Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riqster

(13,986 posts)
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:47 AM Nov 2013

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On November 21st, 2012, I wrote about a potential pitfall of the Hobby Lobby case (Original Post) riqster Nov 2013 OP
I hadn't thought it through to the point of all those Christian Science & faith healer conversions, Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #1
All these years of working for business people has made me very cynical nt riqster Nov 2013 #3
Then Jewish-owned businesses will drop maternity coverage unless JaneyVee Nov 2013 #2
Possible. Or requirements to cover multiple spouses, for some faiths. riqster Nov 2013 #4
No. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #5
Thank you. n/t dragonlady Nov 2013 #17
+1 eggplant Nov 2013 #42
I agree. But birth control is only something that applies to Catholics. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #44
No, wrong again. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #45
Where exactly in the bible does it mention birth control? JaneyVee Nov 2013 #47
Oh, now, don't be silly. Fundamentalists don't really focus on the fundamentals. riqster Nov 2013 #48
I think they claim it falls under the "be fruitful and multiply" provision. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #51
WTF? PCIntern Nov 2013 #18
Don't be appalled. I'm half Jewish. It was snarkasm. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #43
There is an app for that. ;) madaboutharry Nov 2013 #46
I had a snarkgasm once. riqster Nov 2013 #49
Why would those employees not buy from the exchange instead? lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #6
Not all employees can. I can't, for instance. riqster Nov 2013 #7
The OP suggested that employers would become Christian Scientists as an excuse to cancel coverage lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #21
The problem is, until it becomes a government function, those workers will not have health care. riqster Nov 2013 #26
Either your OP was badly written or you're moving the goal posts. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #30
The employers were denying coverage for items they found objectionable. riqster Nov 2013 #34
Because they'd still have employer-provided "health insurance". jeff47 Nov 2013 #9
I don't think you're thinking large enough. jeff47 Nov 2013 #8
Oh, wow. Brilliant. riqster Nov 2013 #10
Wait until my exciting revelations that forbid the minimum wage and 40 hour week. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #11
"And upon his head was the mark of the EEOC" riqster Nov 2013 #13
The mormons will probably beat you to it n2doc Nov 2013 #14
Yes, but I won't include any of that inconvenient "morality" stuff. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #16
Not like Rmoney bothered with that either- morality is for the little people n/t n2doc Nov 2013 #19
Yes, but I can make it so getting your second mistress is required to reach heaven. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #20
Joseph Smith already beat you by a mile BrotherIvan Nov 2013 #57
Reason #3967 why it's creepy to have your employer involved in your health care. arcane1 Nov 2013 #12
Yeah, the Supremes will regret taking this one. Lots of worms in that can. riqster Nov 2013 #15
The problem is we have at least four justices who believe Lochner was rightly decided. last1standing Nov 2013 #22
These employers have to register their businesses as actual members of said churches, though. ancianita Nov 2013 #23
That is not the case with Hobby Lobby. riqster Nov 2013 #27
Even so, Hobby Lobby still has to prove that IT is a registered member of a church, with charter ancianita Nov 2013 #36
Perhaps. Although I din't believe they are arguing in that manner. riqster Nov 2013 #38
That's not what they're arguing. WillowTree Nov 2013 #53
In that case, they shouldn't likely win unless they can show that hirees agreed in advance to their ancianita Nov 2013 #55
I agree with your points. riqster Nov 2013 #56
Missing entirely from this argument randr Nov 2013 #24
Absolutely. Unless following church teaching is somehow conditional to their employment which, ancianita Nov 2013 #41
They offer "help" to their employees so they can live by biblical principles. riqster Nov 2013 #50
$cientology would presumably deny its employees mental health coverage KamaAina Nov 2013 #25
This has already happened for the individual mandate wercal Nov 2013 #28
5-4 against is my prediction. Burf-_- Nov 2013 #29
Good points. I would add this : riqster Nov 2013 #32
Rastafarian owned businesses Mr.Bill Nov 2013 #31
OK, so there's a few cases where it could work out well. riqster Nov 2013 #33
First problem with this scenario is that... TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #35
No, I said the owners of the hypothetical business were Christian Scientists. riqster Nov 2013 #37
That's kinda my point-- commercial enterprises open to the public... TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #39
Agreed. Hobby Lobby wants to change that. riqster Nov 2013 #40
first ammendment plays no favorites Burf-_- Nov 2013 #52
Were it not for a slew of pro-corporate personhood rulings, I'd relax. riqster Nov 2013 #54
i know bro Burf-_- Nov 2013 #58
It would be a treat to see. riqster Nov 2013 #59
To me, it's pretty cut and dry. jazzimov Nov 2013 #60
Yah, that is my opinion. riqster Nov 2013 #61

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
1. I hadn't thought it through to the point of all those Christian Science & faith healer conversions,
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:49 AM
Nov 2013

but now that you mention it, D'Oh.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
2. Then Jewish-owned businesses will drop maternity coverage unless
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:50 AM
Nov 2013

The parents agree to circumcise any newborn males.

madaboutharry

(40,058 posts)
5. No.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:55 AM
Nov 2013

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.

madaboutharry

(40,058 posts)
45. No, wrong again.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:00 PM
Nov 2013

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

riqster

(13,986 posts)
48. Oh, now, don't be silly. Fundamentalists don't really focus on the fundamentals.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:30 PM
Nov 2013

They just call themselves that.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
6. Why would those employees not buy from the exchange instead?
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:00 PM
Nov 2013

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

riqster

(13,986 posts)
7. Not all employees can. I can't, for instance.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:06 PM
Nov 2013

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)
21. The OP suggested that employers would become Christian Scientists as an excuse to cancel coverage
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:58 PM
Nov 2013

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)
26. The problem is, until it becomes a government function, those workers will not have health care.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:19 PM
Nov 2013

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)
30. Either your OP was badly written or you're moving the goal posts.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:37 PM
Nov 2013

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)
34. The employers were denying coverage for items they found objectionable.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:45 PM
Nov 2013

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."

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
9. Because they'd still have employer-provided "health insurance".
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:09 PM
Nov 2013

Thus making them ineligible for the exchanges and the subsidies.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
8. I don't think you're thinking large enough.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:08 PM
Nov 2013

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.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
12. Reason #3967 why it's creepy to have your employer involved in your health care.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:13 PM
Nov 2013

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

last1standing

(11,709 posts)
22. The problem is we have at least four justices who believe Lochner was rightly decided.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:59 PM
Nov 2013
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.

ancianita

(35,547 posts)
23. These employers have to register their businesses as actual members of said churches, though.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:07 PM
Nov 2013

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)
27. That is not the case with Hobby Lobby.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:24 PM
Nov 2013

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

ancianita

(35,547 posts)
36. Even so, Hobby Lobby still has to prove that IT is a registered member of a church, with charter
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:54 PM
Nov 2013

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.

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
53. That's not what they're arguing.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:21 PM
Nov 2013

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

(35,547 posts)
55. In that case, they shouldn't likely win unless they can show that hirees agreed in advance to their
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:52 PM
Nov 2013

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.

randr

(12,395 posts)
24. Missing entirely from this argument
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:14 PM
Nov 2013

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

(35,547 posts)
41. Absolutely. Unless following church teaching is somehow conditional to their employment which,
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:07 PM
Nov 2013

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

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
25. $cientology would presumably deny its employees mental health coverage
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:18 PM
Nov 2013

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

 

Burf-_-

(205 posts)
29. 5-4 against is my prediction.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:33 PM
Nov 2013

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)
32. Good points. I would add this :
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:38 PM
Nov 2013

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.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
33. OK, so there's a few cases where it could work out well.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:40 PM
Nov 2013

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

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
35. First problem with this scenario is that...
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:46 PM
Nov 2013

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)
37. No, I said the owners of the hypothetical business were Christian Scientists.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:56 PM
Nov 2013

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)
39. That's kinda my point-- commercial enterprises open to the public...
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:59 PM
Nov 2013

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

 

Burf-_-

(205 posts)
52. first ammendment plays no favorites
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:06 PM
Nov 2013

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)
54. Were it not for a slew of pro-corporate personhood rulings, I'd relax.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:40 PM
Nov 2013

But in the current environment, I'm nervous.

 

Burf-_-

(205 posts)
58. i know bro
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:04 PM
Nov 2013

...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.

jazzimov

(1,456 posts)
60. To me, it's pretty cut and dry.
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:34 PM
Nov 2013

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)
61. Yah, that is my opinion.
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 09:15 PM
Nov 2013

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On November 21st, 2012, I...