Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[Claudette]

Come on folks.

The Govt is here to help. Yeah. Right.

The only people they seem to help are the freeloaders at other peoples expense.

HL won their case in the SC. Doubt the Dems can do anything about it.

The Dems own the ACA. They passed that little jewel all on their lonesome and I sure hope those that hate it remember that factoid come 16.

 

[idb]

What a dummy.

Religious beliefs are the law of the land. That's the point.

HOLY ****......some people need to be over posting on People.com!!

Sharia Law...**** yeah!!!

Go be stupid somewhere else.

I'm just following your lead, Sensei.

 

[idb]

The free practice of religious beliefs is guaranteed by the Constitution...the law of the land.

SCOTUS upheld that.

No one was denying the owners of HL the freedom to practice their religion.

The ACA was. SCOTUS said so.

Do keep up.

Yes they did.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Isn't the real issue at it's most basic whether religious beliefs should trump the law of the land?

Somehow I don't think the SCOTUS decision was based on that.

I'm pretty sure it was.
It cited religious beliefs as being a reasonable excuse to refuse the contraceptive coverage.
The RFRA was cited.

This from the decision page 49

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held
corporations, violates RFRA

Are you sure it wasn't because the HHS arbitrarily added abortion drugs to the mandate that wasn't voted on in the original bill?

 

[JoeB131]

DIPSHIT: Force my employer to buy me stuff.

UNCLE SAM: Here you go. I will fine them if they don't buy you this stuff.

EMPLOYER: I should not be forced to buy someone else stuff.

DIPSHIT: He's intruding into my life!!! WAAAAAAH!

You see, this is where I have to disagree.

Your employer is not "buying you stuff", you are earning health coverage as part of your compensation for labor performed. All ACA did was standardize what constituted a valid insurance policy. And in most cases, the employees are doing a pay-in from their own salaries to pay for it.

So it is the government's responsibility to dictate to employers what is provided as part of compensation. Do modern liberals ever stop bending shit to fit the narrative? It is, or should be, up to the employer to decide what compensation will be provided in conjunction with employee negotiation.

um. Yes. The government dictates these sorts of things all the time, from Equal Pay laws, to minimum wage laws, to all sorts of regulations as to what constitutes a valid insurance plan.

The thing is, these employees don't have a union and don't have the ability to "negotiate" beyond "Take it or leave it".

Specifically, in the case of Hobby Lobby, they paid for these four forms of contraception before the ACA was passed without a problem. Then after ACA stipulated that they had to cover contraception, then Hobby Lobby suddenly 'discovered' that they were 'just like abortion' and violated their "spiritual beliefs".

And imagine that the court agreed with them? Too bad. And whether they provided them before or not is irrelevant. Though the irony of pointing out hypocrisy by the hypocrite party is both ironic and noted.

Well, it is relevant in that if you accept that compensation packages are negotiated, then Hobby Lobby changing the terms of what had already been agreed to is a breech of faith.

As far as the court, this farce will only last as long as the Relics Kennedy and Scalia stay on board.

Of course, there are two easy ways around this. End employer insurance, give every employee the equivalent to what the subsidy was and let them buy their own insurance. Private insurance would collapse in about a year when young people don't buy and old people can't afford.

The other option would be to have single payer, have the government set prices and eliminate the overhead of profit-taking insurance companies that pay their executives 8 and 9 figure salaries.

Yes, we know you want the government to take over and set all prices. Eliminating profit. It's about as American as it gets today.

So you think whether you live or die should be based on whether someone else makes a profit on it?

Really? Frankly, having been screwed over a couple of times by employers looking at "profits" (and getting it wrong) I'm not sure I'd want them running health care for me.

Every other industrialized democracy has single payer. They spend less, they have longer life expectencies, their infant mortality rates are lower. More to the point, they are more competitive in their businesses because the cost of health care isn't tacked on to every product they make.

 

[idb]

Somehow I don't think the SCOTUS decision was based on that.

I'm pretty sure it was.
It cited religious beliefs as being a reasonable excuse to refuse the contraceptive coverage.
The RFRA was cited.

This from the decision page 49

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held
corporations, violates RFRA

Are you sure it wasn't because the HHS arbitrarily added abortion drugs to the mandate that wasn't voted on in the original bill?

My understanding was that the case was brought the court on the basis of religious freedom and was upheld.

I'm no expert in law unlike so many here so I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[JoeB131]

Come on folks.

The Govt is here to help. Yeah. Right.

The only people they seem to help are the freeloaders at other peoples expense.

HL won their case in the SC. Doubt the Dems can do anything about it.

The Dems own the ACA. They passed that little jewel all on their lonesome and I sure hope those that hate it remember that factoid come 16.

Actually, this decision is a disaster for the Republicans. Once again, they are having a "Todd Akin" moment of clueless old white men talking about women's naughty bits.

This never ends well for you guys.

 

[Camp]

Conservative Roman Catholic men have decided that a business that is based on buying products from a country that has forced abortions, the highest abortion rates in the world and mandatory contraception have decided that that the business has a Constitutional right to impose the business owners alleged anti contraception beliefs on it's employees. Apparently the overwhelming and obvious hypocrisy of the business owners was not noticed by the conservative Roman Catholic old men.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Conservative Roman Catholic men have decided that a business that is based on buying products from a country that has forced abortions, the highest abortion rates in the world and mandatory contraception have decided that that the business has a Constitutional right to impose the business owners alleged anti contraception beliefs on it's employees. Apparently the overwhelming and obvious hypocrisy of the business owners was not noticed by the conservative Roman Catholic old men.

No one is being religiously imposed on from the employee level. No one is going to be fired for seeking out and acquiring products not provided by the employer. This is the repeat lie that you liberals must repeat or your little song and dance falls completely apart.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You see, this is where I have to disagree.

Your employer is not "buying you stuff", you are earning health coverage as part of your compensation for labor performed. All ACA did was standardize what constituted a valid insurance policy. And in most cases, the employees are doing a pay-in from their own salaries to pay for it.

So it is the government's responsibility to dictate to employers what is provided as part of compensation. Do modern liberals ever stop bending shit to fit the narrative? It is, or should be, up to the employer to decide what compensation will be provided in conjunction with employee negotiation.

um. Yes. The government dictates these sorts of things all the time, from Equal Pay laws, to minimum wage laws, to all sorts of regulations as to what constitutes a valid insurance plan.

The thing is, these employees don't have a union and don't have the ability to "negotiate" beyond "Take it or leave it".






Well, it is relevant in that if you accept that compensation packages are negotiated, then Hobby Lobby changing the terms of what had already been agreed to is a breech of faith.

As far as the court, this farce will only last as long as the Relics Kennedy and Scalia stay on board.

Of course, there are two easy ways around this. End employer insurance, give every employee the equivalent to what the subsidy was and let them buy their own insurance. Private insurance would collapse in about a year when young people don't buy and old people can't afford.

The other option would be to have single payer, have the government set prices and eliminate the overhead of profit-taking insurance companies that pay their executives 8 and 9 figure salaries.

Yes, we know you want the government to take over and set all prices. Eliminating profit. It's about as American as it gets today.

So you think whether you live or die should be based on whether someone else makes a profit on it?

Really? Frankly, having been screwed over a couple of times by employers looking at "profits" (and getting it wrong) I'm not sure I'd want them running health care for me.

Every other industrialized democracy has single payer. They spend less, they have longer life expectencies, their infant mortality rates are lower. More to the point, they are more competitive in their businesses because the cost of health care isn't tacked on to every product they make.

What I think, Sparky, and what the rest of you dullards need to start to realize, is that you do not have any right to someone else's services. If they want to charge me for them, I can pay, or not. That's how it goes. The fact that you believe you actually have the right to force someone to give you something or provide a service to you is the tall blade of grass in your lawn. Everything you believe is surrounded on this central supposition. From there, you're more than happy to use third party force, theft, coercion to receive it.

 

[Geaux4it]

So it is the government's responsibility to dictate to employers what is provided as part of compensation. Do modern liberals ever stop bending shit to fit the narrative? It is, or should be, up to the employer to decide what compensation will be provided in conjunction with employee negotiation.

um. Yes. The government dictates these sorts of things all the time, from Equal Pay laws, to minimum wage laws, to all sorts of regulations as to what constitutes a valid insurance plan.

The thing is, these employees don't have a union and don't have the ability to "negotiate" beyond "Take it or leave it".






Well, it is relevant in that if you accept that compensation packages are negotiated, then Hobby Lobby changing the terms of what had already been agreed to is a breech of faith.

As far as the court, this farce will only last as long as the Relics Kennedy and Scalia stay on board.

Yes, we know you want the government to take over and set all prices. Eliminating profit. It's about as American as it gets today.

So you think whether you live or die should be based on whether someone else makes a profit on it?

Really? Frankly, having been screwed over a couple of times by employers looking at "profits" (and getting it wrong) I'm not sure I'd want them running health care for me.

Every other industrialized democracy has single payer. They spend less, they have longer life expectencies, their infant mortality rates are lower. More to the point, they are more competitive in their businesses because the cost of health care isn't tacked on to every product they make.

What I think, Sparky, and what the rest of you dullards need to start to realize, is that you do not have any right to someone else's services. If they want to charge me for them, I can pay, or not. That's how it goes. The fact that you believe you actually have the right to force someone to give you something or provide a service to you is the tall blade of grass in your lawn. Everything you believe is surrounded on this central supposition. From there, you're more than happy to use third party force, theft, coercion to receive it.

Bottom line- When someone receives a service or product from the government for 'free' it unarguably came at a cost to someone else.

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

[

What I think, Sparky, and what the rest of you dullards need to start to realize, is that you do not have any right to someone else's services. If they want to charge me for them, I can pay, or not. That's how it goes. The fact that you believe you actually have the right to force someone to give you something or provide a service to you is the tall blade of grass in your lawn. Everything you believe is surrounded on this central supposition. From there, you're more than happy to use third party force, theft, coercion to receive it.

Or just something called "Democracy". we win elections, we compel what we want.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not providing health care out of the goodness of their Christian Hearts. They are providing it so they can attract employees. It is compensation for labor performed.

Now, that said, the way we do health care is completely retarded.

We have 100 million who get it from the government, the dreaded socialism you fear. These include the very poor, the very old and veterans, people that the private sector you love so much wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Most of the rest get it through their jobs. Which means the cost of insuring them is tacked on to every good and service produced.

So not surprisingly, privately insured people have a 30% overhead on the cost of their medical care, as opposed to MediCare which has a 3% overhead.

so while GM is spending more on health care than they do for steel, their Japanese competitors simply have the government handle health care and they can produce cars for a cheaper cost.

 

[rightwinger]

Senate Democrats are expediting legislation that would override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.

The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.

A Senate aide told HuffPost that the bill will be introduced as soon as Tuesday night and go directly to the Senate floor as early as next week, without being considered in committee.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services," Udall said in a statement. "My common-sense proposal will keep women's private health decisions out of corporate board rooms, because your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what is best for you and your family."

MORE: Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

Sounds good. Get it done.

Gee....do you think it will be filibustered?

 

[JoeB131]

[q

Bottom line- When someone receives a service or product from the government for 'free' it unarguably came at a cost to someone else.

-Geaux

Except not really applicable to this case.

Here's the thing. The insurance companies had no problem providing this kind of birth control compared to other kinds of birth control. They all cost about the same and birth control is STILL cheaper than paying for a live birth and years of subsequent pediatric medicine.

The problem here was not cost. The problem here is that the superstitious idiots who run Hobby Lobby think that certain kinds of birth control make their Invisible Pixie in the Sky cry.

Which is not the basis for sound policy.

 

[Geaux4it]

Senate Democrats are expediting legislation that would override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.

The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.

A Senate aide told HuffPost that the bill will be introduced as soon as Tuesday night and go directly to the Senate floor as early as next week, without being considered in committee.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services," Udall said in a statement. "My common-sense proposal will keep women's private health decisions out of corporate board rooms, because your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what is best for you and your family."

MORE: Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

Sounds good. Get it done.

Gee....do you think it will be filibustered?

 

[PredFan]

Why is it that the conservatives are against contraception being provided for under healthcare plans, yet are perfectly happy in allowing Viagra?

Once again, the completly ridliclous comparison of Viagra to birth control. Compare like drugs. If hormones and creams which enable sex for woman was not covered then *****. But it is covered.

Premarin cream is used to enable women to have sex, among other drugs, the same way Viagra is used to enable men to have sex. Both are avaliable through prescription. Both happen to be prescribed in the same age range.

The result of sex, pregnancy, is not the same as enabling the act itself.


Low sex drive in women Treatments and drugs - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

Hobby Lobby's insurance covers 16 types of birth control. But the Left will repeat this talking point--that HL is anti female and/or anti contraceptive--for as long as it takes to persuade people it is true. With some of the brain dead posters here that took about 7 seconds.

LOL! I'm sorry you turned your rep off.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

[

What I think, Sparky, and what the rest of you dullards need to start to realize, is that you do not have any right to someone else's services. If they want to charge me for them, I can pay, or not. That's how it goes. The fact that you believe you actually have the right to force someone to give you something or provide a service to you is the tall blade of grass in your lawn. Everything you believe is surrounded on this central supposition. From there, you're more than happy to use third party force, theft, coercion to receive it.

Or just something called "Democracy". we win elections, we compel what we want.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not providing health care out of the goodness of their Christian Hearts. They are providing it so they can attract employees. It is compensation for labor performed.

Now, that said, the way we do health care is completely retarded.

We have 100 million who get it from the government, the dreaded socialism you fear. These include the very poor, the very old and veterans, people that the private sector you love so much wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Most of the rest get it through their jobs. Which means the cost of insuring them is tacked on to every good and service produced.

So not surprisingly, privately insured people have a 30% overhead on the cost of their medical care, as opposed to MediCare which has a 3% overhead.

so while GM is spending more on health care than they do for steel, their Japanese competitors simply have the government handle health care and they can produce cars for a cheaper cost.

Right. I appreciating you admitting that you're more than happy to steal, force and coerce your wished onto others because you "won an election". Basically, you have absolutely no moral or ethical grounds. You believe in a mob forcing people to pay extortion or suffer the consequences. Then later you'll tell me this is civilized.

This isn't a democracy in the first place. It's a constitutional republic. Where the law is not at the whims of man's wants or desires in any fashion. Though, calling it democracy to justify your thrill of force, theft and coercion, is noted.

 

[PredFan]

The issue is HL still paid for up to 15 other contraceptives.

-Geaux

Completely irrelevant.

Hobby Lobby is not a doctor. They are not a medical professional.

They have no standing to determine which of 20 available forms of contraception are the most medically appropriate for a given case.

That isn't what they are trying to do idiot.

 

[PredFan]

Isn't the real issue at it's most basic whether religious beliefs should trump the law of the land?

The free practice of religious beliefs is guaranteed by the Constitution...the law of the land.

SCOTUS upheld that.

No one was denying the owners of HL the freedom to practice their religion.

Yes they were idiot.

No one was denying the employees of HL contraception.

 

[PredFan]

I'd almost be temped to say give them what they want so they can't reproduce anymore people in their image

nasty ugly people anyway

And then there is this^^^