(which I dont agree with but that's what was decided and is a separate debate),
This I think is our largest issue. I don't see it as a separate debate. You can't separate the actions by the government into two discrete actions that don't have any affect on the constitutionality of the other action.
I see it as two separate actions/policies because they have different merits and can exist separately.
#1. Should the US government be able to define a minimum standard of coverage that all Health Insurance companies must provide to their customers.
#2. Should the US government be able to force employers to provide insurance as part of their employees compensation package.
#1 I believe has some merit if only because insurance has become so complicated that insurance companies could easily screw over their customers with loopholes and missing coverage. I'm not talking specifically about birth control, but about anything in general. What if you end up with AIDs only to find out that your health insurance plan doesn't cover sexually transmitted diseases (no matter how you got it)? Now separate from that (or as an extension) is the debate over whether or not the government should require birth control coverage as part of the minimum standard.
#2 I personally believe to be ridiculous. Not every full time employee needs the employment to be a source of health care. Easy example... I have great health care coverage through work. Why on Earth would my wife need to have health coverage through work as well? She would be better off finding a job at a place that does not offer health benefits and instead pays better. Forcing employers to provide insurance for full time employees seems to cover a very small number of people... it doesn't help people that are part time, it doesnt help people with no job, it doesnt help people that are covered by a spouse... It only helps those that are working full time at a place that doesnt already provide health insurance.
Would your opinion change if, instead of a national commercial store, it was a small home for the aged run by a group of nuns, where the fines for not complying would literally bankrupt them? [See: Little Sisters of the poor home for the aged]
I don't understand why the nuns would care. I'm sure their insurance also covers tubal ligation, which is a huge no-no for Catholics, and much more permanent that birth control. So all I see are churches are making a theatrical stand on a popular political issue, when they're still paying for people's sinful ways.
I'll drop the other stuff because, quite honestly, I've been having a really crappy couple of days at work so I don't have it in me to deal with this, but I wanted to point out-- the nun case wasn't a hypothetical. It's an actual case. In their case I don't think they were providing healthcare at all, but I could be wrong, they may have been self-insured (allowing them to not cover things like tubal ligation). The point being they are an explicitly religious order that was being forced under the letter of the law to pay for services against their religion or pay fines that would literally render them insolvent.
Honestly? For a bunch of nuns, they shouldn't have to pay for birth control in their health insurance. I feel like that's about as low a risk group of women as you can get. I was being facetious because the overall issue annoys me.
For the case bLatch is referencing, the home is a religious organization run by nuns, but they also have employees who are not nuns. The nuns do not want to provide contraceptives to their employees (or themselves) because their religion forbids the use of contraceptives.
(which I dont agree with but that's what was decided and is a separate debate),
This I think is our largest issue. I don't see it as a separate debate. You can't separate the actions by the government into two discrete actions that don't have any affect on the constitutionality of the other action.
I see it as two separate actions/policies because they have different merits and can exist separately.
#1. Should the US government be able to define a minimum standard of coverage that all Health Insurance companies must provide to their customers.
#2. Should the US government be able to force employers to provide insurance as part of their employees compensation package.
#1 I believe has some merit if only because insurance has become so complicated that insurance companies could easily screw over their customers with loopholes and missing coverage. I'm not talking specifically about birth control, but about anything in general. What if you end up with AIDs only to find out that your health insurance plan doesn't cover sexually transmitted diseases (no matter how you got it)? Now separate from that (or as an extension) is the debate over whether or not the government should require birth control coverage as part of the minimum standard.
#2 I personally believe to be ridiculous. Not every full time employee needs the employment to be a source of health care. Easy example... I have great health care coverage through work. Why on Earth would my wife need to have health coverage through work as well? She would be better off finding a job at a place that does not offer health benefits and instead pays better. Forcing employers to provide insurance for full time employees seems to cover a very small number of people... it doesn't help people that are part time, it doesnt help people with no job, it doesnt help people that are covered by a spouse... It only helps those that are working full time at a place that doesnt already provide health insurance.
This is a case where either one independently is fine, but the combination of the two results in a constitutional violation (arguably of course--we'll see what the court actually says).
It is certainly a possibility that the government can enact multiple laws that individually would be fine, but combined have an unconstitutional effect. Whether this is one such case is still up for debate, but it's not an implausible scenario.
This case is not about standing. I think you may be confused about the legal meaning of the word "standing."
No, that's what I meant. In all fairness, you're right in that the case isn't about standing, and what I probably should have said earlier is that the thing should be dismissed for lack of standing. In essence, since the company itself, as a legal entity, cannot actually do anything insofar as observing religious practices are concerned, it is impossible for harm to result. Again, there's a difference between the company itself and those who own and operate it, and while your observations about legal culpability for criminal action is spot on, I would counter that it reinforces my point rather than disputes it. After all, while a company can be found to be criminally guilty of something, it is a person, a human being, who will ultimately bear the punishment for his or her decisions. All I'm contending is that the legal principle works in the opposite way as well.
So an archdiocese should not be immune to the ACA?
Frankly? It should not. I understand the argument that religious organizations should be exempt from compliance, but I find it to be absurd. The whole reason that people like Jehova's Witnesses can do stuff like refuse blood transfusions is that they're people exercising a religious belief. A legal entity of any sort cannot make such a decision. Now, I'm not saying that folks for whom birth control should have to get BC, nor am I saying that folks who oppose abortions should be made to have one. All I'm saying is that the decision for those acts must rest at the individual level, as a matter of personal conscience, rather than being dictated by the beliefs of whoever a person works for.
Besides, the Archdiocese is a terrible example here. The Catholic church recently did its own internal audit of its congregation and found that something like 98% of all practicing Catholics who regularly attend mass in the U.S. use or have used birth control. It would be absurd, given data like that, for the church to be able to impose its will upon its congregation; how is it less absurd for it to impose its will upon its employees?
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
Lets get one thing clear: This case is not, and has never been, about companies imposing their will on their employees. None of the plaintiffs have had any objections to their employees getting coverage for contraceptive care. The issue is with them being mandated to provide it for the employees.
If you cannot (or will not) see that distinction, then there is no point in discussing the issue with you because you will never understand the underlying legal implications and arguments.
The original agreement to pass Obamacare was for exception for birth control, they need to go with that original agreement under the healthcare legislation itself currently. The second piece is "should or ought" with employers is completely facetious, why should my employer have that much power over me in the first place? Depending on the spouse, then people will lose their healthcare. Healthcare is wicked complex, because there are too many variables. I prefer to defer towards more market economy, with this "healthcare ebay" it's a good start towards getting rid of Veterans and Eldercare back into the mainstream economy. We have about four systems:
1. Healthcare for the poor
2. Healthcare for veterans
3. Healthcare for the elderly (originally intended for the "poor elderly")
4. Everyone else
As a #4, I do not see #1 being a very good system at all. It's spotty and sucks, needs to be mainstreamed and ironed into the system with the low cost affordability is spread towards everyone such as starting couples. #2 is more dicey because I do see "some" and I repeat "some" need for specialized healthcare for veterans, but a completely separate system? No, no more special treatment just because you were a fry cook for 2 years and get lifelong healthcare. No, if you have a real MSO like infantry or were a fry cook in combat, then fine sure we can begin to discuss things that actually affect your treatment. The elderly, I do not find to be that special and gradually moving them towards a more blind system that has restrictions and laws in grained against discrimination would be more preferable towards a government based healthcare.
The desocialization process begins by stating that the areas where we have oversocialized the system are to be converted, over time, with people's consent towards a better system that underpromises and over delivers. Slowly building a good brand for private health insurance for individuals, or as much as we can without creating more Adam Lanza's and other such things. Because that is why government will always be there. To protect a person with cancer or the crazy maniac with a gun killing little kids before that person becomes a crazy maniac, maybe they're still crazy or the person still has cancer with some after effects and limitations on health. But at least that cancer survivor or that less crazy person can live a good life with some diminished capacities relative to their situation. No different than a person in a wheelchair has to give somethings up, but does not have to give everything in life up.
I believe that the over subsidized housing system is one area where we can gut that some what, and then in turn over the next half decade take those funds and redirect them towards healthcare system, singular not plural, and moving towards paying down the deficit.
Overall, I don't want my government nor my employer telling me what I need or don't need within reason for my health insurance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The Catholic church recently did its own internal audit of its congregation and found that something like 98% of all practicing Catholics who regularly attend mass in the U.S. use or have used birth control.
I'm going to presume this should be qualified with "sexually active adult practicing Catholics".
It would be absurd, given data like that, for the church to be able to impose its will upon its congregation; how is it less absurd for it to impose its will upon its employees?
If 98% of your employees eat lunch every day, does that obligate you to buy it for them? Are you willing them to starve if you don't?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ultimately what I think it will come down to is that contraceptives and abortions are *not* essential healthcare, and scotus will use that argument to state that the religious liberties interests trump.
That's ridiculous and patently false. I was placed on the Ortho-Evra patch to treat my endometriosis, a condition that affects 6-11% of menstruating women in the US. Contraceptive devices are a first step to treat mild to moderate endometriosis and PCOS. Endometriosis can cause severe pain during menses which can cause women to miss school or work. If untreated for a long time, insurance may not opt for laproscopic surgery if too severe and risky to cover. It also leads to permanent infertility in a third of cases.
Also, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy or a dead fetus then abortion is essential healthcare.
The Catholic church recently did its own internal audit of its congregation and found that something like 98% of all practicing Catholics who regularly attend mass in the U.S. use or have used birth control.
I'm going to presume this should be qualified with "sexually active adult practicing Catholics".
It would be absurd, given data like that, for the church to be able to impose its will upon its congregation; how is it less absurd for it to impose its will upon its employees?
If 98% of your employees eat lunch every day, does that obligate you to buy it for them? Are you willing them to starve if you don't?
I'd've thought it would be more like "If 98% of your members eat lunch every day, then asserting to your employees that 'eating lunch is morally wrong, and we will not support it in any way' looks a shade hypocritical".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I'd've thought it would be more like "If 98% of your members eat lunch every day, then asserting to your employees that 'eating lunch is morally wrong, and we will not support it in any way' looks a shade hypocritical".
It's not the congregants who are making the assertion. Even if it were, "looking a shade hypocritical" does not impose a legal obligation. Let's stay on point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, no more special treatment just because you were a fry cook for 2 years and get lifelong healthcare. No, if you have a real MSO like infantry or were a fry cook in combat, then fine sure we can begin to discuss things that actually affect your treatment.
I think you are terribly misinformed if you think by serving you get life long heath care. A person does get access to insurance, not free by the way unless (a) you've retired (20+ years) (b) you have a service connected disablity or (c) you are below the means to afford it(i.e. homeless) otherwise you have a co-pay. You also have to meet other qualifications. I think there is a time period to which combat operations must of been ongoing and a minimum service time requirment. I know some of the people I lived with when I lived at veterans homeless center were not eligable for a very neglible amount of benefits.
On the fry cook and combat part, it only further shows your ignorance on the subject. I do not have estimates but majoirty of the claims for benefits related to combat are for mental health. I served for 8 years and the majority my health issues arrise not from my experiences in combat (which I served five times) but rather the high impact activiteis assoicated with militatry life...things such as 20 miles ruck marches carrying a 14lb rifle and 30-80lb ruck sack, running anywhere between 2-20 miles every other week day, training jumps, etc, etc. To top it all off, I was not infantry, I was a lowly intelligence analyst. A support guy, much the same as a cook.
The Catholic church recently did its own internal audit of its congregation and found that something like 98% of all practicing Catholics who regularly attend mass in the U.S. use or have used birth control.
I'm going to presume this should be qualified with "sexually active adult practicing Catholics".
That may be a little presumptuous to assume because birth control is not exclusively taken by those that are either sexually active and/or adults (well, this second condition is more likely, but not likely all-inclusive). Source.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I'm sorry that no one has ever walked you through this before, but preventing something that is supposed to happen isn't "preventive medicine."
What? Preventing a medial condition is the definition of 'preventive medicine'. Pregnancy is a medical condition that seriously affects a woman's health. I'm really getting tired of asinine arguments about what birth control is and isn't. Birth control isn't a **** pill that only ****ty ****s take. It's used for a variety of reasons, most predominantly to lessen the impact of a woman's period and keep them from being in severe pain about 3-7 days out of every month. For women with ovarian cysts (which is surprisingly high), this can mean the difference between being able to work and not.
It's a medical condition that can only arise on purpose, and insurance covers accidents. It isn't linguistically possible for insurance to cover pregnancy (an insurance company can, the same way a retail company can donate to charity, even though "retail" and "charity" are different).
The "birth control pills are used for many different things" argument is pretty annoying. If chemotherapy for cancer made people infertile, no one would oppose it on the grounds of "it can be used for contraception." If a pill, such as a "birth control pill," is used for increasing health, then that's fine.
That may be a little presumptuous to assume because birth control is not exclusively taken by those that are either sexually active and/or adults (well, this second condition is more likely, but not likely all-inclusive). Source.
Dude. Think about what you're saying. 20% of the American population is below the age of 15 and 7% is below the age of 5. Do you really believe there are that many Catholic toddlers on birth control? What's more, the "birth control" your source is talking about is the pill, which is taken exclusively by women, so unless you think Catholics are Amazons that 98% statistic must include other forms of birth control - namely condoms, which are I'd say a pretty good indicator of sexual activity.
It would be absurd, given data like that, for the church to be able to impose its will upon its congregation; how is it less absurd for it to impose its will upon its employees?
If 98% of your employees eat lunch every day, does that obligate you to buy it for them? Are you willing them to starve if you don't?
No, but lets say 98% of your employees want milk with lunch every day. You as the employer are providing lunch, but you don't believe in drinking milk because it's just not natural for animals to drink the milk of other animals. So you specifically get your employees lunch with water or soda. Now your employees must choose to drink boring water(no sex) or unhealthy soda (unprotected sex), or they have to pay extra to get what they want. Not only do they have to pay more for it... but they have to pay significantly more for it than you the employer would have had to.
It just plain does not make sense. Nobody is forced to actually drink the milk. The employees are just being given the option to have it if they want to. The employer is buying lunch that just happens to include the option for milk drinking, they are not specifically buying their employee's milk. The employer needs to get over it, wake up to reality and stop being so damn sensitive.
The employer is buying lunch that just happens to include the option for milk drinking, they are not specifically buying their employee's milk.
This is pure sophistry. Money is being exchanged for a good. Whose money? The employer's. What good? Milk. Let's try to keep our arguments within the bounds of common sense, please.
The employer needs to get over it, wake up to reality and stop being so damn sensitive.
As an atheist moderate with absolutely no objection to birth control, I agree. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the government legitimately has the authority to force the matter, or whether the employer has a protected right to be so damn sensitive.
I also think the KKK needs to stop being so damn racist and disband immediately. But it would be unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The issue is whether the government legitimately has the authority to force the matter, or whether the employer has a protected right to be so damn sensitive.
The government is forcing them to buy Health Insurance. That's it. I see absolutely zero reason to try to blur these two issues together. If anything the insurance companies are the ones that should be fighting saying the government is forcing them to not provide the coverage their customers want.
Outside of that, Religious matters should not be considered when creating laws. If I create a religion tomorrow that requires sacrificing Bald Eagles every 3rd Saturday I dont get to magically be exempt from the laws that protect Bald Eagles. If I create a religion that believes clothes are a sinful construct (since Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes until after eating the apple), I dont get to walk around public places naked. Religion isn't a magical trump card that gives people leeway to ignore the law. It's ridiculous to debate health coverage based on religion when there are non-religious angles to be taken.
The issue is whether the government legitimately has the authority to force the matter, or whether the employer has a protected right to be so damn sensitive.
The government is forcing them to buy Health Insurance. That's it. I see absolutely zero reason to try to blur these two issues together. If anything the insurance companies are the ones that should be fighting saying the government is forcing them to not provide the
coverage their customers want.
I forget, who is it again that is forcing that insurance to include contraceptive care?
Frame it however you want, you cannot divorce the two actions performed by the government from each other. The two actions together form the single action of the government requiring the company to purchase the health coverage it (allegedly) finds morally objectionable.
If the government requires that all high school graduates must be fluent in English and French, and then pulls all funding for French lessons from inner city schools (both of which are legit actions that can be done by a government), people would be absolutely correct in stating that the actions of the government are discriminating against minorities and are therefore improper.
Outside of that, Religious matters should not be considered when creating laws.
This is a fine and dnady position for you to have, but for it to have any legal implication you're going to have to get started on repealing that pesky First amendment to the constitution. (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
Now, it certianly is the case that other constituional rights can trump this right, but in order for them to completely ignore religion in the legislation process you'd have to remove that amendment.
It's ridiculous to debate health coverage based on religion when there are non-religious angles to be taken.
It's interesting you note this, because one of the tests that SCOTUS should be looking at is whether there were other ways of implementing the goal of the governments action without stepping on religious freedom, and whether those other ways would have (or would not have) been excessively more burdensome than this way.
In other words, the constitution requires that the government show that there was no other way to achieve this goal without stepping on religious freedom, or that the only other ways were far more burdensome. It is not a matter of showing that there is a secular purpose and them, bam!, religion is ignored. Nor should it be.
The issue is whether the government legitimately has the authority to force the matter, or whether the employer has a protected right to be so damn sensitive.
The government is forcing them to buy Health Insurance. That's it. I see absolutely zero reason to try to blur these two issues together. If anything the insurance companies are the ones that should be fighting saying the government is forcing them to not provide the coverage their customers want.
"The government isn't forcing them to buy contraceptives, the government is forcing them to buy healthcare that is required to include contraceptives." No matter where you fall in this debate, I don't understand how this line of reasoning makes sense.
Let's say you know your wife is a vegetarian. It's your anniversary, so you take her out to a fancy dinner at a steakhouse. The particular restaurant you selected doesn't have any vegetarian options whatsoever, and you knew this in advance. So your wife gets mad at you. What do you say? "I'm not forcing you to eat meat, I'm just taking you to dinner at a restaurant that serves nothing but meat. Yes, I knew you were a vegetarian. Yes, I knew this restaurant has no vegetarian options. But don't get mad at me, it's not my fault."
Wait actually, this analogy is still wrong. You need to add two more facts to make it actually analogous: (1) you're the mayor of the town, and you called up the restaurant in advance and said "you had better not serve any vegetarian food, or I will have you shut down. I'm coming in with my wife tomorrow, and there had better be zero vegetarian options, and (2) you are forcing your wife to actually order food at this restaurant and eat it, or else you will divorce her.
There, that's an apt analogy now, because the government is the one mandating that health insurance cover contraceptives, and also mandating that the employer must buy this health insurance and provide it to its employees. Do you not see how this is the same thing as forcing them to buy contraceptives?
This is a fine and dnady position for you to have, but for it to have any legal implication you're going to have to get started on repealing that pesky First amendment to the constitution. (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
Now, it certianly is the case that other constituional rights can trump this right, but in order for them to completely ignore religion in the legislation process you'd have to remove that amendment.
And how does paying for insurance prevent people from exercising their religion? I pay taxes every day that are used to shoot people... am I committing murder which is also a sin?
Here's a fun little story for you. The company that my wife works for is privately owned. The guy that owns it is extremely religious right-wing... he donates hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to Republican campaigns including fighting against same sex marriage. Last summer with the threat of the evil ACA looming he felt the moral and ethical obligation to change things so he didnt have to pay for evil health care. So what did he do? He let his HR manager start a dummy business. All employees that want health insurance are now employed by the dummy business which provides evil health insurance and the real business just contracts them to work there...
All he did was add an extra level of paper work and suddenly it's ok with him that he's paying for contraceptive coverage because technically it starts out as just paying for a contractor.
How is that somehow ok when just paying the health insurance company directly is not?
The religious aspect of this debate is complete and total bull*****. There is absolutely no reason to take that position seriously. It's a whiny cop out from conservatives trying to push back on something they dont like. Instead of trying to have a logical discussion about whether or not people should be getting their health insurance from employers anyway, they jump on religion and try to cry foul.
The issue is whether the government legitimately has the authority to force the matter, or whether the employer has a protected right to be so damn sensitive.
The government is forcing them to buy Health Insurance. That's it. I see absolutely zero reason to try to blur these two issues together. If anything the insurance companies are the ones that should be fighting saying the government is forcing them to not provide the coverage their customers want.
"The government isn't forcing them to buy contraceptives, the government is forcing them to buy healthcare that is required to include contraceptives." No matter where you fall in this debate, I don't understand how this line of reasoning makes sense.
Let's say you know your wife is a vegetarian. It's your anniversary, so you take her out to a fancy dinner at a steakhouse. The particular restaurant you selected doesn't have any vegetarian options whatsoever, and you knew this in advance. So your wife gets mad at you. What do you say? "I'm not forcing you to eat meat, I'm just taking you to dinner at a restaurant that serves nothing but meat. Yes, I knew you were a vegetarian. Yes, I knew this restaurant has no vegetarian options. But don't get mad at me, it's not my fault."
Wait actually, this analogy is still wrong. You need to add two more facts to make it actually analogous: (1) you're the mayor of the town, and you called up the restaurant in advance and said "you had better not serve any vegetarian food, or I will have you shut down. I'm coming in with my wife tomorrow, and there had better be zero vegetarian options, and (2) you are forcing your wife to actually order food at this restaurant and eat it, or else you will divorce her.
There, that's an apt analogy now, because the government is the one mandating that health insurance cover contraceptives, and also mandating that the employer must buy this health insurance and provide it to its employees. Do you not see how this is the same thing as forcing them to buy contraceptives?
No because your analogy sucks. The employer is not the customer, the employees are. The employer is just paying for it as part of their compensation. It is more like you are a vegetarian and have to buy a gift card to some restaurant to give to someone, but there are no gift card options for any restaurants that dont serve meat, so you have to buy one with the chance that the person you give it to may use it to buy meat.
You can think it's "bull*****" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are people who morally object to it on religious grounds. If you want to keep burying your head in the sand and saying "its a bunch of republicans who really just want to fight back against the bill" you can, but you're empirically wrong.
You can think it's "bull*****" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are people who morally object to it on religious grounds. If you want to keep burying your head in the sand and saying "its a bunch of republicans who really just want to fight back against the bill" you can, but you're empirically wrong.
And yet it seems perfectly fixable for these people by simply having their employees become contracted through a ghost company.
You can think it's "bull*****" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are people who morally object to it on religious grounds. If you want to keep burying your head in the sand and saying "its a bunch of republicans who really just want to fight back against the bill" you can, but you're empirically wrong.
And yet it seems perfectly fixable for these people by simply having their employees become contracted through a ghost company.
No, it seems perfectly fixable for a single one of those people that you heard of from your wife. Not every company can just convert all their eomployees over to contractors. In fact, I would wager most retail establishments can't. (I could be wrong). What's more, the idea that a shell company, that you still control, is paying for it won't resolve most of the moral issues that people are alleging. It may resolve it for some people who don't actually think their position through, but not for most people.
It would be absurd, given data like that, for the church to be able to impose its will upon its congregation; how is it less absurd for it to impose its will upon its employees?
Other people have provided an effective rebuttal to your argument but I wanted to add my two cents on this specifically.
I find it absurd when you talk about the church imposing its will yet do not balk when the governemnt imposes it's will on people which is what this case is all about in the first place.
No because your analogy sucks. The employer is not the customer, the employees are. The employer is just paying for it as part of their compensation. It is more like you are a vegetarian and have to buy a gift card to some restaurant to give to someone, but there are no gift card options for any restaurants that dont serve meat, so you have to buy one with the chance that the person you give it to may use it to buy meat.
Ok, I think your example is fine too. Is it acceptable to force a vegetarian to financially support a restaurant that serves meat, assuming the vegetarian has a moral or religious objection to the killing of animals for food? I don't think it's acceptable to force someone to purchase meat if that person believes meat is murder. Forcing people to act against their deeply-held convictions is a bad thing, and should only happen when (1) there is a very pressing and important reason to do so, and (2) the government is doing everything they can to mitigate the impact.
I personally have nothing against meat or birth control. But I don't think it's appropriate to force my beliefs on others.
You can think it's "bull*****" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are people who morally object to it on religious grounds. If you want to keep burying your head in the sand and saying "its a bunch of republicans who really just want to fight back against the bill" you can, but you're empirically wrong.
And yet it seems perfectly fixable for these people by simply having their employees become contracted through a ghost company.
It was "fixable" in the mind of one random guy you heard about. That guy is not representative of an entire side of the debate. Most people do not believe that they can absolve themselves of moral responsibility for their actions by creating a shell company.
I see it as two separate actions/policies because they have different merits and can exist separately.
#1. Should the US government be able to define a minimum standard of coverage that all Health Insurance companies must provide to their customers.
#2. Should the US government be able to force employers to provide insurance as part of their employees compensation package.
#1 I believe has some merit if only because insurance has become so complicated that insurance companies could easily screw over their customers with loopholes and missing coverage. I'm not talking specifically about birth control, but about anything in general. What if you end up with AIDs only to find out that your health insurance plan doesn't cover sexually transmitted diseases (no matter how you got it)? Now separate from that (or as an extension) is the debate over whether or not the government should require birth control coverage as part of the minimum standard.
#2 I personally believe to be ridiculous. Not every full time employee needs the employment to be a source of health care. Easy example... I have great health care coverage through work. Why on Earth would my wife need to have health coverage through work as well? She would be better off finding a job at a place that does not offer health benefits and instead pays better. Forcing employers to provide insurance for full time employees seems to cover a very small number of people... it doesn't help people that are part time, it doesnt help people with no job, it doesnt help people that are covered by a spouse... It only helps those that are working full time at a place that doesnt already provide health insurance.
For the case bLatch is referencing, the home is a religious organization run by nuns, but they also have employees who are not nuns. The nuns do not want to provide contraceptives to their employees (or themselves) because their religion forbids the use of contraceptives.
This is a case where either one independently is fine, but the combination of the two results in a constitutional violation (arguably of course--we'll see what the court actually says).
It is certainly a possibility that the government can enact multiple laws that individually would be fine, but combined have an unconstitutional effect. Whether this is one such case is still up for debate, but it's not an implausible scenario.
Frankly? It should not. I understand the argument that religious organizations should be exempt from compliance, but I find it to be absurd. The whole reason that people like Jehova's Witnesses can do stuff like refuse blood transfusions is that they're people exercising a religious belief. A legal entity of any sort cannot make such a decision. Now, I'm not saying that folks for whom birth control should have to get BC, nor am I saying that folks who oppose abortions should be made to have one. All I'm saying is that the decision for those acts must rest at the individual level, as a matter of personal conscience, rather than being dictated by the beliefs of whoever a person works for.
Besides, the Archdiocese is a terrible example here. The Catholic church recently did its own internal audit of its congregation and found that something like 98% of all practicing Catholics who regularly attend mass in the U.S. use or have used birth control. It would be absurd, given data like that, for the church to be able to impose its will upon its congregation; how is it less absurd for it to impose its will upon its employees?
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Lets get one thing clear: This case is not, and has never been, about companies imposing their will on their employees. None of the plaintiffs have had any objections to their employees getting coverage for contraceptive care. The issue is with them being mandated to provide it for the employees.
If you cannot (or will not) see that distinction, then there is no point in discussing the issue with you because you will never understand the underlying legal implications and arguments.
1. Healthcare for the poor
2. Healthcare for veterans
3. Healthcare for the elderly (originally intended for the "poor elderly")
4. Everyone else
As a #4, I do not see #1 being a very good system at all. It's spotty and sucks, needs to be mainstreamed and ironed into the system with the low cost affordability is spread towards everyone such as starting couples. #2 is more dicey because I do see "some" and I repeat "some" need for specialized healthcare for veterans, but a completely separate system? No, no more special treatment just because you were a fry cook for 2 years and get lifelong healthcare. No, if you have a real MSO like infantry or were a fry cook in combat, then fine sure we can begin to discuss things that actually affect your treatment. The elderly, I do not find to be that special and gradually moving them towards a more blind system that has restrictions and laws in grained against discrimination would be more preferable towards a government based healthcare.
The desocialization process begins by stating that the areas where we have oversocialized the system are to be converted, over time, with people's consent towards a better system that underpromises and over delivers. Slowly building a good brand for private health insurance for individuals, or as much as we can without creating more Adam Lanza's and other such things. Because that is why government will always be there. To protect a person with cancer or the crazy maniac with a gun killing little kids before that person becomes a crazy maniac, maybe they're still crazy or the person still has cancer with some after effects and limitations on health. But at least that cancer survivor or that less crazy person can live a good life with some diminished capacities relative to their situation. No different than a person in a wheelchair has to give somethings up, but does not have to give everything in life up.
I believe that the over subsidized housing system is one area where we can gut that some what, and then in turn over the next half decade take those funds and redirect them towards healthcare system, singular not plural, and moving towards paying down the deficit.
Overall, I don't want my government nor my employer telling me what I need or don't need within reason for my health insurance.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm going to presume this should be qualified with "sexually active adult practicing Catholics".
If 98% of your employees eat lunch every day, does that obligate you to buy it for them? Are you willing them to starve if you don't?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's ridiculous and patently false. I was placed on the Ortho-Evra patch to treat my endometriosis, a condition that affects 6-11% of menstruating women in the US. Contraceptive devices are a first step to treat mild to moderate endometriosis and PCOS. Endometriosis can cause severe pain during menses which can cause women to miss school or work. If untreated for a long time, insurance may not opt for laproscopic surgery if too severe and risky to cover. It also leads to permanent infertility in a third of cases.
Also, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy or a dead fetus then abortion is essential healthcare.
I'd've thought it would be more like "If 98% of your members eat lunch every day, then asserting to your employees that 'eating lunch is morally wrong, and we will not support it in any way' looks a shade hypocritical".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think you are terribly misinformed if you think by serving you get life long heath care. A person does get access to insurance, not free by the way unless (a) you've retired (20+ years) (b) you have a service connected disablity or (c) you are below the means to afford it(i.e. homeless) otherwise you have a co-pay. You also have to meet other qualifications. I think there is a time period to which combat operations must of been ongoing and a minimum service time requirment. I know some of the people I lived with when I lived at veterans homeless center were not eligable for a very neglible amount of benefits.
On the fry cook and combat part, it only further shows your ignorance on the subject. I do not have estimates but majoirty of the claims for benefits related to combat are for mental health. I served for 8 years and the majority my health issues arrise not from my experiences in combat (which I served five times) but rather the high impact activiteis assoicated with militatry life...things such as 20 miles ruck marches carrying a 14lb rifle and 30-80lb ruck sack, running anywhere between 2-20 miles every other week day, training jumps, etc, etc. To top it all off, I was not infantry, I was a lowly intelligence analyst. A support guy, much the same as a cook.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
That may be a little presumptuous to assume because birth control is not exclusively taken by those that are either sexually active and/or adults (well, this second condition is more likely, but not likely all-inclusive). Source.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
It's a medical condition that can only arise on purpose, and insurance covers accidents. It isn't linguistically possible for insurance to cover pregnancy (an insurance company can, the same way a retail company can donate to charity, even though "retail" and "charity" are different).
The "birth control pills are used for many different things" argument is pretty annoying. If chemotherapy for cancer made people infertile, no one would oppose it on the grounds of "it can be used for contraception." If a pill, such as a "birth control pill," is used for increasing health, then that's fine.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Dude. Think about what you're saying. 20% of the American population is below the age of 15 and 7% is below the age of 5. Do you really believe there are that many Catholic toddlers on birth control? What's more, the "birth control" your source is talking about is the pill, which is taken exclusively by women, so unless you think Catholics are Amazons that 98% statistic must include other forms of birth control - namely condoms, which are I'd say a pretty good indicator of sexual activity.
Um... no.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, but lets say 98% of your employees want milk with lunch every day. You as the employer are providing lunch, but you don't believe in drinking milk because it's just not natural for animals to drink the milk of other animals. So you specifically get your employees lunch with water or soda. Now your employees must choose to drink boring water(no sex) or unhealthy soda (unprotected sex), or they have to pay extra to get what they want. Not only do they have to pay more for it... but they have to pay significantly more for it than you the employer would have had to.
It just plain does not make sense. Nobody is forced to actually drink the milk. The employees are just being given the option to have it if they want to. The employer is buying lunch that just happens to include the option for milk drinking, they are not specifically buying their employee's milk. The employer needs to get over it, wake up to reality and stop being so damn sensitive.
As an atheist moderate with absolutely no objection to birth control, I agree. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the government legitimately has the authority to force the matter, or whether the employer has a protected right to be so damn sensitive.
I also think the KKK needs to stop being so damn racist and disband immediately. But it would be unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw them.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The government is forcing them to buy Health Insurance. That's it. I see absolutely zero reason to try to blur these two issues together. If anything the insurance companies are the ones that should be fighting saying the government is forcing them to not provide the coverage their customers want.
Outside of that, Religious matters should not be considered when creating laws. If I create a religion tomorrow that requires sacrificing Bald Eagles every 3rd Saturday I dont get to magically be exempt from the laws that protect Bald Eagles. If I create a religion that believes clothes are a sinful construct (since Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes until after eating the apple), I dont get to walk around public places naked. Religion isn't a magical trump card that gives people leeway to ignore the law. It's ridiculous to debate health coverage based on religion when there are non-religious angles to be taken.
I forget, who is it again that is forcing that insurance to include contraceptive care?
Frame it however you want, you cannot divorce the two actions performed by the government from each other. The two actions together form the single action of the government requiring the company to purchase the health coverage it (allegedly) finds morally objectionable.
If the government requires that all high school graduates must be fluent in English and French, and then pulls all funding for French lessons from inner city schools (both of which are legit actions that can be done by a government), people would be absolutely correct in stating that the actions of the government are discriminating against minorities and are therefore improper.
This is a fine and dnady position for you to have, but for it to have any legal implication you're going to have to get started on repealing that pesky First amendment to the constitution. (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
Now, it certianly is the case that other constituional rights can trump this right, but in order for them to completely ignore religion in the legislation process you'd have to remove that amendment.
It's interesting you note this, because one of the tests that SCOTUS should be looking at is whether there were other ways of implementing the goal of the governments action without stepping on religious freedom, and whether those other ways would have (or would not have) been excessively more burdensome than this way.
In other words, the constitution requires that the government show that there was no other way to achieve this goal without stepping on religious freedom, or that the only other ways were far more burdensome. It is not a matter of showing that there is a secular purpose and them, bam!, religion is ignored. Nor should it be.
"The government isn't forcing them to buy contraceptives, the government is forcing them to buy healthcare that is required to include contraceptives." No matter where you fall in this debate, I don't understand how this line of reasoning makes sense.
Let's say you know your wife is a vegetarian. It's your anniversary, so you take her out to a fancy dinner at a steakhouse. The particular restaurant you selected doesn't have any vegetarian options whatsoever, and you knew this in advance. So your wife gets mad at you. What do you say? "I'm not forcing you to eat meat, I'm just taking you to dinner at a restaurant that serves nothing but meat. Yes, I knew you were a vegetarian. Yes, I knew this restaurant has no vegetarian options. But don't get mad at me, it's not my fault."
Wait actually, this analogy is still wrong. You need to add two more facts to make it actually analogous: (1) you're the mayor of the town, and you called up the restaurant in advance and said "you had better not serve any vegetarian food, or I will have you shut down. I'm coming in with my wife tomorrow, and there had better be zero vegetarian options, and (2) you are forcing your wife to actually order food at this restaurant and eat it, or else you will divorce her.
There, that's an apt analogy now, because the government is the one mandating that health insurance cover contraceptives, and also mandating that the employer must buy this health insurance and provide it to its employees. Do you not see how this is the same thing as forcing them to buy contraceptives?
And how does paying for insurance prevent people from exercising their religion? I pay taxes every day that are used to shoot people... am I committing murder which is also a sin?
Here's a fun little story for you. The company that my wife works for is privately owned. The guy that owns it is extremely religious right-wing... he donates hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to Republican campaigns including fighting against same sex marriage. Last summer with the threat of the evil ACA looming he felt the moral and ethical obligation to change things so he didnt have to pay for evil health care. So what did he do? He let his HR manager start a dummy business. All employees that want health insurance are now employed by the dummy business which provides evil health insurance and the real business just contracts them to work there...
All he did was add an extra level of paper work and suddenly it's ok with him that he's paying for contraceptive coverage because technically it starts out as just paying for a contractor.
How is that somehow ok when just paying the health insurance company directly is not?
The religious aspect of this debate is complete and total bull*****. There is absolutely no reason to take that position seriously. It's a whiny cop out from conservatives trying to push back on something they dont like. Instead of trying to have a logical discussion about whether or not people should be getting their health insurance from employers anyway, they jump on religion and try to cry foul.
No because your analogy sucks. The employer is not the customer, the employees are. The employer is just paying for it as part of their compensation. It is more like you are a vegetarian and have to buy a gift card to some restaurant to give to someone, but there are no gift card options for any restaurants that dont serve meat, so you have to buy one with the chance that the person you give it to may use it to buy meat.
And yet it seems perfectly fixable for these people by simply having their employees become contracted through a ghost company.
No, it seems perfectly fixable for a single one of those people that you heard of from your wife. Not every company can just convert all their eomployees over to contractors. In fact, I would wager most retail establishments can't. (I could be wrong). What's more, the idea that a shell company, that you still control, is paying for it won't resolve most of the moral issues that people are alleging. It may resolve it for some people who don't actually think their position through, but not for most people.
Other people have provided an effective rebuttal to your argument but I wanted to add my two cents on this specifically.
I find it absurd when you talk about the church imposing its will yet do not balk when the governemnt imposes it's will on people which is what this case is all about in the first place.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Ok, I think your example is fine too. Is it acceptable to force a vegetarian to financially support a restaurant that serves meat, assuming the vegetarian has a moral or religious objection to the killing of animals for food? I don't think it's acceptable to force someone to purchase meat if that person believes meat is murder. Forcing people to act against their deeply-held convictions is a bad thing, and should only happen when (1) there is a very pressing and important reason to do so, and (2) the government is doing everything they can to mitigate the impact.
I personally have nothing against meat or birth control. But I don't think it's appropriate to force my beliefs on others.
It was "fixable" in the mind of one random guy you heard about. That guy is not representative of an entire side of the debate. Most people do not believe that they can absolve themselves of moral responsibility for their actions by creating a shell company.