Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Ruling

[Tastyfish]

This is funny, regardless of what side you're on, though!

Nothing Jinadal says is funny.

[Kellhound]

I don't think I've heard of medical insurance that didn't cover accidents.

The analogy given was concerning auto insurance, which I know for a fact has no coverage clauses for certain risky activities, like racing. I could go out and have fun on the race track, but I knew I had to cover the costs if I wrecked. I also had to pay a fee for liability insurance.

[Tastyfish]

Here is the 35page dissent RBG published btw:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231968582/...-v-Hobby-Lobby

[Reeve]

The analogy given was concerning auto insurance, which I know for a fact has no coverage clauses for certain risky activities, like racing. I could go out and have fun on the race track, but I knew I had to cover the costs if I wrecked. I also had to pay a fee for liability insurance.

Sex is not an extraordinary risk, but an ordinary part of day to day life.

And paying for your own risk mitigation isn't so bad in itself, but when the government mandates that a type of risk mitigation is part of employee compensation for everyone unless you happen to be unlucky enough to work for people who were told by their sky magician they shouldn't provide it. Then you're SOL, and that isn't cool.

[echoSAW]

Then your point is incorrect.

Okay. Replace every reference to "Christian" or "Christianity" in this thread and replace it with "Muslim" and "Islam" See how fast you would get labeled a a bigot, racists or worse.

[Kellhound]

Because my insurance is there to cover the things that mitigate that risk. Why pay twice for the same coverage I was previously receiving?

If you were not previously receiving it, you wouldn't be paying twice.

[echoSAW]

Sex is not an extraordinary risk, but an ordinary part of day to day life.

And paying for your own risk mitigation isn't so bad in itself, but when the government mandates that a type of risk mitigation is part of employee compensation for everyone unless you happen to be unlucky enough to work for people who were told by their sky magician they shouldn't provide it. Then you're SOL, and that isn't cool.

So if a business were to limit coverage for literally any other reason, it would be okay?

[Reeve]

Okay. Replace every reference to "Christian" or "Christianity" in this thread and replace it with "Muslim" and "Islam" See how fast you would get labeled a a bigot, racists or worse.

Nope, still would have sided against them.

[-aiko-]

My facebook has exploded about this. You know, a huge win for freedom! Down with Obama! etc

I can't help but yawn. This really, really, really isn't a big deal for either side. This won't even affect many women.

[Reeve]

So if a business were to limit coverage for literally any other reason, it would be okay?

Nope, and the law would have prevented them from doing so.

[Captain N]

Okay. Replace every reference to "Christian" or "Christianity" in this thread and replace it with "Muslim" and "Islam" See how fast you would get labeled a a bigot, racists or worse.

Yep would still find it to be unethical. An Owners religious views no matter what they are should never be put on their employees.

[Tastyfish]

My facebook has exploded about this. You know, a huge win for freedom! Down with Obama! etc

I can't help but yawn. This really, really, really isn't a big deal for either side. This won't even affect many women.

Give your friends this: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...xecutive_order

[Crissi]

My facebook has exploded about this. You know, a huge win for freedom! Down with Obama! etc

I can't help but yawn. This really, really, really isn't a big deal for either side. This won't even affect many women.

Maybe. WHile I dont work for HL, and wouldnt work for any christian busness, the fact is I need my contraception and I dont like this ruling one bit because it raises many concerns.

[Captain N]

My facebook has exploded about this. You know, a huge win for freedom! Down with Obama! etc

I can't help but yawn. This really, really, really isn't a big deal for either side. This won't even affect many women.

Actually this could very well effect every American. It won't be long before some business owners alleges that some medication, or some surgical procedure someone has had done violates their Code of Ethics and is either denied medical treatment or employment. This is a horribly set precedent and unless something happens in the future it's not going to bode well for corporate insurance plans.

[Wells]

I think its kind of telling that people even separate birth control (the stuff that women are using) from like, the entirety of the rest of medicine. You never see people rail against insurance covering any of a million non-life-or-death health care services.

[Kellhound]

Sex is not an extraordinary risk, but an ordinary part of day to day life.

And paying for your own risk mitigation isn't so bad in itself, but when the government mandates that a type of risk mitigation is part of employee compensation for everyone unless you happen to be unlucky enough to work for people who were told by their sky magician they shouldn't provide it. Then you're SOL, and that isn't cool.

Then petition Congress and the President to change it so it isn't mandated and everyone is equal again.

[-aiko-]

Give your friends this: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...xecutive_order

I wonder how many people will unfriend me? Sounds like fun!

[Kellhound]

Yep would still find it to be unethical. An Owners religious views no matter what they are should never be put on their employees.

But it is ok for the employees to put their view on the owner?

[Reeve]

Then petition Congress and the President to change it so it isn't mandated and everyone is equal again.

I prefer the mandate to the previous scenario, and I prefer single payer to the mandate. So no.

- - - Updated - - -

But it is ok for the employees to put their view on the owner?

It's OK for the employees to expect the employer to pay them. What the employee does with their pay is their business. If the employer doesn't want the employee to do anything they disagree with they'd have to stop paying them altogether.

[Wells]

But it is ok for the employees to put their view on the owner?

I don't see how my use of my compensation puts anything on the employer.