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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)On November 21st, 2012, I wrote about a potential pitfall of the Hobby Lobby case [View all]
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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
61 replies, 6137 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (37)
ReplyReply to this post
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 [View all]
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
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
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
Wait until my exciting revelations that forbid the minimum wage and 40 hour week. (nt)
jeff47
Nov 2013
#11
Yes, but I can make it so getting your second mistress is required to reach heaven. (nt)
jeff47
Nov 2013
#20
Reason #3967 why it's creepy to have your employer involved in your health care.
arcane1
Nov 2013
#12
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
Even so, Hobby Lobby still has to prove that IT is a registered member of a church, with charter
ancianita
Nov 2013
#36
In that case, they shouldn't likely win unless they can show that hirees agreed in advance to their
ancianita
Nov 2013
#55