|

Supreme Court should review individual contraception mandate, not just Corporate mandate

The Supreme Court agreed to take the Case of Hobby Lobby and another corporation, who say their religious rights are being violated by forcing them to pay for their employees contraceptives and abortifacients.

Obamacare is actually making those who pay for uninsured people’s premiums, which includes contraceptives. If contraception is against our beliefs, aren’t we as individuals also losing our religious freedom? Religious freedom doesn’t just stop at the church door on Sundays. It is practiced in everyday life.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which supports Obama’s position, said that “religious freedom does not include the right to impose your beliefs on others … particularly where that means discriminating against their employees.”

It’s the “owners” of the business whose religious rights are being violated, not the business itself. The Supreme Court only upheld the individual mandate of Obamacare after Chief Judge Roberts called it a tax. The court didn’t look at the Obamacare mandate from the religious freedom aspect. That’s why the court is reviewing religious freedom at this time.

Obamacare not only forces individuals to buy a product for themselves - that’s one thing, but individuals are being forced to pay for health insurance for others; for example, everyone pays for maternity care and contraception, whether or not the person is an elderly man or a young woman, in order to cover those who are uninsured or receive subsidies.

Then isn’t Obamacare forcing everyone to buy contraceptives for others to use, imposing the government’s beliefs on us? Hope the Supremes think of that angle. This isn’t separation of church and state. Individuals are not the state, and the state should not be able to force its beliefs on us according to the First Amendment.

Share:

80 Comments

  1. Adam Faber

    Ted, if you had your way, would a business affiliated with Christian Science be allowed to have a health plan that denies surgery to their employees regardless of the need because they don’t believe in it? Could a small business owner who is a Mormon provide a health plan that doesn’t cover any medication that contains alcohol? Would a corporation with a C.E.O. who is a Jehovah’s Witness be allowed to have a health plan that did not pay for any procedure that involved a blood transfusion? Would employers be allowed to develop religious opposition to all health care in order to save money?

    You have evaded these most critical questions for nearly two years now. It seems that you only think that Catholics should have legally protected rights to impose their religion on others but not members of other religions. Otherwise, why refuse to answer these questions?

    • Adam Faber

      It’s been four days and Ted still can’t explain himself. All emotional conjecture and no factual analysis as usual.

  2. Not to worry. After ObamaCare crashes and burns completely, the Obama regime will be “forced” to mandate a government-run single-payer healthcare system, complete with death panels, and contraception for all, just as they planned it.

    • Adam Faber

      I see that hiding behind diversions and attempts to change the subject is already engaged.

      • If you don’t like the benefits that the job offers, DON’T TAKE THE JOB!

        Or, what if Hobby Lobby, or any of the other businesses, decided to pay the ObamaDon’tCare fine, and not offer ANY insurance coverage? Would THAT make all those employees happy? I’d bet not.

    • JRM_CommonSense

      How many “chicken-little” headlines can you get into two sentence? Well let’s see.

      “Oh my gosh, everyone. Look out, the whole healthcare industry is going to implode because of this new law.”

      The Obama regime will be able to just completely shut down healthcare insurance companies, or better yet, nationalizing them, putting millions of people out of work, and forcing those remaining to work for the government.

      Then, they will be able to enforce those “death panels” where the Obama regime will sit down and review every single persons healthcare requests and needs and decide who they are going to set out on the icebergs and who gets to live. And we all know that only the leftists will be allowed to live and all the conservatives will be left to die.

      And heaven forbid (no pun intended) everyone will get free contraception, completing the striping religious freedom from the face of America.

      And they will prove everything that the conservatives have been warning about for the last 6 years. America will, overnight, become a European Marxist/Socialist nation.

      Oh my, Oh my, Look out, Look out, The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

  3. JRM_CommonSense

    What is next? When are these businesses owned by people who say their religious rights are being violated by having to pay for birth control going to shift to the next logocal step. Soon they will be demanding freedom from federal taxes because the medicaid system it pays for supplies birth control to its users. After all, Ted has dictated that “Religious freedom doesn’t just stop at the church door on Sundays”. Look out, slippery slope ahead.

  4. CarolF964

    Good comment Adam.
    When June comes, it will be interesting to see how the high court rules and why.

    • Adam Faber

      Thanks Carol. For nearly two years now, Ted has been trotting out this same unsupportable position that the government should follow Catholic teachings and then, when pressed, refuses to discuss if he wants to government to follow the teachings of other religions. It’s as if Ted hopes that repetition will make his argument magically become valid. It won’t.

      Ted also repeatedly conflates contraception with abortion and refuses to discuss his own use of the contraception that he thinks the use of by employees of Hobby Lobby is somehow, also magically, hindering his freedom to practice his chosen religion. Let’s see if Ted can address these points in a logical, articulate manner or if he’s just regurgitating the same old line from the past two years and hoping nobody notices.

  5. Face it, ObamaCare is an epic fail. The website was created, using a no-bid contract to award it to a CANADIAN company with a history of failures. Of course, it DID have one of Michelle’s college friends on its board. If eBay, Amazon, and many other on-line companies can service millions of people every day, what is the Obama regime’s problem?

    The young, who are expected to subsidize this farce by buying insurance, are rejecting it in droves. A huge majority of citizens neither trust Obama, nor think him capable of fixing the many problems that he, and other Democrats, created.
    What a perfect storm of arrogance, incompetence, and ignorance that “The Messiah” has bestowed upon us all (except for his cronies).

    • JRM_CommonSense

      And an even larger majority of Americans neither trust Congress, nor think them capable of fixing the many problems that they have created. And if you separate that distrust by political party, the Republicans barely appear on the trust radar. Unfortunately, this is not one of the things we can be thankful for today.

      • Ted Biondo

        I don’t trust either party nor the government bureaucrats in general to run anything, especially my healthcare, JRM.

        • JRM_CommonSense

          So if government officials and government bureaucrats are nable to run anything, what is the purpose of the government?

          • Government has certain Constitutional duties, that require centralized control, none of which include healthcare. The few things that government does reasonably well, such as National Defense, are still grossly inefficient, because government has no incentive to be efficient. True free-market businesses DO operate efficiently, or they die.

    • Adam Faber

      Oh look, Snuss tried to change the subject from religious freedom and contraception to the website rollout. I wonder why he’s tried twice to change the topic. Could it be because he knows Ted’s point is unsupportable?

  6. CarolF964

    SNuss
    When do you begin the conversation of healthcare in America. Who gets it and who doesn’t and why?
    All your foolishness about the First Lady steering a contract to an old college chum for the website borders on the ridiculous. The only epic failure is the inability of America to deliver decent healthcare to its’ citizens.
    Healthcare insurance has invented a class system for receiving services based on income, age, and your genes. Has helped to bankrupt people and reduce our ability to perform well in the marketplace. Sick employees who can’t show up to work costs employers money, and you are supposed to be for business making profits so we need far less government?
    The only problem this nation can’t solve to date, is the stupid behavior of those elected to government who refuse to do their jobs. The website, good or bad, isn’t the problem, sir, it’s always been the decreasing number of people able to get decent healthcare. For you to favor that to continue for solely political reasons makes you #1 on the foolish list. Bar none, you win the prize hands down.
    Who in their right mind, or left mind for that matter, wants Americans to be less healthy and waves the flag so often in an effort to make the whole notion some kind of a patriotic idea?

  7. Gee, Carol, far more people have had their existing policies cancelled, due to ObamaDon’tCare mandates, than have signed up for ObamaDon’tCare. That would be described as “bass-ackward” by sane, normal people. Let us deal with the ObamaDon’tCare facts and figures, and compare it to the real world:

    Six (6) people signed up on the first day. 26,794 is the total for the ENTIRE month. 26-27 million will STILL be uninsured, in spite of ObamaDon’tCare (See: Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act, March 12, CBO)

    Ebay processes FIVE MILLION transactions, per DAY! If that doesn’t define ObamaDon’tCare as an epic fail in your mind, nothing will.

    • JRM_CommonSense

      How interesting that you chose eBay to compare the ACA websites to. It appears that you have forgotten the early days of eBay and how many software fixes were required as well as the need of significant upgrades since its founding in 1995. And, by the way, the least you could do is spell your example correctly.

      Oh, and by the way, eBay is not the only software enterprise that has not started well. In fact, most new software enterprises, no matter who builds them find that the translation from idea, to design, to code, to success is a long hard path frought with fix after fix, and release after release.

      • So, eBay was testing the limits of the technology at that time. That was then, this is now. The technology has been used and refined to make it very reliable, so the ObamaDon’tCare learning curve should be a LOT shorter.

        Of course, if you choose software developers with a track record of failures (with a no-bid contract), you WILL get more failures. See: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-contractors-fines-fraud/2013/11/25/id/538511

        But, crony capitalism is what the Obama regime is all about.

        • JRM_CommonSense

          If you think that the technology has been refined to make it very reliable, you have little understanding of the technical world we live in today. There are reports every single day of failures at every level of technology that exists in today’s world. Cars fail, airplanes fail, guidance systems fail, computer software fails, computer hardware fails, internet connections and switches fail, servers fail, laptops fail, cellphones fail, stoplights fail, trains fail, air traffic control systems fail, electric grids fail, water delivery systems fail,and then there is the biggest failures of all in the technology world. The are known as PBKAC/PBUIAC.

          • Yes, please, let’s all take our technology guidance from the person who once said that it would require as little as one line of code added to the IRS tax audit applications to accomplish 100% of the initial audits required by the health care law. JRM, I know you claimed to have earned your millions in the software industry, but to assert that web technologies have not been refined since 1995 to increase their reliability does make one wonder exactly what expertise those California software start-ups were paying you for.

          • JRM_CommonSense

            I put the reply to Jaybo here: Glad to see you again, and that you have not lost your ability to misquote or selectively quote other peoples posts to make them say less than was actually said. Better yet, learn something about technology before you try to comment. You will look a little more intelligent.

            And, it is also good to see that you have not lost that snarky inability to even come up with a good insult. If you had any idea of what kinds of work I did in the software industry, you would still not be able to come up with a decent insult. But please keep trying. I makes you look real silly.

        • JRM – Rather than just claiming I misquoted you or selectively quoted you, show where I did. How did I misquote you on your laughable claim about how much code it would take to modify the IRS tax audit applications? Or about technology reliability? Or about your claims of making big money in the software industry? Seriously, show me.

          While you’re at it, please also show me any of my mistakes regarding technology that would indicate a lack of intelligence. Seriously, show me.

          If you had the any idea what I do for a living, I don’t think you would be challenging me on the subject of technology.

          • JRM_CommonSense

            Here is my actual quote which you referred to:

            “One to five lines of code or a couple of new objects added to the computer tax audit apps will accomplish 100% of the initial audits and raise the flags. Adding the code or objects to the tax preparation packages like Turbotax will take less time than it will take to test the code. That testing should add a couple of good paying jobs in the private sector.”

            Now you tell me why you failed to use the entire quote. Instead you chose to omit key information that would have made the inaccuracy of your statements obvious to all.

          • JRM – Nice try. I’ll stand by my statement, thank you. Reread your own quote (in which I see you corrected a typo while still referring to it as your “actual quote”). You claimed it would take “one to five lines of code….”. Please explain how me saying that you claimed as little as one line of code may be needed is inaccurate – your own words confirm that you said that! “One to five” means…wait for it….two, three, four, five or…..one!

            And honestly, do you think including your entire quote somehow substantiates your technical bona fides? “One to five lines of code or a couple of new objects added to the computer tax audit apps will accomplish 100% of the initial audits and raise the flags.” You would be laughed out of any IT shop with such an assertion.

            As to your reliability comment…I am currently in the 4th year of a SaaS contract with a 99% uptime SLA and average/maximum response time SLAs. In over three years, this vendor has never failed to meet the SLAs. I have over 6,000 users of this software, while the vendor has hundreds of thousands of users in their multi-tenant environment. Your assertion that “If you think that the technology has been refined to make it very reliable, you have little understanding of the technical world we live in today.” proves nothing except how far removed you have become from the technology in place today. I expect this level of reliability in my contracts. And why has this vendor never failed to meet their SLAs? Because they are a private enterprise, in no way similar to the government-run healthcare.gov.

            And seriously, stop trying to pretend that technology (or any subject for that matter) is your exclusive province – it just makes you look silly. You’re plenty smart, JRM, but you’re not the only smart one on this blog.

          • JRM_CommonSense

            Jaybo:

            Do you wish me to bow down and say that you are the ultimate authority on all things related to “technology” in light of your well crafted, acronym heavy, description of a technical application environment that meets all the SLAs that were defined for it, whether MTBF, MTTR, VDR, TP, jitter; or similar measurable details?

            Would you like it if I gave you the same amount of approval for your personally attested “success” as you gave me for mine?

            Well then, you have it. You are smarter than the average bear, you are the guru of the technical world as you see it. And I give you the same props for your personally attested successes as you gave me for mine.

            BUT, you still misquoted me (even though I changed the “0″ in my quote to a “o”), it did nothing to change the fact that you decided to focus on emphacizing the word “one” for derogatory purposes, and did not bother to address the “object” aspect, nor the “accomplish 100% of the initial audits and raise the flags” element that was stated. But none of those things added to the misguided point that you hoped to make. But, that is the approach you have taken for my comments from day one. AND, I am sure you will continue to do so, even though I am sure that there are many similar experiences that we have both encountered and endured during our years of work in this industry that would be interesting to share and gain knowledge from.

            Sorry, but in spite of your mis-preception, I am not pretending “that technology (or any subject for that matter) is” my “exclusive province”. Nor am I pretending to be the “only smart one on this blog”.

            I know that this response will be met by the same derision from you, so do not waste my time by trying to one up me, or provide some other clever response. Let it be that you have chosen to denegrate my years of experience and success, and just save your energy and breath. I wouldn’t want you to cheat your clients out of any additional SLA’s that need to be met nor would I want you to waste any more of your precious time selectively quoting what I say in order to prove that yours is bigger than mine. And rest assured, I have no desire to waste anymore time with you lack of respect. Have a really nice day, and a really nice life.

  8. JRM_CommonSense

    And another set of questions:

    Are all those people who think like Ted, those who feel their religious freedoms are being trampled by the ACA, going to stop dealing with all businesses that provide healthcare to their employees.

    After all, if you buy their products, your money will now be used by the owners of the businesses you use “to pay for their employees contraceptives and abortifacients”. Therefore, the ACA is forcing you to violate your right to religious freedom by paying for health insurance for all the employees of all of the companies that you buy things from.

    AND, then those employees buy things from companies that provide the ACA benefits that you don’t like, so eventually you may be providing these ACA benefits to millions and millions of people. Do you have to report that to your priests in the confessional every time you go to confession? What is the penance that you receive for that sin you committed?

    I guess you would have to stop using a large majority of American companies because the supply chain will catch up with you sooner or later. Heck, even if you get the ACA changed and remove this mandate, there will still be lots of business that have insurance plans that provide these ACA benefits.

    In fact, you cannot buy products from most companies outside of the U.S. either, because all of those Marxist/Socialist countries, and lots of those countries that are not M/S, provide insurance to their employees that cover “contraceptives and abortifacients”. After all, China has a one child policy. Sounds like a national birth control dictate. I would bet that all their companies cover “contraceptives and abortifacients” or even hand them out in the company stores. Hope you guys have never bought a Chinese made product.

    As I said before, “Hello, Slippery Slope!” Welcome back to a life style equivalent to the Dark Ages level.

    • It is interesting that JRM uses the “Dark Ages” comment, since that is precisely what Obama’s socialist/Marxist agenda is taking us back to. The rich and the political class (Lords) are getting richer and more powerful, while the rest of us (serfs) are getting poorer, and our freedoms becoming fewer, by bureaucratic fiat.

      http://news.msn.com/us/top-1-percent-took-record-share-of-2012-us-income

      • JRM_CommonSense

        So, all you got out of this post to respond to was the “Dark Ages” comment. Interesting that you failed to comment on the actual point of the post, and how far you are willing to go to defend your “religious freedoms”. Shows just how incapable you are of addressing the issues, as well as how desparate you are at trying to throw stones.

  9. CarolF964

    SNuss
    When you compare e-Bay and the like to the gov website, you should also compare what’s being purchased. Where it’s true I can go to Amazon to quickly buy a book I already have all the information I need in advance for the purchase, I would hope you’re not suggesting Americans buy their healthcare without taking the time to read and evaluate the different policies. That choice isn’t a 30 second deal.
    Where Americans having healthcare insurance is the right thing, buy it via this kind of website is perhaps not a wise idea. Best consumers find insurance agents and take their time before committing to a choice. Have a good understanding of such an important purchase.
    The website should only be to tell Americans what needs to be included in their policy along with what would be the most often asked questions concerning it.
    Businesses and individuals can get agents and do the rest for themselves. List on their IRS forms the company, policy#, etc. to prove they have coverage.
    Sometimes, in an effort to make it easy, we make it harder.Proof of income is easy to provide insurance companies as we all need to do it when we finance much of anything nowadays.
    And had you read JRM’s article, you wouldn’t be asking me about all those persons being cancelled. I have my doubts that even real Conservatives would approve any of those mentioned in that article. If you’d like to be considered an exception, than just speak up and we’ll understand why you keep asking about those who lost such policies and cry for them crocodile tears.

    • Carol, I read about, compare, and evaluate different products before making online purchases every day. In that respect, the ObamaDon’tCare website should be no more difficult to operate than eBay, Amazon, TigerDirect, or any other online purchase site. The basic technology isn’t unique, untried, or untested. The level of (in)competence of the software developer, and the (lack of)competent supervision of the project, make the difference. In this case, that result was an epic fail. Of course, that matches perfectly with the failed product.

  10. Obviously, JRM has ignored how many businesses have already begun to cut their workers’ hours, to avoid having to provide healthcare. See: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/29/companies-cut-hours-of-full-time-employees-to-avoid-providing-health-care-under-new-rules/

    Had our Führer not mandated a delay in ObamaCare for businesses (until, conveniently, after the 2014 elections), this would have been an even more widespread practice.

    • JRM_CommonSense

      Here SNuss, educate yourself on Employer sponsered healthcare insurance before you make yourself look even worse than you do.

      http://www.cfeps.org/health/chapters/html/ch1.htm

      • ObamaDon’tCare is making health insurance less affordable, less available, and at reduced quality, for millions of Americans, in spite of the Obama regime’s claims to the contrary. Your link ignores those facts. Socialized medicine stifles healthcare. Consider laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. The costs of these procedures have not skyrocketed like other medical procedures, and the quality has improved.

  11. CarolF964

    SNuss
    Did you even read the article you’ve suggested or just the headline?
    Should we all refer to former Republican Presidents as “Fuhrer?” I vote we all try to keep our good manners intact and avoid name calling of both Republican & Democrats who have served as President.
    Since the website was easy to operate for us, using three different persons as examples, what’s your problem? Remember we gave you examples weeks ago of costs for insurance under the program. It did take time to compare which level and cost you wanted. I don’t take health insurance needs lightly, so we took our time in the matter. The examples given you weren’t quick picks without thought.
    Most of us realize the opposition to the healthcare law is the same old tired arguments used for things like having a minimum wage law. Business didn’t go belly-up, people fired, or jobs disappear. We were told by some if we had safety in the workplace all this would happen as well, but it didn’t come to pass with the EPA. If the FDA existed our food would be too expensive etc., but yet we spend much less than most countries in the world for food and it’s much safer.
    The question remains the same, SNuss, how do we provide healthcare to more Americans because we can see fewer and fewer are getting good healthcare?
    We’ve already tried your plan of allowing the marketplace do the job. Isn’t working well and you’re offering nothing else but vouchers for the elderly on Medicare. Not much of a plan.

  12. JRM….I realize you’re not reading this, but….

    1) I have no desire to be the authority on all things technology, but I’ll continue to refute your claim that technology has not been refined to make it very reliable. I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong on that count.

    2) Two acronyms does not constitute “acronym heavy.” You used twice as many in your response.

    3) I did not misquote you, no matter how you choose to frame it. I ignored your “objects” aspect because it was separated from the “lines of code” statement by an “or”, and I know you understand how Boolean operators work. Plus, I did include your “accomplish 100% of the initial audits” comment – it was a central point of my first comment – so I don’t know why you’re claiming I did not address that.

    4) Whether you choose to believe it or not, you routinely disparage others as being unworthy of discussing topics unless they are as informed as you. Exactly how many quotes of yours would it take to prove that to you (you know I have them)? The ones below are from just this one blog:

    “If you think that the technology has been refined to make it very reliable, you have little understanding of the technical world we live in today.”

    “And, by the way, the least you could do is spell your example correctly.

    “Here SNuss, educate yourself on Employee sponsered healthcare insurance before you make yourself look even worse that you do.

    “Better yet, learn something about technology before you try to comment. You will look a little more intelligent.

    4) I will continue to call you out when you act like a blowhard – that’s my prerogative. You can choose not to read my comments when I do so.

  13. CarolF964

    SNuss
    your issue is money not healthcare. If older policies don’t include mental health, etc., than people were getting poorer care. They have been improved under ACA.

    • Ted Biondo

      It’s not up to you or the government to decide what constitutes “Good Insurance”, Carol!

  14. Doug Indeap

    The question whether corporations ought to be treated as individuals with a right to religious liberty has grabbed attention, but a preliminary question is whether the health care law actually forces employers—corporate or not–to act contrary to their consciences.

    Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.

    The second choice does not amount to “violating” the law and paying a “fine,” as some suppose. As the law “does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance” (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/EmployerPenalties.pdf), there is no such “mandate” to “violate.” Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.

    Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a “large employer” (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option–for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html)

    In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is “morally sound.” While also considering this option “unfortunate” in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers’ “moral connection” to that coverage would be “remote.” https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821

    Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead. Employers seeking exemption from the law aim not for religious liberty for themselves (they already have that), but rather for power over their employees.

    • Ted Biondo

      The government is forcing the owner to buy a product or pay a fine, Doug. It doesn’t matter if the company can afford the fine or not. The government will be able to use that fine, or assessment, to pay for others to use contraception that you, the employer, had refused to pay for in the first place.

      The National Catholic Bioethics Center doesn’t determine for all Catholics what an assessment means, when common sense dictates the government will simply pay for the Medicaid or Exchanges using that assessment. Or do you know when you place a drop of water in a container, where that exact drop of water goes and can you remove it, if you wish? No Doug, you can’t. Those assessments, as you call them, will still pay for abortions and violate the owner’s religious freedom.

      • Adam Faber

        Ted, I notice that your comment here, again, only refers to Catholics. Are you still suggesting that this should only apply to Catholics and not other religions?

        • Ted Biondo

          Murder is murder regardless of one’s religion, or even if one has no faith at all. You shoot someone, or butcher them in the womb, with chemicals or tools, it is still murder! Catholics aren’t the only ones who believe this.

          • Adam Faber

            Talking about murder is a nice try at changing the subject and evading the issue at the heart of the legal matter.

            Without even addressing your conflation of contraception and murder, under your premise of religious freedom due to corporations, would a business affiliated with Christian Science be allowed to have a health plan that denies surgery to their employees regardless of the need because they don’t believe in it? Could a small business owner who is a Mormon provide a health plan that doesn’t cover any medication that contains alcohol? Would a corporation with a C.E.O. who is a Jehovah’s Witness be allowed to have a health plan that did not pay for any procedure that involved a blood transfusion? Would employers be allowed to develop religious opposition to all health care in order to save money?

          • Ted Biondo

            No one is forced to work for any company, at least Obama doesn’t require it yet – it’s called real choice!

      • Doug Indeap

        The question is not merely whether the law requires employers to do something; yes, it does. The question is whether it forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral; no, it does not. The employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved. Solved–unless an employer really aims not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather to control his employees’ health plan choices so they conform to the employer’s religious beliefs rather than the law, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.

        Those complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed seemingly miss that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.

        • Ted Biondo

          Healthcare assessments will be used to pay for healthcare not Social Security – religious freedom issue.

          • Doug Indeap

            Is that cryptic declaration–it’s a religious freedom issue–supposed to be a reply to my comment explaining how the law does not force employers to act contrary to their religious beliefs? If so, you need to put some meat on those bones.

  15. CarolF964

    Interesting comment Doug.
    I note Ted had nothing to say about it.

    • Adam Faber

      Ted, you’re still not answering the question. I know you have said that it’s silly in the past and dodged the question for two years, but it is at the heart of the legal matter. Either you think that members of other religions should have the same legal rights as Catholics or you don’t. Which is it? It can’t be neither of those options.

  16. BTW, Carol, what happens to all those employees, once their employer cuts off their insurance coverage? You didn’t seem too concerned about that.

    As I stated earlier: “the Obama regime will be “forced” to mandate a government-run single-payer healthcare system, complete with death panels, and contraception for all, just as they planned it.”

  17. CarolF964

    SNuss,
    Where was your concern for those same persons in the past when employers either stopped providing insurance as a benefit, or never did provide it?
    The old way, those same persons couldn’t be sure they could buy insurance on their own and you had no concerns in the matter. Now you fain being desperate to save them.
    This is exactly what makes your stand in this matter so laughable.
    And here you come with the old “death panels” talk.
    We can all see the “pill,” begun in the 1060′s, is still a topic some can’t cope with even today. Contraception must be an evil plan to upset your perfect apple cart of the American way of life according to one church or the other who has your approval.

  18. CarolF964

    Ted
    No that’s not real choice. No employee should need to know the religious beliefs of the employer when applying for a job. The fact Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays is a matter of hours they have chosen for how they want to run their business.
    The employer also has no right to know the employees feelings in the matter of how they do or don’t handle contraception in their personal lives.
    You should be far more concerned that Rush Limbaugh called the current Pope a Marxist.

  19. Carol, contraception is a lifestyle choice. If I want to drink or smoke, I don’t expect my employer to provide me with whiskey or cigars. I can take my wages, and buy them for myself. The same goes for the car or house that I buy, lease, or rent.

    If my employer was Muslim or Jewish, should I expect them to supply me with pork? The only thing my employer owes me is an honest wage, in return for a honest day’s work. Anything else is a voluntary benefit.

    The ONE exception in which providing contraception would be justifiably job-related, is if you worked in a brothel.

  20. CarolF964

    Snuss
    When you get around to understanding all parts of a women’s body have medical needs, the same as a man, let me know?
    Mentioning “brothel,” once again shows you place women as second class citizens. You find what you feel to be the lowest form of employment and say “OK” to that one, but that one only.
    Maybe you need to have a chat with a women relative about the subject. Then you might get the jest of how offensive the “brothel” comment is and why you don’t want to make that mistake in the future.

  21. As I SO CLEARLY stated, Carol, contraception is a lifestyle choice, not an occupational requirement, unless you work in a brothel. You claim to want freedom of “choice”, concerning abortion, so why do you reject “choice” for those women who choose to “rent” themselves, to make a living?

    In any case, the only significant difference between promiscuous sex, and prostitution, is the financial transactions. And STDs don’t care if you get paid, or not.

    • JRM_CommonSense

      Yes SNuss, contracaption is a lifestyle choice. Many monagamous married women and their faithful husbands decide to use birth control because additions to their families would have a serious impact on their ability to meet their obligations to their existing family. The desire for “promiscuous sex” (your chicken-little” choice) or “prostitution” as reasons for wanting birth control probably make up a very small percentage of the people who choose birth control. AND, keep in mind, many men choose some form of birth control as well, even though the ACA does not pay for it. Is that acceptable because the ACA is not paying for it?

  22. CarolF964

    Snuss
    why don’t you try telling the married, faithful, wives who got STD’s from their hubbies all about promiscuous sex?
    You do understand the meaning of the word pimp?
    As usual it has to be women want to be promiscuous so they want birth control. Employers shouldn’t have to pay for those kind of women and all women are those kinds because this is even a topic, right?
    Your comment about the cigars places you up there with those who ask how a women was dressed when she was rapped? Out of touch with the real world and proud of it. Hey, this is after all America and you’re allowed to be that kind of a thinker, you just won’t be allowed to continue to make choices for women in the matters of contraception.

    • Yes, JRM, that IS acceptable. Use all the birth control that you want, just don’t force an employer to subsidize it. Do you also think that they should also be forced to cover your choice of car, house, foods, reading materials, and beverages? What about sending your children to private school? Where does it stop?

      Carol, I didn’t make any comments about women being “rapped”, only their lifestyle choices.

      As to how people are dressed, male OR female, you can become a target for those who would do you harm if you dress or act in a conspicuous fashion, and don’t maintain situational awareness (being drunk and/or in a bad neighborhood, for example). Criminals and perverts are opportunistic, and WILL exploit such a situation. It isn’t right, or fair, but it IS reality.

      • JRM_CommonSense

        So, SNuss, for you, the birth control issue is obviously an issue of who pays for the drugs rather than the issue of religious freedom. So, who do you feel should be making the decision about what drugs are paid for by insurance and what drugs are not paid for by insurance?

  23. CarolF964

    No, SNuss, you only need to be a female to become a target. Suggesting neighborhoods make any difference is just plain silly and very unknowing on your part.
    WE see you use items and reference them to healthcare needs.
    Says a good deal about how lame your argument is to allow employers to decide for women about contraception.
    It’s no wonder, Republicans, are busy trying to teach Conservatives how to even speak to women on this topic without being incredibly offensive. Your double standard is showing when you mention getting drunk is a behavior placing you at risk for rape. Why don’t you just pass a law that only men can drink in public? Hey how about women aren’t allowed out after dark alone?

  24. Carol, What is your problem in accepting reality? If a drunk MAN walked around, flashing a roll of cash, it would greatly increase HIS odds of being assaulted, robbed, or even killed. Criminals and perverts don’t play by the same rules as the rest of us, so we do need to be responsible for ourselves, to keep ourselves as safe as possible.

    As I stated previously, “It isn’t right, or fair, but it IS reality.” Think of those evil-doers as a pack of wolves, looking for the sheep that strays too far from the flock.
    Fairness and equality mean nothing to these criminals, they are just seeking their next victim. A 100-pound woman is no match for a 250-pound mugger or rapist, no matter how much Kung-Fu or Judo that you know, unless you are REALLY lucky with your first punch.

    I wonder, have you ever considered concealed-carry, as a way to even up the odds? Or would you prefer to suffer the fate of this woman?

    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3636/oregon_woman_raped_after_police_refuse_to_send_out_response_unit

    “Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” — L. Neil Smith

  25. Well, JRM, if it deals with lifestyle choices, (purchasing birth control, booze, tattoos, illicit drugs, cars, food, housing, etc.), the person should be responsible for their purchases, not the employer.

    Of course, the REAL goal of ObamaDon’tCare is to screw up the healthcare system so badly, that a government single-payer system will be mandated, and employers will only need to worry about the penalty.

    • JRM_CommonSense

      SO, SNuss, you did not answer the question. Since it is a financial and not a religious issue for you, who makes the decision about what drugs health insurance companies will or will not pay for?

      AND, if Obamas plan is to make a “government single-payer system” mandatory, how does your comment “employers will only need to worry about the penalty” make any sense at all?

  26. Drug choices should be made by doctors, not bureaucrats. As to elective choices, employers should not be forced to subsidize lifestyle choices. Should my employer be forced to subsidize my 2nd Amendment rights, by providing guns and ammunition?

    I notice that you didn’t answer MY questions, either:

    Do you also think that they should also be forced to cover your choice of car, house, foods, reading materials, and beverages? What about sending your children to private school? Where does it stop?

    Well…….?

    • JRM_CommonSense

      Well, let’s see how you like my answer to your “question” which you posed hoping people would accept the implication you were suggesting with it. Nowhere have I, anyone I know, or the current government, suggested that employers should “be forced to cover your choice of car, house, foods, reading materials,and beverages”, OR guns and ammunition. I don’t know where the question about sending kids to private school comes from either, because it has not been suggested by anyone that I know of, that employers should have to pay for it. Nor are any of these things part of the ACA that we are discussing. They seem to be a smoke screen that you are throwing up to try to obscure the real subject.

      Now, take another shot at answering the drug question. Doctors can prescribe all the drugs they want to, but when it comes to paying for those drugs, who do you suggest determine if insurance policies will pay for them or not? Someone has to make that decision, and I assure you it will not be the doctors who prescribe them.

      AND, where is your answer to this? If, as you say so often, Obama’s plan is to make a “government single-payer system” mandatory, how does your comment “employers will only need to worry about the penalty” make any sense at all? Why would the employers even be involved in insurance coverage for employees in that scenario?

  27. I don’t know how YOUR insurance plan works, but my insurance company charges different prices for different tier drugs. My doctor and I can decide if I wish to use the cheaper meds, or if I need, and/or am willing to pay for, the name-brand version. My medical care isn’t the Obama regime nanny-State responsibility, it is mine.

    As to the employer paying, if single-payer becomes law, I believe that the Obama regime would STILL charge employers a penalty, as a substitute for not providing coverage. The system is destined to go bankrupt, without additional revenue. Of course, we can always borrow more from the Chinese, can’t we?

    And why shouldn’t my employer subsidize my Constitutional rights, as opposed to my lifestyle choices?

    FYI, the taxpayers paid $220 billion in net interest on the FY 2012 debt. Estimates for 2020 are over $1 trillion in interest a year. Can you say “death spiral”? I knew you could.
    See: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/19/how-the-nations-interest-spending-stacks-up

    • JRM_CommonSense

      Still haven’t answered the basic question asked. Who makes the determination of which drugs the insurance company will pay for?

      And, for as much as you rant and rave about socialized/nationalized medicine, it appears that you do not have a really good understanding of how one of those really works.

      And finally, if you think that employers should subsidize you constitutional rights, then you need to take a look at some of the things that the 9th amendment, part of the “Bill of Rights” was used to strike down.

      “The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. It was rarely cited before the second half of the 20th century, when it was used as a partial foundation for the right to privacy in several landmark cases: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which struck down a law banning contraceptives, and Roe v. Wade (1973), which established a woman’s right to an abortion.”

  28. Obviously, you cannot comprehend plain English: “Drug choices should be made by doctors, not bureaucrats”, and “my insurance company charges different prices for different tier drugs”.
    Those two statements answer your question completely.

    Constitutional rights should take precedence over lifestyle choices, no matter what activist jurists say.

  29. JRM_CommonSense

    Sorry SNuss, it does not answer the question. All insurance companies do not cover all the drugs that are available. They are not all in one of the 3 tiers, nor are they all in every insurance companies formularies. If that were the case, the ACA would be saying that all insurance companies have to provide every single birth control drug to all patients for free. BUT, I hate to burst your bubble, but that is not what the ACA says – not even close. Read what it really says and you may be surprised.

  30. It doesn’t answer your question, because you disagree with the premise of the answer. Learn to live with disappointment, like all the Leftists who’s insurance was cancelled by their “Messiah”.

  31. JRM_CommonSense

    Well SNuss, once again you are trying to dodge the issues. Fundamentally, I do NOT disagree with the premise of the answer you gave to the question you chose to answer. However, it is not the question you were asked.

    I will use simple words to help you understand. Let’s pretend that a new drug comes on to the market. It is not on any insurance company’s formulary. Who makes the decision that insurance companies have to cover that drug in the policies that they offer? Got it. I will repeat it again. WHO MAKES THE DECISION THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE TO COVER THAT DRUG IN THE POLICIES THAT THEY OFFER?

  32. JRM_CommonSense

    Once upon a time there was a young woman who worked at an employer who provided healthcare coverage that did NOT include birth control because it was against their religious beliefs. That young womaan made a “lifestyle choice” to have unprotected sex and got pregnant. Should the employer be held responsible for paying for the healthcare insurance that covers pre-natal care, labor and delivery, and the healthcare needs for the baby who resulted from a “lifestyle choice”?

  33. JRM_CommonSense

    Once upon a time there was a young man who worked for an employer who provided healthcare coverage at a reasonable cost. This employer was a very religious man whose religion forbade the consumption of alcoholic beverages. That young man made a “lifestyle choice” that included consuming mass quantities of booze as often as possible. One day this young man was diagnosed with liver disease due to the consumption of such mass quantities of margaritas. Should the employer be held responsible for paying for the healthcare insurance that covers the treatment of said disease as well as the cost of the liver transplant that will soon be required to save the young man’s life?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>