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.
As in providing health care. Should a Jehovah's Witnesses who own a company be allowed to not provide coverage for blood transfusions in their health care?
My first post was a bit vague .
First... let me state that this argument is sort of weak.
Here's why:
A) Has this been claimed recently? Or ever? My google-fu has come up empty.
I doubt it, it's just an example of the possibilities for abuse. And does that really matter at all, it's an example. I could have said any other religion, It could be about anything, for example scientologists. A scientologist could say it's against his/her religion to provide healthcare.
B) RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion. Then, theoretically the religiously objecting employer , via RFRA, would seek protection from a government mandate. I’m not aware of any blood transfusion coverage mandate by the government... I guess if it was Mandated, then yeah... the Jehovah's Witnesses groups would bark.
I assume it's included in most healthcare, that way they can treat you for severe blood loss, ect. I could be wrong.
C) The thing we need to be careful of with these moral beliefs that differ in some ways from majority held moral beliefs is that potential outcomes can easily lead to harm through a failure to appreciate and offer reasonable accommodations.
D) Furthermore, there's a bit of difference between paying for something that can cause abortions vs offering a plan that pays for a treatment can is considered a "sin" in one's religion.
I don't see any difference. They don't want contraception because its a sin, apparently. It's both a medical treatment, on for blood loss, the other for fetus loss (I know feel bad for that joke).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Frazzled wrote: Then they can suck it. Pay the penalty or pay the approved plan.
SCOTUS will agree presently.
*sigh*
Prior to the PPACA, most employers already provided some form of health insurance to their employees, and most of those already covered birth control.
Those employers who object to "contraception that can potential cause abortions" found other existing health plans... BUT, they also don't prevent men and women from acquiring birth control of their own volition, or finding other work based on competitive compensation packages, for that matter.
That was then this is now. The Now says they shouldn't get a special exemption, else it sets bad precedent for a myriad of things.
Separation of Church and State is a good thing.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As in providing health care. Should a Jehovah's Witnesses who own a company be allowed to not provide coverage for blood transfusions in their health care?
My first post was a bit vague .
First... let me state that this argument is sort of weak.
Here's why:
A) Has this been claimed recently? Or ever? My google-fu has come up empty.
I doubt it, it's just an example of the possibilities for abuse. And does that really matter at all, it's an example. I could have said any other religion, It could be about anything, for example scientologists. A scientologist could say it's against his/her religion to provide healthcare.
B) RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion. Then, theoretically the religiously objecting employer , via RFRA, would seek protection from a government mandate. I’m not aware of any blood transfusion coverage mandate by the government... I guess if it was Mandated, then yeah... the Jehovah's Witnesses groups would bark.
I assume it's included in most healthcare, that way they can treat you for severe blood loss, ect. I could be wrong.
C) The thing we need to be careful of with these moral beliefs that differ in some ways from majority held moral beliefs is that potential outcomes can easily lead to harm through a failure to appreciate and offer reasonable accommodations.
D) Furthermore, there's a bit of difference between paying for something that can cause abortions vs offering a plan that pays for a treatment can is considered a "sin" in one's religion.
I don't see any difference. They don't want contraception because its a sin, apparently. It's both a medical treatment, on for blood loss, the other for fetus loss (I know feel bad for that joke).
Lemme try a different tact with you. This is a LEGAL argument... you, kan and dogma are pushing the POLITICAL argument. This is a distinction that we all need to grasp and temper our arguments.
Here's the reasons why it's being argued in front of the SC.
First, the government will have to successfully argue that for-profit corporations have no religious rights of their own that are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). You often hear the blurb that "corporation are NOT people". That's true, but for the sake of legal saneness... Congress passed statutes and the courts ruled that corporations ARE people with respect to tax laws, have standing in court cases (to sue or be sued), etc... However, it's very much a very "grey" idea backed up by numerous statutes / case laws over the years. This case could force the SC to make that determination, one way or another (or at the very least, narrowly rule on yes for "S" types corporation, such as Hobby Lobby and no on large corporation, such as GE).
Second, the government has to prevail on the theory that the religious rights of owners of for-profit corporations are unprotected by RFRA in the operation of their corporations.
In other words, are for-profit entities a protected group, much like individuals?
Furthermore, can business owners operate their company in adherences to their beliefs?
If BOTH of the determination is ruled for the government... then, case closed and Hobby Lobby (et, el.) loses.
If the SC rules against the government... there's still a question of whether or not the HHS mandate substantially burdens these groups....
Does it?
According to them, yes, for religious reasons they oppose the use of contraception. They also oppose covering it in their health care plans and it is this very coverage that the government is now mandating. That is the burden and it is indisputably substantial, since failure to provide the objectionable coverage will result in crippling fines.
Frazzled wrote: Then they can suck it. Pay the penalty or pay the approved plan.
SCOTUS will agree presently.
*sigh*
Prior to the PPACA, most employers already provided some form of health insurance to their employees, and most of those already covered birth control.
Those employers who object to "contraception that can potential cause abortions" found other existing health plans... BUT, they also don't prevent men and women from acquiring birth control of their own volition, or finding other work based on competitive compensation packages, for that matter.
That was then this is now. The Now says they shouldn't get a special exemption, else it sets bad precedent for a myriad of things.
So... the other non-profit group shouldn't be exempted either?
Remember... the Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't distinguish between profit/non-profit groups. Only individuals... which is what it's one of the questions being reviewed in front of the SC.
Separation of Church and State is a good thing.
Here's my nitpick... why is the STATE ignoring such beliefs then? If you truly wanted that separation, then the STATE ought to accommodate them. Know what I mean?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/26 17:25:19
As in providing health care. Should a Jehovah's Witnesses who own a company be allowed to not provide coverage for blood transfusions in their health care?
My first post was a bit vague .
First... let me state that this argument is sort of weak.
Here's why:
A) Has this been claimed recently? Or ever? My google-fu has come up empty.
I doubt it, it's just an example of the possibilities for abuse. And does that really matter at all, it's an example. I could have said any other religion, It could be about anything, for example scientologists. A scientologist could say it's against his/her religion to provide healthcare.
B) RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion. Then, theoretically the religiously objecting employer , via RFRA, would seek protection from a government mandate. I’m not aware of any blood transfusion coverage mandate by the government... I guess if it was Mandated, then yeah... the Jehovah's Witnesses groups would bark.
I assume it's included in most healthcare, that way they can treat you for severe blood loss, ect. I could be wrong.
C) The thing we need to be careful of with these moral beliefs that differ in some ways from majority held moral beliefs is that potential outcomes can easily lead to harm through a failure to appreciate and offer reasonable accommodations.
D) Furthermore, there's a bit of difference between paying for something that can cause abortions vs offering a plan that pays for a treatment can is considered a "sin" in one's religion.
I don't see any difference. They don't want contraception because its a sin, apparently. It's both a medical treatment, on for blood loss, the other for fetus loss (I know feel bad for that joke).
Lemme try a different tact with you. This is a LEGAL argument... you, kan and dogma are pushing the POLITICAL argument. This is a distinction that we all need to grasp and temper our arguments.
Here's the reasons why it's being argued in front of the SC.
First, the government will have to successfully argue that for-profit corporations have no religious rights of their own that are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). You often hear the blurb that "corporation are NOT people". That's true, but for the sake of legal saneness... Congress passed statutes and the courts ruled that corporations ARE people with respect to tax laws, have standing in court cases (to sue or be sued), etc... However, it's very much a very "grey" idea backed up by numerous statutes / case laws over the years. This case could force the SC to make that determination, one way or another (or at the very least, narrowly rule on yes for "S" types corporation, such as Hobby Lobby and no on large corporation, such as GE).
Second, the government has to prevail on the theory that the religious rights of owners of for-profit corporations are unprotected by RFRA in the operation of their corporations.
In other words, are for-profit entities a protected group, much like individuals?
Furthermore, can business owners operate their company in adherences to their beliefs?
If BOTH of the determination is ruled for the government... then, case closed and Hobby Lobby (et, el.) loses.
If the SC rules against the government... there's still a question of whether or not the HHS mandate substantially burdens these groups....
Does it?
According to them, yes, for religious reasons they oppose the use of contraception. They also oppose covering it in their health care plans and it is this very coverage that the government is now mandating. That is the burden and it is indisputably substantial, since failure to provide the objectionable coverage will result in crippling fines.
Now your argument makes sense. I say no, they are not a protected group, but I guess this is up to the courts now.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
That is a stupid statement. There is zero coercion on the employees to 'follow the principles' of any religion. None. The employees are 100% free to expend any resources they wish in order to follow or not follow any principles of any religion they choose.
I never used the word "coercion", though it may well be applicable. After all, an employer that is compensating his employees by way of an insufficient healthcare plan is essentially forcing them to work for something they don't like; imposing their religious beliefs all the while.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
As in providing health care. Should a Jehovah's Witnesses who own a company be allowed to not provide coverage for blood transfusions in their health care?
My first post was a bit vague .
First... let me state that this argument is sort of weak.
Here's why:
A) Has this been claimed recently? Or ever? My google-fu has come up empty.
I doubt it, it's just an example of the possibilities for abuse. And does that really matter at all, it's an example. I could have said any other religion, It could be about anything, for example scientologists. A scientologist could say it's against his/her religion to provide healthcare.
B) RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion. Then, theoretically the religiously objecting employer , via RFRA, would seek protection from a government mandate. I’m not aware of any blood transfusion coverage mandate by the government... I guess if it was Mandated, then yeah... the Jehovah's Witnesses groups would bark.
I assume it's included in most healthcare, that way they can treat you for severe blood loss, ect. I could be wrong.
C) The thing we need to be careful of with these moral beliefs that differ in some ways from majority held moral beliefs is that potential outcomes can easily lead to harm through a failure to appreciate and offer reasonable accommodations.
D) Furthermore, there's a bit of difference between paying for something that can cause abortions vs offering a plan that pays for a treatment can is considered a "sin" in one's religion.
I don't see any difference. They don't want contraception because its a sin, apparently. It's both a medical treatment, on for blood loss, the other for fetus loss (I know feel bad for that joke).
Lemme try a different tact with you. This is a LEGAL argument... you, kan and dogma are pushing the POLITICAL argument. This is a distinction that we all need to grasp and temper our arguments.
Here's the reasons why it's being argued in front of the SC.
First, the government will have to successfully argue that for-profit corporations have no religious rights of their own that are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). You often hear the blurb that "corporation are NOT people". That's true, but for the sake of legal saneness... Congress passed statutes and the courts ruled that corporations ARE people with respect to tax laws, have standing in court cases (to sue or be sued), etc... However, it's very much a very "grey" idea backed up by numerous statutes / case laws over the years. This case could force the SC to make that determination, one way or another (or at the very least, narrowly rule on yes for "S" types corporation, such as Hobby Lobby and no on large corporation, such as GE).
Second, the government has to prevail on the theory that the religious rights of owners of for-profit corporations are unprotected by RFRA in the operation of their corporations.
In other words, are for-profit entities a protected group, much like individuals?
Furthermore, can business owners operate their company in adherences to their beliefs?
If BOTH of the determination is ruled for the government... then, case closed and Hobby Lobby (et, el.) loses.
If the SC rules against the government... there's still a question of whether or not the HHS mandate substantially burdens these groups....
Does it?
According to them, yes, for religious reasons they oppose the use of contraception. They also oppose covering it in their health care plans and it is this very coverage that the government is now mandating. That is the burden and it is indisputably substantial, since failure to provide the objectionable coverage will result in crippling fines.
Now your argument makes sense. I say no, they are not a protected group, but I guess this is up to the courts now.
So... let's take you response further... okay?
Many, many corporations are operated for religious purposes, including the hundreds of non-profits that the HHS dept agreed to exempt from the contraception mandate. Also, keep in mind that there's precedent that the SC has recognized religious rights are implicated when businesses are forced to comply with laws.
In my opinion... even if corporations (profit or not) do not have protected religious rights, their owners obviously does. Suggesting that owners and operators who are forced to act in violation of their religious consciences are simply out of luck because they simply chose to organize in the corporate form is asinine... It protects religious freedom, which is the same for the business owners whether they choose to incorporate as a for-profit or as a non-profit.
In my opinion... even if corporations (profit or not) do not have protected religious rights, their owners obviously does. Suggesting that owners and operators who are forced to act in violation of their religious consciences are simply out of luck because they simply chose to organize in the corporate form is asinine... It protects religious freedom, which is the same for the business owners whether they choose to incorporate as a for-profit or as a non-profit.
Whether or not corporations have protected religious rights is a big deal, as they are legal persons.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/26 18:21:11
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote: So... let's take you response further... okay?
Many, many corporations are operated for religious purposes, including the hundreds of non-profits that the HHS dept agreed to exempt from the contraception mandate. Also, keep in mind that there's precedent that the SC has recognized religious rights are implicated when businesses are forced to comply with laws.
In my opinion... even if corporations (profit or not) do not have protected religious rights, their owners obviously does. Suggesting that owners and operators who are forced to act in violation of their religious consciences are simply out of luck because they simply chose to organize in the corporate form is asinine... It protects religious freedom, which is the same for the business owners whether they choose to incorporate as a for-profit or as a non-profit.
I think I understand what you're getting at.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/26 18:19:54
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
This ONLY became an issue when Democratsforced the creation and participation of an insurance economy that gave bureaucrats the POWAH to issue regulations such as the HHS contraception mandate, for no fething REASON, except as political demagoguery.
Well, that, and the fact that the American healthcare system is fundamentally broken.
Also, demagoguery is necessarily political, and Democrats didn't force anything.
Even a CDC study showed that access was never a problem.
That's a weak attempt at dodging the point. Whether or not access to birth control existed is not relevant to whether or not Hobby Lobby should be obligated to provide a plan which covers the forms of birth control it finds objectionable.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
This ONLY became an issue when Democratsforced the creation and participation of an insurance economy that gave bureaucrats the POWAH to issue regulations such as the HHS contraception mandate, for no fething REASON, except as political demagoguery.
Well, that, and the fact that the American healthcare system is fundamentally broken.
Also, demagoguery is necessarily political, and Democrats didn't force anything.
Semantics...
Many Democrats were bribed, brow-beaten to back the party. Plus, had to be "passed" via the budget reconciliation process in order to avoid a filibuster.
Even a CDC study showed that access was never a problem.
That's a weak attempt at dodging the point. Whether or not access to birth control existed is not relevant to whether or not Hobby Lobby should be obligated to provide a plan which covers the forms of birth control it finds objectionable.
Then what's the compelling interest to force this "obligation"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/26 19:11:21
Here's my nitpick... why is the STATE ignoring such beliefs then? If you truly wanted that separation, then the STATE ought to accommodate them. Know what I mean?
No, not at all. That was gibberish.
Separation between Church and State implies that the State ignores the beliefs of the Church in the course of making law. Accommodating the Church approaches the notion of making law with respect to it.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Here's my nitpick... why is the STATE ignoring such beliefs then? If you truly wanted that separation, then the STATE ought to accommodate them. Know what I mean?
No, not at all. That was gibberish.
Separation between Church and State implies that the State ignores the beliefs of the Church in the course of making law. Accommodating the Church approaches the notion of making law with respect to it.
dogma wrote: I never used the word "coercion", though it may well be applicable. After all, an employer that is compensating his employees by way of an insufficient healthcare plan is essentially forcing them to work for something they don't like; imposing their religious beliefs all the while.
Slavery died out quite a while ago. You're not forced to do anything for your private employer.
Many Democrats were bribed, brow-beaten to back the party. Plus, had to be "passed" via the budget reconciliation process in order to avoid a filibuster.
Sounds very "forced" to me.
To me that sounds like American politics.
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
dogma wrote: I never used the word "coercion", though it may well be applicable. After all, an employer that is compensating his employees by way of an insufficient healthcare plan is essentially forcing them to work for something they don't like; imposing their religious beliefs all the while.
Slavery died out quite a while ago. You're not forced to do anything for your private employer.
Coercion does not mean slavery. Coercion might be something like "Do this or we fire you." or "Do the other thing or you will get the worst jobs."
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Many Democrats were bribed, brow-beaten to back the party. Plus, had to be "passed" via the budget reconciliation process in order to avoid a filibuster.
Sounds very "forced" to me.
To me that sounds like American politics.
Where one party is trying to force their bill through unilaterally? Um... no. That's not standard American politics.
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
dogma wrote: What about Academi employees deployed abroad?
What about them?
They can quit anytime they like. Same as you, same as me. If I don't like the health insurance plan my employer is offering, I'm not forced to continue working for them. I can walk whenever I choose.
Many Democrats were bribed, brow-beaten to back the party. Plus, had to be "passed" via the budget reconciliation process in order to avoid a filibuster.
Sounds very "forced" to me.
To me that sounds like American politics.
Where one party is trying to force their bill through unilaterally? Um... no. That's not standard American politics.
I don't know, it DC has seemed pretty nasty the last decade. Although I would like to know where you heard this, I never heard about anything like that.
dogma wrote: What about Academi employees deployed abroad?
What about them?
They can quit anytime they like. Same as you, same as me. If I don't like the health insurance plan my employer is offering, I'm not forced to continue working for them. I can walk whenever I choose.
Seaward, do really think that most people have the ability to comfortably make that choice in this economy?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/26 20:06:52
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Where one party is trying to force their bill through unilaterally? Um... no. That's not standard American politics.
Politicians were not always loyal to their Party, in the past they were loyal to their region. It was not uncommon for politicians to side with their region over their party in order to pass or oppose a certain bill. The classic example is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Many Democrats were bribed, brow-beaten to back the party. Plus, had to be "passed" via the budget reconciliation process in order to avoid a filibuster.
Sounds very "forced" to me.
To me that sounds like American politics.
Where one party is trying to force their bill through unilaterally? Um... no. That's not standard American politics.
I don't know, it DC has seemed pretty nasty the last decade.
It's always been nasty.
Although I would like to know where you heard this, I never heard about anything like that.
Not sure what you're asking?
From Wiki:
Spoiler:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[101] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.[102]
Several weeks after the vote, on January 19, 2010, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate in a special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, having campaigned on giving the Republican minority the 41st vote needed to sustain Republican filibusters.[70][103][104] The special election had become significant to the reform debate because of its effects on the legislative process. The first was a psychological one: the symbolic importance of losing the traditionally Democratic Massachusetts seat formerly held by Senator Ted Kennedy, a staunch supporter of reform, made many congressional Democrats concerned about the political cost of passing a bill.[105][106] The second effect was more practical: the loss of the Democratic supermajority complicated the legislative strategy of reform proponents.[106]
House
House vote by congressional district.
Democratic yea (219)
Democratic nay (34)
Republican nay (178) No representative seated (4)
[whembly: No Republican "yeas"]
President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010.
The election of Scott Brown meant Democrats could no longer break a filibuster in the Senate. In response, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel argued that Democrats should scale back for a less ambitious bill; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back, dismissing Emanuel's scaled-down approach as "Kiddie Care."[107][108] Obama also remained insistent on comprehensive reform, and the news that Anthem Blue Cross in California intended to raise premium rates for its patients by as much as 39% gave him a new line of argument to reassure nervous Democrats after Scott Brown's win.[107][108] On February 22, President Obama laid out a "Senate-leaning" proposal to consolidate the bills.[109] He held a meeting with leaders of both parties on February 25. With Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate's bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, instead.
Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill.[110] However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill.[106] With that option off the table, given that any bill which emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[106] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[107][111][112]
Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. However, the process is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill like the ACA in the first place; such a bill would have inherently non-budgetary regulations.[113][114] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well - suited for reconciliation."[111]
The remaining obstacle was a pivotal group of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who were initially reluctant to support the bill. The group found the possibility of federal funding for abortion substantive enough to warrant opposition. The Senate bill had not included language that satisfied their abortion concerns, but they could not include additional such language in the reconciliation bill as it would be outside the scope of the process with its budgetary limits. Instead, President Obama issued Executive Order 13535, reaffirming the principles in the Hyde Amendment.[115] This concession won the support of Stupak and members of his group and assured passage of the bill.[112][116] The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[117] The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[118] Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010.[119] The amendment bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30
In short... the budget reconciliation procedure to pass the ACA was purely done to avoid a threatened Republican filibuster. The Democrats really wanted this... now, they'll hopefully "pay for it" in the next election.
Here's my nitpick... why is the STATE ignoring such beliefs then? If you truly wanted that separation, then the STATE ought to accommodate them. Know what I mean?
No, not at all. That was gibberish.
Separation between Church and State implies that the State ignores the beliefs of the Church in the course of making law. Accommodating the Church approaches the notion of making law with respect to it.
Then why are some non-profits exempted then?
That's where this chain of this conversation started.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/26 20:31:08
They can quit anytime they like. Same as you, same as me. If I don't like the health insurance plan my employer is offering, I'm not forced to continue working for them. I can walk whenever I choose.
They can quit, and they'll be stuck abroad. Being trapped in a particular situation has a way of influencing one's decision making.
That's where this chain of this conversation started.
Is Hobby Lobby an NPO? No, it is not, it is an FPO claiming that it has the right to a religious exemption.
You keep trying to reference NPOs as though they are relevant to Hobby Lobby's case, but they are not. They are different entities governed by different elements of the tax code.
Most importantly, there is a specific classification under 501(c) which religious organizations fall under; Hobby Lobby is not one of those organizations.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/26 20:40:37
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Where one party is trying to force their bill through unilaterally? Um... no. That's not standard American politics.
Politicians were not always loyal to their Party, in the past they were loyal to their region. It was not uncommon for politicians to side with their region over their party in order to pass or oppose a certain bill. The classic example is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Too general. Specifically, how is it a compelling interest to the public to force some people to do something that's against their beliefs?
Forcing employers to provide birth control reduces the rate of pregnancy, and so reduces the financial burden on the State which pregnancy causes.
The test is this: Does that qualify a compelling interest enough to force employers/owners to pay for something that they believe is against their religion?
I've already shown you that access to contraceptives were not the issue.
Yes you did, and I explained that it is not relevant.
Totally disagree... it has absolute bearing whether or not someone can claim protection from this mandate via the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Because of this Act, the government must demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” AND employ the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.
That's where this chain of this conversation started.
Is Hobby Lobby an NPO? No, it is not, it is an FPO claiming that it has the right to a religious exemption.
You keep trying to reference NPOs as though they are relevant to Hobby Lobby's case, but they are not. They are different entities governed by different elements of the tax code.
Most importantly, there is a specific classification under 501(c) which religious organizations fall under; Hobby Lobby is not one of those organizations.
Stop. STAHP.
FPO vs NPO has no real bearing in this Supreme Court case. So, where it falls into the tax code is irrevelent.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... So... again. to survive a challenge under RFRA, the government must demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” and employ the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.
The vast majority of businesses provided contraception coverage for their employees even beforethe mandate became effective and continue to do so now that it has.
Only a small number of businesses, most of which are not very large, are seeking an exemption based on their religious belief. Some are only objecting to some contraceptives and would continue to offer other contraceptives. Then again, the HHS has already exempted 190 million people from the contraception mandate, either because they work for non-profit corporations or because their plans were “grandfathered” when ACA became effective.
So when 190 million people are purposefully exempted from a law, there can be no argument that it is aimed at a compelling purpose. Providing broad exemptions intended to go on in perpetuity DEMONSTRATES that the contraception mandate is the oppositeof compelling.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/03/26 21:06:05
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
Totally disagree... it has absolute bearing whether or not someone can claim protection from this mandate via the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Because of this Act, the government must demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” AND employ the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.
In my opinion the Federal Government can demonstrate a compelling state interest, and has created regulations that are as nonrestrictive as possible. Indeed, I would argue that Hobby Lobby's payments to their employees constitute payments to the health plans they hold; which likely involve procedures the corporation finds immoral.
The vast majority of businesses provided contraception coverage for their employees even beforethe mandate became effective and continue to do so now that it has.
So when 190 million people are purposefully exempted from a law, there can be no argument that it is aimed at a compelling purpose. Providing broad exemptions intended to go on in perpetuity DEMONSTRATES that the contraception mandate is the oppositeof compelling.
You seem to find it very, very compelling.
Anyway, the granting of 190 million exemptions does not imply that 190 million people have been granted exemptions.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/03/26 21:14:26
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
Totally disagree... it has absolute bearing whether or not someone can claim protection from this mandate via the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Because of this Act, the government must demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” AND employ the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.
In my opinion the Federal Government can demonstrate a compelling state interest, and has created regulations that are as nonrestrictive as possible.
I'll submit that's possible.... sure. I can see this sort of thing be used on certain vaccinations too...
Indeed, I would argue that Hobby Lobby's payments to their employees constitute payments to the health plans they hold; which likely involve procedures the corporation finds immoral.
Eh... no, I wouldn't go THAT far.
Hobby Lobby has no business in how their employees use their money, regardless where it comes from.
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
Okay... not sure what you're asking. Sorry...
The question is the bit with the question mark after it. I'll bold it so you can't miss it a third time. You made a statement, he's asking you to clarify with facts, and to reinforce your statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/27 00:54:57
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
.
