*shaking head*
 

Much gnashing of teeth here...

http://jezebel.com/why-women-arent-p...are-1598061808

...which is interesting considering the Supreme Court only sez Hobby Lobby can refuse to provide abortion chemicals to its employees.

That’s all the SC said.

The SC doesn’t say HL can prevent employees from buying those drugs with their own dough

The SC doesn’t say HL can force anyone to carry babies to term.

The SC only sez an employee can’t force HL to buy something HC doesn’t want to pay for.

Big disconnect between what 'is' and the anger in the piece.

If you have a system where healthcare/insurance is effectively part of the employment package - then you really do need to ensure that healthcare/insurance provided by employers covers the needs of employees.

That's just one angry article. There are many articles addressing this issue that don't have the teeth-gnashing.

But Holly Hobby Lobby has no problem paying for vasectomies, and also for Viagra (for the poor hard-on challenged men. Boo fucking hoo.)

You don't see the problem with that?

Hypocrites, is what I would call them. Male crap crap crap. We big men, we beat on chest and yell! We are in charge. There's your gnashing of teeth, they just hide it behind 'religious freedom.'

This bit suggests good reason for anger:

It's not just about not wanting to be implicated in the sin of providing birth control, it's about actively placing barriers to women being able to access birth control.

And the fact that a fairly large percentage of women who use 'birth control' are actually using it for general reproductive health (e.g endometriosis and other ailments affecting women) seems of less relevance to them than the general sense that women shouldn't be allowed to control their reproductive system through anything except abstinence when unmarried, and once married not at all.

"it's about actively placing barriers to women being able to access birth control...women shouldn't be allowed to control their reproductive system through anything except abstinence when unmarried, and once married not at all."

Not seein' how you get that.

If Jane wants the pill but Jane's employer won't pay for it, nuthin' is stoppin' Jane from gettin' it herself, by way of her own cash.

#

"religious freedom"

Never saw how the whole HL thing was a religious issue (was disingenuous to frame it as such).

Seems to me: HL (as business) is the property of the owners who can use their property as they see fit (including deciding how much to pay employees and/or deciding what benefits to offer).

That is: it’s a property rights issue.

#

"If you have a system where healthcare/insurance is effectively part of the employment package..."

Such a thing should be the choice of the business-owner.

And you don't see the hypocrisy of allowing viagra but not an IUD?

Surely the benefit they offer is healthcare insurance? In which case it should be up to the employee how to use/spend that insurance, according to what is covered by the insurance company?

The employer doesn;t get to tell them how to spend their wages - they don;t get to say: yes we'll pay you $x per hour but you cannot buy pork.

The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees. The Court has said yes in general. But details apply. And not just that this is an privately held company. This may not apply to publically held companies since a public does not have a religion. Or do they? This court reversed years of principles in saying companies are people too.

Viagra is for having sex and IUDs are for having sex, so they are the same.

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken, and IUDs are for breaking something that works. They are opposites.

Which is it?

"And you don't see the hypocrisy of allowing viagra but not an IUD?"

How a body uses his or her property may not make any sense to me, but it doesn't have to make sense to me cuz it ain't 'my' property.

If I don’t like the way a body uses his or her property then...

1-I can choose not to associate with 'em.

2-I can choose not to work for, buy from, or sell to, 'em.

Not seeing how this is a complicated notion.

The former - because not all birth control is about 'breaking' the reproductive system.

Maybe the pill is a better example - it is used for many reasons beyond a desire not to conceive:

So, if a woman has a family history of ovarian cancer, the pill is one way of reducing her high risk factor.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-contr...-take-the-pill

It also, by stopping ovulation can reduce period pain. For women who suffer very bad periods and blood loss this can be a serious health benefit.

And one of the most common medical reasons for taking the pill:

I don;t see how it is a complicated notion that the health insurance given to employees becomes their property - and it should be up to them how they use it.

My employer doesn't have to right to tell me how to spend what it pays me.

"Surely the benefit they offer is healthcare insurance?"

Yep, but the owner is the contractor of service, not the employee.

As the 'owner', he or she or they should decide the nature, depth, and breadth of services offered.

#

"The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees."

I disagree.

The issue boils down to: can employees force an employer to provide a benefit said employer finds morally repugnant?

#

"The Court has said yes in general."

Nope.

All the SC said is that a closely held company (one not publically traded; one owned by one or a few) cannot be forced to offer a product or service the owner(s) of the company find morally reprehensible.

#

My own view (again): 'Never saw how the whole HL thing was a religious issue (was disingenuous to frame it as such). Seems to me: HL (as business) is the property of the owners who can use their property as they see fit (including deciding how much to pay employees and/or deciding what benefits to offer). That is: it's a property rights issue.'

I believe a bad precedent was set (though, obviously, not for the same reason you folks think).

"I don;t see how it is a complicated notion that the health insurance given to employees becomes their property - and it should be up to them how they use it."

When the employee leaves the business, does the insurance follow him or her, or does it end with employment?

If the employee loses the coverage with their employment then the benefit is a privilege offered by the employer, not the property totally controlled by the employee.

#

"My employer doesn't have to right to tell me how to spend what it pays me."

No, but your employer can stop paying you (for just cause).

And: if the employer acts as conduit for the coverage (it contracts with the insurer, not you; it bears the burden of meeting requirements, not you) then the employer is 'owner' of the coverage.

Again: the owner determines (or should determine) the nature of compensation he or she offers, not the employee.

What's opposite is covering Viagra AND vasectomies. Whatever the male wants, is good with them.

In other words: Viagra is for having sex and vasectomies are for having sex (without those pesky pregnancies.)

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are for breaking something that works.

Which is it?

As henry quirk says the employer contracts with the insurance company the employee is just a covered party.

The insurance isn't provided to the employee at no cost, the employer can then take the cost of the insurance out of the employees pay check ( or some proportion). The employee cannot just refuse the insurance either, unless they can prove alternate coverage. (That's how it works for me).
So yes, the employer is spending the employees pay.

At my corporation employees earning over $150K gross are responsible for 100% of the $22K cost of insurance. and it's crappy insurance for that money.
Theres sliding scale below that.
The big investor that owns this corporation and many others sets this as standard across all his companies.

"Insurance" is a misnomer anyway but I don't know a better word, "shell game" might be it. On our insurance you can still easily be out of pocket for thousands for day to day occurences, it just limits it instead of climbing into the tens of thousands in a dire circumstance.

It's both. Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are birth control. If female birth control isn't covered, then it's hypocritical to cover male birth control. But Viagra shouldn't come into it at all unless you want to mock men with health problems.

So let me see, we've had a Supreme Court ruling that upheld that the government could not force you to go against your political beliefs with your privately owned business. Isn't this part of the intent of the Bill of Rights?

If the employees aren't happy with their health care coverage, why don't they work some place else?

I'll tell you what, I won't mock men who may have health problems if you won't mock women who may also have health problems that would make pregnancy a risk.

Why should this have anything to do with "mocking health issues"? This is simply the right of privately owned businesses to provide benefit packages of their selection. If you don't like it, work someplace else or pay out of your pocket. I don't believe any of their employees are indentured servants and not free to change employment. BTW:

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Keep on dividing, people, keep on dividing...

I don't know about Ella, but on Plan B: this is all due to an anti-scientific misunderstanding of how the drug works.

It works by preventing ovulation.

Somehow, and good fuckin' lord I have no idea how this might happen, but somehow a bunch of miserable fucking dickheads got it into their tiny, uneducated minds, that Plan B prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

No. Plan B works exactly like every other birth control drug. Don't believe me, you can look it up. And so those miserable, tiny, anti-scientific, uneducated pricks

ARE

ACTUALLY

CAUSING

MORE

ABORTIONS

BY

PROTESTING

PLAN B.

Well why did this have to go to the Supreme Court?? The women could have simply decided not to get pregnant.

Repugnant is an emotion. Emotions have no standing in the court. If this was about an emotion, it would have been never been heard.

Your sentence is missing fundamental underlying word that is the basis of their suit. It is completely about their religious beliefs. Their standards for what is socially acceptable (along with other irrelevant emotions such as ego) were never discussed in this case, were never considered, and was completely irrelevant to the court and to all parties. In fact, one who is emotional is often considered irresponsible or negligent. And so the word repugnant is never discussed by anyone but Henry Quick.

This case is 100% about their religious beliefs. To ignore the religion behind it is hypocrisy. Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees. Only posts relevent to this court decision must include the word religion. Some will try to justify that decision by ignoring the entire basis of this case - which is a religious belief. Repugnant is how one would avoid admitting the problem with this decision. The court says one can impose their religious beliefs on employees. Impossible to be honest and deny this is about religious beliefs.

The entire case is not about choice in general as you claim. It is completely about the right of privately owned businesses to impose their religious beliefs on employees benefits. Posting without mentioning the only issue - religion - is beyond absurd.

Nobody said anything about denying social security contributions, restricting safety equipment, providing employee parking, or other benefits based on the employers emotions or whims. Nobody suggested benefits denied due to an employee's race, gender, height, age, or citizenship status. Only discussed is whether they can deny benefits based on the owner's religious beliefs. Not based in anything else. Only based on the owners religious beliefs. Youf post is dishonest if it does not discuss prime issue of this entire case - religion.

How to inspire hatred and dissention? How to worship satan? Let anyone impose their religion on anyone else. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition.

But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole. :D

There might even be a Lobby for this in Washington

Of course, Hobby Lobby invests in the companies that make the same drugs they won't pay for...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...on-drug-makers

Which is how we know this is more about politics using religion rather than an ethics based stand.

Wull that and being against sex for pleasure, their traditional stomping ground, which tells them sex should have deadly serious consequences... amongst which, strangely enough, is... abortions. And a bunch of half-parented kids.

But then they hired Lobbyists. Great. As if we don't have enough Lobbies. Now one for religious beliefs.

What happens when religion gets Federal atttention for protecting pedophiles and laundering Mafia funds. First government threatens legal actions. Then the interest group creates a Lobby to buy government.

Now, they call it their Hobby. Just another example of political correctness - a new expression for 'purchasing politicians'. Even AIPAC is a hobby.

Purveryor of Activities with Non-financial Gain. Being a Hobby now derogatory. I must now become a Panger. And tell the IRS it is my Pang.

Because the employer [strike]is[strike] was breaking the law.

If their religious beliefs were so wonderful, they would be able to provide insurance coverage for contraception and all their good little religious employees would religiously choose not to use them.

I can't wait for the uproar from employees who are forced to keep kosher. :p:

The inherent problem is employer-provided insurance. Has been from the beginning.

Yes.

We have these crazy systems in place and they only persist because that's the way it's always been. Why in the world would we end up with a system where healthcare is part of compensation? Why not food? It's equally as logical. Imagine if employers provided food coupons instead of healthcare?

If the employee chooses to work in a privately owned kosher business, then it would be reasonable. Remember kosher is a adhering to dietary laws for sanitary reasons. If the employee doesn't like it, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.

Employer has the right to fire any employee caught driving on Saturday. Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not turn to Mecca and pray at sundown. Employer has the right to withhold pay from any employee who takes the name of god in vain. Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not shop in the employer's store Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not shit only kosher foods. Since the employer's religion says what is unsanitary. Courts agree.

Only religious beliefs of the employer are relevant. Screw anyone else who does not conform to those beliefs. Nobody expected a Spanish Inquisition. As Gomer Pyle said, "Surprise, surprise, surprise."

Simply choose not to work for a privately owned business that has different essential values from your own. The women of Hobby Lobby, who brought the suit, are free to work for any other business that sanctions the murder of children or worships Baal.

Politifact had a good article this morning about the potential challenges that could come in the future:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ing-affect-co/

I don't know...I don't think the ruling is necessarily bad, but...

There are a lot of things I don't like to do as a (soon to be out of) businessman, but I do them. I DO worry about a slippery slope here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if an employer sexually exploits woman and grab their asses, well, the women should simply go elsewhere to work. If the boss calls every blackman a niger and every Jew a kike, well, they have the right to go work elsewhere. It again proves the employer has the right to do anything he wants because his employees have the right to quit - to become unemployed. After all, an employer has the right to impose all his values on his employees. Including his religion. That is your reasoning.

But this isn't about what the employer is doing, it's about what the employer is NOT doing; because, the employer is a conscientious objector. It's about one person's (employee) rights ending where another person's (employer) rights begin. Refraining from participating in actions unconscionable to the employer doesn't really even have to be grounded in religion; however, that's where it gains protected status. Sometimes it's employees who become conscientious objectors to something or another, like a soldier refusing to fight, and they are exempted from doing what they find to be unconscionable. It seems that all the Court is saying is that in the case of privately held businesses, this is where one constituent's rights end and another constituent's rights begin and that there isn't going to be a case by case burden of proof imposed by government because that would be infringing on the rights accorded that class of business in this regard.

soldiers refusing to fight get court-martialled, surely?

So the conscientious objector still serves as, for example, a medic.

First, not doing something is an action. Let a man drown. But "I did not do anything; so I am not guilty." Almost 100 watched Kitty Genovese die on that NYC sidewalk. And did not even call the police for about 45 minutes. They watched and did nothing - their actions. Nonsense reasoning; semantics that lawyers succesfully play to confuse reality. Not doing something is an action. So the man drowned and Kitty Genovese was murdered.

Second, the employer is imposing his religion on others. A conscentious objector does not impose his religion on anyone else. Only so called 'evil' people (ie Fundamentalist terrorists) impose their religion on anyone else. This is not about imposing his religion on himself. This is only and completely about imposing his religion on others.

Beest
 

Please, call me Henry... ;)

if companies that object to offering cover on the insurance they provide also refuse to sign a piece of paper confirming that they object to providing cover for birth control, thereby ensuring that those women cannot access such provision through a government scheme, then they are absolutely imposing their religion on their employees.

For those who say they could choose to work elsewhere - yes, they could. But sometimes that choice isn't really a genuine choice. If the choice is between continuing to work for the company and being able to feed and clothe your children, or leave that job and not be able to feed and clothe your children, then that is not a truly 'free' choice.

It all depends on the employment availability for your skill set and your region - if you are working in a low paid job, in an area with high unemployment and little to no welfare, then deciding to leave your job is a very, very big deal, particularly if you have dependents.

As far as paying for this stuff out of their own wages - again, what are those wages? The vast majority of people currently accessing foodbanks and living in food poverty are in work. Many are already having to choose between fuel or food, clothes for their kids or rent.Those same people are unlikely to have the kinds of savings and back up cash that would allow them to relocate themselves and their families.

The people who object on some moral ground to providing contraceptives are no doubt the same people who will happily condemn as profligate women who have more children than they can afford to look after.

TW
 

"Repugnant is an emotion."

I wrote 'morally repugnant' which, to my mind, is part and parcel with 'religious objection'.

*shrug*

#

"Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees."

No.

The SC said the owners of a tightly owned/closely held company can refuse to pay (in part or in total) for services or products they, the owners, have a religious objection to.

The HL folks are evangelicals...the ruling imposes no obligations on, for example, an atheist to 'do' things the HL folks find religiously acceptable...the ruling only says the atheist 'can't' make the HL folks pay for (in part or in total) services or products the HL folks object to on religious grounds.

That's it...that's all.

There may be unintended consequences because of the ruling (as opportunists try to twist the ruling to suit themselves), but the ruling itself is unambiguous.

Clod
 

"The inherent problem is employer-provided insurance"

Only when it's mandatory.

If Joe wants to provide catastrophic insurance to all of his employees, that's on Joe.

If Joe wants to pay (some or all of) his employees enough so that each can attend to his or her medical needs as each sees fit, that's on Joe.

If Joe enters into idiosyncratic contracts with (some or all) individual employees to provide or make accessible 'this' or 'that', that's on Joe.

It's the mandatory nature of employer-based insurance that's the problem.

"So if an employer sexually exploits woman and grab their asses, well, the women should simply go elsewhere to work."

Or: punch the fucker in the head.

I'll say it again: the SC ruling sets a bad precedent.

I can see all manner of unintended consequence extending out from the ruling.

Better the HL folks had attacked the problem from the position of 'property' (the right of owners of property to do with said property as the owners like).

Except when employer-provided coverage is the norm, then rates are artificially inflated, a one-size-fits-all policy is chosen by someone in HR rather than the individuals it's supposed to serve, and anyone who doesn't have employer coverage is effectively barred from getting a policy at all because they have no collective bargaining to offer.

All of which were addressed by Obamacare, and slowly we are seeing good things from it (a huge increase this year in the number of insurance companies offering new plans on the open exchanges, for example, with competition driving down prices as it should,) but we have a long way to go before people really give up this stupid idea that your job should be in charge of those decisions for you.

I see what you're saying Henry. And to an extent, I agree. But - if those employers are making that decision in the face of scientific evidence that shows quite clearly that there is no difference in function between the contraceptives they will allow and those they won't (prevention of fertilisation, versus prevention of ovulation) then they are effectively penalising those women who, because of their particular medical history need one kind rather than the other (some contraceptives are suitable for some women but not others) - and they are doing so on the grounds of something that is untrue.

Clod,

"..employer-provided coverage is the norm..."

I agree, and I should clarify: 'mandatory' (as I use it) is not only the legal mandate (law) but also the cultural imperative (this is now things are done).

Where we disagree: if you want services and products to assume 'proper value' in a market, take out as many of the extraneous players in the market as you can.

If the market (buyer and seller; demand and supply) is allowed to operate with only minimal restraint all products and services assume a proper value, a value that may fluctuate wildly for any number of reasons, but a value in keeping with the buyer and the seller; demand and supply.

Every extraneous player simply adds to 'cost' without adding to 'value'.

#

Dana,

"they are doing so on the grounds of something that is untrue"

I get that and -- within the context of the SC ruling -- I see your point.

Which, again, is why I think the ruling is a fertile ground for unintended consequence.

If HL had taken the route of property ownership instead of religious objection then -- as I say up-thread -- 'how a body uses his or her property may not make any sense to me, but it doesn't have to make sense to me cuz it ain't 'my' property'.

I got an idea why the HL folks didn't assert this as a property matter, but I'll leave that for another time.

I was referring to soldiers refusing to fight claiming conscientious objector status. Courts Martial is a judicial procedure. Those claiming conscientious objector status go into pretrial diversion in which an administrative process either validates or invalidates the claim. Validation means the petitioner is authenticated as a conscientious objector and administratively separated from military service. If the claim is determined to be invalid, then the soldier proceeds to trial.

First, not doing something is a choice, that choice is called inaction. There can be dozens of valid reasons for individuals to choose inaction and you don't get to sit in judgment of any of them. But then the English language isn't your forte is it? You're well known for making up your own definitions for words.

Second, the employer is imposing its will on its insurance company. The insurance company is limiting benefits to the employees and the insurance company is free to distribute those benefits as long as it's no cost to the employer.

Conscientious objectors continuously impose their religion on others as others have to accommodate them.

Only un-American subversives would deprive employers of their freedom of religion by forcing them to act in a manner unconscionable to them. This is only and completely about freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court agrees with me 'cause I'm right and you're wrong ... get over it. :p:

TW,

Kitty was on birth control. That's why no one intervened. BTW, you really fucked up your facts in that case. Who were these hundreds?? Two people saw different parts of the attack. It was believed to be a lover's quarrel. It was finally properly reported as an assault and the police responded. This happened 50 years ago. What the fuck does this have to do with Hobby Lobby?? I'm worried you are becoming quite senile in the twilight of your life.

Yeah for Obamacare. We are moving towards socialized medicine. I think the VA is a shining example of what everyone can expect in the future.

I'm sorry tw. the above was uncalled for

Socialised medicine:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2.../17/nhs-health

The problems of the VA aren't because it is socialised - the problems are because it is not being competently run and has been allowed to fester without proper upgrades to the records system.

There is one metric that they never ever ever study in such studies and that metric is, where are the fucking cures coming from? Because that is kind of important.

In the last 30 years, there have been 68 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine.

US 38.5
UK 9.5
Germany 5.5
Australia 3.5
France 3
Japan 2
Switz 2
Italy 1
Denmark 1
Sweden 1
S. Africa 1
Argentina .5
Canada .5

The level of socialization in a system doesn't seem to matter much. The UK is clearly punching above its weight. Single-payer Canada, socialized Sweden, big underachievers. Moneyed Japan, huge underachiever. But it's clear, without the US system, 57% of the discoveries since 1945 do not happen, and the rest of the world continues to die in their systems that have not benefitted from advancements and discoveries.

~ You're welcome ~

I also feel that our metrics would be a lot better without a permanently unhealthy underclass who eat shitty, go around shooting each other, generally hate doctors, have terrible hygiene, etc. I suppose every nation suffers from that to a degree. But when it comes to longevity our ghetto males and steady trickle of Mexicans have a life expectancy of around 65, and it isn't actually due to lack of doctorin' so much as lack of maintenance. If you don't do oil changes expect your car to die.

US is huge in comparison to UK and Germany (for example) - there is no way to know if the US would produce fewer innovations with socialised medicine than with private/insurance based medicine. Given the size and population of the UK the fact that it has 9 of those is remarkable - if the US had the same or similar system in place its size might still mean it having a similar number.

US population as at 2012= 313.9 million
UK population as at 2012 = 63.23 million

Approximately five times the population and produced approximately four times as many nobel laureates in physiology or medicine.

I know that and, really, what people never consider is that the US system is pretty socialized anyway. With Medicare, Medicaid and now O'care, state and federal governments pay for over half the medicine that is happening in this country.

(I had to explain to a Derby counterpart that the streets around US hospitals are not choked with the dying who have been turned away. Nobody with a serious issue is turned away.)

Good point.

I do think though this is one of those areas where greater centralisation brings benefits. The cost of medicine is brought down massively by centralisation because it increases the buying power of the customer. The NHS has huge buying power with drug companies - it helps drive down costs. Drug companies want the NHS to supply their products and many times they bring the cost down drastically to make that happen - because the NHS has such massive purchasing power.



I should add all this is subject to change given we have a coalition hell bent on finishing the job of privatising the NHS.