SCOTUS

[OC_An Khe]

Okay, SCOTUS has ruled on Hobby Lobby and contraception and also on the IL. healthcare workers and agency fee, any thoughts?

To me the ruling on Hobby Lobby reverse previous SCOTUS ruling which always put individual rights (freedoms) over business entities. Business entities are not people.

[Jillybean48]

You just made the statement in this very same post (see above) regarding what the government can and can't require you to do, so it would seem to be relevant based on your own arguments.

Actually it means that I have to keep repeating myself because you keep asking the same thing in different ways.

[Jillybean48]

I'm not sure that it's really accurate to compare someone who uses birth control with an alcoholic, but I'll play along.

That's why it says for example. I didn't realize there could be any accurate and not accurate examples.

[wooh, BSN, RN]

Men and women who are personally responsible don't need to outright force others to take care of them as if they were victims; real men and real women pave their own way, pay their own way, and earn it. They don't need force involved.

You mean they go and get jobs with health insurance?

Responsible men don't have to worry when they get a job if their healthcare is covered. Responsible women now do.

[Kaley1]

I personally think that hobby lobby should be able to cover what they want based on the fact that this is America, and my belief that health insurance shouldn't be mandated through the employer. My biggest problem with the ACA is the way it utilized businesses to achieve the mandate. It was obvious that this was going to create endless problems and challenges.

That said, I think allowing the exemption based on religious grounds was dangerous and stupid. What happens when the religious views become more extreme? How do you expect to respect only Christian based beliefs on abortion and not the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, etc.? Don't get me wrong, I know the court will find a way with people like Scalia and Thomas up there since the law and constitution always takes a back seat to their own specific religious ideology.

Let's be real, this was a political stand by Hobby Lobby anyway, not one based on any kind of religious principle. They send hundreds of millions of dollars to a country that funds and encourages abortions and infanticide to control population growth. China is a communist country, so most of the money spent over there goes directly to the government that enforces those policies. How on earth can you reconcile that with your beliefs if a plan B pill disturbs you that much? I have also heard that they invest in the companies whose birth control devices they find so objectionable. Their religious principle ends where the cash flow begins, and that should not be specifically honored by any person or any court.

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

Good day:

This issue is about who pays for what; it has never been an access issue. Those who DO NOT believe in personal responsibility want to FORCE others to pay for their wants, desires, and needs. Those who believe in personal responsibility are grateful when others pick up the tab, would never force others to pick up the tab, and will pay for it themselves (or do without). Simple.

Thank you.

[toomuchbaloney]

Good day:

This issue is about who pays for what; it has never been an access issue. Those who DO NOT believe in personal responsibility want to FORCE others to pay for their wants, desires, and needs. Those who believe in personal responsibility are grateful when others pick up the tab, would never force others to pick up the tab, and will pay for it themselves (or do without). Simple.

Thank you.

It really is too bad that folks just don't understand the fundamental basis for this case. Too many are confused into thinking that this is about a religious right of a corporation being threatened. It is not. The case didn't even utilize sound medical or scientific criteria to identify the "offensive abortifacients", rather it simply used those things conjured up as offensive by the corporate owners.

Already, others are pushing the edges of the ruling to further impose their religious sensibilities upon employees. Sadly, fearful Christians and hateful partisans are just too blinded and will only realize their folly when it is too late.

[wooh, BSN, RN]

Good day:

Those who DO NOT believe in personal responsibility want to FORCE others to pay for their wants, desires, and needs....Simple.

Thank you.

These women have jobs to pay for their needs. How is that NOT personal responsibility? Simple. You're welcome.

[tntrn, ASN, RN]

It really is too bad that folks just don't understand the fundamental basis for this case. Too many are confused into thinking that this is about a religious right of a corporation being threatened. It is not. The case didn't even utilize sound medical or scientific criteria to identify the "offensive abortifacients", rather it simply used those things conjured up as offensive by the corporate owners.

Already, others are pushing the edges of the ruling to further impose their religious sensibilities upon employees. Sadly, fearful Christians and hateful partisans are just too blinded and will only realize their folly when it is too late.

And yet in other court cases, Christians are not allowed to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs. Will you (the generic you) not be satisfied until thought control as well as actual physical control over the population is complete?

[toomuchbaloney]

Hobby Lobby owners covered the contraceptives long before they were enlightened by a right wing legal group with designs on setting an anti-ACA, anti-Obama, anti-contraception precedent. The female employees demanded nothing from their employer, they simply expected that their health insurance coverage would not be unnecessarily affected by political theater. The employees are not free loaders and it is interesting how many posters on AN are demonizing those working women simply because the women want the same rights as men...to make their own health care decisions without interference from their boss.

[OC_An Khe]

Jillybean

Sole Proprietorships, as you describe a business that you start is one thing, business entities e.g. C corporations, S corporations, general and limited partnerships are quite different in their legal construct.

[OC_An Khe]

Employer paid health insurance is a misnomer, the employee is paying for all of it. Health insurance is a cost of the employees total compensation package to the employer. It is part of your overall compensation package. Enough off topic.

Should corporations have more rights as defined in the Bill of Rights then human beings.

[Robert.CFRN]

This is a very good discussion. I agree with the Hobby Lobby decision. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution, which enumerates the powers of the government, where the government has the power to force a person to buy something for another person. People say that a corporation can't have a religious view, but many have correctly pointed out that it's not a corporation's view, but the OWNER'S view. Also correctly pointed out is that women's choice isn't limited. They'll simply have to purchase the 4 of 20 birth control methods not covered out of their own pockets.

It's the power of the free market in a free nation. Don't like an employers benefits or the owners views? Don't work for them. An employer that has crappy benefits won't draw the best employees, and thus won't do well. HL pays their employees well, has good benefits, and is a good place to work based on what I've read from their employees.

I worry at the growth in power of the federal government and all of the bureaucracies that create regulations without legislation. One, our individual freedoms are in grave danger, and two our children are already bankrupt before they're born. It's not sustainable.