It's Supreme Court day! Hobby Lobby VS Obamacare.

[Eats Compost]

They'd happily argue that they weren't people too, if it got them what they wanted.

[satimy]

Joe Catholic sounds like a brand of cars.

Would New Jersey allow the sale of them?

[Eats Compost]

So throwing money to a state is bad, but throwing it to the federal level is somehow better......because of slavery?

That's oversimplifying his argument and you know it.

[Sunseeker]

So throwing money to a state is bad, but throwing it to the federal level is somehow better......because of slavery?

Yes. The smaller the area, the more powerful the affect of groupthink. Over the nation as a whole, the voice becomes diverse enough that the Fed is forced to go with more moderate solutions that incorporate the best and the worst, as opposed to the States which in their own little yard can be more extreme and suffer no consequences for it.

EVERYONE in the country has medical needs, some are small, some are big. They are not in any way altered due to the fact that you live in X state or Y state. Certainly some states deal with very unique, state-only problems that the state and local officials are best to solve. Healthcare is not one of them. We do not want to create a hodge-podge nation where some states provide care, some don't, some force you to have shitty care, some force employers to provide it, and so on. It is a national problem and needs a national solution.

[satimy]

Yes. The smaller the area, the more powerful the affect of groupthink. Over the nation as a whole, the voice becomes diverse enough that the Fed is forced to go with more moderate solutions that incorporate the best and the worst, as opposed to the States which in their own little yard can be more extreme and suffer no consequences for it.

EVERYONE in the country has medical needs, some are small, some are big. They are not in any way altered due to the fact that you live in X state or Y state. Certainly some states deal with very unique, state-only problems that the state and local officials are best to solve. Healthcare is not one of them. We do not want to create a hodge-podge nation where some states provide care, some don't, some force you to have shitty care, some force employers to provide it, and so on. It is a national problem and needs a national solution.

See thats actually a good compelling argument, but then why isn't there 1 ACA market, why are there 50?

[Kasierith]

See thats actually a good compelling argument, but then why isn't there 1 ACA market, why are there 50?

To allow for competition and because the ACA utilizes a wide variety of private insurance companies. It essentially consolidates information so you can compare what plans are available to you based on your location.

[Rukentuts]

See thats actually a good compelling argument, but then why isn't there 1 ACA market, why are there 50?

There's 1 federal.

There's also like 20-30-some states. Most red states didn't create their own.

[Sunseeker]

See thats actually a good compelling argument, but then why isn't there 1 ACA market, why are there 50?

Because there's a really stupid law against inter-state competition. A health company is required to actually exist in a state to serve the people who live there, in order to prevent companies from really populated states from undercutting small-state competitors. In reality, the big company just sets up BlueCross - Wyoming.

And honestly, if we got rid of that law, we'd basically have federal-level national healthcare, with a BlueCross shield on your bill.

This is why I'm totally in favor of just skipping a few steps and going straight to the real deal.

[Sunseeker]

Good band name, something like Joey Catholic and the Sinners!

Jackson Taylor beat you to it.

http://www.jacksontaylorband.com/

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

So lets say Joe Catholic starts a business. He wishes to run his private business according to his values. Are you saying he does not have the right to do this? Or does this right just go away when he gets so big?

Actually, he doesn't have the right to run his business according to his values if the values conflict with certain things. Such as selling dangerous products because he believes in 'natural' selection.

[satimy]

Because there's a really stupid law against inter-state competition. A health company is required to actually exist in a state to serve the people who live there, in order to prevent companies from really populated states from undercutting small-state competitors. In reality, the big company just sets up BlueCross - Wyoming.

And honestly, if we got rid of that law, we'd basically have federal-level national healthcare, with a BlueCross shield on your bill.

This is why I'm totally in favor of just skipping a few steps and going straight to the real deal.

I think its worth trying before going to single payer, single payer is better than the ACA but has drawbacks that can't be ignored.

[dehotz]

Should a catholic school have to hire an atheist teacher? Again I'm not even really on the side of the Christian people, but theres plenty of people on this forum that would love any law that would oppress them because of the minority dickhead Christians that act like pricks.

Excluding that this doesn't refer to religious institutions or non-profits, there are exceptions allowed for hiring people based on the description and requirements of a job. For example you may decide not to hire someone who is a paraplegic as a lifeguard as they would be physically unfit to fulfill the requirements of that position. It is why you will often see job requirements state that you must be able to lift heavy items, generally considered 50lbs or so. This allows them not to have to hire people who wouldn't be able to do said job.

I would make the case the same would apply to an atheist in this case.

[madmanx]

So lets say Joe Catholic starts a business. He wishes to run his private business according to his values. Are you saying he does not have the right to do this? Or does this right just go away when he gets so big?

I am a practicing Aztec sun worshiper and my god demands that I sacrifice an employee to him once a year.

Do you see the problem here?

For most of human history we have had religion dictate laws and if you read up a bit on history you quickly realize that this is rarely a good idea. Try to do this in a corporation when the owners might represent every faith on the planet and the situation becomes absurd.

Believe what you want but do so in the privacy of your own home/place of worship with like-minded people and within the boundaries of the law. Above all, you do NOT have the right to alter the lives of other people against their will in any way, shape or form based on your religious beliefs.

[dehotz]

He loses the right when the corporation grows large enough that it is mandated to provide health care. At which point the insurance company, not the corporation, is paying for said contraceptives.

- - - Updated - - -

I really am confused about how they are asserting religious freedom for the corporation. A corporation is not the sum of it's parts; it is not a direct congolmeration of its shareholders. It is instead viewed as its own legal entity, separate from its individual aspects, the very reason for which is that liability is separated and the corporation is held responsible instead of individuals. Saying that the religious orientation of the shareholders is reflected in the corporation pretty much goes completely against the entire concept of what a corporation is, and imo if they want to have such a connection, there should be an immediate piercing of the corporate veil due to the established connection.

I like the line of thought on corporations not being the sum of their parts, interesting idea. What Hobby Lobby is asserting is that the corporate entity itself may have religious views. If that is indeed the case who determines what those views are?

[Orcbert]

He loses the right when the corporation grows large enough that it is mandated to provide health care. At which point the insurance company, not the corporation, is paying for said contraceptives.

- - - Updated - - -

So when you hire 50 employees you lose your rights to run your business as you would like? If our hypothetical Joe Catholic wants to continue not supporting something his religion views as murder he can never grow his business beyond 49 employees?

[Kasierith]

So when you hire 50 employees you lose your rights to run your business as you would like? If our hypothetical Joe Catholic wants to continue not supporting something his religion views as murder he can never grow his business beyond 49 employees?

Pretty much, yes. Though an easier solution would be for him to have a reality check.

[Orcbert]

I like the line of thought on corporations not being the sum of their parts, interesting idea. What Hobby Lobby is asserting is that the corporate entity itself may have religious views. If that is indeed the case who determines what those views are?

Hobby Lobby is a privately run business, just a very large one. They are not publicly traded.

They practice their beliefs in running their business in such ways as keeping it closed on Sunday, piping in music to control against music that conflicts with their beliefs, and refuses to carry products that would conflict with their beliefs.

[SirPiken]

Can hypothetical Joe Catholic explain how others taking birth control is an attack on his beliefs? The reason I ask is nobody else can seem to explain it.

When you have to directly pay for it through government coercion. Damn, that was hard to figure out.

[Orcbert]

Can hypothetical Joe Catholic explain how others taking birth control is an attack on his beliefs? The reason I ask is nobody else can seem to explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_birth_control

Short summery: It is seem as an attack on life by trying to prevent a child from being born. A little easier to explain is abortion coverage. The standard christian view is as soon as conception takes place the child is a person and aborting a fetus is the same as killing a baby.

[obdigore]

Hobby Lobby is a privately run business, just a very large one. They are not publicly traded.

They practice their beliefs in running their business in such ways as keeping it closed on Sunday, piping in music to control against music that conflicts with their beliefs, and refuses to carry products that would conflict with their beliefs.

None of that is against the law of the land as an employer.