Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
I see that the comrades are celebrating, as usual, all government intrusion in their lives as good and just. But isn't this SCOTUS ruling really just a celebration of ignorance and a denial of Thomas Malthus' rightness?
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
I own a small company, I have an absolute sincere moral objection to my taxes being used to fund a war that killed more than 100,000 innocent civilians, how come I have to pay for those murders?
Scumbags, the lot of them, from 5/9ths of SCOTUS to the Hobby Lobby hypocrites.
TE
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
If a woman detests Catholicism, hates its creed of anti-abortion and stance on birth control, why would she choose employment in a family owned company, owned by Catholics? Why should the Catholic owners be told by the Feds they must provide birth control, or lose their business?
You can hate religion but you should respect the law, and the law protects religion in this country.
How about the religion of the actual person affected, the employee? This allows the employer to impose their religious will upon someone else. They specify what method of birth control is going to be allowed. That means that the employer is now coming into the exam room with the physician and patient, and controlling the discussion and decisions.
But there is a lot more to this decision. It did NOT find the ACA provision unConstitutional, as many conservatives are claiming. No. It based the decision on a previous law, signed into law by Clinton, the Restore Religion act.
When you pass a law that is in conflict with an earlier law, is that not how we amend a law? Has SCOTUS now taken away the power of the Congress to amend laws that SCOTUS favors???
In the ruling, it applauds "sincerely held" beliefs, such as Hobby Lobby's in this case, but that it would NOT apply to such things as vaccine denial, or blood transfusion.
In the example of blood transfusion, that is squarely taking aim at Christian Scientists. Don't they "Sincerely hold" those beliefs????
So now SCOTUS is choosing WHICH religion's beliefs it considers "legitimate", and which it does not.....and THAT is a direct violation of the first amendment.
The good news is that this action is very unlikely to affect many people, if any. But it is a direct shot over the bow of how conservatives think of women....which is property, to be told what to do in their lives by their Masters. Probably worth 100,000 votes or more.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Second, the courts made the distinction between a closely held corporation, that really is no different than a sole proprietorship and a publicly traded company.
Looks like that one went over most (all?) posters' heads.
If you don't understand the above, and you still have a strong belief that the USSC is giving all the power to "corporations," I'd say either educate yourself a little more, or just have a another beer (or latte or whatever you like) and don't worry about any of this stuff, cuz you really don't have a clue.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...the courts made the distinction between a closely held corporation, that really is no different than a sole proprietorship and a publicly traded company....
Looks like that one went over most (all?) posters' heads.
yet there were 4 justices on the dissent who apparently did not feel that this was an important enough distinction to rule with the majority.
did it go over their heads too?
take two beers and post in the morning...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Who is actually against contraception in real life?
I don't know, but I'm against forcing employers to pay for their employees' contraception.
I know it's pretty much impossible to change the standard libtard world view on pretty much anything, but try to take a step back and ask yourself why an employer should be forced to be in the business of paying for employees' contraception (instead of paying a salary, which the employees can spend as they choose).
And why would something we call "insurance" pay for contraception in the first place?
The purchase of contraception has virtually nothing in common with what the word "insurance" really means, or at least used to: where people pool together money to collectively assume risk for somewhat unlikely events that would be difficult for the insured to pay for directly.
Calling the the purchase of contraception something that should be paid for by "insurance" makes about as much sense as requiring "health care" to pay for food. (Actually food would be more logical as it's really not elective.)
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Our constitution has several flaws in it when it comes to the proper implementation of government. It is fairly well constructed to protect people from the abuse of government powers. Also well constructed for military defense against outside powers. Decent in it's protections vs natural occuring powers ie natural disasters
Some severe flaws unfortunately due to it's 200 year old nature
It is not so well constructed to protect people from abuses by other powerful entities within society. Corporations and employers. It is so inept against these powers that it has been mostly taken over by them.
There is now a form of fascism very pervasive in this nation. It is fortunately somewhat limited by the constitution as to what it can do to our citizens but it is basically fascism light. Without some of the well designed constitutional protections still in place it would rapidly become full blown.
5 of our Justices ascribe to this basically fascist ideology and continue to rewrite the limits of the constitution in keeping with two basic tenets.. "moral" codes designed to enslave and deferment to corporate power.
--
What allows all this to happen is a public that does not seriously consider what the proper purpose of government even is. For most government just "is" and they gripe and complain about some specific issue or a specific party, never even considering what the real problems are. Distracted and confused by a Media that is a cornerstone of the powers against them.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
It's not as if a woman can just walk into the County Health Department, get reproductive medical services, and walk out with all kinds of contraception - including a prescription for The Pill, or "Plan-B" - all for no cost to her.
Wait a minute. She can. At least here in San Bernardino County she can.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/dph/publichealth/programs_services/clinic_operations/reproductive_health_services.asp
Why Obama feels the need to inject the Federal Government into something already covered at the county level is a question he needs to be asked.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"...ask yourself why an employer should be forced to be in the business of paying for employees' contraception (instead of paying a salary, which the employees can spend as they choose)."
why should corporations pay for any healthcare insurance? why not just give all that they pay for insurance to the employees?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Chaz you live in a place with other options.. Lots of folks do not have those options.
Things are complicated when it comes to two individuals with opposing interests. I am of the very strong opinion that the individual with least power is the one the law should protect most. Not excluysivelybut if error is to be made then it should favor the individual most likely to be harmed.
In this case the employee not the employer.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Huh, so... conservatives don't believe in abortion, but they don't believe in contraception either. Nice!
Oh wait... contraception's just fine. As long as you buy it yourself. Like an education.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Dr. F--stop reading your liberal propaganda and either educate yourself or, preferably, have some of those beers and just don't worry about this stuff!
The Hobby Lobby decision does not apply to Walmart.
Edit:
why should corporations pay for any healthcare insurance? why not just give all that they pay for insurance to the employees?
Absolutely, the US health care system that generally relies on employer funding is a ridiculous remnant of WWII price controls; not really sure why the libtards defend it (the more educated ones really don't, and would prefer a so-called "single payer" system).
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
why should corporations pay for any healthcare insurance? why not just give all that they pay for insurance to the employees?
This I agree on.. It's a rediculous system.
I suggest everyone get a raise, corporations stop paying corporations for healthcare and everyone pay taxes into the same insurance pool.
Kills a lot of birds with one stone right there.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
Wouldn't it be rad if the law worked in such a way that the SC could say, "We'll give you your IUD exemption, but with these conditions….
…mandatory paid family leave for all women.
…mandatory paid stipend and health insurance for their offspring.
…mandatory paid adoption placement for unwanted children.
…compensatory settlements for women who had to get hysterectomies because they were barred from getting IUD's to deal with fibroids or other bleeding issues.
…compensatory settlements for anyone who suffers other physical or emotional harm due to the necessity of seeking a treatment other than what was recommended by their physician due to the religious restrictions on their employee health plan. "
etc.
If the financial impact of giving birth was as real to the closely held corporate person as it was the actual person who had to live it, I wonder which of their values would carry the day?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
And why would something we call "insurance" pay for contraception in the first place?
The purchase of contraception has virtually nothing in common with what the word "insurance" really means, or at least used to: where people pool together money to collectively assume risk for somewhat unlikely events that would be difficult for the insured to pay for directly.
Sorry, that horse left the barn decades ago.
What we are talking about here is PREVENTIVE CARE. I bet I've seen most of the posters on ST at one time or another complain that doctors don't spend anywhere enough time on PREVENTION of disease. What happened in the ACA was that Medical Scientists advised Congress that the use of prevention would result in much less dis-ease, and a reduction in medical costs to the system, taxpayers, patients, even employers. CONGRESS accepted those arguments, and passed the ACA, which the President signed.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
The real problem is that we are forcing employers to pay for employee's health care. What started out as a benefit to attract better employees has morphed into a state-mandated nightmare.
Why do employers need to be involved at all with their employee's health care insurance?
What we need instead is a mandatory national healthcare system that is independent of the employers.
It has to be mandatory for everyone because at the level of the E.R. and hospital, you can't turn away people who aren't insured, nor do you have time to figure out who is (and who isn't) insured.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Here is where this can lead:
Say you work for a company that is bought by Christian Scientists. They implement their religious beliefs upon your insurance. They do not believe in the injection of any substances derived from a living thing.
What the hell, you think.
While climbing, you get bit by a rattler. To the ER, 25 vials of anti-venom, @ $3,000 per vial, plus a couple of units of blood, at $1,000.
NOT COVERED!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!