Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.

They don't have to provide healthcare now.

Not sure if its been mentioned yet but I would recommend checking out the twitter feed for SCOTUSblog, they have been dropping serious snark all day on people that think that are an official blog of the supreme court
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog

http://www.mediaite.com/online/some-very-confused-people-are-going-nuts-on-scotusblogs-twitter-feed/

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.

They don't have to provide healthcare now.

Was under the impression that the ACA came with a healthcare mandate for companies above a certain # of employees.

Closely held compaines can be pretty friggin big: Dell Computers, Heinz foods. to name a couple

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.

They don't have to provide healthcare now.

Was under the impression that the ACA came with a healthcare mandate for companies above a certain # of employees.

Not quite... the PPACA empowers the HHS agency to determine what to mandate.

Closely held compaines can be pretty friggin big: Dell Computers, Heinz foods. to name a couple

True... but, that doesn't mean those companies will be putting healthcare programs on the chopping block.

They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

True... and in many case, it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty. It's just a matter of if they can retain their skilled talents.

Fun fact: Employer based healthcare benefit packages started in WW2 when wages remained stagnent. It was meant to lure talent with better benefit packages.

Yep on both points.

 whembly wrote:

Simply what Congress passed as RFRA... which means, it subject to change quite easily.

Are you living under a Congress and Supcom that I'm not?

 whembly wrote:

Business corporations...

That's where I stopped reading.

Alito wrote:
A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.

So it isn't a human being, and therefore cannot be considered a natural person; at least assuming the personage of human beings is not to be left to the US Federal Government.

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

I do believe this bill was passed when both House and Senate was controlled by Democrats. No Republicans voted for it. I could be wrong

Republicans have made a few minor fixes to actually keep it alive since it passed. Grandstanding against it is just for votes at this point.

Republicans are not talking about the things they have done to keep it working because they don't want to lose voters. Democrats are not talking about what republicans have done to keep it working because they don't want to piss them off.

They really need to get it together to fine tune this

 Jihadin wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

I do believe this bill was passed when both House and Senate was controlled by Democrats. No Republicans voted for it. I could be wrong

That's fairly irrelevant. The composition of the House and Senate were voted in, just like any other time. Obama won reelection after the ACA was law, so the people had their chance to oust him over it, and they just didn't.

Like I mention before. They need to get it together to fine tune ACA before it becomes a monster

I can't disagree with that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.

Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.

Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.

Agreed... but I'd need a 1000 page Excel speadsheet to outline what rights Corporations specifically would/wouldn't have compared to "normal people"

Really? They can sign and enforce legal contracts. They can sue and be sued, and their owners are protected from direct legal liability. Thats it.

Aside from legal contracts, civil suits and the like, how much freedom of speech does a corporation have? We've seen repeatedly people having issue with "Microsoft Corp" donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week], but not with Bill Gates donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Like I mention before. They need to get it together to fine tune ACA before it becomes a monster

As a new insurance adviser, let me tell you ACA is ALREADY a monster... But right now it's looking more like a Chimaera, but is turning into a Hydra pretty quickly.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.

Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.

Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.

Agreed... but I'd need a 1000 page Excel speadsheet to outline what rights Corporations specifically would/wouldn't have compared to "normal people"

Really? They can sign and enforce legal contracts. They can sue and be sued, and their owners are protected from direct legal liability. Thats it.

Aside from legal contracts, civil suits and the like, how much freedom of speech does a corporation have? We've seen repeatedly people having issue with "Microsoft Corp" donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week], but not with Bill Gates donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Like I mention before. They need to get it together to fine tune ACA before it becomes a monster

As a new insurance adviser, let me tell you ACA is ALREADY a monster... But right now it's looking more like a Chimaera, but is turning into a Hydra pretty quickly.

Democrats better find some common grounds with Republicans to hold voter base and Republicans better meet them halfway to keep their voter base

 Jihadin wrote:

Democrats better find some common grounds with Republicans to hold voter base and Republicans better meet them halfway to keep their voter base

Get rid of ALL 24 hour news networks, and I think more Politicians could make some deals that they currently won't due to the current media environment.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...

Shush you... maybe they'll think the ACA is overturned... or something.

Best zinger so far:

Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby
10:07 AM - 30 Jun 2014

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...

Shush you... maybe they'll think the ACA is overturned... or something.

Best zinger so far:

Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby
10:07 AM - 30 Jun 2014

Lets not screw around with Executive Orders and SCOTUS. Tempting bad Mojo. Lets see how Boehner lawsuit is written

 whembly wrote:

Best zinger so far:

Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby

I suppose that is a zinger if we restrict the definition of 'zinger' to "a sentence with words". It also makes the idea of 'best' somewhat more nebulous as well.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Best zinger so far:

Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby

I suppose that is a zinger if we restrict the definition of 'zinger' to "a sentence with words". It also makes the idea of 'best' somewhat more nebulous as well.

Well...

Stay on topic, and polite.

 Alpharius wrote:
Stay on topic, and polite.

Sorry boss... we'll play nice.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...

The larger issue is that now, a company has a Supreme Court stamp of approval to dream up any reason they can think of to break the law, so long as it is on the basis of religion, which lets face it is tennis without a net, and so long as they are 50% owned by a "true" religious family. Despite Scalia's attempt to narrow down the decision, it distinctly does not exclude the possibility of state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of such important issues as age, sexual preference, and many other common forms of discrimination, purely on the basis of religious objections by companies owned by 50% family who can pass some vague religious litmus test (which in itself is a very, very scary business for our government to get involved in, and is, indeed, unconstitutional).

This decision is bizarre in so many ways. The fact that Scalia did enter those exemptions into the majority decision proves that he knows, however much he conceals it from himself, that this case is no different.

P.S. I may seem heartless by saying what I said, but the real villains in this situation are the Hobby Lobby owners. They know they pay their employees gak wages. They know full well that they employ many many women, and not all of them share their voodoo beliefs about birth control. Yet they are the one's jamming down their beliefs on people who don't share them by seeking special treatment from the courts to exempt the mandate for coverage of common medication that is noone's business but doctor/patient.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.

If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.

So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...

The larger issue is that now, a company has a Supreme Court stamp of approval to dream up any reason they can think of to break the law, so long as it is on the basis of religion, which lets face it is tennis without a net, and so long as they are 50% owned by a "true" religious family. Despite Scalia's attempt to narrow down the decision, it distinctly does not exclude the possibility of state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of such important issues as age, sexual preference, and many other common forms of discrimination, purely on the basis of religious objections by companies owned by 50% family who can pass some vague religious litmus test (which in itself is a very, very scary business for our government to get involved in, and is, indeed, unconstitutional).

This decision is bizarre in so many ways. The fact that Scalia did enter those exemptions into the majority decision proves that he knows, however much he conceals it from himself, that this case is no different.

The court simply affirmed RFRA... a law sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton.

At least God doesn't mind them making money of what they don't like...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Well yeah, but making money is different d-usa.

What the hell are you, a filthy god hating communist?

 d-usa wrote:
At least God doesn't mind them making money of what they don't like...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

No no no. See that's profit. They don't care about profit, they only care about expense. Profit can't possibly be against their religion.