Hobby Lobby Case decided

Well, what do you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us...s-awaited.html

Should only be 4-8 years from now when corporations are given the right to vote. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Well, what do you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us...s-awaited.html

---

I agree with the majority decision. Providing some form of compensation to employees equivalent to that which would have been spent on this aspect of a healthcare package, thus allowing them to purchase their own coverage for this seems a more reasonable route. Employees retain the option to vote with their feet and work for firms that do not so restrict coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Should only be 4-8 years from now when corporations are given the right to vote. ~:rolleyes:

---

I don’t see the need for that. They already have the right to buy their very own members of government.

What will voting get them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I don’t see the need for that. They already have the right to buy their very own members of government.

What will voting get them?

---

Cheaper politicians. Why spend so much in bribescampaign funds when you can just vote in a guy that will do your bidding for less.

Something about China and hypocrisy, but that's not really a strong case unless - what's China's legislation, if any, on healthcare vis-a-vis local employees and foreign employers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Should only be 4-8 years from now when corporations are given the right to vote. ~:rolleyes:

---

A corporation already does vote via it's members. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

A corporation already does vote via it's members. ~:handball:

---

No, the members have one discrete vote each. But think of the glorious possibilities when the board/shareholders can cast a vote as a whole for the corporation!

A business should not pay a dime for health insurance. They should be taxed.

We always talk about how deep "big business" has sunk its claws in to our decision making process. Tell them the government will tax them less than what they currently pay in health costs.

Remember kids, socialized medicine only works if your a veteran (well maybe not) or a senator. Other than that, you are an affront to America and a probably lesbian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

No, the members have one discrete vote each. But think of the glorious possibilities when the board/shareholders can cast a vote as a whole for the corporation!

---

How about we give everyone, individual and corporation alike, the suffrage....but we base the value of your on your taxes paid. Each $1k gets you one vote. Wonder if corporations would tax dodge less....

Just a thought

I, of course, agree with the decision. Like 20-30% of SCOTUS decisions; One law in conflict with another, one side emerges victorious as a result of Anthony Kennedy.
I should probably read it myself as supreme court decisions are notorious for being vague and settling very little.

****, Strike beat me to this. Stop giving corporations all these responsibilities over health care so we don't have to deal with this obnoxious effort to cut down costs by granting the company every individual exemption under the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

But the only reason we have to do these healthcare workarounds is because these very businesses have made it impossible to exercise the popular will on universal healthcare. Deep claws indeed, without exaggeration.

---

I would think companies would rather be done with the notion that have to provide health care at all. It is only insurance companies that are at risk from a universal health care system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, let's be more specific. The problem is SuperPACs and similar organizations that organize the fundraising, which then support other organizations which organize the lobbying, which then act on behalf of all businesses that would lose out if they were forced to pay the kinds of taxes that a single-payer system would require. Its not rocket science, and its not even a conspiracy. The system in place prevents lawmakers from acting outside of the interests of lobbies that are of a certain size, and so the idea that we could ever get a single-payer system past congress is just absurd--even though there are plenty of Americans who would vote for such a thing without a second thought.

So, let's be clear. I'm not saying the system is broken, because its not. It was intentionally pieced together this way over decades of adapting to the world of modern high finance, and the ascension of certain campaign finance norms. What I am saying is that the system in place does not let us have the discussion that we need, so instead we have these crappy efforts that get defeated in court. The elephant in the room is still universal healthcare. :shrug:

---

I agree with this completely. That's why I am hopeful that these emerging anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC's gain momentum.

Quote:

---

Fight fire with fire, and all you get is a burning forest.

---

Not a good analogy, as it's an actual firefighting technique.

It's a little more complicated than that GC. Most Americans hear UHC or "Single-payer" and they flinch... government rationing of healthcare...

What most of us fail to take into account is that there is always rationing of healthcare. The question is "who is doing the rationing and what are their heuristics".

If I was President Obama, I would have done anything I could have to shut down the VA scandal discussion months ago. Instead, the best example we have of "single-payer", the VA, which he trotted around in 2010 as the example of what was to come for the rest of the US, has been shown to be the worst of everything the average American always feared it to be.

Before the invectives, I KNOW that single-payer systems are capable of much better. I'm saying that there is a lot of "play to the fear" in the messaging in American politics. Giving credence to it was a tragic mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Indeed, the idea of "Our SuperPACs" vs "Their SuperPACs" would just normalize the whole thing. Bad idea IMO.

---

I think both you and I are familiar that in life, you must work with what you have, not what you want. Can you think of anything that can convince me otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, no. The notion of a constitutional amendment is unlikely to the point of being perhaps impossible. And while that brings the entire structure into question, it does force me to admit that "Our SuperPACs" vs. "Their SuperPACs" is likely how it is going to be. But when that is fully the case I'll be a very sad Cube, because that is not democracy.

---

If we were at the point that the public could truly just walk to the polling place and vote away these problems, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems in the first place.

Quote:

---

I can't help but shake my head and wonder why people thought it was a good idea to give the rich so much power in the first place.

---

"I could vote for restrictions on money in politics, but when I get rich I dont want to be held back, so I say nay." Repeat once for every voting man alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

"I could vote for restrictions on money in politics, but when I get rich I don't want to be held back, so I say nay." Repeat once for every voting man alive.

---

I used to think that was my rationale, but I don't anymore. I majored in History and don't make reckless enough decisions to succeed or fail in a way that could lead me to that place. Plus i'm nice to people and don't want to hurt them (other than on these boards).

Now, I think that it is the general principle that we are all here to make our own universe. That no paternal or dictatorial power should be able to stop us, unless we try to stop the same in others. The older I get the more I realize that nobody has any idea as to "what or why in the hell - we're all going to die and even if we weren't". So I err on the side of the individual in the face of tyranny.

F**k your world, I do what I want.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b).

"The court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

So how many of the female Supreme Court judges ruled in favour?

Zero, none, nada.

Maybe when it comes to women's health women should have the say...

technically, this verdict was about "closely-held corporation" owners health, so women were more than adequately represented.

But isn't this verdict discrimanting who should uphold what laws based on their religion?

Shouldn't the laws apply to all equally regardless of race or creed?

Could I as a Ratasfarian business owner sell cannabis as it fulfills my religious obligations? If not why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

But isn't this verdict discrimanting who should uphold what laws based on their religion?

Shouldn't the laws apply to all equally regardless of race or creed?

Could I as a Ratasfarian business owner sell cannabis as it fulfills my religious obligations? If not why not?

---

http://minneapoliscriminallawyer.lib...tafarian-case/

I say yes, so long as you are selling only to those with a religious interest in cannabis.
Interesting recent appellate case - for a 15 year old.

Why do you hate liberty?

Seriously, legalize everything, compel nothing.

And the burden then moves to the state to show if it is a public safety issue or not.

So with respect to the male Supreme Court is woman's health not a feature of public safety?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

technically, this verdict was about "closely-held corporation" owners health, so women were more than adequately represented.

---

Those closely-held coporations involve Cargill and Kosh Industries, so it's not exactly a few mom-and dad store with 2 more employees we're talking about here.

Edit: Closely-held coperations employs about 50% of the American workforce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Those closely-held coporations involve Cargill and Kosh Industries, so it's not exactly a few mom-and dad store with 2 more employees we're talking about here.

Edit: Closely-held coperations employs about 50% of the American workforce.

---

So, the verdict applies to only certain corporations, would not be applied to the States were they to require it, extends an exemption that already exists for religious organizations and uses as rationale the expansion of 1st amendment protections under RFRA that was drafted, passed and signed into law by a Democratic legislature and President.

Hardly a windfall for either side. Yet, people have to feign despair at the ruling, otherwise they wouldn't be adequately defending women in the culture war. BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

But isn't this verdict discrimanting who should uphold what laws based on their religion?

Shouldn't the laws apply to all equally regardless of race or creed?

Could I as a Ratasfarian business owner sell cannabis as it fulfills my religious obligations? If not why not?

---

The discriminating factor is whether the mandate is in the public interest and whether that interest can be equally well provided in a non-infringing manner. That is where the Obama birth control mandate failed. Covering abortifacients under their medical plans caused the owners of Hobby Lobby to go against their religious beliefs. And certainly, you workplace insurance is far from the only way one has access to these drugs- they're widely available.


The hypocrisy of the left over this case has been nothing short of astonishing. Activists marched around the Supreme Court chanting tired slogans like "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" or claiming that birth control choices should only be between a woman and her doctor. Hobby Lobby wanted nothing more than to stay out of their employees personal choices- it was a government decree that put them in the middle of it. Birth control is our personal choice! .....but you have to pay for it for me. :dizzy2:

So your employer should have final decision on your health plan based on their personal choices not yours?

The better question is "why are employers mandated to have anything to do with your health insurance?"