Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    I've changed my mind.  A contraceptive free insurance plan should be made available for those with religious objections.  

    Premiums should be made 25% more expensive than the plan that covers contraception, due to the greater risk of pregnancy.

     



    Right. if that's the number, that's the number, but, somehow, I think it isn't.  Studies of this indicate it is doubtful that the savings of providing free contraception outweighs the costs.  Look it up.

    What you also fail to realize is that birth control is avsilable, plentiful, and cheap, everywhere in this country.  so, what is the benefit of supplying it as part of a health insurance plan other than to appeal to the weak minded?

    Progressives don't force you into health care and pay 100% of your birth control out of concern for you! the do so out of their concern for themselves.  they need you to need them, and they will keep larding up the handouts until you are no longer able to get by without them.

    free your mind from. Progressivism.  It is a freedom killer.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

     

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is absurd, really. It is not the business that is being forced to violate their religion, it is the owners - PEOPLE.

    The employees are not forced to do anything in this case. They can go find a job somewhere else if they want. They can buy contraceptives on their own, no one is stopping them from doing so. Yet the owners are being forced by the government to violate their religious beliefs.

    Clueless...complete clueless and selfish.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As was said before your remarks, employers are not allowed to dictate how an employee uses their assets. Not their money nor their health care not anything else. An employer is not allowed to impose their beliefs on their workers.

    It is actually pretty simple. I pay you. I do not get to tell you how you can and cannot spend it. Whether it is money or other benefits. As an employer, if you do not like the freedoms this country stands for you can open a business in a country with Sharia law where religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone.

    [/QUOTE]


    An employer has a right to provide whatever salary and benefits he chooses. It is not a matter of employee rights. In this case it is not the employee's money that is being spent, it is the employer's. The employer is not telling the employee to do anything with their money.

    It is simple. The employer hires the employee with stated salary and benefits known to the employee. If the employee is an employee at will instead of under a contract, the employer can change the salary and benefits to their desire within whatever laws and regulations exist. The employee can then decide to take it or leave and find another employer that suits them.

    The case here is that the employer objects to being forced by laws and regualtions to spend their money on something that violates their religious beliefs.

    The case has nothing to do with the employee. The argument is about money before there is any transaction with the employee. There is no asset of the employee that could possibly be involved.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Quite wrong on more than one count. 

     

    Lets just take the first one: once you are piad it is YOUR money. Not the employers. The employer cant tell you how to spend it becuase it is NOT their money ANYMORE! You did the work. THey paid you. It is now your money.

    Same with benefits. WHo has ever claimed - besides your post - that the employer can tell you what doctors to use and whether you should be treated one way or another in your health care.

    To actually think that once you have EARNED - that is by fullfulling your part of the employment contract - your compensation your employer can or should have ANY say AT ALL in what you do with your compensation is ... astounding, stunning.... Your statement, your thought.. is just toooooooo lame. Truly. 

    You need to learn how CONTRACTS work. Contracts 101 for elementary school kids. THen you need lessons in free markets and capitalism. THen you could use some lessons in democracy. Are you that incredably young or that incredably ignorant.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Most people do not work under a contract. They are employees at will, meaning they can leave anytime they want or they can get fired at any time.

    If someone works under a contract then whatever is in the contract rules the day, not your opinion.

    An employer can change the terms of employment any time they want as long as it is legal. An employee can quit any time they like too if they don't like their job conditions.

    This employer wants to change their benefits in contradiction to Obamacare. That is why they went to court. It has NOTHING to do with the employees' assets. You work, then you get paid. The employer is not giving the employee their pay and telling them not to buy contraceptives with it. In fact they are telling them if they want contraceptives, go ahead and buy them if you want.

    Have a nice day, it makes no sense for me to speak to ignorance.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I've changed my mind.  A contraceptive free insurance plan should be made available for those with religious objections.  

    Premiums should be made 25% more expensive than the plan that covers contraception, due to the greater risk of pregnancy.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Right. if that's the number, that's the number, but, somehow, I think it isn't.  Studies of this indicate it is doubtful that the savings of providing free contraception outweighs the costs.  Look it up.

     

    What you also fail to realize is that birth control is avsilable, plentiful, and cheap, everywhere in this country.  so, what is the benefit of supplying it as part of a health insurance plan other than to appeal to the weak minded?

    Progressives don't force you into health care and pay 100% of your birth control out of concern for you! the do so out of their concern for themselves.  they need you to need them, and they will keep larding up the handouts until you are no longer able to get by without them.

    free your mind from. Progressivism.  It is a freedom killer.

    [/QUOTE]

    Obamacare is nothing but redistribution of wealth with a Democrat slush fund thrown in for good measure. They can charge whatever they want for anything to anyone when they have the power to tax. 

    That is one of the dangers of this plan especially with the zealots in control in the White House. Everything is politicized. IRS, EPA, DOJ, DOE, etc. etc. They will no doubt find a way to use Obamacare and their control over the healthcare business to punish their enemies and reward their friends. Registered Democrats get free contraception! Republicans pay for it!!

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    There are people out there still opposed to birth control...?

    Really...?!?

    Why...?!?!

     

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There are people out there still opposed to birth control...?

    Really...?!?

    Why...?!?!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Why? Because a large majority of Americans (78%) say they believe in God, and the tenets of many faiths disfavor the use of certain contraceptives.

    Believers are tolerant toward those who want to use contraceptives, which are freely available , cheap and legal.

    Yet the intolerant State now wants to force believers to violate the tenets of their Faith by mandating they pay for others' contraceptives.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    ACC doesn't understand the difference between people voluntarily band together to mitigate risk versus having the government intervene to promote "social equality" and, of course, themselves. 

    Peering into the mindset of a progressive.

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There are people out there still opposed to birth control...?

    Really...?!?

    Why...?!?!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Why? Because a large majority of Americans (78%) say they believe in God, and the tenets of many faiths disfavor the use of certain contraceptives.

    Believers are tolerant toward those who want to use contraceptives, which are freely available , cheap and legal.

    Yet the intolerant State now wants to force believers to violate the tenets of their Faith by mandating they pay for others' contraceptives.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny how those same "believers" have no problem taking gov't subsidies and tax exemptions from taxpayers, irregardless of the origins of those benefits.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How wide is that brush you are using to paint your argument?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There are people out there still opposed to birth control...?

    Really...?!?

    Why...?!?!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Why? Because a large majority of Americans (78%) say they believe in God, and the tenets of many faiths disfavor the use of certain contraceptives.

    Believers are tolerant toward those who want to use contraceptives, which are freely available , cheap and legal.

    Yet the intolerant State now wants to force believers to violate the tenets of their Faith by mandating they pay for others' contraceptives.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, it's just "certain" contraceptives?  Which ones??

    And why are they "disfavored"?  Do they not like sex more than they like having babies?  Which 'tenets' are they talking about?  A large majority of catholics, for instance, use birth control regularly and are thereby "sinning" in the dogmatic interpretation of scripture

    Sounds like some "believers" aren't tolerant at all, and some birth control is far from cheap, especially the pill which is used as much for regulating menstruation cycles as it is for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

    There is no moral barrier that I can see to preventing pregnancy where none is desired. 

    (I also don't believe morality applies to abortion, yet I understand why some people don't like it.)

    Some of these people are the ones telling the pope to "read his bible more"...as if they have any spiritual authority where he's concerned.

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ACC doesn't understand the difference between people voluntarily band together to mitigate risk versus having the government intervene to promote "social equality" and, of course, themselves. 

    Peering into the mindset of a progressive.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are right.  ACC sees insurance as inherently wealth redistribution.  Those who actually have some real world expereince understand that insurance is nothign more than risk mitigation.

    Obamacare, however, is redistribution, as is is larded up with subsidies.

    It is also traditional socialism, with a veneer of being a "market".  the governmet controls that you buy, what you buy, and how it gets administered.  You, the "consumer" only have the choice of which provider administers this mandatory proctological exam.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pull your skirts down ladies, your ignorance is showing again.

     

    But health insurance doesn't just allow individuals to turn risks into fixed expenses. It is also designed to shift costs across individuals, away from the sick and toward the healthy. If you have foreseeably high health costs, your health insurance premium will be less than your expected claims; if you're likely to be healthy, it will exceed them.

    This system is a kind of shadow fiscal policy, redistributing income from the healthy to the sick. It can only work if consumer choice is restricted in such a way that many people are induced to buy policies that cost much more than they can expect to get back. Obamacare contains many such inducements (including subsidies and the individual mandate) but so does the pre-Obamacare status quo in health policy.

    State health insurance regulations turn insurance into a tool of shadow fiscal policy, shifting costs from the healthy to the sick, with the extent of the redistribution depending on the state.

    Redistributive public policy is even more of a theme in the group health insurance market, which is nine times larger than the individual market and the dominant source of "private" health coverage. The government massively subsidizes this market by excluding employer-provided health benefits from income and payroll taxes. Federal tax advantages for health insurance add up to $300 billion a year.

    These tax subsidies are highly coercive. Take a family with salary income of $60,000 and a health plan worth $15,000. If this family instead took all of its income as $75,000 in cash salary, it would face an income and payroll tax hit of around $4,500, or about 6% of their income. For comparison, the individual mandate penalty in Obamacare will be limited to 2.5% of income....


    That's a summary of the "private" health insurance system we have today: Subsidize and regulate to push as many people as possible into insurance pools, and shift costs among them so the healthy subsidize the sick.

     

    This reflects the fact that health insurance is not really a private product but a government program creating winners and losers, and the terms of the debate are about who will win and who will lose. Democrats want the poor and the sick to win. Republicans want people with existing coverage and high tax rates to win. Neither side is calling for a free market.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/your-private-health-insurance-is-really-a-government-program-2013-10?google_editors_picks=true

    [/QUOTE]

    If your two sides are the mainstream republican party and every liberal on the face of this country, then you are right, no one is calling for a free market. 

    Conservatives, however, are calling for a free insurance market, at least freer than what preceded OBamacare.  this is what is behind the torte reform and selling insurance across state line mantra, free-er markets.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:



    "Second of all, tort reform, as proposed by neo-cons, would also violate state's rights."

    Wow, who knew, Concerned_Citizen is a zealot for "state's rights" . He now has a new bumper sticker:

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

     

    You get there's a difference between local governments that provide services like education and the Federal government which is supposed to be constrained by a constitution?

     

     

     

    Nobody is saying the federal government isn't constrained by the constitution. You just read the ennumerated powers, like interstate commerce, etc., more narrowly than the Supreme Court typically reads them.

    That doesn't make you right, and it doesn't mean people who disagree with your personal reading don't think the federal government is supposed to be constrained.

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]If your two sides are the mainstream republican party and every liberal on the face of this country, then you are right, no one is calling for a free market. 

     

    Conservatives, however, are calling for a free insurance market, at least freer than what preceded OBamacare.  this is what is behind the torte reform and selling insurance across state line mantra, free-er markets.




    First of all spanky, the "state line" baloney is a red herring, or a breach of the Constitution, your pick. Insurers have always been able to sell in any state, as long as they abided by that states insurance regulations.

     

    Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers offer some form of health insurance coverage in every U.S. state.

    Or maybe you prefer that the gov't just void the 10th amend and force states to allow any commerce within their borders regardless of their existing laws.

     

    Second of all, tort reform, as proposed by neo-cons, would also violate state's rights:

     Robert Natelson is the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence for the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute in Colorado and an expert on the original meaning of the Constitution.  He co-authored an important amicus brief on the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the Constitution for the Obamacare case, which is cited by other anti-Obamacare legal experts.  So his conclusion in his new work on the impact of the Obamacare decision on proposed federal medical liability limits should strike a serious blow to efforts to push the bill.:

    He analyzed Title V of H.R. 3121, the “American Health Reform Act” (hereinafter “AHRA”), and concludes that “for Congress to start micro-managing state courts and state juries should frighten anyone who cares about our American constitutional system.”  Natelson briefly describes the bill’s key features: “The bill would rewrite personal injury law extensively—and not just in federal courts administering federal law. It would intrude on state courts applying state law. For example, the bill requires state judges and juries to adopt federal standards of proof, federal standards of guilt, federal damage rules, and federal deadlines. It imposes rules for attorneys’ fees that override both state law and private contracts. It even mandates that some useful information be withheld from juries.”

    Natelson first points out that the Founders always intended “that state civil justice systems and tort law would remain free of federal control,” and assertions that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify federal limits on medical liability are not based on original intent.  “In 2011, I investigated the issue thoroughly, and reported my findings in a detailed paper entitled The Roots of American Judicial Federalism, … That paper showed that (1) a core reason the Founders fought the American Revolution was to assure local control of courts, (2) the Constitution was structured to achieve the same goal, and (3) leading Founders specifically represented—not merely once or twice, but again and again—that state civil justice systems and tort law would remain free of federal control. Despite a few half-hearted assertions to the contrary, the paper’s conclusions have never been seriously challenged.”

    http://www.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/legal-exper-obamacare-ruling-renders-republican-tort-reform-bill-unconstitutional/

    [/QUOTE]

    Selling insurance ACROSS state lines is a breach of the Consititution?

    Yet you have NO PROBLEM with the Federal Government mandating coverage across all 50 states.  Sigh. 

    You really don't understand this constitutional thingie, do you?

    Talk about being at the train station when your ship comes in.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE] "Second of all, tort reform, as proposed by neo-cons, would also violate state's rights."

    Wow, who knew, Concerned_Citizen is a zealot for "satet's rights" . He now has a new bumper sticker [/QUOTE]


    Heh, heh, heh ... neo-cons get all upset when a Constitutional conundrum of their own creation conspires against them.

    "We have to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What on earth are you babbling about?  According to you "neo-cons" have no plan, yet now you claim "their plan" is destroying the consittution.

    Will you figure out where you are going with this and then repost?

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    Ah, an employer's freedom to impose his religion on his employees.

     

    Lovely stuff.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    The ACA is most likely the main issue that will bring the other issues to the forefront and start the pendulum swinging back towards the right.

    Good or bad it happens.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share