Supreme Court Sides With Hobby Lobby MERGE

[Mama Mia]

I was a little surprise that this would go through the Supreme Court. However, I remembered by 2025 employers will have the option to opt out of providing healthcare for their employees. Therefore, as people are now petitioning to the government that their Boss should not make healthcare choices for them....they are right....there will be a time where employees will be solely responsible for their healthcare choices as well as their payments. So, yay.

Wait. What?! I haven't heard anything about employers opting out in 10 years. That really doesn't make any sense. So are you saying the ACA requiring some employers to provide insurance was only meant to be a decade long thing? It would seem to have been a HUGE waste of time, money, infrastructure set up and protest if that's the case. Do you have a link?

[Zock]

Wait. What?! I haven't heard anything about employers opting out in 10 years. That really doesn't make any sense. So are you saying the ACA requiring some employers to provide insurance was only meant to be a decade long thing? It would seem to have been a HUGE waste of time, money, infrastructure set up and protest if that's the case. Do you have a link?

There is nothing in the ACA that says that employers can "opt out" in 2025. I have no idea where that came from.

[RosyDaisy]

I think by 2025 we will be well on our way to a single payer system or at lest expand Medicare and state Medicaid systems. I think that was the whole point of the ACA...that we gradually move towards universal healthcare.

[BravaAmica]

I think by 2025 we will be well on our way to a single payer system or at lest expand Medicare and state Medicaid systems. I think that was the whole point of the ACA...that we gradually move towards universal healthcare.

Oh, god, I hope so. I'd love a single payer option. I used to live in a country with socialized medicine. Let me tell you, the peace of mind of knowing that a hospital stay would not wipe out my savings was priceless. In fact, I know that's why my recovery from that hospital stay was so fast. I had no stress about hospital bills or bills for follow up care. I could concentrate on getting well.

Did I have to share a room? Yes. Did I have state of the art medical care, with well trained nurses and doctors? Yes. Was I seen in a timely fashion? Yes. Did I receive thorough after care, including prescriptions and other relevant medical stuff? Yes. Did I go into debt for it? No. How much did I pay, out of pocket? About $20, for the house call that sent me to hospital. (My roommate called for a doctor to come to the house and that doctor had me admitted.)

[chissprincess]

Oh, god, I hope so. I'd love a single payer option. I used to live in a country with socialized medicine. Let me tell you, the peace of mind of knowing that a hospital stay would not wipe out my savings was priceless. In fact, I know that's why my recovery from that hospital stay was so fast. I had no stress about hospital bills or bills for follow up care. I could concentrate on getting well.

Did I have to share a room? Yes. Did I have state of the art medical care, with well trained nurses and doctors? Yes. Was I seen in a timely fashion? Yes. Did I receive thorough after care, including prescriptions and other relevant medical stuff? Yes. Did I go into debt for it? No. How much did I pay, out of pocket? About $20, for the house call that sent me to hospital. (My roommate called for a doctor to come to the house and that doctor had me admitted.)

Pretty much all of this. Living in Ireland and Japan really cemented my belief that the American health care system is screwed up. I got a full course of penicillin in Ireland for around $10, and when I had to have a bunch of tests done in Japan (smallish things like blood tests and expensive ones, like an MRI)...well if the whole thing cost me more than $200 out of my own pocket I would be shocked. The only real problem I encountered in Japan was long waits for the exams, but since I clearly wasn't dying and I was more scared than hurting there wasn't anything wrong with that.

I can only hope that this Hobby Lobby thing ultimately helps push us towards a single-payer system. But until then I have the feeling it's going to be a disaster.

[BeaSnarky]

Oh, god, I hope so. I'd love a single payer option. I used to live in a country with socialized medicine. Let me tell you, the peace of mind of knowing that a hospital stay would not wipe out my savings was priceless. In fact, I know that's why my recovery from that hospital stay was so fast. I had no stress about hospital bills or bills for follow up care. I could concentrate on getting well.

Did I have to share a room? Yes. Did I have state of the art medical care, with well trained nurses and doctors? Yes. Was I seen in a timely fashion? Yes. Did I receive thorough after care, including prescriptions and other relevant medical stuff? Yes. Did I go into debt for it? No. How much did I pay, out of pocket? About $20, for the house call that sent me to hospital. (My roommate called for a doctor to come to the house and that doctor had me admitted.)

It's for this exact reason that I thank goodness my employer subsidizes my insurance. I was diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2012 - between the month leading up to my diagnosis where I had a "mystery virus" and the hysterectomy, and year's worth of cancer treatments, my out of pocket was exactly $50. $50. And I am alive. Thankfully, in the state of Delaware (where we have moved) your first year of cancer treatment is on the state, even if you have insurance. So if it comes back (no whammies no whammies big money) I won't even have a co-pay.

[apple1]

Preface: I am a US citizen. I am pro-ACA, and actually pro-single payer. I am also an 11-year BC survivor.

That said:

Not everything is as it should be just because a person is in Japan.

My SIL is a Japanese citizen. She lives in the US with my brother. Five years ago, she took 6 weeks vacation time and went to her original home in Japan. While there, she sought treatment for a breast lump. They told her that her lump was too large and sent her back to her parents' house to die. (not exaggerrating)

My brother called me and asked me to talk her into coming back to the US to be evaluated and hopefully treated. Bottom line: She had a good size tumor, but no metastasis. She was treated with chemo, radiation, and surgery, and 5 years later is cancer free.

This story is completely factually correct and without exaggerration.

[freejingerbeth]

I have a question for legal minds: By saying that the ruling only applies to contraception, and not other medical practices that other religious groups might object to, isn't that effectively discriminating against the other groups, giving special privilege to Christians, and thus violating the Establishment Clause?

Re: Couldn't a JW who objects to including coverage for blood transfusions in their health plan claim that they are being discriminated against because Christians get to opt-out based on their religious beliefs, but a JW can't? Same for Scientology, Christian Science, etc. Aren't Christians getting favorable treatment here and thus the gov't is promoting one religion over another?

I know earlier in this thread someone brought up that contraception isn't a life-or-death situation while blood transfusions are, but didn't the SCOTUS go on about "sincerely-held" religious beliefs? If the JWs are willing to die rather than undergo a blood transfusion, is that not a sincerely-held religious belief? How is their belief "less than" a Christian's belief that an IUD causes abortions? Also, access to affordable contraception could be a life or death situation in some cases. What about drugs for mental illness that Scientologists wouldn't want to pay for? They could mean life or death, or not.

In addition to opening up a can of worms by allowing Christians to opt out of doing all sorts of things that conflict their religion, it seems other religious groups are being discriminated against by not getting the same privilege, thus promoting one religion over others and violating the Establishment Clause.

So, somebody enlighten me. Am I way off-base?

Hello,

I have been out of law school, for many years now, but Constitutional Law was one of my favorite classes. You have brought up some very valid points that many Constitutional Lawyers are now discussing. The majority opinion was bad Constitutional Law for many reasons. First, it gave a corporate entity religious rights, something that has never been done before and opens up a huge can of worms, in terms of hiring practices, medical healthcare coverage, etc. Second, regardless of what the majority opinion says, there is no way, from a Constitutional standpoint, that this new precedent can be limited in scope to contraception, only. The majority opinion gave closely held corporate entities the right to withhold medical coverage, based on their religious beliefs, period. If a woman can be denied coverage for certain contraception, even though she needs it for a different reason than just contraception, than of course future court decisions can extend that right to other medical procedures. Furthermore, although the filed case only listed certain types of BC, the oral arguments indicated that Hobby Lobby was seeking religious rights over all forms of BC. It will be interesting to see if this decision holds up, after the current justices retire. :think:

[shedemei]

So now it seems that even asking a business to fill out a form requesting an exemption is a violation of their religious beliefs, because they're complicit in having someone else pay for birth control.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/ ... -case.html

I keep seeing articles now with the following (unsourced) statement:

Aiming to address that concern, the federal government will release new regulations within one month that establish an alternative way for religious groups to indicate their objection, without filling out the form, the administration said. Form 700 will remain an option for groups willing to use it.

If true, that's just peachy. Once that's in place, these businesses will just find another objection, one after the other, as their real goal is to repeal the ACA and make BC unavailable.

Also, how the hell will this work? If it requires businesses to opt in instead of opt out, I'm going to be really disgusted.

[scc12]

The whole premise is just ridiculous,imo.If you're in biz then sorry,but you shouldn't get to pick and choose what's covered and what isn't for your employees.It's not like they're covering a surgical abortion,or a pill (ru 486) abortion anyway.This is just far too nitty gritty the way they are trying to go,and really...enough.

[Becket70]

The whole premise is just ridiculous,imo.If you're in biz then sorry,but you shouldn't get to pick and choose what's covered and what isn't for your employees.It's not like they're covering a surgical abortion,or a pill (ru 486) abortion anyway.This is just far too nitty gritty the way they are trying to go,and really...enough.

I thought the whole basis for group insurance is that everybody is covered for everything the insurance company covers. When you start picking and choosing what to cover, you get into trouble. One could extrapolate that a company should not have to cover accidents or illnesses that arise out of dangerous behavior....smoking, drinking, reckless driving, etc. I do not drink alcohol and I suppose I could make an argument that if you drink to excess, any consequences of that action should not be covered. Mormons do not drink alcohol so why should they have to cover people who do? This Supreme Court decision is, indeed, dangerous because despite what they proclaim, this is going to become a major issue in the future. The idea that these justices are on the court for life is a scary thought. They really need to be term limited and you know if there was a liberal majority, the GOP would be screaming for those term limits.

[scc12]

What was so weird back In the 80's when I first started working and got ins.....I noticed that coverage for mental health issues was only 50%,while all other illnesses/accidents,etc,were 80-100% covered, (thank goodness that's changed now).But really....what were they saying? That if you have a mental health issue,it's 50% your fault?!

[dawbs]

What was so weird back In the 80's when I first started working and got ins.....I noticed that coverage for mental health issues was only 50%,while all other illnesses/accidents,etc,were 80-100% covered, (thank goodness that's changed now).But really....what were they saying? That if you have a mental health issue,it's 50% your fault?!

IMO...kinda.

The line between 'moral failing' and 'mental health issue' is rather fuzzy (and, living w/ someone w/ some issues, I understand why it's fuzzy. "I stayed in bed and acted like an asshole today because of depression" doesn't look that different, some days, to "I stayed in bed and acted like an asshole today because I"m an asshole". I know the difference, but some days it doesn't feel much different)

And dI think there's also the "well, if we let people have FREE counseling, *everyone* will want counseling" thing. Which...instead of saying "OK, it might be good for people to do that" results in the 'cost saving' attitude of "so lets make it expensive.

I'm glad it's changing tool.