Supreme Court tosses ruling in favor of ObamaCare mandate

[LizardofOz]

I always thought it was weird to see Hobby Lobby in this. I actually go to Hobby Lobby every once in awhile and buy supplies and crafts for my daughters..although that store really is mostly picture frames, Christmas decorations, and man cave decorations anymore..like the man cave decorations though.

 

[Somerville]

Are you saying this form would exempt them from paying for her healthcare? Wouldnt it be easier to just get rid of the mandate then?

Exactly, it is “EBSA Form 700”,

Here's a lengthy description of the case which SCOTUS sent back to the Appellate Court: Seventh Circuit denies injunctive relief to Notre Dame in university’s challenge to ACA contraceptive mandate

“What makes this case and others like it involving the contraception exemption paradoxical and virtually unprecedented is that the beneficiaries of the religious exemption are claiming that the exemption process itself imposes a substantial burden on their religious faiths,” Judge Posner wrote for the majority. Yet “[t]he process of claiming one’s exemption from the duty to provide contraceptive coverage is the opposite of cumbersome. It amounts to signing one’s name and mailing the signed form to two addresses.”
<snip>
The short form essentially requires the institution to certify that, “on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.”

The institution must then provide a copy of the certification to its TPA in order to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement.

Notre Dame and other religious groups are claiming that simply filling out the form is an imposition upon their religious rights and freedom. A claim which Judge Posner and the other judges of the 7th Circuit found to be somewhat absurd

. . . the university has not yet shown that there is a substantial burden. The form is two pages long — 737 words, most of it boring boilerplate,” the court said, noting too that the only passages of consequence here consist of a mere 95 words. “Signing the form and mailing it … could have taken no more than five minutes. The university claims that there are other paperwork requirements; there aren’t.”

“Trigger” argument fails. “The only colorable burden it complains about has nothing to do with time or cost; it is that by filling out the form and sending it to the companies, it ‘triggers’ their coverage of the contraception costs of the university’s female employees and students, and that this makes the university an accomplice in the provision of contraception, in violation of Catholic doctrine.”

I was wrong when I posted earlier that it was only a one page form - it's TWO pages.

 

[jonny5]

Exactly, it is “EBSA Form 700”,

Here's a lengthy description of the case which SCOTUS sent back to the Appellate Court: Seventh Circuit denies injunctive relief to Notre Dame in university’s challenge to ACA contraceptive mandate


Notre Dame and other religious groups are claiming that simply filling out the form is an imposition upon their religious rights and freedom. A claim which Judge Posner and the other judges of the 7th Circuit found to be somewhat absurd


I was wrong when I posted earlier that it was only a one page form - it's TWO pages.

That would not cover Hobby Lobby. If youre willing to extend this exemption to all citizens, then whats the point of mandating coverage?

 

[Somerville]

That would not cover Hobby Lobby. If youre willing to extend this exemption to all citizens, then whats the point of mandating coverage?

You are correct, it does not seem to apply to Hobby Lobby, unfortunately the SCOTUS referred to its decision in Hobby Lobby as justification for sending the case back to the Appellate Court

 

[ludin]

Hobby Lobby has now allowed religious belief to be used as a determining factor in the Employer Mandate. It's actually allows the possibility of being pretty broad, IMO. The slippery slope could end with a CEO with religious beliefs against medicine citing his beliefs as reason to offer no coverage at all - or picking & piecing whatever he so chooses.

I recall some orthodox Christian Scientists eschewing medical doctors.

it only applies to birth control. please see the SCOTUS ruling. it also only applies to companies that have small amounts of owners. IE I think 3 or 4 or less.
this does not apply to publicly companies.

 

[Chomsky]

it only applies to birth control. please see the SCOTUS ruling. it also only applies to companies that have small amounts of owners. IE I think 3 or 4 or less.
this does not apply to publicly companies.

Thank you for attempting to clarify, but yes I'm aware of those points - particular the non-public corp aspect. But within those organizations it has opened a slippery slope & my understanding is there's already quite a few cases working there way through the lower courts hoping to expand the ruling. (I believe they will be successful)

 

[ludin]

Thank you for attempting to clarify, but yes I'm aware of those points - particular the non-public corp aspect. But within those organizations it has opened a slippery slope & my understanding is there's already quite a few cases working there way through the lower courts hoping to expand the ruling. (I believe they will be successful)

the SCOTUS was pretty clear. that was the only exception and it barely passed. I don't see how they will get away with anything broader.

 

[Chomsky]

the SCOTUS was pretty clear. that was the only exception and it barely passed. I don't see how they will get away with anything broader.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "the SCOTUS was pretty clear. that was the only exception ".

It was the exception ruled upon because it was the only exception asked for by the plaintiffs - but the court didn't disallow other similar religious objections or exceptions to be used in following suit.

This isn't over yet, and we'll have to wait & see.

 

[tres borrachos]

Nice mischaracterization of my argument, but not even close. My argument referred to pay and benefits. Why don't you respond to that?

Because over the top hyperbole is fun.

 

[Objective Voice]

The way I see it, the SCOTUS is doing the right thing in re-evaluating this case. I think in their ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby they forgot one fundamental issue:

"How does the right of one impact the rights of others?"

I think it was Chomsky who broached this back on page 3 with his example of a neighbor playing his guitar too loudly at night. Only I see the situation in reverse which I think is how this appeals ruling see it.

Hobby Lobby is the guitar playing neighbor (individual) who plays his music loudly and doesn't care who is impacted by the noise. Looked at in the same way, Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. Using the reverse of the noise guitar player analogy, the aggregate of the affected "neighborhood" would be the employees who would be most negatively impacted effected by the "loud noise". As a privately-owned, privately traded 501(c)(3) company formed with a religious background, I can understand this employer's objection to provided any type of commercial health insurance to its employees that contains birth control since the business owner is pro-life. But the SCOTUS' decision in this matter should have been limited in scoop to apply only to such non-profit religious oriented businesses. Otherwise, all that's been done here is instead of government interfering with an individual's right to choose, that control has been shifted to employers.

To which I say if employers don't want to be caught in the middle of this contraceptive issue, they should get out of the business of providing health insurance as fringe benefit to their employees. To that, Sen. McCain was right. Remove employers out of the health insurance business and this matter goes completely away because the control AND the responsibility for obtaining health insurance coverage would be place squarely in the hands of the individual.