PDA

View Full Version : How Many Companies Will Be Touched By Court's Contraception Ruling?



Captain Obvious
07-01-2014, 10:43 AM
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/30/327071978/how-many-companies-will-be-touched-by-courts-contraception-ruling


When the Supreme Court ruled Monday that "closely held" corporations , you may have assumed the decision applied only to family-owned businesses.

Wrong. An estimated businesses are "closely held."

However, some benefits experts question just how many of those companies would want to assert religious views.

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 10:49 AM
Is this truly a catastrophic problem in the States? Not every business will utilise the opportunity, yeh? And, even if they did exercise the option, those who wish to use contraceptives may still purchase them or get them from Planned Parenthood.

Captain Obvious
07-01-2014, 10:50 AM
Is this truly a catastrophic problem in the States? Not every business will utilise the opportunity, yeh? And, even if they did exercise the option, those who wish to use contraceptives may still purchase them or get them from Planned Parenthood.

Right off the assembly line!

:biglaugh:

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 10:53 AM
I'll assume no one in the whole wide world has your same opine by that remark. You're a total original.

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 10:54 AM
Whose buckets are you carrying water for? Sounds like the establishment opinion. See how that works? Deflection is so deliciously lovely, is it not?

nic34
07-01-2014, 10:55 AM
Still, even though most companies are closely held, the number of companies refusing to offer contraception coverage may turn out to be quite small, according to Tim Goodman, an employee benefits expert and partner at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney.

"There may be lots of these types of corporations, but not many that would assert" this religious view, Goodman said. "It takes effort and energy to bring these assertions, so it takes someone with very strong religious beliefs" to make the case, he said.

This could also be a double edged sword and actually be bad for business if people get the notion a company is playing the religion card.

Captain Obvious
07-01-2014, 10:56 AM
Whose buckets are you carrying water for? Sounds like the establishment opinion. See how that works? Deflection is so deliciously lovely, is it not?

The concept has been made (and debated) that you new kids on the block suffer from groupthink.

It's just kinda funny when it's pretty obvious.

Sorry, carry on. Welcome back, kinda missed ya.

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 11:02 AM
Right! Cos once you agree with another person you're on an assembly line, unless it's you. I remember that from the Faux News threads. May we continue on topic, now? Most companies will not eschew paying for contraceptives because most companies are not owned by Catholics. Protestants, as the Monty Python boys asserted, have no problems with rubber things on their penises or birth control, ergo you're speaking of a finite group of companies.

nic34
07-01-2014, 11:04 AM
The concept has been made (and debated) that you new kids on the block suffer from groupthink.

It's just kinda funny when it's pretty obvious.

Sorry, carry on. Welcome back, kinda missed ya.

Yeah, makes you wonder just WHO the establishment really is.....

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 11:09 AM
The "establishment" of any country is He Who Holds The Throne. In the US at present that is the Democrats. In the UK we're leaning towards the middle which would be your "left". Any questions?

PolWatch
07-01-2014, 11:09 AM
'those who wish to use contraceptives may still purchase them or get them from Planned Parenthood'

sounds good, unless you look at the number of Planned Parenthood Clinics that have been closed because of the fundamentalists

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 11:15 AM
We have this thing called "National Health Insurance". This pays for contraceptives. What you have in the States is not that, no matter how much you wish it to be. You simply cannot treat it like a national health programme. If you move to a single payer solution then no one can complain about paying for contraceptives. Forcing someone to go against sincerely held religious beliefs, that's the test, to buy contraceptives is simply a violation of your own First Amendment. Either change that and do away with protecting religious freedoms in the States or move to single payer if this is such a wide-spread problem.

nic34
07-01-2014, 11:17 AM
^^^exactly^^^

texan
07-01-2014, 11:19 AM
This is what happens when the government oversteps boundries.

Corporations never delivered HC to its employees because it was mandated to do so, they delivered it to attract and keep workers. It was a perk.

Then Obama and the dems decided on their own with no input that corperations were now responsible for delivering HC and would be fined if they didn't. Of course if you didn't buy it you would be fined or taxed whenever and whatever they needed to say in their illegal endevour. Corporations should have never been put in this position, if the dems wanted single payer then they should have tried to get it that done. If you can't get the support then to damn bad.

Passing legislation to fix the system we had would have been smart. But no they couldn't operate properly and now here we are today watching the mess get cleaned. They wrote impossible thoughtless things in the bill behind closed doors as HHS employees and found out non attorneys shouldn't be writing legal documents.

Captain Obvious
07-01-2014, 11:21 AM
In case any of you were wondering, especially the zombies I was arguing with yesterday, the precedent set here is going to be a little broader than by just mindlessly saying "why can't they just buy it themselves, it's cheap".

So put the buckets down and think a little.

Or don't.

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 11:30 AM
Bucket carrier, heal thyself! Think a little. The precedent, as you pointed out, was already set with the ACA. That forced businesses and individuals into an unwanted mandate, this is merely loosening the noose for some. What you want and desire, if you want the poor masses to have access to health care is to move towards a single payer plan. Then no one will be forced to buy anything and no religious affiliated individuals will have to buy for anyone else. Guess wot happens when I get cancer as a part-time worker and student? I get treatment. It's really not so bad.

nic34
07-01-2014, 11:31 AM
This is what happens when the government oversteps boundries.

Corporations never delivered HC to its employees because it was mandated to do so, they delivered it to attract and keep workers. It was a perk.

Then Obama and the dems decided on their own with no input that corperations were now responsible for delivering HC and would be fined if they didn't. Of course if you didn't buy it you would be fined or taxed whenever and whatever they needed to say in their illegal endevour. Corporations should have never been put in this position, if the dems wanted single payer then they should have tried to get it that done. If you can't get the support then to damn bad.

Passing legislation to fix the system we had would have been smart. But no they couldn't operate properly and now here we are today watching the mess get cleaned. They wrote impossible thoughtless things in the bill behind closed doors as HHS employees and found out non attorneys shouldn't be writing legal documents.


There was support then. But conservatives said too damn bad.

A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.
The poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/sunday/main4765027.shtml), which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.”
Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.


Read the full report here (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf).


http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer

Chris
07-01-2014, 12:37 PM
Whose buckets are you carrying water for? Sounds like the establishment opinion. See how that works? Deflection is so deliciously lovely, is it not?


George Takei's bucket, here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/28081-Hobby-Lobby-Ain%E2%80%99t-A-Church-It%E2%80%99s-a-For-Profit-Business

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:44 PM
End the drug war and use that money collected in tax revenues at ABC stores to fund health care.

Polecat
07-01-2014, 01:18 PM
Still, even though most companies are closely held, the number of companies refusing to offer contraception coverage may turn out to be quite small, according to Tim Goodman, an employee benefits expert and partner at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney.

"There may be lots of these types of corporations, but not many that would assert" this religious view, Goodman said. "It takes effort and energy to bring these assertions, so it takes someone with very strong religious beliefs" to make the case, he said.

This could also be a double edged sword and actually be bad for business if people get the notion a company is playing the religion card.

That is what the long term effect is going to be. >>Big CEO thinking<<< Do I want to give my customers the impression I am a hard ass? Is my insurance costs going to go up to cover pregnancy over birth control?

del
07-01-2014, 03:46 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.
Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.
Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.
They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.
The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.
Two Michigan-based companies, Autocam Corp. and Eden Foods Inc., both lost their cases in the lower courts. The justices ordered the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decisions against the companies.

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEV0_Jw7JTfGsAwEJXNyoA;_ylu=X 3oDMTB0aTRxYjk3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ 2NF8x

Peter1469
07-01-2014, 04:36 PM
Remember Hobby Lobby approved coverage of 16 out of 20 contraceptives on the coverage list (# from memory). They opted out of 4.

That number isn't binding on future courts. I am not sure whether SCOTUS even mentioned this (I have not read all of the case).

Captain Obvious
07-01-2014, 04:47 PM
Remember Hobby Lobby approved coverage of 16 out of 20 contraceptives on the coverage list (# from memory). They opted out of 4.

That number isn't binding on future courts. I am not sure whether SCOTUS even mentioned this (I have not read all of the case).

It sets a precedent though I believe.

Peter1469
07-01-2014, 06:16 PM
It sets a precedent though I believe.

Yes it does. And I just noticed that SCOTUS remanded the Catholic group lawsuit on point with that, they wanted to not provide any contraceptive coverage. So it seems as if SCOTUS is sending the case back to (I am not sure whether the trial court or the appeals court) to rethink based on the Hobby ruling. I don't think they would have done that if they thought that they could get a 5/4 ruling on that fact pattern. Maybe they just want the lower courts to create more of a record.... It is possible that the majority in Hobby wasn't united beyond the narrow ruling of yesterday.

PolWatch
07-01-2014, 07:51 PM
according to USA Today:

It doesn't affect:
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
It does affect:
• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

Peter1469
07-01-2014, 07:58 PM
according to USA Today:

It doesn't affect:
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
It does affect:
• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

Not really. Those were facts that the Court relied on in reaching its holding. Someday a case will come with a company arguing about other or all contraceptives (or a different deeply held belief). So lawyers on both sides will argue how Hobby supports their position or how Hobby is distinguished from their position. And the Court will decide.

Only the holding is precedent. I posted that way above.