Was the Supreme Court right to rule that the Affordable Care Act violated the religio
1024
No - The ruling allows bosses to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Besides, the Constitution grants religious freedom to individuals, not corporations.
483
Yes - The religious beliefs of company owners take precedence over their employees' right to have access to birth control.
Should religious family-owned companies be required to cover contraceptives under their insurance plans? The high court says no.
I'm curious how you nurses feel about this? Please take a second to vote in our quick poll.
This is a highly political topic, I'd rather not turn this into a hot argumentative subject, so please keep your comments civil :) But please feel free to comment. Thanks
In a 5-4 decision Monday, the Supreme Court allowed a key exemption to the health law's contraception coverage requirements when it ruled that closely held for-profit businesses could assert a religious objection to the Obama administration's regulations. What does it mean? Here are some questions and answers about the case.What did the court's ruling do?
The court's majority said that the for-profit companies that filed suit-Hobby Lobby Stores, a nationwide chain of 500 arts and crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a maker of custom cabinets-didn't have to offer female employeesall Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptivesas part of a package of preventive services that must be covered without copays or deductibles under the law. The companies had argued that several types of contraceptivesviolate their owners' religious beliefs. The ruling also covers a Hobby Lobby subsidiary, the Mardel Christian bookstores.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Huh? What I was saying was as a faith, we don't impose our beliefs (in this case, no transfusions) on others, therefore, it would be highly unlikely that Witness owned businesses would have a liner in the insurance policy they provide their employees that says transfusions will not be covered.
But please, you and everyone else clamoring about what people of my faith "might" do to others, continue to worry (or hate) in the face of factual information.
I am not "worried" what JW business owners "might" do to employees based upon their religion. I am concerned that the SCOTUS somehow thinks that a matter of individual faith should somehow translate into a secular business health insurance policy for women specifically. Just like with JWs, the "christian" corporation should mind their own business relative to such personal matters. Of course, historically Christians are not so level headed.
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't care for the precedent set.
The precedent would not have to have been set had Obama and the democrats compromised on the issue of payment (as this is not an access issue, and never was an access issue) for contraceptives. Had President Obama and the democrats accepted that paying for 16 contraceptives out of 20 was far more than fair, and provided an exemption on the other 4 (after all, Obama and the democrats have been handing out exemptions left and right to their buddies), then there would never have been a reason for this to go to the Supreme Court to create a precedent.
But let's say you and others who are concerned over this as a precedent are correct. Let's say JW's state they don't have to be forced to pay for blood transfusions....guess what... as long as we live in a free country and the money they earn is their money, then they should have the freedom to spend their money as they see fit in so long as it is not criminal. Don't want to work for such a company, since it is a free country, you don't have to do so. Plain and simple.
I am not "worried" what JW business owners "might" do to employees based upon their religion. I am concerned that the SCOTUS somehow thinks that a matter of individual faith should somehow translate into a secular business health insurance policy for women specifically.
Religious beliefs are to be practiced in all areas of life. Owning a business is only secular to someone who does not operate from a religious viewpoint.
To someone of faith, everything may require consideration of their religious values or edicts, including business decisions.
Benefits are entirely voluntarily. An employer can discontinue benefits at anytime; however, they may not discontinue paying wages.
The plan belongs to the company. They can discontinue both the plan and the coverage at anytime, without the employee's consent.
The employee has coverage but they don't own the plan because the employer negotiated and legally owns the contract.
Just like wages health insurance coverage for these employers are not voluntary. They can't discontinue the plan at any time.
Nobody "owns" the contract. The plans themselves are in the employee's names, not the employer.
By your logic their wages are also still owned by the employer since they provided it to the employee. Once the employer has given an employee compensation they can't claim it still belongs to them.
Health insurance is VOLUNTARY. Companies have a right not to offer. After the ACA they now have to pay a 'tax' if they don't, but it's still an option the employer has.
My logic wouldn't conclude what you did. Wages are mandated by law. Health benefits are not.
If you study the law, you'll learn the RFRA was an reaffirmation of the First Amendment.
Nevertheless, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of HL based on law- not philosophy, science or politics.
Correct, they ruled that RFRA must be followed which says that a less burdensome alternative must be used, which according to the court's majority decision would mean the government should cover contraception at the taxpayer's expense, which is something I find it hard to believe those on the side of Hobby Lobby support.
Health insurance is VOLUNTARY. Companies have a right not to offer. After the ACA they now have to pay a 'tax' if they don't, but it's still an option the employer has.
My logic wouldn't conclude what you did. Wages are mandated by law. Health benefits are not.
They can chose to pay the penalty but that doesn't somehow mean the plan doesn't belong the employee. I run a business and I have to declare insurance plans as compensation for the employee, if I try to claim it's still mine I'd be in jail for fraudulently filing my taxes.
Correct, they ruled that RFRA must be followed which says that a less burdensome alternative must be used, which according to the court's majority decision would mean the government should cover contraception at the taxpayer's expense, which is something I find it hard to believe those on the side of Hobby Lobby support.
It could mean the govt could cover it. Question is: which govt? Federal? State? Local?
I supported the decision and I doubt most other supporters support the govt paying for things employers won't pay for.
We have free healthcare already in place that requires one to qualify based on income. There are limits. The poor already qualify for free contraception. Most of us in the middle class can probably afford it ourselves and the rich can take care of themselves.
It's a slippery slope to single payer when we start subsidizing everything we feel is a public health issue. One man's public health issue is another's personal choice.
They can chose to pay the penalty but that doesn't somehow mean the plan doesn't belong the employee. I run a business and I have to declare insurance plans as compensation for the employee, if I try to claim it's still mine I'd be in jail for fraudulently filing my taxes.
If you're really a business owner, then you know the federal govt requires that for corporate taxation purposes.
When employees file their taxes, health insurance coverage is not considered taxable nor is it income. In fact, employees can deduct their out-of-pocket premiums and healthcare.
I'm amazed that the writers of the question posed for the poll did not either hear of the full story or chose to pose the question incorrectly. Thank you, Spidey's Mom for the CORRECTION! :) I also chose not to respond to the poll because it is INACCURATE.
Perhaps if you'd care to pose it accurately, you'd obtain non-skewered responses.
If you're really a business owner, then you know the federal govt requires that for corporate taxation purposes.
When employees file their taxes, health insurance coverage is not considered taxable nor is it income. In fact, employees can deduct their out-of-pocket premiums and healthcare.
toomuchbaloney
16,104 Posts
I am not "worried" what JW business owners "might" do to employees based upon their religion. I am concerned that the SCOTUS somehow thinks that a matter of individual faith should somehow translate into a secular business health insurance policy for women specifically. Just like with JWs, the "christian" corporation should mind their own business relative to such personal matters. Of course, historically Christians are not so level headed.