Hobby Lobby ruling

[Tonik]

While I disagree with the mandate, it's a tax. That makes it legal. It also makes Obama a shitbag and anyone that supports him.

Carry on...

Everybody is a shitbag.

[Tpoppa]

Then there is the blatant hypocrisy of the plaintiff... 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/

 

This article is based in sheer stupidity.  The headline is intentionally misleading.

 

First off the overwhelming majority of 401k plans don't offer investments is any particular stocks other than the employer itself.

 

Pretty much all 401k plans offer options like 2020, 2030 mutual funds or index funds which pretty much span all sectors of the stock market...tech, pharm, energy, medical, manufacturing, etc.  That is what is offered by 401k plan vendors like Fidelity, T Rowe Price, etc, etc.  This notion of being hyprocritical by going with the plans provided by a 401k vendor is well...stupid.

 

If you invest in a Manufacturing mutual fund that literally touches thousands and thousands of products, does that mean you are aware and support all of them?  Hell no. 

[Tpoppa]

While I disagree with the mandate, it's a tax. That makes it legal. It also makes Obama a shitbag and anyone that supports him.

Carry on...

But he said it wasn't a tax when he was selling it to the American people

[smccrory]

This article is based in sheer stupidity.  The headline is intentionally misleading.

 

First off the overwhelming majority of 401k plans don't offer investments is any particular stocks other than the employer itself.

 

Pretty much all 401k plans offer options like 2020, 2030 mutual funds or index funds which pretty much span all sectors of the stock market...tech, pharm, energy, medical, manufacturing, etc.  That is what is offered by 401k plan vendors like Fidelity, T Rowe Price, etc, etc.  This notion of being hyprocritical by going with the plans provided by a 401k vendor is well...stupid.

 

If you invest in a Manufacturing mutual fund that literally touches thousands and thousands of products, does that mean you are aware and support all of them?  Hell no. 

 

I 100% agree - it's a stupid charge.  It would be like calling GMO-free advocates who happen to incidentally own Monsanto stock in their retirement funds hypocrites.  Even if a person (or company) examined every last holding of their funds (which almost nobody does), they often don't have workable choices to avoid what they don't like unless they get into non-mainstream lifestyle funds that have questionable performance histories.

 

smccory, you should read up on the actual ruling. It does not impact all IUD's, it only impacts two SPECIFIC IUD's that act as a morning after pill along with two SPECIFIC morning after pills. Let me be clear what SPECIFIC means because everyone seems to be having a problem with this word., it means the make and model and manufacturer of four drugs were listed exactly in the ruling.

 

And I would advise against putting words in my mouth. I didn't classify a one day old egg as life, I classified terminating it as an abortion. And I clearly said I was not opposed to abortion, in fact I am in favor of it for most everyone here.

 

I am sure you can figure out that if I did think abortion terminated a life I would not be in favor of it.

 

OK ,fair enough - it wasn't clear to me on first read that you 1. understand the different IUD forms and 2. distinguish abortion from the termination of a legally-protected life (aka murder).  Most don't seem to.

[bloodninja420]

The "corporation as people" meme has to stop. It's a stupid misreading of Citizens United, which was really saying that individuals don't forfeit their first amendments rights by organizing into 1 of many types of business structures.

A corporation is a tax structure made up of People. It's an effective was to coordinate activities toward achieving the mutual goals of the People involved. Not some kind of evil sentient being...

[bloodninja420]

Hobby Lobby ruled that the family controlling the corp. has the same fights under RFRA (a law passed with bipartisan support during Clinton's term) that partnerships and sole proprietorships have had for the last 20 years.

This case actually had nothing to do with constitutional law.

[smccrory]

The "corporation as people" meme has to stop. It's a stupid misreading of Citizens United, which was really saying that individuals don't forfeit their first amendments rights by organizing into 1 of many types of business structures.

A corporation is a tax structure made up of People. It's an effective was to coordinate activities toward achieving the mutual goals of the People involved. Not some kind of evil sentient being...

 

Romney's use of it made it an easy meme, and the meme sticks because Citizens United (a horrible whitewash of a name) protects companies who want to use their targeted financial might to shape the law without transparency via Super-PACs.  This allows wealthy individuals and collectives/companies to profoundly manipulate politics (and thus the law) in ways that would have shaken the founding fathers to their cores.  Essentially we say that government must be separate from religion, but Citizens United says it's perfectly OK mixing business agendas with it.  Those of us who oppose Citizens United believe that the political process must be transparent and it must not overly grant people and companies with big cash piles control.  It's about a fair democracy vs. corporatocracy.

 

Hobby Lobby ruled that the family controlling the corp. has the same fights under RFRA (a law passed with bipartisan support during Clinton's term) that partnerships and sole proprietorships have had for the last 20 years.

This case actually had nothing to do with constitutional law.

 

As it stands at the moment, I believe that's true, but lower courts will use the ruling as precedent to grant closely-held private companies exemption from federal (and potentially state and local) laws on the basis of religious objection much more broadly than before.  It's just a matter of time.  At that point, there will be broader constitutional questions about religion and government.

[Tonik]

I 100% agree - it's a stupid charge.  It would be like calling GMO-free advocates who happen to incidentally own Monsanto stock in their retirement funds hypocrites.  Even if a person (or company) examined every last holding of their funds (which almost nobody does), they often don't have workable choices to avoid what they don't like unless they get into non-mainstream lifestyle funds that have questionable performance histories.

 

 

OK ,fair enough - it wasn't clear to me on first read that you 1. understand the different IUD forms and 2. distinguish abortion from the termination of a legally-protected life (aka murder).  Most don't seem to.

 

 

Got it. Next time you think I don't get something, think again.  

[OsuMj]

Tonik, you've been getting crankier lately.  Everything ok? 

[Tonik]

Tonik, you've been getting crankier lately.  Everything ok? 

 

Oh I am just getting started. And its your turn!!

 

Why do you women think you should get free contraception from the ACA while a person dying from cancer has to do co-pays for their life saving drug under the ACA?

[OsuMj]

"you women" huh?    I don't think I'm owed anything.  I just wanted to hear what people thought and tried to produce counter points for discussion. 

[OsuMj]

smccory, you should read up on the actual ruling. It does not impact all IUD's, it only impacts two SPECIFIC IUD's that act as a morning after pill along with two SPECIFIC morning after pills. Let me be clear what SPECIFIC means because everyone seems to be having a problem with this word., it means the make and model and manufacturer of four drugs were listed exactly in the ruling.

 

And I would advise against putting words in my mouth. I didn't classify a one day old egg as life, I classified terminating it as an abortion. And I clearly said I was not opposed to abortion, in fact I am in favor of it for most everyone here.

 

I am sure you can figure out that if I did think abortion terminated a life I would not be in favor of it.

 

Btw, perhaps I'm mistaken, but the two types of IUDs that you mentioned (hormonal and copper) both work by causing damage to sperm before egg fertilization and then, should that fail, make the uterus lining less tolerant of egg attachment.  But, like I mentioned earlier, many birth control pills also change the lining of the uterus to make egg attachment unlikely.  If you know something I don't know about how these to IUDs work, please school me, after all that's why I started the thread.  TEACH US TONIK!!!! 

[Tonik]

 TEACH US TONIK!!!! 

 

You need me to teach you to read? As I mentioned earlier on this subject, the answer is in the courts ruling. Let us know what you find out.

[Cheech]

Ah, it's been a while since i've posted on Politics, time to dust off the blockquoter and see if this thing still works.

 

The premise of this case was dumb.  It assumes that the mandate in the ACA is constitutional, which I flatly disagree with.  There is no "right" outcome when the basis for the decision is predicated on a wrong policy...

 

 

I do laugh at the people who are trying to make this a feminism issue though.  I keep asking outraged women, "So you're telling me a woman should have an unrestricted right to choose her form of 'birth control' that is provided by her employer - women should always have the right to choose ...unless that woman is a business owner choosing what insurance coverage her company should offer (or not offer) to her employees?  Am I getting that right?"

 

this notion that it's a bunch of men conspiring to keep women down is laughable to me.  The Catholic Church is a bunch of old white guys making decisions, but the government isn't responsible for their views...

 

Repeal the ACA mandate for employers to provide health care coverage, and this problem goes away completely.

 

I'll take these out of order.

 

So is it your contention that the link between job and healthcare be severed completely?  Perhaps in favor of something like universal coverage or single payer?  If that's the case, then sign my ass up.

 

As for the Catholic Church bit, in this particular ruling yes, the government is responsible for their views since the government, via SCOTUS, by acting as arbiter of what constitutes a "valid religious view", is basically giving a government sanction to their views.

 

Also, as of last Tuesday, the SCOTUS already expanded the ruling to include ALL contraceptives, not just the 4 abortifacients in Hobby Lobby.  So there's that.

 

You had mentioned the "narrowness" of this ruling earlier, when "closely-held companies" make up roughtly 90% of all businesses in the US, how is that a narrow ruling?

 

The "corporation as people" meme has to stop. It's a stupid misreading of Citizens United, which was really saying that individuals don't forfeit their first amendments rights by organizing into 1 of many types of business structures.

A corporation is a tax structure made up of People. It's an effective was to coordinate activities toward achieving the mutual goals of the People involved. Not some kind of evil sentient being...

 

No, it's not a "stupid misreading".  It's in the US Code (1 U.S.C. §1)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise--

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

While your statement after Citizens United isn't wrong, the way that definition has creeped into other things is the source of our concern.  For instance, given Hobby Lobby, now corporations have recognized religious views and values.  What happens when they attempt to use those to discriminate against other people? (And before you bash the Church as not being relevant in the link, remember the Catholic Church is a non-profit corporation in the US.)  Add onto that Citizens United rulings, which meant that corporations can not only give unlimited funds to candidates, but do so in secret, AND without regulations for the truthfulness of any ads generated (PAC's run their own ads, "not coordinating" with the regular campaign to create deniability, see swiftboating), and there's a real concern for where American society is heading.

Yes, corporations are tax structures made up of people.  It's sole reason for being is to make money for its shareholders.  Period, full stop.

[redkow97]

I don't think employers should be obligated to provide health care, and I would support a government option.  But I think that would really just be a group-buy plan through an existing private provider.

 

You had mentioned the "narrowness" of this ruling earlier, when "closely-held companies" make up roughtly 90% of all businesses in the US, how is that a narrow ruling?

 

 

I'll take your stat at face-value, but I would wager that it's misleading.  90% of all businesses do not employ 90% of the American workforce.  I would guess that the remaining 10% of companies employ a disproportionately large portion of the country.  Factor in the owner/operator companies who are either providing their own coverage, or are on their spouse's plan (likely an employee of a large corporation), and the number of people who are employees of closely held corporations, but would go without health coverage diminishes significantly.    

 

This ruling may apply to more businesses than my post acknowledged, but I don't think it impacts as many people as you're implying either.

[smccrory]

The way I look at it, the public suffers the burdens of individual's poor health choices whether we want to admit it or not.  We talk about freedoms from the government and all that, but when a calorie-guzzling, chain-smoking fat freak gets sick, it's gonna either get completely paid by him (unlikely), his employer's insurance (split burden between the company and the risk pool) or the public in the form of a very large insurance risk pool or loaded into ALL risk pools as a higher cost of medical care because as a nation we don't want to let anyone die at the doors of an ER.

 

Given that, it doesn't really matter if insurance is mandated or not - the expense is borne by everyone anyway.  However, with mandated insurance (i.e. universal healthcare), the availability of covered preventative healthcare helps to prevent poor health choices, or at least to mitigate them earlier in the disease cycles when they're less expensive to treat.  That's why I'm a fan of mandated health insurance and competitive insurance markets - not as a power play or communist plot to obtain everyone's bodily fluids for secret chemtrail experiments, but as a way to encourage healthier behavior, like getting regular checkups and treating issues before they fester.

 

As far as birth control goes...  If you know that people are going to be frisky no matter what you tell them, and that your risk pool is going to pay for extra children anyway, why not give folks cheap or free birth control?  Telling someone not to get freaky is a lot harder than telling them to use birth control, that's for sure.

 

Finally, as for Hobby Lobby's ruling, I agree with Cheech - the ruling itself appeared to be very narrow, but there are already cases forming to extend it as precedent to justify more employer-exemptions, which will dump those costs back into the public's risk pool.

[redkow97]

The way I look at it, the public suffers the burdens of individual's poor health choices whether we want to admit it or not.  We talk about freedoms from the government and all that, but when a calorie-guzzling, chain-smoking fat freak gets sick, it's gonna either get completely paid by him (unlikely), his employer's insurance (split burden between the company and the risk pool) or the public in the form of a very large insurance risk pool or loaded into ALL risk pools as a higher cost of medical care because as a nation we don't want to let anyone die at the doors of an ER.

 

Given that, it doesn't really matter if insurance is mandated or not - the expense is borne by everyone anyway.  

 

I don't disagree with your conclusion that we all bear the cost eventually, but I do disagree that the means by which it is justified are insignificant.

 

Restrictions on liberty are almost never favorable.  Even when the goal is noble. 

[Cheech]

The way I look at it, the public suffers the burdens of individual's poor health choices whether we want to admit it or not.  We talk about freedoms from the government and all that, but when a calorie-guzzling, chain-smoking fat freak gets sick, it's gonna either get completely paid by him (unlikely), his employer's insurance (split burden between the company and the risk pool) or the public in the form of a very large insurance risk pool or loaded into ALL risk pools as a higher cost of medical care because as a nation we don't want to let anyone die at the doors of an ER.

 

Given that, it doesn't really matter if insurance is mandated or not - the expense is borne by everyone anyway.  However, with mandated insurance (i.e. universal healthcare), the availability of covered preventative healthcare helps to prevent poor health choices, or at least to mitigate them earlier in the disease cycles when they're less expensive to treat.  That's why I'm a fan of mandated health insurance and competitive insurance markets - not as a power play or communist plot to obtain everyone's bodily fluids for secret chemtrail experiments, but as a way to encourage healthier behavior, like getting regular checkups and treating issues before they fester.

 

As far as birth control goes...  If you know that people are going to be frisky no matter what you tell them, and that your risk pool is going to pay for extra children anyway, why not give folks cheap or free birth control?  Telling someone not to get freaky is a lot harder than telling them to use birth control, that's for sure.

 

Finally, as for Hobby Lobby's ruling, I agree with Cheech - the ruling itself appeared to be very narrow, but there are already cases forming to extend it as precedent to justify more employer-exemptions, which will dump those costs back into the public's risk pool.

 

Mandated insurance is not the same as universal healthcare.  Mandated insurance is just that, I'm mandated by law to have some form of insurance.  Universal healthcare is also just that, I'm universally covered just for being a US citizen.

[smccrory]

I don't disagree with your conclusion that we all bear the cost eventually, but I do disagree that the means by which it is justified are insignificant.

 

Restrictions on liberty are almost never favorable.  Even when the goal is noble. 

 

Sure, emotionally, I agree completely.  I don't want my own personal liberties to be restricted either.  But we've got to be mindful about where the liberty argument is being used, and it's not first and foremost for the individual, it's for the corporation.  Go back in time not even a hundred years and you'll find the exact same arguments made by Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie and their federated industry mouthpieces, used to protect their ability to conduct business free and loose, and let the public bear the costs for their corporate "freedom."  Heck, just look at any superfund site for what's left over when corporate freedom reigns, absent from the "tyranny of government regulation."  My home state of West Virginia is full of them.  Put frankly, business owners are using the personal freedom pitch to let them operate more loosely so they don't have to bear the consequental costs.  Heck, the supreme court now recognizes corporations as people.  And beautifully, I've never heard so many singing their song in sweet, sweet harmony.  It's a fantastic thing when the people you're using are the ones most appreciate of that use, if they're even aware of the extent...

 

History is repeating itself.

[smccrory]

Mandated insurance is not the same as universal healthcare.  Mandated insurance is just that, I'm mandated by law to have some form of insurance.  Universal healthcare is also just that, I'm universally covered just for being a US citizen.

 

Understood and I didn't mean one begets the other.  I was just busy making the pooling argument.

[Cheech]

I don't think employers should be obligated to provide health care, and I would support a government option.  But I think that would really just be a group-buy plan through an existing private provider.

 

 

I'll take your stat at face-value, but I would wager that it's misleading.  90% of all businesses do not employ 90% of the American workforce.  I would guess that the remaining 10% of companies employ a disproportionately large portion of the country.  Factor in the owner/operator companies who are either providing their own coverage, or are on their spouse's plan (likely an employee of a large corporation), and the number of people who are employees of closely held corporations, but would go without health coverage diminishes significantly.    

 

This ruling may apply to more businesses than my post acknowledged, but I don't think it impacts as many people as you're implying either.

 

Not to take this too far off topic, but for a "free-market" solution, your proposition is pretty inefficient.  Why would we want a group-buy plan through a existing private provider as a "government option", and immediately introduce an inefficient and profit-motivated middleman into the mix?  Isn't that essentially a continuation of healthcare as we know it?

 

As far as the stat goes, I figured you'd want a cite, it's from the IRS.  I don't disagree with your assertion that 90% of businesses don't employ 90% of the workforce, however I would vehemently argue that the proportion is a lot more than 50%, and any decision that affects that many people I wouldn't classify as "narrow".

[DAC]

As to "free-market" solution; have you ever seen an EOB from a private carrier? Ever compare the "initial charge" to the "adjusted charge?" Usually, the adjusted amount is somewhere between 50% and 90% lower. If all an uninsured person ever gets is access to the network pricing, they're much better off.

Also, the mandate is laughable. I don't know if it's good public policy or not, but it's blatantly unconstitutional. Somebody sitting in their living room deciding to not have insurance is not within the purview of the federal government. Period. CJ Roberts' assertion that it's part of the "taxing" authority under the 16th amendment would be kinda funny if it weren't such a tremendous breach of individual rights. The government lawyers didn't even assert that as a defense because it was such a joke.

So, under this taxing authority, you don't have to submit to a spot strip search, you just have to pay a $10,000 tax if you don't, right? Have fun with that kids.

Edited July 7, 2014 by DAC

[Cheech]

As to "free-market" solution; have you ever seen an EOB from a private carrier? Ever compare the "initial charge" to the "adjusted charge?" Usually, the adjusted amount is somewhere between 50% and 90% lower. If all an uninsured person ever gets is access to the network pricing, they're much better off.

Also, the mandate is laughable. I don't know if it's good public policy or not, but it's blatantly unconstitutional. Somebody sitting in their living room deciding to not have insurance is not within the purview of the federal government. Period. CJ Roberts' assertion that it's part of the "taxing" authority under the 16th amendment would be kinda funny if it weren't such a tremendous breach of individual rights. The government lawyers didn't even assert that as a defense because it was such a joke.

So, under this taxing authority, you don't have to submit to a spot strip search, you just have to pay a $10,000 tax if you don't, right? Have fun with that kids.

 

...which is why, if all Americans join the same risk pool, our combined economies of scale would send that "adjusted charge" down even further.  It's one of reasons why Medicare Part D under Shrub was such a colossal fuckup, that Medicare and the massive amount of people that it serves is unable to negotiate for better rates.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again, health coverage for Americans should not be a for-profit industry.

[DAC]

Why is it a government function?

[smccrory]

Why is it a government function?

Because government already exists explicitly to serve, protect the people. We have a military to fight foreign foes, a CDC and so many other departments to protect common interests, so why not one to "combat" health threats?

Technically it wouldn't have to be government though - it could be any entity operating for the same purpose. It could be a non-profit consortium that delivers healthcare, but it would only be non-governmental in name, so there'd be little point.

Unless you believe profit should be made off the suffering of citizens, then let's just stick with the republican plan.