Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Kestrel]

I don't doubt that this is very hard to change, but it is correct to identify this as a fundamental flaw in the system.

In many countries with universal health insurance, private, for-profit insurers directly underwrite individuals' health spending. Some of those insurers could even have religious or ethical beliefs. But they get no say in respect of their requirement to cover a statutory threshold of spending types, most (probably all) of which include many types of contraception.

The issue is a law written two decades ago, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At the time this law was created, nobody expected that it would apply to for profit corporations.

The issue could be solved by amending the RFRA to clarify this point. Perhaps someday that can be done, the current House leadership would never allow such an amendment to come to a vote.

 

[sunmaster14]

It seems pretty clear that it will not fit into many other forms of medical care, why else specifically mention it not applying to two of the more common other things complained about, vaccines and blood transfusions?

It seems the most important issue determining if the belief is worthy of legal protections is does the Catholic church hold it.

It may seem that way, especially since the majority comprised five Catholics, and no Catholics dissented. However, upon closer examination, it seems that there are three things which distinguish the contraception mandate from other mandates:

(1) the contraception mandate changed the status quo in which many employers had already provided insurance plans which did not cover forms of contraception proscribed by the Catholic Church;

(2) HHS had already decided to exempt churches from the mandate and to make an accommodation for non-profits which were religiously affiliated; and

(3) in light of the first two things, it would hardly be a material setback for public policy if the HHS accommodation were to be offered to closely-held corporations which objected to the mandate on religious grounds.

For example, can you provide an example of a preexisting health insurance plan which did not cover blood transfusions or vaccines?

 

[Kestrel]

It may seem that way, especially since the majority comprised five Catholics, and no Catholics dissented.

There are five Catholic men currently on the Supreme Court. Sonya Sotamayer, the only Catholic woman justice, dissented from the ruling.

 

[sunmaster14]

There are five Catholic men currently on the Supreme Court. Sonya Sotamayer, the only Catholic woman justice, dissented from the ruling.

Oops. I totally forgot about Sonia Sotomayor being Catholic. So the court has six Catholics and three Jews (and perhaps even a few atheists), but no Protestants. I haven't heard anybody remark on that before, but it's kind of remarkable.

 

[Tricky]

Interestingly, Hobby Lobby used to provide birth control coverage in their insurance, and they were so outraged by it that they were unaware of it.

So it seems that this really about their deeply held convictions after all. This is about doing anything they can to thwart Obama.

 

[Francesca R]

Check the AntiObama Freedom Restoration Act. I believe it's been in force for a few years.

 

[sunmaster14]

Interestingly, Hobby Lobby used to provide birth control coverage in their insurance, and they were so outraged by it that they were unaware of it.

So it seems that this really about their deeply held convictions after all. This is about doing anything they can to thwart Obama.

PunditFact should have rated the claim "partially true" as Hobby Lobby's health insurance plan did not cover IUDs, which is part of the contraceptive mandate. In any case, I think any objective person who reads Hobby Lobby's complaint would come away with the impression that Hobby Lobby's owners are completely sincere. They have shown a commendable commitment to their religious beliefs, which has redounded to the significant benefit of their employees. Hobby Lobby pays very good wages (its minimum wage for full-time employees is 80% higher than the Federal minimum wage) and limits store hours to 66 hours per week (not open on Sundays or religious holidays), so that employees have ample personal time. Furthermore, the health insurance plan has always been generous, and HL refused to avail itself of grandfather status under Obamacare (which would have made the contraception mandate moot, at least in the short-term).

There is no doubt that a conservative civil rights group sought out Hobby Lobby to use as a plaintiff in order to attack the Obamacare mandate, but I think Hobby Lobby's agenda is religious, not political.

 

[johnny karate]

Interestingly, Hobby Lobby used to provide birth control coverage in their insurance, and they were so outraged by it that they were unaware of it.

So it seems that this really about their deeply held convictions after all. This is about doing anything they can to thwart Obama.

Nothing says "deeply held convictions" like making little or no effort to actually abide by them.

 

[Upchurch]

Check the AntiObama Freedom Restoration Act. I believe it's been in force for a few years.

Is that freedom from Anti-Obama folks or freedom for Anti-Obama folks?

 

[Tricky]

PunditFact should have rated the claim "partially true" as Hobby Lobby's health insurance plan did not cover IUDs, which is part of the contraceptive mandate. In any case, I think any objective person who reads Hobby Lobby's complaint would come away with the impression that Hobby Lobby's owners are completely sincere. They have shown a commendable commitment to their religious beliefs, which has redounded to the significant benefit of their employees.

Right. So sincere that they (by their own admission) never even noticed it before.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oh well I also claim it should be none of their business. But that would require the premiums not to be routed through them or any employer. Something which every other OECD nation seems to have managed to achieve.

That is one of our greatest flaws...

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are five Catholic men currently on the Supreme Court. Sonya Sotamayer, the only Catholic woman justice, dissented from the ruling.

As a woman she clearly doesn't count.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oops. I totally forgot about Sonia Sotomayor being Catholic. So the court has six Catholics and three Jews (and perhaps even a few atheists), but no Protestants. I haven't heard anybody remark on that before, but it's kind of remarkable.

I do. Our founders would be shocked that there is not one real Christian, it is full of papists and Jews.

 

[ravdin]

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. It's wrong to kill microscopic people because the invisible god says so.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. Declining to pay for something is exactly the same thing as blocking access to it.

 

[Kestrel]

I have no doubt that most religious people are sincere in their beliefs. Including the ones that follow the example of Abraham and prepare to sacrifice their child when the voice in their head demands it.

 

[Tricky]

Our founders would be shocked that there is not one real Christian, it is full of papists and Jews.

They'd probably be just as shocked that there is not one Deist.

 

[Neally]

I have no doubt that most religious people are sincere in their beliefs. Including the ones that follow the example of Abraham and prepare to sacrifice their child when the voice in their head demands it.

So now that all the arguments against the decision have petered out, we are left with simply attacking religion in general? At least you could try to weave it into arguments repealing that part of the first amendment.

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah, but you're not. The Court made it clear that their decision did not depend on the status of HL as a church. Instead, it depended on the status of the owners of HL as actual human beings, with actual human rights:



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

No churches involved in the decision. Just human beings with human rights.

Are you starting to get it yet?

I get that for some reason you think quoting the decision, and even specific parts, that I disagree with somehow counter my disagreement with them. The court found that it's just human beings with human rights, but I disagree. It's a corporate being, not a human one. It's a legal entity, not a human entity. The legal entities which can have religious objections should be religious ones, not corporations. If they want to be run according to their religious ideals, the least they could do would be to reorganize as one of those new LLCs that don't have to put profit first and can be run on charters with other goals. The owners religious rights shouldn't trump neutrally implemented societal laws.

Which would be relevant if the debate was about paying for some nebulous "health insurance". But it's not. It's specifically about paying for specific forms of contraceptive coverage. And yes, when you pay for specific forms of contraceptive coverage, your money will be used for those forms of contraceptive coverage. That's how it works.

Just like if I wanted to pay with company script to make sure they couldn't use their pay to get this evil coverage. It's Hobby Lobby that's framing it as about some specific part of health insurance that they don't want to pay for and I see no good reason to allow that framing. They don't get to pick what constitutes health insurance any more than they get to pick what constitutes money or taxes. Rather they shouldn't. They don't get to separate out some part of the whole just so they can say they know it will be used objectionably. It very much is about what is and what is not real health insurance. Real health insurance includes this coverage.

Yes, they do: they have zero input on how salary is used. They have direct input on how health insurance is used, because it WILL BE used for what it covers. That's not an abstract possibility, it's a guarantee.

They shouldn't have input on how health insurance is used. That's one of the main objections. It's not their compensation. That is no different than requiring their paycheck not going to the coverage.

But not specifically sin. The choice is completely up to someone else, and the payment of salary does nothing to encourage sinful choice. But the coverage of sinful procedures does specifically encourage those sinful procedures. That is, in fact, the explicit purpose of coverage.

Again, they shouldn't get to decide what is health insurance and what is not. That's what regulations are for. Just separating out the part they don't like doesn't make it any more valid. They don't like that the coverage works for things they don't like, which is no substantive difference from money working for things they don't like.

The government's interest in this particular form of coverage is not compelling. The large number of exceptions demonstrate that abundantly.

Again, I strongly disagree. I'd rather we had single payer, but if that's not possible then companies will should just have to deal with part of the required compensation being health coverage as defined by the government, just like money is defined by the government.

 

[Kestrel]

So now that all the arguments against the decision have petered out, we are left with simply attacking religion in general? At least you could try to weave it into arguments repealing that part of the first amendment.

I was just pointing out that having a sincere belief is not equivalent to having a reasonable belief.

The court explicitly limited this ruling to contraception, but the logic of the majority decision could be applied to any sincerly held religious belief of the owners of a closely held company. The five Catholic men only applied it to a belief that conformed with the official position of their own church.

The net result is that the religious beliefs of the owners took priority over the religious beliefs and medical needs of the employees.

 

[eeyore1954]

The net result is that the religious beliefs of the owners took priority over the religious beliefs and medical needs of the employees.

How? Do some of the employees have religious beliefs that contraception is to be paid for by their employers?