Healthcare vs religion?

dollypardon · June 2014

What do we think about this SCOTUS ruling whereby corporations can deny contraception coverage in their healthcare plans due to religious objections?

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-contraception-mandate-108429.html

blainethetrain · June 2014

I didn't read the decision, but how is it established that it's for religious reasons and not for reasons of sexist greed?

northport6 · June 2014

It's the Hobby Lobby case, @blainethetrain, where the corporation claimed a religious objection.

ugoglencoco · June 2014

Really, I think it's pretty freaking ridiculous. But I saw this and it made me giggle.

notkateanymore · June 2014

It's appalling that they won. I no longer shop there as of today. I know it probably doesn't matter, but it makes me feel better.

dollypardon · June 2014

@ColeRose: Ya, and not just Hobby Lobby. It'll now apply to any business who cares to play this card.

Kermode61581 · June 2014

Whoa? How can that even happen? That seems ridiculous that one man's religious beliefs are now imposed on hundreds(?) of employees.

northport6 · June 2014

@ColeRose That's right.

And that's also right: insane.

ETA: But remember the lesson from Citizens United...CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE. CRAZY AND F*CKED UP JUST LIKE PEOPLE.

ugoglencoco · June 2014

EatsRitz said:

notkateanymore said:

It's appalling that they won. I no longer shop there as of today. I know it probably doesn't matter, but it makes me feel better.

I stopped shopping there as soon as this asinine lawsuit was started. Unfortunately, there are probably an equal number (or more) of people who will shop there more frequently because of this.

This. I would hope that people would stop shopping there for this reason, but I know it won't make a difference because there will be others who will shop there more/start shopping there. I wonder how many employees will flat out quit, my ass would have been so out the door when I first caught wind of it.

ugoglencoco · June 2014

psalmchapter91 said:
It's not all BC. Just a couple types. Like plan B, etc.

The article in nbc news that I read said morning after pill, oral contraceptives, iuds and diaphragms...

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

It is not all contraception. Most forms of contraception Hobby Lobby will cover. There are certain specific types they are not wanting to cover because the owner believes that life begins at conception (egg meeting sperm) so the forms that keep fertilized eggs from implanting are the ones that he objects. He believes these have abortive properties and that it goes against his religious freedom to force him to pay for his employees to take these. Because this company has been vocally religious from the beginning I'm not sure why people are surprised by the suit.

I have no comments on the SCOTUS decision because I have not taken the time to read through the available information.

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

OH FFS.

northport6 · June 2014

From the dissent:

“The court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths.”

ETA: This is moral hazard at its worst. Bad precedents to be built upon.

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

My thoughts on the situation are this: if you do not like the vocal beliefs of the company/owners and do not agree with them don't work/shop there. There are other places to work that don't have religious owners and there are plenty of other craft stores out there to shop at. I've never even been in a Hobby Lobby.

northport6 · June 2014

But it's insanity that a corporation has any right to meddle in medical decisions of ANY kind.

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

northport6 said:

From the dissent:

“The court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths.”

ETA: This is moral hazard at its worst. Bad precedents to be built upon.

I think the precedent scares me the most.

notkateanymore · June 2014

You think he has kickass maternity/paternity leave for his 15k employees?

notkateanymore · June 2014

You think he has kickass maternity/paternity leave for his 15k employees?

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

I didn't say that. But this is where my view of small government comes in. What right does the government have to mandate that a company spend their money a certain way? No one is taking about the company forcing people to do something, we are talking about the government forcing a company to PAY money for something. And yes I believe that if a openly religious company is not something you agree with don't work there.

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

I agree with freedom of religion. The employees are free to have whatever religious beliefs they want. They are also free not to work there. No one is forcing them to work there. And don't say "maybe there is no where else to work" because Hobby Lobbies are usually in bigger cities with plenty of stores, restaurants and other job opportunities.

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

I'm sort of surprised there's no HIPAA objections here. I know that the CEO does not have direct insight into what medications his employees are receiving, but he now has the right to play a direct role in a part of their medical care by restricting their access to certain things. That sort of feels like an indirect privacy violation.

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

Actually @Loolaide‌ Hobby Lobby doesn't mandate their beliefs. I know several nonreligious people who work at Hobby Lobby who are happy there. And they provide other forms of BC if wanted. My thing is if you disagree with the fundamental beliefs and practices of a company why would you want to work there?

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

greenbeanqueen said:

Actually @Loolaide‌ Hobby Lobby doesn't mandate their beliefs. I know several nonreligious people who work at Hobby Lobby who are happy there. And they provide other forms of BC if wanted. My thing is if you disagree with the fundamental beliefs and practices of a company why would you want to work there?

The bolded is sort of a privilege rather than something the majority of people can put on their SWOT analysis of job opportunities.

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

@golfingdarwinfish‌ how is it any different than anything else being denied coverage by any insurance? The company doesn't know who requests and is denied what. It would just come back as not covered just like other things. Maybe I don't understand insurance but I don't see how this is a privacy issue.

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

greenbeanqueen said:

@golfingdarwinfish‌ how is it any different than anything else being denied coverage by any insurance? The company doesn't know who requests and is denied what. It would just come back as not covered just like other things. Maybe I don't understand insurance but I don't see how this is a privacy issue.

@greenbeanqueen

Because the rationale of the denial / the reason that the drug does not appear on that specific formulary is because an individual was able to access a formulary and choose which products should be accessible to his employees via the plan. Those products would have appeared on the formulary otherwise.

And I don't know if there's a HIPAA violation, I was more pondering it, and hope that there are editorials or op-ed pieces written on the ruling from a HIPAA perspective.

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

@Loolaide‌ I get that people work for money. Trust me I get it. But as I said previously most places Hobby Lobbies are at have many other job opportunities. And if you "love yarn" work at Joanne's, or Michaels, or AC Moore. Heck work in the craft section at Walmart. Not providing certain expensive drugs is not impeding someone's religious beliefs. It doesn't stop them from buying the drug it just doesn't buy it for them. I get that people "can't afford" those drugs without insurance but other forms of contraception are just as effective and it's not completely limiting in the case of drug intolerances.

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

greenbeanqueen said:

@Loolaide‌ I get that people work for money. Trust me I get it. But as I said previously most places Hobby Lobbies are at have many other job opportunities. And if you "love yarn" work at Joanne's, or Michaels, or AC Moore. Heck work in the craft section at Walmart. Not providing certain expensive drugs is not impeding someone's religious beliefs. It doesn't stop them from buying the drug it just doesn't buy it for them. I get that people "can't afford" those drugs without insurance but other forms of contraception are just as effective and it's not completely limiting in the case of drug intolerances.

I'd prefer not to discuss this from an expense perspective given that the vast majority of expensive drugs are oncology products. I'd rather focus on the religious belief portion of this rather than the expense because my mind will start going down the road of CEOs having a role in which oncology products their employees should have access to and that very thought is terrifying.

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

@golfingdarwinfish‌ that is true.

But from the religious perspective let me offer an example. I am currently unemployed because of budget cuts in my county. I'm job hunting right now. As a practicing Christian some of the private schools I have applied at have asked me to sign specific statements of belief. Also if, say, an occult shop had the only job opening I could fine, I would choose not to work there and suffer the consequences of my religious freedom by being unemployed. That is my religious freedom.

notkateanymore · June 2014

cereallover said:

Loolaide said:

Actually @Loolaide‌ Hobby Lobby doesn't mandate their beliefs. I know several nonreligious people who work at Hobby Lobby who are happy there. And they provide other forms of BC if wanted. My thing is if you disagree with the fundamental beliefs and practices of a company why would you want to work there?
First, it's not about want. People work for money. Second, why should someone who has a love for yarn, for example, not be able to do what she loves because the company doesn't allow her freedom of religion?

THIS!!

Lets pretend for a moment that I'm a single mom, without a car.
Hobby Lobby is one block from my apartment, and there is a daycare next door. This sounds like the perfect place for me to work. I have no need for a car (which i don't have), I can get my child to and from childcare without worry. HL has reasonable hours, as opposed to the restaurant across the street, where if I wanted to work a dinner shift the daycare would close before I would be done with my shift. (So I would have to work lunch shifts that would not provide me even 30hrs/wk).

So, I disagree with HL's beliefs and decide not to work there but maybe at the JoAnn's further into town. Now I have to walk past HL to get to the bus stop that will take me to JoAnn's. Or the other direction where there is no bus to get to Michael's... but I love yarn, know all there is to know, and would make a damn good employee.

Is this an extreme? Absolutely. But aren't these minimum wage workers exactly the ones ACA is protecting/helping??

Thank you for typing that out, that's what I wanted to say but am too lazy to type.

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

greenbeanqueen said:

@golfingdarwinfish‌ that is true. But from the religious perspective let me offer an example. I am currently unemployed because of budget cuts in my county. I'm job hunting right now. As a practicing Christian some of the private schools I have applied at have asked me to sign specific statements of belief. Also if, say, an occult shop had the only job opening I could finea

I wasn't really making the religious freedom argument, but okay.

Perhaps there are people out there who would work at the occult shop to assure they have a roof over their head because sometimes survival outweighs luxuries such as, "I will not work for an employer who allows Plan B on their employee's formulary." People in nations not as developed as the US, or with ridiculously high unemployment rates, would scoff at being able to turn down money (I equate money to survival here, not "oh, I can buy a new coach purse!" type money) for your religious principles.

Also, if that's the way HL feels, perhaps they should offer one of these "statements of belief" before considering whether or not to employ someone.

greenbeanqueen · June 2014

I didn't say they could deny me work. I said I could choose to be unemployed. Is that ideal? No. But if my beliefs are so important to me then I would make that choice. I am not incredibly privileged I make ends meet each month. I'm the primary breadwinner for my family. I am just making a point that there are other places to work if your beliefs are that important.

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

Loolaide said:

greenbeanqueen said:

@golfingdarwinfish‌ that is true. But from the religious perspective let me offer an example. I am currently unemployed because of budget cuts in my county. I'm job hunting right now. As a practicing Christian some of the private schools I have applied at have asked me to sign specific statements of belief. Also if, say, an occult shop had the only job opening I could finea

I wasn't really making the religious freedom argument, but okay.

Perhaps there are people out there who would work at the occult shop to assure they have a roof over their head because sometimes survival outweighs luxuries such as, "I will not work for an employer who allows Plan B on their employee's formulary." People in nations not as developed as the US, or with ridiculously high unemployment rates, would scoff at being able to turn down money (I equate money to survival here, not "oh, I can buy a new coach purse!" type money) for your religious principles.

Also, if that's the way HL feels, perhaps they should offer one of these "statements of belief" before considering whether or not to employ someone.

They can't though ... Unless the supreme court decides to overturn precedent and say non religious institutions can discriminate in the hiring process.

@loolaide

Gotcha, I wasn't thinking when I made that statement. Honestly, I don't know enough about much of this to be engaging in the conversation, I just wanted to raise the HIPAA aspect.

northport6 · June 2014

From the Mother Jones article about the decision, more from my lady RBG.

"Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

Loolaide said:

Loolaide said:

greenbeanqueen said:

@golfingdarwinfish‌ that is true. But from the religious perspective let me offer an example. I am currently unemployed because of budget cuts in my county. I'm job hunting right now. As a practicing Christian some of the private schools I have applied at have asked me to sign specific statements of belief. Also if, say, an occult shop had the only job opening I could finea

I wasn't really making the religious freedom argument, but okay.

Perhaps there are people out there who would work at the occult shop to assure they have a roof over their head because sometimes survival outweighs luxuries such as, "I will not work for an employer who allows Plan B on their employee's formulary." People in nations not as developed as the US, or with ridiculously high unemployment rates, would scoff at being able to turn down money (I equate money to survival here, not "oh, I can buy a new coach purse!" type money) for your religious principles.

Also, if that's the way HL feels, perhaps they should offer one of these "statements of belief" before considering whether or not to employ someone.

They can't though ... Unless the supreme court decides to overturn precedent and say non religious institutions can discriminate in the hiring process.

@loolaide

Gotcha, I wasn't thinking when I made that statement. Honestly, I don't know enough about much of this to be engaging in the conversation, I just wanted to raise the HIPAA aspect.
As far as that aspect, I am fairly sure that large employers that are self insured still have a health plan administrator who takes care of claims. They literally shouldn't know who gets what care. Only the claims administrators would. I agree that they shouldn't be involved whatsoever in what health care their employees are seeking beyond offering a standard plan though.

@loolaide

Correct. I actually had to do a stint in pricing, market access & reimbursement (domestic & EU5) and it was incredibly interesting. Not my favorite part of biopharma, but fascinating nonetheless.

thesportsgal · June 2014

SailorTink said:

northport6 said:

But it's insanity that a corporation has any right to meddle in medical decisions of ANY kind.

So much this.

YES. As a business owner, it is none of my business as to the religious beliefs of my employees - and vice versa. They couldn't tell you if I attend a church on Sundays, a synagogue on Fridays or meditate to Buddha at sunrise. And what's especially none of my business is a medical decision between one of my employees and their doctor. Who am I to know who needs birth control? The Christian delusions in this country are insane.

scarfan · June 2014

Although the First Amendment has been brought up often in arguing against this, the opinion of the court stated that it didn't make the decision based on the 1st Amendment, but instead on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 2 main parts of that are that if the government is going to require a burden on someone's religious belief (in this case, requiring contraceptive coverage), it needs to be 1. the least restrictive means of doing so 2. and needs to be on a topic in which the government has a compelling interest.

The overall main reason in the opinion for their decision is that the government has at its disposal, other ways to provide the contraceptive coverage at no or low cost to the consumer instead of placing an unnecessary burden on the religious beliefs of these owners. Basically, the government has expressed that providing contraceptives to women is extremely important so, instead of requiring that this company goes against their strongly held beliefs about abortifacients, the government can easily take responsibility for providing it in the "least restrictive means" aspect.

northport6 · June 2014

@ColeRose

scarfan · June 2014

Loolaide said:

Although the First Amendment has been brought up often in arguing against this, the opinion of the court stated that it didn't make the decision based on the 1st Amendment, but instead on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 2 main parts of that are that if the government is going to require a burden on someone's religious belief (in this case, requiring contraceptive coverage), it needs to be 1. the least restrictive means of doing so 2. and needs to be on a topic in which the government has a compelling interest.

The overall main reason in the opinion for their decision is that the government has at its disposal, other ways to provide the contraceptive coverage at no or low cost to the consumer instead of placing an unnecessary burden on the religious beliefs of these owners. Basically, the government has expressed that providing contraceptives to women is extremely important so, instead of requiring that this company goes against their strongly held beliefs about abortifacients, the government can easily take responsibility for providing it in the "least restrictive means" aspect.
And that's why the government said that insurance companies would be paying for it instead of the company. Seems strange that the company could make that argument to not provide something they wouldn't even be paying for.

In the Court's opinion, they said:

1. If these companies choose to provide an insurance plan that does not cover the controversial contraceptives, the fines would equal $33 million and $15 million for the 2 corporations - a substantial financial burden in the eyes of the court.

2. The other option would be to not provide insurance at all (in order to avoid providing those instead of the above); the fines for that would be $26 million and $1.8 million. Still a substantial amount according to the court.

Putting this financial burden, etc., on these companies is not the least restrictive way of ensuring that the owners can still keep their religious beliefs while also allowing the government to provide these 4 contraceptives at an affordable cost to women.

scarfan · June 2014

@loolaide

Haha, I'm still reading all 5 million pages of both the opinion and the dissenting one. These people sure like to write

This link include the overall issue that was brought to the court as well as both opinions. I like to actually read what the case was specifically about, as well as both sides' official opinions instead of reading news and blogs ideas, especially when I doubt they've actually taken the time to see what was really decided. After all, it isn't every day SCOTUS makes a decision!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

scarfan · June 2014

ClaireFraser said:

gbenso1288 said:

Loolaide said:

Although the First Amendment has been brought up often in arguing against this, the opinion of the court stated that it didn't make the decision based on the 1st Amendment, but instead on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 2 main parts of that are that if the government is going to require a burden on someone's religious belief (in this case, requiring contraceptive coverage), it needs to be 1. the least restrictive means of doing so 2. and needs to be on a topic in which the government has a compelling interest.

The overall main reason in the opinion for their decision is that the government has at its disposal, other ways to provide the contraceptive coverage at no or low cost to the consumer instead of placing an unnecessary burden on the religious beliefs of these owners. Basically, the government has expressed that providing contraceptives to women is extremely important so, instead of requiring that this company goes against their strongly held beliefs about abortifacients, the government can easily take responsibility for providing it in the "least restrictive means" aspect.
And that's why the government said that insurance companies would be paying for it instead of the company. Seems strange that the company could make that argument to not provide something they wouldn't even be paying for.

In the Court's opinion, they said:

1. If these companies choose to provide an insurance plan that does not cover the controversial contraceptives, the fines would equal $33 million and $15 million for the 2 corporations - a substantial financial burden in the eyes of the court.

2. The other option would be to not provide insurance at all (in order to avoid providing those instead of the above); the fines for that would be $26 million and $1.8 million. Still a substantial amount according to the court.

Putting this financial burden, etc., on these companies is not the least restrictive way of ensuring that the owners can still keep their religious beliefs while also allowing the government to provide these 4 contraceptives at an affordable cost to women.

Well by all means, if the company's are going to be out money then let's just give them what they want. The people (actual people, not the corporation) that this affects don't matter.

I'm wondering about the logistics of how the contraceptives will be paid for, since I believed they said the government would cover it. Do you have to pay OOP and then submit a claim to the US goverment, because that just seems weird.

I think the point is that the RFRA which was passed to protect religious freedom prevents the government from forcing these owners to provide coverage for those. Whether or not everyone agrees with it, that's the current law and is also what the case was about.

It was decided that, in accordance with RFRA, the government can create a way for all women to have the contraceptives without forcing the owners to provide the coverage for it in their insurance plans.

thesportsgal · June 2014

Well, it just would have been a lot easier if Jesus would have written the Constitution.

Want a personalized experience?

Healthcare vs religion?

Re: Healthcare vs religion?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards