Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Koldo]

So where is this going to end? Can a company now refuse to pay for medical treatment that involves blood transfusions if that is against their religious beliefs? Can they refuse to pay for vaccines?

Honestly, I don't think it can get much further.
Your right to life should take precedence. Vaccines and blood transfusions preserve your right in a much clearer light than contraception ( particularly if we are talking about pills, rather than condoms ).

Why in the world should the religious beliefs of my employer have anything to do with the kind of health care I am allowed?

Apparently because he is the one providing you with it, and he is allowed to have a saying on what he is going to provide...to a certain extent.

 

[fantome profane]

Honestly, I don't think it can get much further.
Your right to life should take precedence. Vaccines and blood transfusions preserve your right in a much clearer light than contraception ( particularly if we are talking about pills, rather than condoms ).

But there is nothing in this ruling that states that. If private for profit businesses can have religious views, and determine the benefits of their employees based on those religious views then they can in principle deny a whole host of services.

We are in fact going to see a large number of new law suits where private companies use this as a precedent to deny benefits to their employees. Watch.

 

[Quintessence]

But there is nothing in this ruling that states that. If private for profit businesses can have religious views, and determine the benefits of their employees based on those religious views then they can in principle deny a whole host of services.

We are in fact going to see a large number of new law suits where private companies use this as a precedent to deny benefits to their employees. Watch.

Only certain types of companies are covered by the ruling, so this doesn't apply universally to all private employers. Unfortunately, many of those employers affected by the ruling are megacorporations. I think I would have a lot less of a problem with this ruling if we were talking back in the good old days before megacorporations existed. If companies were really just mom-and-pop enterprises with at most a couple dozen employees, that'd be one thing, but the ruling applies to megacorporations with hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of employees. Also, if our health care system in this country wasn't broken, that would change my views on it also. If we had a truly universal health care system like a proper, civilized Western country should, the ruling would be next to meaningless. People would have what they need covered anyway as a matter-of-course.

 

[Koldo]

But there is nothing in this ruling that states that. If private for profit businesses can have religious views, and determine the benefits of their employees based on those religious views then they can in principle deny a whole host of services.

We are in fact going to see a large number of new law suits where private companies use this as a precedent to deny benefits to their employees. Watch.

Where did you get that from? I would like to read your source. On the original link it states and I quote: "The court also said its ruling did not apply to other forms of healthcare that some find morally objectionable, such as blood transfusions or vaccinations.".

But, yes, it is to be expected that other companies will try to test the limits of what can be done in court.

 

[Koldo]

Also, if our health care system in this country wasn't broken, that would change my views on it also. If we had a truly universal health care system like a proper, civilized Western country should, the ruling would be next to meaningless. People would have what they need covered anyway as a matter-of-course.

This gives me the impression it is a burden for many people to pay for their contraceptives. Does this happen to be the case even on a developed country like the USA?

 

[Nakosis]

I'm extremely anti-capitalist, so I'm way ahead of you there.

Ok, what's wrong with capitalism?

Not that I plan to defend it, just, I guess I don't know the argument against it.

 

[fantome profane]

Where did you get that from? I would like to read your source. On the original link it states and I quote: "The court also said its ruling did not apply to other forms of healthcare that some find morally objectionable, such as blood transfusions or vaccinations.".

But, yes, it is to be expected that other companies will try to test the limits of what can be done in court.

You need to look at the principle reason given for this decision. The reason given was the idea that companies can have religious beliefs, and make decisions for their employees based on those religious beliefs. It does not place limits on what beliefs are allowed or what restrictions can be made. Hobby Lobby may decide to limit only certain kinds of contraception. And other company may decide to deny all forms. Another company may deny other forms of medication (medical marijuana?). Can you imagine what a company owned largely by Scientologists might want to deny?

But even if you think that these things are not going to happen, if you can see that it would be wrong in principle, then you have to see that this is wrong in principle as well.

Here is another source.
What the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision means - CNN.com

 

[Quintessence]

This gives me the impression it is a burden for many people to pay for their contraceptives. Does this happen to be the case even on a developed country like the USA?

I don't know all the details of it, personally, but I know the cost depends on what type of birth control you are looking at and whether or not your insurance covers it. If it's not covered by insurance, it's going to be more expensive. Birth control pills are relatively inexpensive, but when you're poor, it's not an insignificant expense. More "invasive" or surgical forms of female contraceptives are definitely not inexpensive, and if you're already poor you probably can't afford it if it isn't covered under insurance. This site provides a pretty good overview of birth control methods and cost ranges.

In general, income inequality has become a serious problem in this country. I don't have a good sense of how bad it is, and I prefer to have numbers for such things rather than speculate. All I know is that when I was making a low wage, the extra expense of that wouldn't have been insignificant. And I wasn't making minimum wage; if I'd been one of those, affording an extra $40 a month or so would have been completely out of the question. I'd need that money for food.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok, what's wrong with capitalism?

Not that I plan to defend it, just, I guess I don't know the argument against it.

This isn't the appropriate thread for that discussion.

 

[fantome profane]

This gives me the impression it is a burden for many people to pay for their contraceptives. Does this happen to be the case even on a developed country like the USA?

Paying for contraception saves the health care system money.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You need to look at the principle reason given for this decision. The reason given was the idea that companies can have religious beliefs, and make decisions for their employees based on those religious beliefs. It does not place limits on what beliefs are allowed or what restrictions can be made. Hobby Lobby may decide to limit only certain kinds of contraception. And other company may decide to deny all forms. Another company may deny other forms of medication (medical marijuana?). Can you imagine what a company owned largely by Scientologists might want to deny?

But even if you think that these things are not going to happen, if you can see that it would be wrong in principle, then you have to see that this is wrong in principle as well.

Here is another source.
What the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision means - CNN.com

Something else to consider: the Affordable Care Act was based on the premise that all people have the right to health care. It may have been bass-ackward in its execution (as I've said in other threads, I think it makes a lot less sense than a real government-funded single-payer program, and is probably worse than any system but the one it replaced), but at its core is that idea of a right to health care.

This decision goes against that principle. It makes the right to health care conditional, which implies that it's not a right at all.

 

[Phil25]

Ok, what's wrong with capitalism?

Not that I plan to defend it, just, I guess I don't know the argument against it.

If you want to discuss Capitalism, Socialism etc, come over to my thread http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...28-what-your-position-political-spectrum.html

 

[Nakosis]

This isn't the appropriate thread for that discussion.

Ok, I didn't inappropriately bring it up. Just saying.

Evil to hang it out there like that. You're right, but still evil....

 

[fantome profane]

Something else to consider: the Affordable Care Act was based on the premise that all people have the right to health care. It may have been bass-ackward in its execution (as I've said in other threads, I think it makes a lot less sense than a real government-funded single-payer program, and is probably worse than any system but the one it replaced), but at its core is that idea of a right to health care.

This decision goes against that principle. It makes the right to health care conditional, which implies that it's not a right at all.

Absolutely, and I agree that a single health care system makes more sense. (But you and I are both outsiders to this)

And that is what may end up happening, piece by piece. After a long drawn out expensive battle. People employed by religious organizations may be allowed to get their healthcare directly from the federal government. People who work for "closely held for profit companies" may be allowed to get their healthcare directly from the federal government. And eventually everyone will be allowed this. But it will be a long process, and history tells us they will probably screw it up along the way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok, I didn't inappropriately bring it up. Just saying.

Evil to hang it out there like that. You're right, but still evil....

I was just commenting on what Quint said. To go over all the faults of capitalism would require many book length essays, which have already been written in the first place. If that's what you want to talk about, it's better if you start your own thread. Honestly, I don't feel like getting into it right now because I'm really tired.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting that you prefer the business over the government, and you prefer the business over the individual employee.

You mis-state my preferences. I see the government as too authoritarian in requiring that business
assume ever more responsibility for the employee's welfare outside of the workplace. It seems I prefer
that companies & employees negotiate their own relationship to a greater extent than you would.

Me, I support the rights of the individual, over both government and businesses.

As a business owner, I see myself as an individual too.

 

[fantome profane]

You mis-state my preferences. I see the government as becoming too authoritarian in requiring that business assume ever more responsibility for the employee's welfare outside of the workplace.

This is a good argument in favour of a single-payer system.

As a business owner, I see myself as an individual too.

But as an individual, should you be making decisions about the health care of other individuals? Should your views as an individual trump those of your employees?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a good argument in favour of a single-payer system.

I don't argue against that point.

But as an individual, should you be making decisions about the health care of other individuals? Should your views as an individual trump those of your employees?

I should have a say if I provide the health care. I see government over-reaching
by requiring me to provide health care. What next housing, continuing education,
clothing, food, rodeo tickets? There really appears to be no constitutional limit
anymore about what I can be required to provide.

Suppose government required me to pay religious fees (tithing) for the employee.
Would you argue that if I refused to pay it, that I'm making decisions about their faith?

 

[fantome profane]

I don't argue against that point.

I should have a say if I provide the health care. I see government over-reaching
by requiring me to provide health care. What next housing, continuing education,
clothing, food, rodeo tickets? There really appears to be no constitutional limit
anymore about what I can be required to provide.

I think Hobby Lobby is overreaching, right into the a very personal part of their employee's lives.

People have the right to equal treatment under the law, regardless of whether they work at Hobby Lobby, or Michael's. The unfortunate fact that the healthcare system goes through a person's employer should not trump what I think is a higher principle of equality.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Hobby Lobby is overreaching, right into the a very personal part of their employee's lives.

People have the right to equal treatment under the law, regardless of whether they work at Hobby Lobby, or Michael's. The unfortunate fact that the healthcare system goes through a person's employer should not trump what I think is a higher principle of equality.

That is one view. But people who own companies might find that government is requiring more of them than is reasonable, eg, providing services unrelated to employment, & which go against their religion. The employer isn't preventing the employee from getting the service....just refusing to provide it.

This is part of a larger picture wherein government expects businesses to take over governmental functions. In my business, if I accept certain federally subsidized housing payments, I'm expected to keep track of residents & guests in the apartment. Local government also expects me to surveil my tenants for bed locations, control their porch furniture, & track family relationships among other things. It all gets worse as the years go by.