| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, apparently the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was acceptable for a corporation to limit coverage of women's birth control based upon the religious views of the corporation's owners. This is certainly a ruling likely to lead to "unintended consequences". Let's predict a few of those here.
Corporation owners convert to Church of Christ Science, claim that due to their religious belief that medical science is useless because all injuries and illness are spiritual in nature, medical coverage or treatment of any kind will no longer be covered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another:
Businesses run by Muslim owners segregate departments by gender. Claiming that placing all women into a single department, with no opportunity to advance or transfer, they are honouring their religious requirement to prevent fraternization among unmarried women and men. The fact that the only department women are allowed to work in is also the lowest paying is purely coincidental.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please not do this thread?
Can we please not do this thread, especially on a Paizo Con weekend, when all the Paizo employees/mods will either be very busy or have the weekend off?
Please?
So, apparently the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was acceptable for a corporation to limit coverage of women's birth control based upon the religious views of the corporation's owners. This is certainly a ruling likely to lead to "unintended consequences". Let's predict a few of those here.
Corporation owners convert to Church of Christ Science, claim that due to their religious belief that medical science is useless because all injuries and illness are spiritual in nature, medical coverage or treatment of any kind will no longer be covered.
I have one simple question. Can you, without looking up what was ruled, tell me exactly what limits were approved? What birth control isn't funded?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well given that I think part of the reasoning was that the U.S. government was already giving other groups a pass on these requirements, so claims of the requirements being necessary are not supported (otherwise the government wouldn't be giving exceptions already).
In a sense it was the administration trying to be reasonable that caused in least in part caused this decision by setting a precedent.
Now to the other ridiculous issues raised in this thread, well if you could find cases of the U.S. government allow those things, then you might have a case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the ruling, although I recall the exception for Hobby Lobby was that it was a "closely held" business, which means hypothetically that something like a major corporation such as walmart or hasbro or whatever can cite religious reasons to deny or limit health care.
Granted, I have no idea what the "cut-off" for "closely-held" really is.
At any rate I think this does open up a can of worms that we will be hearing about in the next few years.
They shot themselves in the foot. This isn't going to end well for anyone, I don't think.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scientologist owned organization refuses to pay for psychiatric care (ironic on many levels)
Muslim owned organization refuses to pay for pig organ transplant.
Atheist owned organization refuses to pay for religious end of life counseling. (aka studying for finals)
Buddhist organization refuses to pay for stitches because attachment leads to suffering.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My prediction is that neither this ruling nor this thread are going to end well.
But, it's not the first time the Supreme Court has made a decision they came to regret. Separate But Equal comes to mind...
Okay....I am going express my thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree with this ruling but problems from it probably would be fixed by a free market...but I am kinda against the whole mandatory coverage of contraceptives because unless I am very much wrong here nobody needs sex to stay alive or even to remain healthy. And if they don't want to have children, sex for them is a recreational activity. Which I have no problems with...but should you not assume responsibility even on a financial level for you activities? To me it is kinda like saying the government should subsidize my Pazio subscription bill every month.
Now before the whole storm of I am just a privileged sexist pigs start cropping up I am not that strongly attached to idea above it is just how my thought on the subject. I am open to a discussion on it as I realize I might not be seeing the whole picture here. Who knows it might even change my thoughts on this subject.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay....I am going express my thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree with this ruling but problems from it probably would be fixed by a free market...but I am kinda against the whole mandatory coverage of contraceptives because unless I am very much wrong here nobody needs sex to stay alive or even to remain healthy. And if they don't want to have children, sex for them is a recreational activity. Which I have no problems with...but should you not assume responsibility even on a financial level for you activities? To me it is kinda like saying the government should subsidize my Pazio subscription bill every month.
Now before the whole storm of I am just a privileged sexist pigs start cropping up I am not that strongly attached to idea above it is just how my thought on the subject. I am open to a discussion on it as I realize I might not be seeing the whole picture here. Who knows it might even change my thoughts on this subject.
Without contraceptives, at least two of my friends wouldn't have regular periods. There's a strong chance one of them would be quite dead by now due to overall hormonal weirdness and its side effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay....I am going express my thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree with this ruling but problems from it probably would be fixed by a free market...but I am kinda against the whole mandatory coverage of contraceptives because unless I am very much wrong here nobody needs sex to stay alive or even to remain healthy. And if they don't want to have children, sex for them is a recreational activity. Which I have no problems with...but should you not assume responsibility even on a financial level for you activities? To me it is kinda like saying the government should subsidize my Pazio subscription bill every month.
Now before the whole storm of I am just a privileged sexist pigs start cropping up I am not that strongly attached to idea above it is just how my thought on the subject. I am open to a discussion on it as I realize I might not be seeing the whole picture here. Who knows it might even change my thoughts on this subject.
Endometriosis is one condition for which one various forms of birth control is an effective treatment option.
It's a condition where the tissue that lines the uterus spreads and grows in areas outside of the uterus. It still does it's normal cycle, growing and causing bleeding, but since it's not in the correct place it has no where to go and can't be expelled from the body. This can lead to cancer, cysts and infertility.
Birth control that works through hormones regulate and control the hormones that cause this tissue to grow, thus reducing pain, cramps and other more severe complications.
There are other conditions as well, for which birth control is an effective treatment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's chilling to me is that Hobby Lobby - according to the supreme court - has to option to not provide coverage of what is *believes* to be abortifacients. Not what *are* abortifacients, but what it *believes* to be abortifacients. At least some of (if not all) the drugs in question, that Hobby Lobby *believes* to be abortifacients are NOT recognized as such by the FDA.
So, in essence, someone's religious belief prevails over science.
What could possibly go wrong?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
Here's my question though...
Is an employer allowed to impose their religious beliefs on employees?
This isn't a blow for "religious freedom", it's just a declaration that people who have more power and money get to impose their religious beliefs on others. That actually sounds like the opposite of religious freedom to me.
I get the point about not wanting to pay for something because it violates your beliefs. At the same time though, I don't think religious beliefs are a valid reason to impose that restriction on someone else who might not share them.
As for not having the right for other people to pay for your stuff, these are employees. They are providing labor to the employer and in return receiving remuneration, one aspect of which is health care. Hobby Lobby wasn't being forced to pay this to random people on the street, these were employees.
I have one simple question. Can you, without looking up what was ruled, tell me exactly what limits were approved? What birth control isn't funded?So, apparently the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was acceptable for a corporation to limit coverage of women's birth control based upon the religious views of the corporation's owners. This is certainly a ruling likely to lead to "unintended consequences". Let's predict a few of those here.
Corporation owners convert to Church of Christ Science, claim that due to their religious belief that medical science is useless because all injuries and illness are spiritual in nature, medical coverage or treatment of any kind will no longer be covered.
I can tell you that within days they were already preparing to expand that initial set. They ordered some other similar cases in lower courts be reheard, several of which had broader objections to offering birth control in general. Therefore the initial ruling limitations aren't all that important.
Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
Here's my question though...
Is an employer allowed to impose their religious beliefs on employees?
This isn't a blow for "religious freedom", it's just a declaration that people who have more power and money get to impose their religious beliefs on others. That actually sounds like the opposite of religious freedom to me.
I get the point about not wanting to pay for something because it violates your beliefs. At the same time though, I don't think religious beliefs are a valid reason to impose that restriction on someone else who might not share them.
As for not having the right for other people to pay for your stuff, these are employees. They are providing labor to the employer and in return receiving remuneration, one aspect of which is health care. Hobby Lobby wasn't being forced to pay this to random people on the street, these were employees.
This decision didn't say the company could fire people for using these products. Nor did it say the government couldn't provide it to these people as the government already did in other cases they had made exceptions to this rule for.
As an aside, the reaction in this thread is an example of unintended consequences. I was hoping to have a thread where people could post hopefully unlikely, but now more possible scenarios. Humour and satire are how I deal with political wrongs, knowing that I can't otherwise fix them.
Without contraceptives, at least two of my friends wouldn't have regular periods. There's a strong chance one of them would be quite dead by now due to overall hormonal weirdness and its side effects.Okay....I am going express my thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree with this ruling but problems from it probably would be fixed by a free market...but I am kinda against the whole mandatory coverage of contraceptives because unless I am very much wrong here nobody needs sex to stay alive or even to remain healthy. And if they don't want to have children, sex for them is a recreational activity. Which I have no problems with...but should you not assume responsibility even on a financial level for you activities? To me it is kinda like saying the government should subsidize my Pazio subscription bill every month.
Now before the whole storm of I am just a privileged sexist pigs start cropping up I am not that strongly attached to idea above it is just how my thought on the subject. I am open to a discussion on it as I realize I might not be seeing the whole picture here. Who knows it might even change my thoughts on this subject.
You do realize that even the Catholic Church pays for the use of contraceptives in cases where it is a medical treatment and not used for birth control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, the reaction in this thread is an example of unintended consequences. I was hoping to have a thread where people could post hopefully unlikely, but now more possible scenarios. Humour and satire are how I deal with political wrongs, knowing that I can't otherwise fix them.
There are some topics that are just guaranteed to devolve into fights. This is one of them.
If you're interested in the background leading up to this set of events, I can PM it to you. However, trust me on this: You don't want to know, it will not put this in a better light, and it does not change the truth of anything said on this thread.
You do realize that even the Catholic Church pays for the use of contraceptives in cases where it is a medical treatment and not used for birth control.Without contraceptives, at least two of my friends wouldn't have regular periods. There's a strong chance one of them would be quite dead by now due to overall hormonal weirdness and its side effects.Okay....I am going express my thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree with this ruling but problems from it probably would be fixed by a free market...but I am kinda against the whole mandatory coverage of contraceptives because unless I am very much wrong here nobody needs sex to stay alive or even to remain healthy. And if they don't want to have children, sex for them is a recreational activity. Which I have no problems with...but should you not assume responsibility even on a financial level for you activities? To me it is kinda like saying the government should subsidize my Pazio subscription bill every month.
Now before the whole storm of I am just a privileged sexist pigs start cropping up I am not that strongly attached to idea above it is just how my thought on the subject. I am open to a discussion on it as I realize I might not be seeing the whole picture here. Who knows it might even change my thoughts on this subject.
Except this isn't about the church. It's about Hobby Lobby.
|
Let me drop this here. All the sarcasm in one photoshop photo. Mrs Betty Bowers, America's best Christian.
|
OK, for those of us who are not American, just a question. My understanding from reading between the lines is that the issue here is that in the normal course a company's employers would be covered for contraceptives under the medical cover offered by the company. Is that right??
The Australian medical payment system is very different. So I am just making sure I understand.
Yes, pretty much. There is, however, a growing list of exceptions. So while it is effectively the law, I don't expect it to actually be the de facto law for long.
Well, one use of the IUD that is now no longer covered and is quite expensive, is to prevent hysterectomy. something other forms of birth control that are still covered, do not do. So this is a life-saving medical device for some people.
The other more horrible worm is that we know that Hobby Lobby is wrong when they call these drugs/devices abortifacents, but because they, like totes really super duper believe it, they get a pass. If someone sincerely believes cancer is caused by immortal gremlins, do they not have to cover cancer treatments?
As an aside, the reaction in this thread is an example of unintended consequences. I was hoping to have a thread where people could post hopefully unlikely, but now more possible scenarios. Humour and satire are how I deal with political wrongs, knowing that I can't otherwise fix them.
People/companies run by pacifist religion adherers suing to not pay taxes since taxes partly go to fund war/the military.
That IUD is one of the forms they no longer cover, because they wrongly believe it to cause abortions
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mormons refuse to pay for hospital gowns because they're incompatible with blessed undergarments.
Jewish organizations refuse to pay for anything on saterdays
Nordic worshipers refuse to pay for for end of life care. Demand the much cheaper swords and an area of the food court set aside so the dying can kill each other in glorious combat and get into Valhalla.
This is yet another great argument for decoupling health insurance and employment and going to a single-payer government health care system.
The best argument against it still remains the American education system. The great problem with a single-payer government health care system is the question of who's going to run it.
Now, consider that some people oppose the idea of vaccinations entirely. Or oppose contraceptives entirely, no matter what they're used for. Some people even oppose a lot of modern medications, including pain killers and vitamins. Ask yourself if you want to risk one of them making decisions on your health care.
If the system can be set up to prevent that from happening, then I see no problem. But considering that Obamacare is the result of the last attempt to bring that into play, I do not believe it realistic or even within the realm of sanity to assume it can be prevented from happening at this time. Maybe in fifty years.
Well, let's look at it this way: Unless you think the US government is uniquely incompetent, it would be a better system than we have now. Every first-world nation, and many many more besides, have some form of nationalized healthcare, and all of them are more highly ranked than ours. We're 34th in the world, with our ever so effective private healthcare, that we pay more than any other country on earth for.
This is yet another great argument for decoupling health insurance and employment and going to a single-payer government health care system.The best argument against it still remains the American education system. The great problem with a single-payer government health care system is the question of who's going to run it.
Now, consider that some people oppose the idea of vaccinations entirely. Or oppose contraceptives entirely, no matter what they're used for. Some people even oppose a lot of modern medications, including pain killers and vitamins. Ask yourself if you want to risk one of them making decisions on your health care.
If the system can be set up to prevent that from happening, then I see no problem. But considering that Obamacare is the result of the last attempt to bring that into play, I do not believe it realistic or even within the realm of sanity to assume it can be prevented from happening at this time. Maybe in fifty years.
Who, other than the government, can prevent "those people" making decisions for the insurance companies? Or when picking the insurance plans offered through your company?
You'll note that despite your fears, it was actually the government that mandated coverage of those very things.
Considering I'm on the list of people who no longer has insurance as a result of those mandates, I really do not see a good point here. Quite a few people ended up in worse situations as a result; I see them every time I visit the emergency room and see how overcrowded it is compared to what it was before.
Incidentally, the mandate you're talking about is actually part of the problem of the American government getting involved; it tends to go with one-size-fits-all solutions. Which, as medical science likes to tell us, does not work with the human body.
The entire mandate itself needs more flexibility built in; it needs more capacity to take into consideration the actual individual health care needs while taking more into consideration local and state socioeconomic situations and standards of healthcare aid. And it needs more oversight of the insurance industry to make certain that it is complying. And even then, it's still going to be a watered-down, half-unenforceable piece of garbage that resulted from political bickering during the time it was in Congress.
So, yes, I do hold it as a prime example of exactly why a national health care system won't work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, let's look at it this way: Unless you think the US government is uniquely incompetent, it would be a better system than we have now. Every first-world nation, and many many more besides, have some form of nationalized healthcare, and all of them are more highly ranked than ours. We're 34th in the world, with our ever so effective private healthcare, that we pay more than any other country on earth for.
The Affordable Care Act started off as trying to institute a government-run health care system. The current form of being a health insurance mandate with insurance reforms is what it ended up by the time Congress was done with it.
The sad bit is, that's actually the most successful of the two major attempts to get it passed. The first time, both it and the proposer were completely shut down.
So, yes, all evidence points to the U.S. government being uniquely incompetent.
Nah, reform was always the goal, a single-payer system would have been nice, but it wasn't even seriously proposed this time around. That they decided to go with the old Bob dole plan, might have been a ploy to show just how unsalvagable private health insurance really is. But i doubt it, i worry we might in fact be too incompetent to have decent health care.
As an aside, the reaction in this thread is an example of unintended consequences. I was hoping to have a thread where people could post hopefully unlikely, but now more possible scenarios. Humour and satire are how I deal with political wrongs, knowing that I can't otherwise fix them.People/companies run by pacifist religions suing to not pay taxes since taxes partly go to fund war/the military.Would clearly lose on the Compelling state interest and Least intrusive grounds.
Along with little or no sympathy on the court.It's harder to see how more similar, but less controversial, cases could be shut down, without just saying "Ignore precedent".
A Scientologist owned company could argue its religious beliefs prevent it from covering psychiatric treatment and that, much like contraception, the government could easily step in and cover that instead. Even if the government doesn't, the fact they could, means mandating coverage isn't the least intrusive way of providing mental health care.
Well, he asked for satire. ;-)