re: Didn't like the Hobby Lobby decision? Look at the follow up decisions

quote:

---

Hopefully you will relax once you have it for the first time...

---

Really? Yep, I'm a 58 year old virgin. But back to the topic..

quote:

---

No need to be a jerk NC_Tigah.

---

Because you made asinine assertions, then flew the coop? OK. Frankly I never expected you to return.

Here are a couple of others' pending questions:

Can you name a company that covers Viagra and vasectomies that does not cover contraceptives?

Hobby Lobby covers birth control pills. Why is that difficult to understand?

quote:

---

Can you name a company that covers Viagra and vasectomies that does not cover contraceptives?

---

It's the 4th, I had obligations and do again shortly.
No, I haven't looked. It would of course be what plans provided by what companies don't cover them. But isn't the issue that the company won't provide insurance that covers them?

quote:

---

Hobby Lobby covers birth control pills. Why is that difficult to understand?

---

My post is about the follow up decisions to Hobby Lobby. Those deal with contraceptives, as I've said several times in different posts on this thread. The interesting pending case will be the one that deals with all forms of contraceptives that was filed by a Catholic owned business, that is a corporation. Forgotten the name of the case. I'll have to try to find it.

quote:

---

No, I haven't looked. It would of course be what plans provided by what companies don't cover them. But isn't the issue that the company won't provide insurance that covers them?

---

Plans are completely customizable. And your whole basic response to that question was nonsense. Either you know your original premise was garbage or you don't know enough about health insurance to hold forth on it at all.

quote:

---

Plans are completely customizable.

---

Well yes that's the point 808, the company will not cover a plan that includes certain contraceptives.

quote:

---

There is no right to healthcare. There is no right to health insurance. There is no right to contraception. There is no right to abortifacients.

The Court correctly decided that the government cannot force Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients to its employees because it violates the Free Exercise Clause. The employees are not prevented from purchasing these items are their own.

No one's rights are currently being violated. This case is about Hobby Lobby's rights. Not non-existent rights for their employees.

---

quote:

---

There was never an issue of the rights of the employees of Hobby Lobby because they possessed no right to the abortifacients.

Second, what do you thing due process is? This case went all the way through the Supreme Court. That's the extent of the process this country has.

---

I don't understand how people can't look at this decision and say yeah, it's pretty cut clear and dry and go along with what you posted.

Excellent posts that kept it short and sweet btw. Kudos.

NC_Tigah: As I read the many posts since the initial decision, my take is that most posters don't think employers should have to provide health insurance and if they do then it is solely up to the employer as to what should be covered. Finally I think underlying those beliefs is of course the belief that the ACA should not be. Perhaps I'm being too general in summarizing those posts.

But the ACA is the law of the land since it was upheld by the S. Ct.
The Hobby Lobby decision purported to be narrow in its scope, dealing only with the ACA regulation that private, for-profit companies must provide certain types of birth control coverage without a copay. Further at issue specifically was the provision of the "morning after" pill and IUDs. Now I agree with the dissent (though my opinion doesn't count for anything). It was a sweeping decision.

The owners may be religious but how can a for profit company be?
As Ginsburg pointed out yes, under the act there is an "opt out" due to beliefs for charities and religious organizations but they are there to further the interests of their members and the "faithful". Companies exist to make money. So I have a very basic difficulty with extending the rights of corporations to have "religious freedom". I don't see where that ends.

Then the Wheaton case expanded it even further than just the morning after pill and IUDs. So on the legal issues that's my beef. Now on the practical impacts side-I do have issue, as I stated earlier, with now having a situation where you have unequal impacts (the whole vasectomy-viagra discussion). On the political impact side-both parties as usual will use this in the upcoming elections. Politicians make hay from things like this while all of us, one way or another, pay for it.

I have to leave this thread for a bit. But I will return later.

quote:

---

I agree that the other troubling aspect of this decision is the continued expansion of the idea that corporations are equivalent legal entities to people.

---

Juridical entities (corporations) have gone back as far Justinian and the Roman Empire.

They aren't "people" in the biological sense. They are an entity recognized by law to have protections against government.