HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » On November 21st, 2012, I...

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:47 AM

On 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. You’d 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 couldn’t 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

61 replies, 5584 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply On November 21st, 2012, I wrote about a potential pitfall of the Hobby Lobby case (Original post)
riqster Nov 2013 OP
Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #1
riqster Nov 2013 #3
JaneyVee Nov 2013 #2
riqster Nov 2013 #4
madaboutharry Nov 2013 #5
dragonlady Nov 2013 #17
eggplant Nov 2013 #42
JaneyVee Nov 2013 #44
madaboutharry Nov 2013 #45
JaneyVee Nov 2013 #47
riqster Nov 2013 #48
madaboutharry Nov 2013 #51
PCIntern Nov 2013 #18
JaneyVee Nov 2013 #43
madaboutharry Nov 2013 #46
riqster Nov 2013 #49
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #6
riqster Nov 2013 #7
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #21
riqster Nov 2013 #26
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #30
riqster Nov 2013 #34
jeff47 Nov 2013 #9
jeff47 Nov 2013 #8
riqster Nov 2013 #10
jeff47 Nov 2013 #11
riqster Nov 2013 #13
n2doc Nov 2013 #14
jeff47 Nov 2013 #16
n2doc Nov 2013 #19
jeff47 Nov 2013 #20
BrotherIvan Nov 2013 #57
arcane1 Nov 2013 #12
riqster Nov 2013 #15
last1standing Nov 2013 #22
ancianita Nov 2013 #23
riqster Nov 2013 #27
ancianita Nov 2013 #36
riqster Nov 2013 #38
WillowTree Nov 2013 #53
ancianita Nov 2013 #55
riqster Nov 2013 #56
randr Nov 2013 #24
ancianita Nov 2013 #41
riqster Nov 2013 #50
KamaAina Nov 2013 #25
wercal Nov 2013 #28
Burf-_- Nov 2013 #29
riqster Nov 2013 #32
Mr.Bill Nov 2013 #31
riqster Nov 2013 #33
TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #35
riqster Nov 2013 #37
TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #39
riqster Nov 2013 #40
Burf-_- Nov 2013 #52
riqster Nov 2013 #54
Burf-_- Nov 2013 #58
riqster Nov 2013 #59
jazzimov Nov 2013 #60
riqster Nov 2013 #61

Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:49 AM

1. I hadn't thought it through to the point of all those Christian Science & faith healer conversions,

but now that you mention it, D'Oh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:52 AM

3. All these years of working for business people has made me very cynical nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:50 AM

2. Then Jewish-owned businesses will drop maternity coverage unless

 

The parents agree to circumcise any newborn males.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:53 AM

4. Possible. Or requirements to cover multiple spouses, for some faiths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:55 AM

5. No.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:41 PM

17. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:14 PM

42. +1

Silly gentiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:45 PM

44. I agree. But birth control is only something that applies to Catholics.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

45. No, wrong again.

Fundamental Christians and Orthodox Jews also do not use birth control. I am sure there are others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:20 PM

47. Where exactly in the bible does it mention birth control?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:30 PM

48. Oh, now, don't be silly. Fundamentalists don't really focus on the fundamentals.

They just call themselves that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:46 PM

51. I think they claim it falls under the "be fruitful and multiply" provision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:43 PM

18. WTF?

...I'm appalled by this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:44 PM

43. Don't be appalled. I'm half Jewish. It was snarkasm.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:03 PM

46. There is an app for that. ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:32 PM

49. I had a snarkgasm once.

But I guess that's different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:00 PM

6. Why would those employees not buy from the exchange instead?

 

Personally, I think that employer-based insurance is a big part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:06 PM

7. Not all employees can. I can't, for instance.

The ACA only applies to those who are uninsured, or whose existing coverage is not up to snuff, or not affordable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:58 PM

21. The OP suggested that employers would become Christian Scientists as an excuse to cancel coverage

 

My reaction is "so what"? I think we'd all be better off if healthcare was a government function and not an employer function.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:19 PM

26. The problem is, until it becomes a government function, those workers will not have health care.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:37 PM

30. Either your OP was badly written or you're moving the goal 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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:45 PM

34. The employers were denying coverage for items they found objectionable.

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, "You’d get nothing. Except, perhaps, for a bunch of nimrods praying by your bedside as you died of appendicitis."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:09 PM

9. Because they'd still have employer-provided "health insurance".

Thus making them ineligible for the exchanges and the subsidies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:08 PM

8. I don't think you're thinking large enough.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:10 PM

10. Oh, wow. Brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:11 PM

11. Wait until my exciting revelations that forbid the minimum wage and 40 hour week. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:14 PM

13. "And upon his head was the mark of the EEOC"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:15 PM

14. The mormons will probably beat you to it

As well as the Southern Baptists and others….

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:16 PM

16. Yes, but I won't include any of that inconvenient "morality" stuff. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:47 PM

19. Not like Rmoney bothered with that either- morality is for the little people n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:50 PM

20. Yes, but I can make it so getting your second mistress is required to reach heaven. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:35 AM

57. Joseph Smith already beat you by a mile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:13 PM

12. Reason #3967 why it's creepy to have your employer involved in your health care.

 

I wonder how they will identify "employer" in this case. Is it just the CEO of the company?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:15 PM

15. Yeah, the Supremes will regret taking this one. Lots of worms in that can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:59 PM

22. The problem is we have at least four justices who believe Lochner was rightly decided.

Lochner v. New York was a case in 1905 in which the SCOTUS held that the government could not regulate business without a compelling reason. The decision opened up a "Lochnerian era" in which courts routinely held that business decisions (such as union busting) were off limits for government. It is the major reason FDR tried to stack the court in the 30's. Lochner era theory has been roundly denounced since that time but now is making a backdoor comeback with decisions like Citizens United.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:07 PM

23. These employers have to register their businesses as actual members of said churches, though.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:24 PM

27. That is not the case with Hobby Lobby.

They want to deny coverage to all of their workers, whether or not they are of the same faith as the employer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:54 PM

36. Even so, Hobby Lobby still has to prove that IT is a registered member of a church, with charter

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:58 PM

38. Perhaps. Although I din't believe they are arguing in that manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:21 PM

53. That's not what they're arguing.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:52 PM

55. In that case, they shouldn't likely win unless they can show that hirees agreed in advance to their

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 05:09 PM

56. I agree with your points.

Here's hoping the supremes do, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:14 PM

24. Missing entirely from this argument

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:07 PM

41. Absolutely. Unless following church teaching is somehow conditional to their employment which,

even then, is subject to rejection by a court, one would think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:34 PM

50. They offer "help" to their employees so they can live by biblical principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:18 PM

25. $cientology would presumably deny its employees mental health coverage

 

and it has a hell of a lot more of them than Christian Science does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:29 PM

28. This has already happened for the individual mandate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

29. 5-4 against is my prediction.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Burf-_- (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:38 PM

32. Good points. I would add this :

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:37 PM

31. Rastafarian owned businesses

will pass out medical Ganja.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:40 PM

33. OK, so there's a few cases where it could work out well.

"Ey, mon. Here is your paycheck, and here is de sacrament."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:46 PM

35. First problem with this scenario is that...

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:56 PM

37. No, I said the owners of the hypothetical business were Christian Scientists.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:59 PM

39. That's kinda my point-- commercial enterprises open to the public...

don't get protection no matter what their owners believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:01 PM

40. Agreed. Hobby Lobby wants to change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:06 PM

52. first ammendment plays no favorites

 

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 ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Burf-_- (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:40 PM

54. Were it not for a slew of pro-corporate personhood rulings, I'd relax.

But in the current environment, I'm nervous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #54)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:04 PM

58. i know bro

 

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Burf-_- (Reply #58)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:19 PM

59. It would be a treat to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:34 PM

60. To me, it's pretty cut and dry.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 09:15 PM

61. Yah, that is my opinion.

But we are dealing with the Roberts court, so we can't count on legality or morality from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread