General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn November 21st, 2012, I wrote about a potential pitfall of the Hobby Lobby case
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/the-hidden-threat-of-religious-exemptions-from-the-health-care-law/I wrote this post over a year ago. Evidently Maddow brought the same point up recently. Sucks to have not been wrong.
Snips:
Consider a more extreme (but highly probable) scenario: the First Church of Christ, Scientist. These people do not believe in medicine: they are faith-healers. So if your employers were Christian Scientists, they could deny you any and all health care coverage. Youd get nothing. Except, perhaps, for a bunch of nimrods praying by your bedside as you died of appendicitis. This is a legal church, as legal as the Catholics, Babtists, Methodists and entitled to the same tax and legal benefits as any other religious entity.
If employers are allowed to use their personal beliefs to avoid paying for health care that they find objectionable, this writer submits that many tightwads will quickly convert to some sort of faith-healing sect in order to save money by denying their employees the care that that need. Soon, there would be few, if any, people covered by employer-based health care plans.
Think it couldnt happen? Think again. In a society that rewards greed and glorifies ignorance, it is not only possible; it is predictable.
More at the link. Also, here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024100087
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)but now that you mention it, D'Oh.
riqster
(13,986 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The parents agree to circumcise any newborn males.
riqster
(13,986 posts)madaboutharry
(40,212 posts)Jews aren't interested in what non-Jews do. In America, they don't even care what other Jews do. And besides, circumcision is a covenant that applies only to Jewish babies.
dragonlady
(3,577 posts)Silly gentiles.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)madaboutharry
(40,212 posts)Fundamental Christians and Orthodox Jews also do not use birth control. I am sure there are others.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)They just call themselves that.
madaboutharry
(40,212 posts)...I'm appalled by this post.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)madaboutharry
(40,212 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)But I guess that's different.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Personally, I think that employer-based insurance is a big part of the problem.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The ACA only applies to those who are uninsured, or whose existing coverage is not up to snuff, or not affordable.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)My reaction is "so what"? I think we'd all be better off if healthcare was a government function and not an employer function.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Most will have untreated illnesses. Some will die.
That, sir, is "so what".
When we finally get to national health care, I'll be dancing. Until then, we have to protect each other from the motherfucking health insurers and employers.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)People who are uninsured, and lack access to coverage through work are eligible to shop for subsidized coverage on the exchange.
If the Christian Scientist Church offers employees "nothing" then it seems to me that this qualifies as "uninsured and lack access..."
Did you mean to say that the CS church would stop providing insurance or that they would only provide coverage for witch doctors and faith healers?
riqster
(13,986 posts)But hobby lobby is not cutting their employes loose from coverage, the better to enforce their insane religious ideas on others. So, the analogy would logically conform to your second option.
As the OP said, "Youd get nothing. Except, perhaps, for a bunch of nimrods praying by your bedside as you died of appendicitis."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thus making them ineligible for the exchanges and the subsidies.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If the SCOTUS rules that corporations can have religion, I will be founding a religion that forbids the paying of taxes. For only a small fee, any corporation can convert to my new and exciting faith.
riqster
(13,986 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)As well as the Southern Baptists and others .
jeff47
(26,549 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I wonder how they will identify "employer" in this case. Is it just the CEO of the company?
riqster
(13,986 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)If Kennedy again sides with the Lochnerian justices on Hobby Lobby, we will effectively find ourselves back in the days of Lochner, a gilded age for the ultra wealthy while the middle class faces ruin and the poor starve. A Depression, if you will.
ancianita
(36,066 posts)Individuals who attend these churches may not act for the business itself in making church dogma part of a business charter or plan. So until these businesses are proven to be members of these churches, they probably don't have any legal right to deny any established legal rights of their customers.
If the corporation is going to be the melding site of church and state, we're doomed, and not just women.
riqster
(13,986 posts)They want to deny coverage to all of their workers, whether or not they are of the same faith as the employer.
ancianita
(36,066 posts)proof and with church proof on paper of its membership, with tithing done in the business' name, etc. I bet that doesn't exist. Except in the minds of its board members.
riqster
(13,986 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)They're arguing that no employer, be it an organized religion or otherwise, should be compelled to provide coverage for things to which they can demonstrate a religious objection.
ancianita
(36,066 posts)church/corporate policy. But then, even with that argument, they shouldn't win over the legal rights that their employees have as citizens. I'm just trying to figure how they could argue their case if the employees didn't sign on to work for a church but just for a business. And I doubt a court will let Hobby Lobby have it both ways -- enjoy all the profits of a business while imposing the beliefs of a church. We're agreeing.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Here's hoping the supremes do, too.
randr
(12,412 posts)Health care benefits are earned; they are not a gift. Part of workers compensation package is a health care policy and employers should have no roll in determining what it is to be used for.
ancianita
(36,066 posts)even then, is subject to rejection by a court, one would think.
riqster
(13,986 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)and it has a hell of a lot more of them than Christian Science does.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Burf-_-
(205 posts)Any religious business owner , could then at any time they wanted, object to any law or regulation or mandate on whatever 'religious grounds' they want to claim. There would be no limitations, think about how many whacko religious types there are out there that would seek to expand on this case if SCOTUS approves it. (my bet is they wont, yeah im optimistic about it =)). Every type of religious extremist you can imagine would cite this case in their defense that they should be allowed to force their beliefs on those they employ. This is not the American way, nor is it by any means constitutional, it must be voted down. The national media has been making this an issue of "The right to Religious freedom and expression." , when it it is actually an issue of asking the government to give 'religion' a preferred status, which it by definition can not constitutionally do.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The "religious freedoms" being requested are not for individual Americans: they are for large businesses. Those businesses would use those "freedoms" to oppress their workers.
Mr.Bill
(24,300 posts)will pass out medical Ganja.
riqster
(13,986 posts)"Ey, mon. Here is your paycheck, and here is de sacrament."
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)it's not just that the owners of Hobby Lobby are fundies-- the point is that the church is the owner of the business.
Then, as a business open to the public and with employees not being members of the church, does the 1st Amendment apply?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Just like Hobby Lobby-that is not owned by a church. To be church-owned and thus protected would oblige them to be non-profits.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)don't get protection no matter what their owners believe.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Burf-_-
(205 posts)First amendment currently only applies to individual humans in this area of speech, not corporations, in the matter of being able to express themselves religiously 'as a whole ' ( regardless of any differing beliefs of whom they employ) as a single entity it's a hopeless argument, because they are NOT a single entity , they are comprised of a 'collective' of the many differing beliefs of their employees...can you see how this is not going to work out like they hope it might ?
riqster
(13,986 posts)But in the current environment, I'm nervous.
...but i got a good feeling about this one. Kennedy has already expressed it might be going too far. LoL, imagine the outrage if HE votes it down.
riqster
(13,986 posts)jazzimov
(1,456 posts)The owners are not using the insurance, their employees are. Therefore, the owners are trying to force their personal beliefs on their employees.
They can't do that, legally or morally.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But we are dealing with the Roberts court, so we can't count on legality or morality from them.