Other Resources The Political Joe » Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 9
 
 
2014-04-04 12:41 PM
in reply to: Artemis

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by Artemis

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by powerman

Originally posted by dmiller5

Can I add that Hobby Lobby has provided healthcare plans in the past that do cover contraceptives. Only now are they making a stink about it because someone says that they have to.

No, now they are making a stink about the 4 they have to add that they did not provide before... it is the 4 they are protesting.

 

Oh... Tony beat me to it.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, that makes a bit more sense...kind of

I know there's a whole other debate about what constitutes birth control versus pregnancy termination which is somewhat relative to the conversation, but there is certainly a very large population of religious folks that feel very strongly that the morning after pills are more of a termination than a preventative.

I'm a strong pro-life guy personally and I don't have a big issue with the plan B type contraceptives because of how they work.  Yes, it's a little bit of a gray area, but it's a whole lot different than a termination in the sense of later down the road.

They can believe whatever they want, but that's not what they studies show.  In a study of Plan B, women who had already ovulated and took Plan B got pregnant at the same rate as women who did not take Plan B.  If it did cause abortions, that would be different.

The Plan B type products are certainly a gray area because of the "post intercourse" nature of their usage.  Some see the act itself that results in a pregnancy as "conceiving the child" and others (probably more common) consider egg fertilization as the moment of conception (I'm kind of in that camp).

Either way, it boils down to forcing someone who has a "religious belief" (right or wrong) to go against it by using the force/power of government.  As an individual, I think we can all agree that a person has the freedom to believe whatever they want in regards to contraception, but the question at hand is if that individuals right is still protected in the context of a business they own.



2014-04-04 5:11 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by chirunner134 I know Hobby Lobby probably does not have a lot of control over this but I do find it kinda funny. Hobby Lobby investing in the drugs they are trying to protest against. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_...

Actually... according to this they do. I was wondering what the details were... but this says it is investment in the ones they do not want to provide in health plans... and they certainly have choices.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

2014-06-30 8:54 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

New user
324
100100100
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
we'll get the decision in this case today.
2014-06-30 9:22 AM
in reply to: braciole

User image

New user
324
100100100
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.

RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.

The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.

Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

Alito wrote for the majority, Kennedy wrote a concurrent, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsberg each wrote a dissenting opinion.

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_201...
2014-06-30 9:41 AM
in reply to: braciole

User image

New user
324
100100100
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
For those interested, here is a link to the opinion:

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

2014-06-30 9:44 AM
in reply to: braciole

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by braciole For those interested, here is a link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

You trying to mess my day up?  I have work to do and now want to go read that.  lol

I'll try and read through it tonight, but from the discussions we've had earlier and the way the arguments went I don't think this is really a surprise decision.



2014-06-30 10:19 AM
in reply to: braciole

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Originally posted by braciole
This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.


I would said it would go because its corporation vs individual rights and I feel corporation will always win.

response to the quoto.
This is what I do not get. How can you have have it one way for one thing and not the other? Really saying you only have religious freedom for this issue. Which to me does not make any sense. Its just seems to me a politically motivated ruling and not one based on constitution.


2014-06-30 10:51 AM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by braciole This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.
I would said it would go because its corporation vs individual rights and I feel corporation will always win. response to the quoto. This is what I do not get. How can you have have it one way for one thing and not the other? Really saying you only have religious freedom for this issue. Which to me does not make any sense. Its just seems to me a politically motivated ruling and not one based on constitution.

I'm guessing it's more about the "obvious conflicts".  For example, reproductive topics are pretty well known as items that conflict with various religions.  However, things like vaccinations and blood transfusions are what I'd call fringe issues with some religions.  In other words, they're not doctrinal type things because the Bible doesn't say "though shall not vaccinate".  

2014-06-30 11:11 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by braciole This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.
I would said it would go because its corporation vs individual rights and I feel corporation will always win. response to the quoto. This is what I do not get. How can you have have it one way for one thing and not the other? Really saying you only have religious freedom for this issue. Which to me does not make any sense. Its just seems to me a politically motivated ruling and not one based on constitution.

I'm guessing it's more about the "obvious conflicts".  For example, reproductive topics are pretty well known as items that conflict with various religions.  However, things like vaccinations and blood transfusions are what I'd call fringe issues with some religions.  In other words, they're not doctrinal type things because the Bible doesn't say "though shall not vaccinate".  

where the heck does the bible say "thou shalt not use birth control?"  there is a whole lot of modern medicine that contradicts orthodox judaism, fertility treatments come to mind.  just because they aren't YOUR religion it isn't right to blow it off as "fringe."

2014-06-30 11:32 AM
in reply to: mehaner

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by mehaner

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by braciole This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.
I would said it would go because its corporation vs individual rights and I feel corporation will always win. response to the quoto. This is what I do not get. How can you have have it one way for one thing and not the other? Really saying you only have religious freedom for this issue. Which to me does not make any sense. Its just seems to me a politically motivated ruling and not one based on constitution.

I'm guessing it's more about the "obvious conflicts".  For example, reproductive topics are pretty well known as items that conflict with various religions.  However, things like vaccinations and blood transfusions are what I'd call fringe issues with some religions.  In other words, they're not doctrinal type things because the Bible doesn't say "though shall not vaccinate".  

where the heck does the bible say "thou shalt not use birth control?"  there is a whole lot of modern medicine that contradicts orthodox judaism, fertility treatments come to mind.  just because they aren't YOUR religion it isn't right to blow it off as "fringe."

I'm actually with you on the birth control part because I feel it's something that prevents conception.  There's obviously been a lot of debate about the "morning after" type pills, which get a lot closer to terminating a fertilized egg versus preventing conception in the first place, so I'd call those more "gray area" types of conception that are the ones HL doesn't want to provide.

As for the Bible part of it, it's about when you consider life starting.  If a life begins at conception, the Bible is pretty clear about taking a life as not being permissible.

I don't want to devolve into a pro-life/choice debate because it's not really necessary.  I'm just trying to explain why somebody would be opposed to certain types of contraception based on religious grounds.  It's a little more clear cut when talking about taking the pill or using a condom as contraception and voluntary terminating a pregnancy after conception which is where the debate has been for many years.  It's the newer advances with things like the morning after pill where this debate seems to be raging.

2014-06-30 12:05 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

New user
324
100100100
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Originally posted by chirunner134

Originally posted by braciole
This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.


I would said it would go because its corporation vs individual rights and I feel corporation will always win.

response to the quoto.
This is what I do not get. How can you have have it one way for one thing and not the other? Really saying you only have religious freedom for this issue. Which to me does not make any sense. Its just seems to me a politically motivated ruling and not one based on constitution.





This is not a Constitutional question. The Court said a long time ago that the First Amendment does not require the type of exception that Hobby Lobby is seeking and has now obtained. In response to that earlier decision, a nearly unanimous Congress passed the Religious Freedom of Restoration Act, signed by Bill Clinton, which requires the type of religion-based exceptions that the First Amendment does not. The analysis under the RFRA is fact specific -- does the law at issue impose a substantial burden on religion? is the interest that this law is seeking to further compelling? has Congress sought to serve that interest in the least restrictive means possible? Necessarily, the result in one case does not carry over to a different circumstance. I haven't read this decision yet, but I read Justice Kennedy said that one of the reasons the law failed was because it was not the least restrictive means of achieving the law's objective -- the Government could have used tax money to prove birth control. In another case, involving a different mandate, it could be that even though there is a substantial burden on religion, that statute did use the least restrictive means to achieve their objective and therefore survives.


2014-06-30 5:34 PM
in reply to: braciole

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs?

Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't.

If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.



2014-06-30 6:44 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

Yeah, the market will most certainly sort these things out.

I actually wondered how much of an issue this really was from an employee standpoint.  I'm a white color worker who has had a lot of job interviews and job offers and I've also managed people for many years where I've hired hundreds of people.  Other than asking for insurance coverage options such as copays, fee's, and percentages covered nobody has ever asked for specific items covered and most certainly never asked about contraceptive type stuff.

I'm not saying nobody looks into that detail, but I wonder if this whole thing is kind of a non issue other than the government now mandating the "coverages" that most people didn't cover before.

 

2014-06-30 8:56 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

Yeah, the market will most certainly sort these things out.

I actually wondered how much of an issue this really was from an employee standpoint.  I'm a white collar worker who has had a lot of job interviews and job offers and I've also managed people for many years where I've hired hundreds of people.  Other than asking for insurance coverage options such as copays, fee's, and percentages covered nobody has ever asked for specific items covered and most certainly never asked about contraceptive type stuff.

I'm not saying nobody looks into that detail, but I wonder if this whole thing is kind of a non issue other than the government now mandating the "coverages" that most people didn't cover before.

 




Fixed a typo for you...or did I?

I don't think many people ask because there's not really been much reason to. Most people could safely assume that whatever medications or other prescriptions that they had covered under their previous plan would be covered by their new one. That changes a little now. Millennials in particular pay a lot more attention to whether a prospective employer is a good citizen or not, and that's a pretty subjective term. You can bet that any company that decides to stop covering contraceptives will be "outed" on sites like Glassdoor and LinkedIn. It will be interesting to see to what degree, if at all, these companies are affected.
2014-07-01 7:37 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Veteran
219
100100
College Station, Texas
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't.

If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.


EXACTLY this is the essence of the free market. Its just today we are more into trying to FORCE everyone into someones idea.We dont have the patience to let it work naturally.
2014-07-01 7:45 AM
in reply to: PhilipRay

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Originally posted by PhilipRay

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't.

If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.


EXACTLY this is the essence of the free market. Its just today we are more into trying to FORCE everyone into someones idea.We dont have the patience to let it work naturally.


Not completely free at least not when demand for jobs is greater than the number of available jobs. I am not working at my job because I want to work there. I am working there because that is the job I could get. My company has very few who stay there over 5 years for a reason but they always get replacements.



2014-07-01 8:06 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

Yeah, the market will most certainly sort these things out.

I actually wondered how much of an issue this really was from an employee standpoint.  I'm a white collar worker who has had a lot of job interviews and job offers and I've also managed people for many years where I've hired hundreds of people.  Other than asking for insurance coverage options such as copays, fee's, and percentages covered nobody has ever asked for specific items covered and most certainly never asked about contraceptive type stuff.

I'm not saying nobody looks into that detail, but I wonder if this whole thing is kind of a non issue other than the government now mandating the "coverages" that most people didn't cover before.

 

Fixed a typo for you...or did I? I don't think many people ask because there's not really been much reason to. Most people could safely assume that whatever medications or other prescriptions that they had covered under their previous plan would be covered by their new one. That changes a little now. Millennials in particular pay a lot more attention to whether a prospective employer is a good citizen or not, and that's a pretty subjective term. You can bet that any company that decides to stop covering contraceptives will be "outed" on sites like Glassdoor and LinkedIn. It will be interesting to see to what degree, if at all, these companies are affected.

haha, ok that was a funny typo.  I guess I was technically correct.  

There's definitely a lot of factors and I'd say region as well as job market plays a big part.  If you're in Detroit, you don't care if they even have benefits, let alone what they cover.  You just want any job you can get.
I think it can also go both ways where people appreciate companies taking a moral stand based on their beliefs.  
I have a good friend who was recently on the job market and he specifically looked for companies that were owned by Christians and took a job at a pretty large company in town that is.  They even open all of their meetings with a prayer.  I'm betting that doesn't happen too much in NYC.  

2014-07-01 8:15 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

We don't agree often but in this case we're on the same page.  Let the free market decide.  It would be totally different if they provided a "Plan B" type drug for men (wrap your head around that one) and NOT to women.  But I do not see why a privately held company should be forced to provide something that goes against their fundamental beliefs.

What about companies that offer NO health care coverage.  I would think there would be more outrage over that than a company who provides coverage but just not the the extents that people demand.

On that note I'm kind of surprised we have not seen Chick-Fil-A enter into this fray.

2014-07-01 8:48 AM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

We don't agree often but in this case we're on the same page.  Let the free market decide.  It would be totally different if they provided a "Plan B" type drug for men (wrap your head around that one) and NOT to women.  But I do not see why a privately held company should be forced to provide something that goes against their fundamental beliefs.




I think the concern, and it's a legitimate one, is that companies might conveniently decide to adjust their fundamental beliefs or to suddenly grow a set of fundamental beliefs if it suits their bottom line.

Where I think the ruling is a little short-sighted is that, politics aside, contraceptives are used for treating a number of other conditions that aren't related to preventing pregancy. Not to mince words, but Hobby Lobby's objection is to contraception, not to drugs that prevent pregnancy. If an employee of theirs doesn't intend to get pregnant but needs the drug for a different medical reason, it would be a shame that she would be unable to get it. I'm not sure whether the exemption excludes patients who require contraceptive medications for reasons other than contraception.

2014-07-01 9:05 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

We don't agree often but in this case we're on the same page.  Let the free market decide.  It would be totally different if they provided a "Plan B" type drug for men (wrap your head around that one) and NOT to women.  But I do not see why a privately held company should be forced to provide something that goes against their fundamental beliefs.

I think the concern, and it's a legitimate one, is that companies might conveniently decide to adjust their fundamental beliefs or to suddenly grow a set of fundamental beliefs if it suits their bottom line. Where I think the ruling is a little short-sighted is that, politics aside, contraceptives are used for treating a number of other conditions that aren't related to preventing pregancy. Not to mince words, but Hobby Lobby's objection is to contraception, not to drugs that prevent pregnancy. If an employee of theirs doesn't intend to get pregnant but needs the drug for a different medical reason, it would be a shame that she would be unable to get it. I'm not sure whether the exemption excludes patients who require contraceptive medications for reasons other than contraception.

Just to be clear, Hobby Lobby does cover 16 of the 20 major contraceptives on the market and has no issues at all with them.  They just chose to not cover morning after type contraceptives, so I don't think your description of them objecting to "contraception" is accurate.

2014-07-01 9:08 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

We don't agree often but in this case we're on the same page.  Let the free market decide.  It would be totally different if they provided a "Plan B" type drug for men (wrap your head around that one) and NOT to women.  But I do not see why a privately held company should be forced to provide something that goes against their fundamental beliefs.

I think the concern, and it's a legitimate one, is that companies might conveniently decide to adjust their fundamental beliefs or to suddenly grow a set of fundamental beliefs if it suits their bottom line. Where I think the ruling is a little short-sighted is that, politics aside, contraceptives are used for treating a number of other conditions that aren't related to preventing pregancy. Not to mince words, but Hobby Lobby's objection is to contraception, not to drugs that prevent pregnancy. If an employee of theirs doesn't intend to get pregnant but needs the drug for a different medical reason, it would be a shame that she would be unable to get it. I'm not sure whether the exemption excludes patients who require contraceptive medications for reasons other than contraception.

I have that same question.

On a side note the employee is not denied or forbidden to get the drug, like anything else that's not covered they would have to pay for it. 



2014-07-01 9:21 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Is it required anywhere for companies to explicity state those things that they will or will not cover based on their religious beliefs? Personally, while I'm disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling, I suppose it's something that the labor market will sort out on its own. Private companies aren't required to offer paid holidays or vacation or personal days or lots of other things that most workers take for granted. The reason most companies offer paid holidays and paid vacation is that almost no one would work for a company that didn't. If and when Hobby Lobby or any other company finds that they're at a marked competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining employees as a result of this policy, they'll have to make a decision as to whether it's in the best interest of the business to continue to structure their plans this way.

We don't agree often but in this case we're on the same page.  Let the free market decide.  It would be totally different if they provided a "Plan B" type drug for men (wrap your head around that one) and NOT to women.  But I do not see why a privately held company should be forced to provide something that goes against their fundamental beliefs.

I think the concern, and it's a legitimate one, is that companies might conveniently decide to adjust their fundamental beliefs or to suddenly grow a set of fundamental beliefs if it suits their bottom line. Where I think the ruling is a little short-sighted is that, politics aside, contraceptives are used for treating a number of other conditions that aren't related to preventing pregancy. Not to mince words, but Hobby Lobby's objection is to contraception, not to drugs that prevent pregnancy. If an employee of theirs doesn't intend to get pregnant but needs the drug for a different medical reason, it would be a shame that she would be unable to get it. I'm not sure whether the exemption excludes patients who require contraceptive medications for reasons other than contraception.

Just to be clear, Hobby Lobby does cover 16 of the 20 major contraceptives on the market and has no issues at all with them.  They just chose to not cover morning after type contraceptives, so I don't think your description of them objecting to "contraception" is accurate.

This is what a lot of people do not know.  As far as I know the morning after pill is not used for anything except to end a possible pregnancy.  Hopefully this is not something a woman is doing on a routine basis.

2014-07-01 9:22 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Veteran
200
100100
Houston, TX
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
Let's just remove the 4th largest entitlement in this country that is not funded what-so-ever and start over. Passing legislation that more than half the country is not in agreement with is not good policy. While there are portions of the ACA that are good for the country, the majority of the law creates so many burdens for individuals and companies that in the end all it is doing is INCREASING price and DECREASING services.

Edited by Fmode11 2014-07-01 9:23 AM
2014-07-01 9:58 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Regular
525
50025
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA
The SCOTUS used the "Least restrictive means" clause as their arguement. I wonder if the contraceptive medicines were not made to be free would the outcome have been different? I didn't read the whole opinion so I don't know if they gave further explanation on this issue. I would be interested to see how this section of the law could be rewritten to comply. If they allowed for a specific number of contraceptive medicines to be included but not all, would that pass the muster? Are Conestoga and AutoCam opposed to all contraception?

What other types of drugs were mandated to be free? Personally I think my beta-blocker is a little bit more important than contraception, but I am not getting that for free.
2014-07-01 10:14 AM
in reply to: Its Only Money

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA

Originally posted by Its Only Money The SCOTUS used the "Least restrictive means" clause as their arguement. I wonder if the contraceptive medicines were not made to be free would the outcome have been different? I didn't read the whole opinion so I don't know if they gave further explanation on this issue. I would be interested to see how this section of the law could be rewritten to comply. If they allowed for a specific number of contraceptive medicines to be included but not all, would that pass the muster? Are Conestoga and AutoCam opposed to all contraception? What other types of drugs were mandated to be free? Personally I think my beta-blocker is a little bit more important than contraception, but I am not getting that for free.

I don't know.  Those kids cause an awful lot of high blood pressure and stress.  

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Rss Feed  
 
 
of 9
 
 
RELATED POSTS

ACA Calculator Pages: 1 2

Started by dmiller5
Views: 3130 Posts: 27

2013-12-05 5:28 PM Stuartap

The ACA has revealed ignorance about...

Started by pga_mike
Views: 2372 Posts: 23

2013-10-09 9:17 AM Jackemy1

The ACA started with "Conservatives"?

Started by pga_mike
Views: 1739 Posts: 11

2013-10-04 1:26 PM kevin_trapp

ACA fun begins on Oct 1 (mines beginning already) Pages: 1 2 3 4

Started by tuwood
Views: 9288 Posts: 90

2013-11-10 7:50 AM NXS

ACA Employer Mandate Pushed to 2015

Started by Aarondb4
Views: 1307 Posts: 4

2013-07-08 9:20 AM tuwood