Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by 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/po...care-analysis/

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

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)

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

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

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

Fixed.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Fixed.

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

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

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

I like [hot] potatoes

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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.