Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision.

[Admiral Halsey]

I'm surprised that no one has made a thread on this yet so I guess it's up to me. Now discuss the decision the Supreme Court made in a respectful manner please.

[Oberon]

Urk...

I imagine that most people were avoiding discussing it because of the minefield that the topic sits firmly in the middle of.

Oh well...I smell a profit here...

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_04_2010/post-350-1271888248.jpg


"Helmets, get your helmets here! Only five dollars a piece!"

[Admiral Halsey]

I imagine that most people were avoiding discussing it because of the minefield that the topic sits firmly in the middle of.

Just because it's controversial doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. I'll admit that I hesitated before I posted this while thinking if I really should post it or not. After thinking it over I decided to post it here because unlike other forums i'm on I firmly believe that you guys will keep it civil.(At least as civil as you can on the internet.)

[Oberon]

Well, we'll see where the thread goes, it might be a hot potato, it might be a relatively normal one. Generally speaking the ones that you think are going to turn into a flame war don't whereas the ones that seem innocent turn into a mass brawl. :haha:

Personally I generally tend to avoid posting discussion threads about hot topics like this if I can, just to avoid the risk of it becoming a flame thread.

EDIT: For example, at the moment the front-page news of the BBC is about the bodies of the three missing Israeli soldiers being found and the Israeli government blaming it on Hamas, leading to the likelihood of Israel doing another round of airstrikes in the Gaza Strip (and perhaps the West Bank too since Fatah and Hamas are allies now). I could post a discussion topic on that, but I know it would bog down in the age old row over Israels existence and their actions in regards to Palestine, and then Alex would probably come in and occidentally post anti-sematic images and so on and so forth. There's also the Rolf Harris trial in the UK which I could post a topic on, but that would just wind up as a dumping thread for the usual internet justice ministers to vent their spleens on, likely dissolving into the same thing being repeated over and over along the lines of "He should be hung" "Bring back the death penalty" and other slogans preyed upon by the right wing media.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you for posting this, it's a free world after all, and this is a big topic in America at the moment so Americans and other people alike will want to discuss it, but since it revolves around Obamacare and religion, two of the more explosive topics in both America and Subsim alike, you run the risk of creating more work for the moderators, which is why I hold back on posting things regarding certain subjects in GT, especially if its an opinion that runs counter to the prevailing wind in this area.
Like I said, we'll see how it goes, might well be that no-one actually replies to the thread, or it just turns into a standard Obama spleen vent and then drops of the front page like so many others.

[Armistead]

I think it's a great forum for hot potatoes because of the people here.

I'm not sure I know enough about it to say my opinion has merit. It does appear to be another political opinion of the court, but doesn't mean the decision doesn't have merit.

As I understand the court found a private business doesn't have to follow a mandate that interferes with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think it's a close call.......can understand both sides.

With what I know now, I think it's a victory for the constitution and I do tire of these forced mandates. I say that with no religious fight in this battle.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, you might have wrestled inwardly for many many minutes before posting this, but for us in the dark (or grey) about this, a link to information about thread title or your viewpoints might have been useful for people to do a bit of research. Maybe you might get more posts in your thread.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-analysis/

[Tribesman]

I believe illness is a curse from god on the unrighteous.
The only cure is prayer and repentance.
Providing others with any "medical" cover beyond that is an infringement of my religious freedom based on my beliefs.

That should be good enough.:nope:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I'm surprised that no one has made a thread on this yet so I guess it's up to me. Now discuss the decision the Supreme Court made in a respectful manner please.If you want something discussed you would have better chance if you supplied links to what is expected to be discussed. This kind of thread starting posts are very annoying to be honest.


(or maybe I'm just unusually grumpy this morning)

[Sailor Steve]

I also think that it would be polite for the person starting the thread to open the discussion by giving his own opinions, rather than just inviting others to do so.

[Wolferz]

I don't know and I don't care.:O:

It's not a hot button topic for me personally.

[Jimbuna]

Well, you might have wrestled inwardly for many many minutes before posting this, but for us in the dark (or grey) about this, a link to information about thread title or your viewpoints might have been useful for people to do a bit of research. Maybe you might get more posts in your thread.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-analysis/

If you want something discussed you would have better chance if you supplied links to what is expected to be discussed. This kind of thread starting posts are very annoying to be honest.


(or maybe I'm just unusually grumpy this morning)

I also think that it would be polite for the person starting the thread to open the discussion by giving his own opinions, rather than just inviting others to do so.

All fair points and I'll be keeping an eye on the heat/temperature settings.

[Feuer Frei!]

I don't know and I don't care.:O:

It's not a hot potato topic for me personally.

Fixed.

[Wolferz]

Fixed.

Semantics. I guess you didn't get the "hot button" joke.:D

[Feuer Frei!]

Semantics. I guess you didn't get the "hot button" joke.:D

I like [hot] potatoes :smug:

[Armistead]

I also think that it would be polite for the person starting the thread to open the discussion by giving his own opinions, rather than just inviting others to do so.

Is that a rule or an opinion as I do it all the time?

Maybe the person doesn't have a view, maybe the person is seeking knowledge from smartar......smarter people like you. Maybe he just wants to start a discussion and rile everyone up and isn't a polite person. :o

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok i'll admit I should've given a link to the relevant topic. As for my opinion i'm neutral really. Both sides had their reasons and neither really convinced my they were right.

[Armistead]

My issue is mandates that bypass congress and forced on businesses, so I believe the court got it right this time.

You still can get Plan B, you'll just have to pay for it....seems about $50. If you can't afford that Planned Parenthood offers it on a sliding scale to free.

Maybe the best way to prevent employers from making health care decisions for their employees is to not pass laws requiring employers to make health care decisions for their employees.

[Dread Knot]

For me, the main question that arises from this ruling is what it says about corporate law. The main purpose of an LLC and its other iterations is to protect and shield the individual owners from liability for the actions of the corporation. It is an independent entity. By extension if it is sued or it incurs fines or if it owes debts etc, the stakeholders can't be held as individual responsible parties for payment because the corporation owes and not the owners personally. If Hobby Lobby suddenly had a turn for the worse financially, the corporate veil would insulate the shareholders from financial liability beyond their stake in the corporation because the corporation and the shareholders are treated as legally separate. Yet, that veil is apparently non-existent when it comes to religious beliefs.

In this case, the owners (the Greens) successfully argued that no - in fact we and our corporation are one. There is no separation. Doesn't that kinda throw one of the core purposes of an LLC/LLP/etc out the window?

Seems like if you have a pending suit against Hobby Lobby, you would add the Greens to it real quick - The Supremes just ruled they are the same.

[Wolferz]

Grab your putters. We're going to the greens and put err putt some balls in their holes.:O:

[Platapus]

For me, the main question that arises from this ruling is what it says about corporate law. The main purpose of an LLC and its other iterations is to protect and shield the individual owners from liability for the actions of the corporation. It is an independent entity. By extension if it is sued or it incurs fines or if it owes debts etc, the stakeholders can't be held as individual responsible parties for payment because the corporation owes and not the owners personally. If Hobby Lobby suddenly had a turn for the worse financially, the corporate veil would insulate the shareholders from financial liability beyond their stake in the corporation because the corporation and the shareholders are treated as legally separate. Yet, that veil is apparently non-existent when it comes to religious beliefs.

In this case, the owners (the Greens) successfully argued that no - in fact we and our corporation are one. There is no separation. Doesn't that kinda throw one of the core purposes of an LLC/LLP/etc out the window?

Seems like if you have a pending suit against Hobby Lobby, you would add the Greens to it real quick - The Supremes just ruled they are the same.

You brought up some interesting thoughts.

Either a corporation is separate from its owners or it ain't. One should not be able to pick and choose based on what is advantageous at the moment.

[Dread Knot]

You brought up some interesting thoughts.

Either a corporation is separate from its owners or it ain't. One should not be able to pick and choose based on what is advantageous at the moment.

Yeah. It certainly seems like a legal case of having your cake and eating it too.

[razark]

My issue is mandates that bypass congress...
Can you clarify this? Wasn't the mandate part of the law that was passed by Congress? And if it wasn't part of the bill that passed and was signed into law, where did it get added?


As for the decision, I don't agree with allowing employers to dictate healthcare decisions for employees. What happens if a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness wishes to not be required to have coverage for blood transfusions? If the owners wish to conduct their affairs in a religious matter, they should run a religious organization. If they wish to run a company, they should run a company in accordance with the laws.

[CaptainMattJ.]

For me, the main question that arises from this ruling is what it says about corporate law. The main purpose of an LLC and its other iterations is to protect and shield the individual owners from liability for the actions of the corporation. It is an independent entity. By extension if it is sued or it incurs fines or if it owes debts etc, the stakeholders can't be held as individual responsible parties for payment because the corporation owes and not the owners personally. If Hobby Lobby suddenly had a turn for the worse financially, the corporate veil would insulate the shareholders from financial liability beyond their stake in the corporation because the corporation and the shareholders are treated as legally separate. Yet, that veil is apparently non-existent when it comes to religious beliefs.

In this case, the owners (the Greens) successfully argued that no - in fact we and our corporation are one. There is no separation. Doesn't that kinda throw one of the core purposes of an LLC/LLP/etc out the window?

Seems like if you have a pending suit against Hobby Lobby, you would add the Greens to it real quick - The Supremes just ruled they are the same.
Precisely. This is a big loss for many reasons, one of the biggest is that the supreme court continues to treat corporations and LLCs as individuals with individual rights.

The other part of this loss is that this kind of decision leaves questions about whether or not companies can deny any or all parts of healthcare to their workers because the owners claim it violates their personal beliefs.

Hobby lobby, by the way, isnt forced to provide healthcare at all. They can choose to opt out of providing healthcare, and instead pay a fine that goes to public funding pools for healthcare. This country cannot claim greatness when the poor are being denied the most basic human need of healthcare. If you dont want to provide the most basic health insurance plan for your underpaid workers who can barely afford to feed themselves, then its your responsibility as an american citizen to contribute, in general, to the funding that ensures the poor are not condemned to die simply because their poverty prevents them from paying $100,000 hospital bills.

That is the fundamental reason why its a loss. Because like many who vehemently defend constitutional rights always say: the removal of one right is a slippery slope. They opposed plan B because they claim its abortion. First of all, it doesnt kill ANYTHING. All it does is prevent the release of eggs in the first place, and/or irritate the uterus lining so implantation cannot occur, therefore Plan B is in no way, shape, or form, abortion. It protects women from pregnancy that could result in a deplorably poor life for the child, and most importantly, it protects women from unwanted pregnancy caused by rape. It is a part of basic woman's healthcare, and by the same standard, viagra is covered for men's healthcare, so why cant Plan B?

Next companies may try to get out of insuring birth control pills, which in actuality, is a hormonal therapy regiment. There are hundreds of thousands of women who use these pills mainly to treat severe, chronic, and potentially harmful conditions caused by hormone imbalances. Yet because they also have the added benefit of reducing pregnancy risk, companies may try to exclude them on religious grounds.

Thats the kind of slippery slope this court decision may bring. That's why it was a loss for worker's rights, specifically women. Its about time this country moved out of the dark ages and treated healthcare like the essential right that it is. It disgusts me, as an American, that the poor and less fortunate are literally dying because they are denied the right to healthcare because treatment for common diseases like cancer costs more than many people make in their entire lifetime. It digsusts me, as an American, that profiting off the sick, suffering, and dying is put above the basic right for every person to receive healthcare. THAT is why this court decision is a terrible one.

[Wolferz]

:sign_yeah::agree:

When I first heard the scuttlebutt on healthcare reform, my first thought was "finally" they're going to bring these doctors and hospitals and their sky high rates back down to earth. I figured maybe, just maybe they would force the medical professionals to accept what a health insurance policy pays for services rendered.
But, alas, no that's not what it was about. Just another conspiracy to pry money out of the pockets of the people.
Now, the medical pros still get their exorbitant cash flow and we foot the bill for 20% of the costs (until the deductible is reached) (which rarely happens) plus paying premiums to the insurance companies to boot. Even Medicare collects a premium from the sick, lame and lazy retirees and the disabled. :roll:
Obama gathered all the industry folk to hammer out the best way to screw the public and most likely to decide where to invest his own money for maximum profit. What does he care? He gets free healthcare for life! But we're expected to give up eating to pay insurance premiums and the doctor's 20% tip.:-?

your best bet is to never get sick. If you do get sick...
Die quickly!

As for the ladies and their birth control, easy fix that only requires a quarter ($0.25). Place the quarter on one knee and cross your legs to hold it in place.

[Platapus]

I read that Hobby Lobby's investment funds include corporations that are involved in the "plan B" industry. So while the Greens feel it is right to refuse their employees using their corporate insurance to pay for the "plan B" pill, they are quite satisfied in investing and reaping the advantages of a profitable "plan B" pill company.

If the Greens were truly sincere, and not just playing a public publicity game, they would remove the "offending" but profitable companies from their corporate investment plans. There are mutual funds specifically designed to exclude objectionable industries..... unfortunately, they are not always as profitable as the "objectionable" ones.

I guess the Greens are not offended *that* much to move to a potentially less profitable fund. Lemme guess, they justify that by claiming that the fund choice is a corporate decision and not the family's.

[Tribesman]

I read that Hobby Lobby's investment funds include corporations that are involved in the "plan B" industry. So while the Greens feel it is right to refuse their employees using their corporate insurance to pay for the "plan B" pill, they are quite satisfied in investing and reaping the advantages of a profitable "plan B" pill company.


It's better than that, they don't just have money invested in the emergency contraception business which they call abortion, they have money invested in the actual abortion business.

[frau kaleun]

Now, the medical pros still get their exorbitant cash flow and we foot the bill for 20% of the costs (until the deductible is reached) (which rarely happens) plus paying premiums to the insurance companies to boot. Even Medicare collects a premium from the sick, lame and lazy retirees and the disabled. :roll:

While I'm sure there some medical pros who are raking in big bucks, the reality I see for the average physician or group of docs in private practice who actually treat illnesses (as opposed to providing elective, cosmetic, or otherwise non-covered services for which their patients pay 100% up front) is that the only thing they rake in is what the insurance companies decide they're allowed to receive and collect. In our practice, that's usually only 50-60% of what we actually charge for our services. In the case of Medicare and most Medicaid plans, it's more like 20-25% of what we charge. What it costs us to provide those services and keep our doors open goes up with every passing year, but most insurance plans are paying us the same or LESS than what they did when I started this job 20+ years ago, and Medicare is the worst offender in that category.

Unfortunately, if providers don't agree to accept that, the insurance companies and government payers exclude them from their networks of "participating" doctors and they risk losing the majority of their patients, who understandably don't want to pay even more out of pocket to see a non-participating doc when another practice down the street has a contract with their plan that may reduce their OOP expenses. Doctors and small groups of docs in private practice simply do not have the bargaining power to negotiate anything with these big insurers - they have us all over a barrel and they know it.

Reimbursement here is so bad in some specialties that docs in those specialties either change specialties completely, retire early, move away, or never set up shop here in the first place... which results in people not being able to get the care they want and need even if their insurance WILL cover it, because there simply aren't enough docs to go around. Want to see a dermatologist in Greater Cinci? Be prepared to wait a while, and in the meantime just keep praying that mole on your arm isn't a melanoma. :huh:

After working on the provider of service side of this sad arrangement for over 20 years, what I see is this: every year the insurance companies collect higher and higher premiums, while paying out less in benefits due to higher dectuctibles and copays and increased authorization requirements and preferred formularies and other restrictions on coverage. They are collecting more and paying out less, and their members pay a bigger portion of what is covered out of their own pockets in addition to the higher premiums, while the overall reimbursement to the docs remains the same or actually goes down.

You don't need a PhD in math to figure out who is profiting from this arrangement, lol. Somebody is raking it in, and it most definitely ain't us.

And don't even get me started on the fact that with higher deductibles and copays, we are left getting less and less of what little we're allowed to collect from the insurance companies, and have to try and collect it from the patients, many of whom simply cannot do anything but make small monthly payments for a year or more, after which time we have usually spent so much on billing and collection expenses that any profit we might have seen from providing them with care is long gone. It ends up costing US money to have treated them in the first place.

Other patients could pay, but would rather save their precious HSA funds for providers who are not as lenient about it as we are. :shifty:

And then you have a good portion who have no intention of paying, and never did. This last category costs us tens of thousands of dollars a year in accounts that are simply written off the books - and that's AFTER we've adjusted them down to what the insurance says we're allowed to collect, so double or triple that and it's a good estimate of just how much we are losing by not being the kind of practice that turns people away if they don't have cash up front for everything.