Hobby Lobby or How I Chose God Over Country

[Conan71]

The legislature can blame SCOTUS all it wants for this decision, but without Obamacare this issue would not have gone before the court, at least not at this time.

Here were the issues that the ACA should have fixed according to polls prior to it's passage (whether I agree with certain provisions or not):

-Insurance portability
-Exclusions from pre-existing conditions
-Better prescription benefits
-Coverage for low income families
-Lower the cost of health insurance
-Lower overall medical costs
-Expand covered procedures
-Expand access to Medicaid for low income families

Certainly there are many other issues as I am going from memory. 

The law made it compulsory for corporations to purchase insurance for employees or pay a "fine" for not purchasing health coverage.  A better solution would have been to provide an incentive for corporations to provide employees with a stipend they could use to purchase health insurance in competitive state exchanges.  In order to assure the stipend is used as intended, if the employee used it for the intended purpose, it should be exempt from income tax.  If not used to buy insurance, it should be taxed at a rate higher than their normal tax rate.  Of course it's still an incentive to attract the best and brightest and the contribution to employee insurance is still a tax break for the corporation.

Pre-existing conditions and portability would have been simple to legislate without re-jiggering the entire process for everyone.  Likewise, the government could have done a subsidy for lower income families to acquire insurance through the state exchanges.  A higher tobacco tax would have been an appropriate way to secure at least part of the funding.  Expanding Medicaid is trickier since much of that program is a blend of state and federal funds, which is why some states chose to opt out of the expansion.

Prior to the passage of the ACA, it was always a coveted perk used to attract the best and brightest employees and to help with employee retention.  Either that, or a union-negotiated benefit.  This, in my opinion, was the biggest flaw in the entire ACA.  They did not need to wreck the current free-market approach for those who already had insurance provided in whole or part by their employers.  By most accounts, it appears premium costs increased rather than decreased and/or people chose policies with less benefits which was the complete opposite of what Obamacare was claimed to do.

[guido911]

No need to read the post, just the title is freakin hilarious.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/bad-news-hillary-deeply-disturbed-that-supreme-court-upheld-statute-signed-into-law-by-her-husband/

[AquaMan]

Thanks, guys for putting it in perspective. Indeed it all comes back to Obamacare and Clinton. Everything does.

If we can just overcome their influence in this afternoon's soccer match........

[Gaspar]

I don't get what all the fuss is about.  There are over 700 companies and unions that were granted exemption to all or part of Obamacare.  Hobby Lobby should have just paid the obligatory campaign contribution and saved us all this grumble!



They could just consider it paying an "indulgence."

[guido911]

I don't get what all the fuss is about.  There are over 700 companies and unions that were granted exemption to all or part of Obamacare.  Hobby Lobby should have just paid the obligatory campaign contribution and saved us all this grumble!



They could just consider it paying an "indulgence."

The "exemption" HL got was not bestowed by Barry. It's because Obama's black. It's Bush's fault. War on womyn...

[Townsend]

The "exemption" HL got was not bestowed by Barry. It's because Obama's black. It's Bush's fault. War on womyn...

Yowza

[guido911]

Yowza

Thanks. I knew you would understand. The HL ruling had nothing to do with the law but more to do with the Supreme Court following mindless memes and overall irrelevant excuse making. I am curious, how many people in here actually read the hobby lobby opinion? Not the dissents, just the opinion.

[Townsend]

Thanks. I knew you would understand. The HL ruling had nothing to do with the law but more to do with the Supreme Court following mindless memes and overall irrelevant excuse making. I am curious, how many people in here actually read the hobby lobby opinion? Not the dissents, just the opinion.

How many US citizens know how many justices sit on the supreme court?

[Townsend]

Thanks. I knew you would understand. The HL ruling had nothing to do with the law but more to do with the Supreme Court following mindless memes and overall irrelevant excuse making. I am curious, how many people in here actually read the hobby lobby opinion? Not the dissents, just the opinion.

How many US citizens can name a Supreme Court justice?

[Conan71]

Thanks. I knew you would understand. The HL ruling had nothing to do with the law but more to do with the Supreme Court following mindless memes and overall irrelevant excuse making. I am curious, how many people in here actually read the hobby lobby opinion? Not the dissents, just the opinion.

I haven't taken the time to read it through as it is 95 pages but I have scanned it and read some reputable summaries:

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

However, my understanding of the issue is this was not a Constitutional referendum, but simply reaffirmed The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.  What has now happened is a convergence of the many layers of laws and regulations our heavy dependence on government has created.  At some point, I don't see how you can force an employer to pay for comprehensive health coverage and expect they are not going to have a say in it.

If what I've read so far of the opinion is correct, it appears the exemptions given to religious organizations were used as justification for the lawsuit in the first place.  Here's the summary in what the decision is about from the original SCOTUS text (pages 54 and 55):

In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that itsfundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself. The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claimsmade by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post, at 32–35. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith. 494 U. S., at 888– 889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims "would open the prospect of constitutionally requiredreligious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind"). But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that "the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test forstriking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests." 42 U. S. C. §2000bb(a)(5). The wisdom of Congress's judgment on this matter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.

* * * The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely heldcorporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

[Townsend]

I've read a few FB posts where people I know posted "Hobby Lobby won!"

I wondered if they knew what it was that Hobby Lobby won.  Did those posters know why they were excited?

[Conan71]

I've read a few FB posts where people I know posted "Hobby Lobby won!"

I wondered if they knew what it was that Hobby Lobby won.  Did those posters know why they were excited?

I suspect there are just as many misinformed on the pro- Hob Lob side.

It's unfortunate when we bestow scholarly status on journalists and media pundits to tell us the news as they see fit.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Thanks. I knew you would understand. The HL ruling had nothing to do with the law but more to do with the Supreme Court following mindless memes and overall irrelevant excuse making. I am curious, how many people in here actually read the hobby lobby opinion? Not the dissents, just the opinion.

You are right.

Reading in process.  The first thing that pops out goes to the start of the suit in the first place - even though I am only part way through it - why was Hobby Lobby providing the said insurance coverages up until about a year... or a little longer, before they filed this suit?  Sudden change in belief structure?  Or just another shot at interference with anything and everything that this administration does....

And if the sanctity of life is an overriding concern of theirs, where exactly were they in 2003, when we started our latest expeditionary adventure in Iraq?  Didn't see them going to court to try to save lives then.   Sounds a lot like they put much more value on something that might become a baby than those already born and raised.   Sounds hypocritical.


I gotta get online and get my preacher's license.... got some things in Federal law I don't like!  NOW, I can finally do something about them!!  Get them so they don't apply to me!!   This may work out just right after all....

[Townsend]

It works out for them.

Instead of Hobby Lobby covering whatever they choose not to cover, it'll be provided by the federal government.

Get excited.

[Conan71]

You are right.

Reading in process.  The first thing that pops out goes to the start of the suit in the first place - even though I am only part way through it - why was Hobby Lobby providing the said insurance coverages up until about a year... or a little longer, before they filed this suit?  Sudden change in belief structure?  Or just another shot at interference with anything and everything that this administration does....

And if the sanctity of life is an overriding concern of theirs, where exactly were they in 2003, when we started our latest expeditionary adventure in Iraq?  Didn't see them going to court to try to save lives then.   Sounds a lot like they put much more value on something that might become a baby than those already born and raised.   Sounds hypocritical.


I gotta get online and get my preacher's license.... got some things in Federal law I don't like!  NOW, I can finally do something about them!!  Get them so they don't apply to me!!   This may work out just right after all....

Ostensibly, they did not become aware that the formulary they were paying for prior to 2012 had Plan B and Ella in it.  When they learned the mandate would require them to cover copper IUD's, IUD's with progesterone, Plan B and Ella that's when they became concerned.  That's really not a far-fetched notion that they had not paid that close of attention to contraceptive coverage until the media got ahold of it in the run up to ACA implementation.  I think a lot of employers are largely ignorant of what all is covered in their employer plans.

Hob Lob still offers 16 kinds of contraception including progesterone implants as well as sterilization which makes them look quite liberal compared to the Catholic Church's stance on contraception.  That's where the misinformation train has gone off the rails here.  People are screaming women have no choice now after this ruling.