his employees. The employees can source those items through other channels, or they could opt out of the employer's plan and get insurance through the exchange (I think). Or if they are really upset about the religious bias in their coverage they could seek a different job. They are hardly "bound." I suppose they are inconvenienced. Flip it around and ask. "Why does the government have to meddle when abortion/abortifacient funding is a fairly unique and highly contentious issue?" Universal coverage is no better solution ( with respect to this issue), it only puts the issue into a slightly different context. Let's assume that the US passes a single payer plan... Will it cover abortions? I am no expert, but I believe that current Medicaid covers abortion in only limited circumstances, at least in most states. I have no idea if Medicaid covers abortifacient drugs and devices. You are probably a lot more familiar with the intricacies of Medicaid than I am. www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.htmlThus, single payer really might exacerbate this particular issue because the sides will be polarized into all-or-nothing fight mode. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 5, 2013 12:35:22 GMT -6
The owner is not paying for "abortofascient" drugs. Since you think this issue is unique and highly contentious, let me construct for you a parallel example:
Suppose your firm is purchased outright by a Jehovah's Witness and that you are now a contracted employee. Your employer, out of personal spiritual convictions, does not want the insurance agent he has selected for your benefits to cover blood transfusions. Given that uncovered intervention can now affect you directly and profoundly, how do you feel about the restriction?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 5, 2013 14:58:27 GMT -6
Trout,
How would the anyone(government, union, or employee) monitor religious convictions as opposed to convenience or an excuse to reduce health costs?
Let's say that GM, or a privately held company like UPS, decided that they could reduce health costs by playing the religious convictions card with regard to birth control, how could we guarantee that the company is truly basing their decisions on religious grounds rather than financial reasons?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 15:20:03 GMT -6
The owner is not paying for "abortofascient" drugs. Since you think this issue is unique and highly contentious, let me construct for you a parallel example: Suppose your firm is purchased outright by a Jehovah's Witness and that you are now a contracted employee. Your employer, out of personal spiritual convictions, does not want the insurance agent he has selected for your benefits to cover blood transfusions. Given that uncovered intervention can now affect you directly and profoundly, how do you feel about the restriction? Abortifacient then - mocking my spelling error is beneath you. The JW blood transfusion issue is not particularly applicable since blood transfusions are fairly extreme treatments given to save the life of the patient. Abortifacient drugs and devices are given to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. There is a pretty clear cut distinction in the nature of these health care services. According to the article, there are at least 18 FDA approved alternative birth controls that are included under the Hobby Lobby health policy. In certain critical situations, I assume that there are exactly zero alternatives to a life saving blood transfusion. The freedom of religion aspect of your hypothetical has been extensively litigated. According to the Supremes, an adult JW can deny a blood transfusion to herself and thus die. The state can not compel the adult JW to accept the transfusion. The adult JW however, can not deny a life saving transfusion to their minor child . The state's compelling interest in preserving the life of the minor child trumps the adult JW's First Amendment freedom of religion. The administration will certainly argue in the Hobby Lobby case that the state's interest in providing certain contentious types of birth control outweighs the the First Amendment rights of Hobby Lobby's owners. I think the administration loses, because they can not make a compelling state interest case for providing those particular types of birth control when there are many alternatives available - keep in mind that it is a compelling state interest in the actual life or death of a child that trumps the First Amendment in the JW transfusion cases. You asked how I would feel about the hypothetical restriction. I would not like it and I would therefore quit and find work elsewhere. I know that is easier for me to say than some, since my skill set is scarce. But still, I have not read that any Hobby Lobby employees are fussed about the scope of coverage they had before the ACA. Any argument that this is about the actual Hobby Lobby employees as opposed to a symbolic fight from parties who refuse to give an inch is naive. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 15:32:24 GMT -6
Trout, How would the anyone(government, union, or employee) monitor religious convictions as opposed to convenience or an excuse to reduce health costs? Let's say that GM, or a privately held company like UPS, decided that they could reduce health costs by playing the religious convictions card with regard to birth control, how could we guarantee that the company is truly basing their decisions on religious grounds rather than financial reasons? Hi Steve, How the heck are they going to monitor anything related to this type of bureaucracy? Apparently, if I go on the exchange and say I'm poor, I'll get the tax rebates. This could be the happy hunting ground for fraudsters. Arguably, auditors will be put into place to verify all kinds of things related to these laws. Income levels, number of employees, number of kids etc. Those auditors can certainly ask for proof of religious conviction, which in the Hobby Lobby case is going to be pretty easy since they have been an outwardly Christian employer for over 40 years. Proof should be easy for church-affiliated organizations too. I would not exempt any publicly owned corporations (GM) since the ownership is too diverse to legitimately claim a religious conviction at the organizational level. Lastly, the delta in insurance cost between Policy A that covers 18 types of birth control (Hobby Lobby) and Policy B that covers 20 types of birth control (ACA aproved) is going to be insignificant. there is no financial incentive to cheat. I am not arguing for the dismantling of Obamacare (at least I'm not in this post)... I am arguing for the Administration to recognize the First Amendment/religious-based concerns of a rather small but sincere subset of all employers. Jim
|
|