Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

From a Time article titled,

Supreme Court Women Raise Questions on Contraception Coverage

Link

This is what struck me. . .

Justice Sotomayor started by asking, if corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions? Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the challengers, said that contraception is different, because the government has already given an exemption to religious nonprofits. Justice Kagan then said that there are several medical treatments to which some religious groups object, and if corporations could object to providing coverage for those treatments, “everything would be piecemeal. Nothing would be uniform.”

Nothing would be uniform.
Everything would be piecemeal.

Similar to what healthcare was like prior to the introduction of Obamacare.

This is a key point in the defense's strategy.

Much of the challengers’ argument is centered on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which is aimed at preventing laws that substantially limit a person’s religious freedom. The law grew out of a conflict over whether two Native Americans could be dismissed from their jobs as drug counselors for using drugs in a religious ritual. The architects of the law said they intended it to be a protection of religious rights, not an excuse to foist religious principles on others.

This is big, in my humble opinion.

If the Supreme Court decides in the favor of Hobby Lobby, then basically, Obamacare is toast. Because it will show that government mandate is not above religious freedom.

If the Supreme Court decides against Hobby Lobby, then it will indicate that that government mandates hold supreme (snark) over religious freedoms.

Caveat; I work for a faith-based institution. So this decision is key to me personally. I personally do not like Obamacare. I disagree with the government mandating health insurance. I am a strong believer in personal responsibility, as it is the responsibility of the individual, NOT the state to determine healthcare needs, requirements.

Anyway you slice it, this court decision will have a lasting impact on the future of Obamacare. What legacy it leaves, will (hopefully) be decided this week.

I can imagine the current crop of ATS residents will already have their minds made up (as mine is) but would be interested in reading any opinions you all may have on the topic.

As always, read, learn, ignore, post, or shave llama's as a weekend hobby. I humbly leave it up to you.

reply to post by beezzer


I would doubt Hobby Lobby can win this one. It would mean any business owner could object to anything in the plan, on religious grounds (if a Christian Scientist bought WalMart he/she could then deny health care to everyone, as they believe in not using doctors but letting God heal the sick). Just isn't going to happen.

First off, how in the name of all that is holy can a corporation be religiously oppressed???? Further, if I as a Christian feel that universal healthcare is a good thing, and my corporate Overlords feel differently, whose religious views reign supreme - me or the corporate folks who sign my paychecks? Anyway, the ACA ( or Romneycare, as it really should be called) is supposed to affect insurance companies. Hobby Lobby sucks, as an added bonus.

Cyprian
First off, how in the name of all that is holy can a corporation be religiously oppressed????

Perhaps it is because corporations are considered people and people can be oppressed.

As if providing health care to employees removes personal responsibility of their employees. The day the people of the us allowed the supreme court to legislate legalizing abortion was the day religion and the constitution should have come into play. Right now this company is trying to prevent a lawful and human right based upon the laws of the US. In turn would the employees have the right to sue Hobby Lobby for attempting to prevent them a lawful human right?





I am pro-life and feel in most cases personal responsibility is key. However i disagree with hobby lobby's approach.

reply to post by beezzer


I don't support Obamacare either, but Hobby Lobby needs to lose this case. It may be against the religion of the owner's of Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives, but I'm pretty damn sure that they don't just employ Christian fundamentalists like themselves. This results in religious discrimination from the employer to the employee from a government mandated law. The rights of the person need to outweigh the rights of this corporation. If a Christian doesn't approve of contraceptives, fine, don't use them, but don't deny other's their right to use them or be provided with them under law because of your disagreement.

This whole fiasco could be solved by just getting government out of our lives, but hey apparently that isn't in the cards.

I think the key point to consider is this;

Is healthcare the responsibility of the individual, the corporation, or the state?

If it is the responsibility of the individual, then Obamacare is a failure and an affront.

If it is the responsibility of the corporation, then Obamacare has no right to mandate.

If it is the responsibility of the state, then the case against Hobby Lobby will be won.

beezzer
I think the key point to consider is this;

Is healthcare the responsibility of the individual, the corporation, or the state?

If it is the responsibility of the individual, then Obamacare is a failure and an affront.

If it is the responsibility of the corporation, then Obamacare has no right to mandate.

If it is the responsibility of the state, then the case against Hobby Lobby will be won.

Why? Does Hobby Lobby the corporation attend church every Sunday? How can a corporation be religiously persecuted? Like I said in my first post, what about the employees who AREN'T Christians or who are but don't believe contraceptives are wrong? Do their rights to receive the contraceptives not matter here because a CORPORATION is feeling religiously persecuted? Beez, you are walking a fine line here. Be careful where you tread.

Krazysh0t

beezzer
I think the key point to consider is this;

Is healthcare the responsibility of the individual, the corporation, or the state?

If it is the responsibility of the individual, then Obamacare is a failure and an affront.

If it is the responsibility of the corporation, then Obamacare has no right to mandate.

If it is the responsibility of the state, then the case against Hobby Lobby will be won.

Why? Does Hobby Lobby the corporation attend church every Sunday? How can a corporation be religiously persecuted? Like I said in my first post, what about the employees who AREN'T Christians or who are but don't believe contraceptives are wrong? Do their rights to receive the contraceptives not matter here because a CORPORATION is feeling religiously persecuted? Beez, you are walking a fine line here. Be careful where you tread.

The employees are free to purchase contraceptives. Hobby Lobby, as a Christian organization, just doesn't want to PAY for it.

No-one is denying contraceptives to any individual. But buy allowing it into their healthcare plan, they are buying it.

To me, the irony of this entire case is that all of the crap that Hobby Lobby sells is made in China, where they have a one child per family policy...Drowning babies and aborting fetuses is the name of the game for those commies. But I suppose it's okay to deal with China so long Hobby Lobby can profit off of it. Hypocrisy at it's highest IMO.

The SCOTUS will side against Hobby Lobby 5-4. Book it!

Hobby Lobby cannot win this case. The potential ripple effects are huge. I mean, if a company wins the right to defy parts of the law because of religious considerations, considerations that really just force the company to provide a third party service that provides the option of contraception, then how are more direct religious considerations going to be effected?

Could a company declare itself a certain religion and argue that taxes are against its religion? Could a company get out of EEOC requirements the same way? Could a company get around slavery prohibitions?

Yes, these are extreme examples, but if there is a loophole in the law or precedence that will allow corporations to make a few more bucks, we all know that it'll be taken. No, I do not believe that it could be taken so far, but it really gets you thinking and wondering about the kinds of rulings could come in the future if hobby lobby wins this case.

beezzer

Krazysh0t

beezzer
I think the key point to consider is this;

Is healthcare the responsibility of the individual, the corporation, or the state?

If it is the responsibility of the individual, then Obamacare is a failure and an affront.

If it is the responsibility of the corporation, then Obamacare has no right to mandate.

If it is the responsibility of the state, then the case against Hobby Lobby will be won.

Why? Does Hobby Lobby the corporation attend church every Sunday? How can a corporation be religiously persecuted? Like I said in my first post, what about the employees who AREN'T Christians or who are but don't believe contraceptives are wrong? Do their rights to receive the contraceptives not matter here because a CORPORATION is feeling religiously persecuted? Beez, you are walking a fine line here. Be careful where you tread.

The employees are free to purchase contraceptives. Hobby Lobby, as a Christian organization, just doesn't want to PAY for it.

No-one is denying contraceptives to any individual. But buy allowing it into their healthcare plan, they are buying it.

So? The corporation isn't using the contraceptives, they are passing them on to their employees who again I must add aren't all Christians. So while I currently work for a pharmaceutical company that isn't Christian owned can be given free contraceptives, but Hobby Lobby employees have to go out and pay for them? Again, what makes a corporation more special than the individual?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by beezzer

 

I don't support Obamacare either, but Hobby Lobby needs to lose this case. It may be against the religion of the owner's of Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives, but I'm pretty damn sure that they don't just employ Christian fundamentalists like themselves. This results in religious discrimination from the employer to the employee from a government mandated law. The rights of the person need to outweigh the rights of this corporation. If a Christian doesn't approve of contraceptives, fine, don't use them, but don't deny other's their right to use them or be provided with them under law because of your disagreement.

This whole fiasco could be solved by just getting government out of our lives, but hey apparently that isn't in the cards.

Here is a very important point that I bet you haven't heard in the media. Hobby Lobby isn't against contraceptives. They are against the pill that you take AFTER sexual activity, which basically "aborts" the newly implanted egg--the day after pill.

If Hobby Lobby wins the case, would this mean more individual control over ones healthcare options, or less?

reply to post by beezzer


So what you're saying is that employers should be able to pick and choose what is best for their employees healthcare plans vis a vis the business' "religious beliefs", regardless of what the employee wishes? I ask again : how can a business have religious views? Are you saying corporations are people? i hope so, cause there are some banks I wouldn't mind seeing on death row...

Somewhere with my electric chair

beezzer
I think the key point to consider is this;

Is healthcare the responsibility of the individual, the corporation, or the state?

If it is the responsibility of the individual, then Obamacare is a failure and an affront.

If it is the responsibility of the corporation, then Obamacare has no right to mandate.

If it is the responsibility of the state, then the case against Hobby Lobby will be won.

This is where your wrong. Providing regulated and safe health care should be the responsibility of government to govern something as vital to the country as health care. The day my son was born 3 years ago the insurance company dumped me claiming i had misled them about maternal intentions when i signed up a year before. It ended up costing me over 10k because the hospital and doctor felt i was an easy target for "spontaneous charges".

This is why allowing corporations to go unchecked in providing health care is ludicrous. Theres many other stories i can tell you of privatized health care run amuck, but im sure you will just stick you fingers in your ears and say the words "lalalala".
While health care and bureaucracy of the current government is terrible i personally believe before it was far worse.

The reason we are at were we are is because the right didn't want to compromise in making health care more accessible instead they chose to addimently appose it for political reasons such as insurance company lobbyist. If both sides worked to make it better it would be better, but the opposers have sabotaged and misled the public which has caused 90 percent of the issues behind it.


For the record i have never voted dem nor repub i always vote independent i think the two party system is a sham.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


Your "company declaring itself a religion and saying taxes are against its religion" thing could never happen since all state recognized religions are tax exempt already. Since tax exemption goes with the territory of being a religion, I'm sure the government has an approval process for state recognized religions that is a little bit more involved then just filing some paperwork down at the local clerk's office.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by beezzer

 

I don't support Obamacare either, but Hobby Lobby needs to lose this case. It may be against the religion of the owner's of Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives, but I'm pretty damn sure that they don't just employ Christian fundamentalists like themselves. This results in religious discrimination from the employer to the employee from a government mandated law. The rights of the person need to outweigh the rights of this corporation. If a Christian doesn't approve of contraceptives, fine, don't use them, but don't deny other's their right to use them or be provided with them under law because of your disagreement.

This whole fiasco could be solved by just getting government out of our lives, but hey apparently that isn't in the cards.

You seem to be agreeing with the idea that health insurance is a right, I would not say that it is any more than life insurance is a right. I wouldn't even say that health care is necessarily a right.

Should food, shelter, effective education, interesting and gainful employment and a satisfactory love life therefore also be rights guaranteed by the government?

Krazysh0t
Like I said in my first post, what about the employees who AREN'T Christians or who are but don't believe contraceptives are wrong? Do their rights to receive the contraceptives not matter here because a CORPORATION is feeling religiously persecuted? Beez, you are walking a fine line here. Be careful where you tread.

Some things to consider in this lawsuit. Corporate personhood has strong legal precedent dating back to the 1700's. Hobby Lobby is not trying to have themselves exempted from paying for all contraceptives, only those that can be used after conception has occurred, I believe it is 4 out of 20 that they are petitioning to not offer coverage.

It would appear from the comments made by the Justices that even the 'left leaning' members of the Court had concerns about the Governments argument although I would not be surprised if it went either way when the verdict is delivered.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Didn't Obama state that Obamacare would NOT be used for abortions?