Problems with the Hobby Lobby Decision

Actually the problems seem to be far greater than what I mention. For example now a person seeking employment is going to have to address potential "religious" discrimination by the employer when considering whether to work for them. While the employer cannot question a person about their personal religious beliefs now it becomes incumbant upon an applicant to check to see of the employer engages in religious discrimination when considering employment.

 

Where in the ruling did the supreme court sau when had the right to have abortion at the expense of others?So tell me, who's preventing women who work at Hobby Lobby?

That would be no a single person.

 

Morning after pills are generally prescribed although there are some over the counter medicine. If over the counter, then medical insurance is usually not involved since OTC medicine is not generally allowed under IRC 213(d).

 

Funny, but Hobby Lobby is pretty much a model company like Costco with the exception that they have religious principles. The religious hate from the left colors their common sense.

 

The chemical composition is relevant since we are dealing with biochemical compounds introduced into the body.

The primary function of both birth control contraception and emergency contraception pills is the same: to prevent pregnancy through either not ovulating or preventing the egg from being fertilized. It is more common that birth control contraception pills have added medical benefits whereas emergency contraception pills, aka the morning after pill, does not.

 

Actually very true.

 

It isn't a defeat. It simply created another exception under the ACA.

 

yes but how many of those closely held companies have 50 or more employees. probably 20% of the 90% you are citing.

BTW, that 90% is an accurate number given that includes S corps and C corp designations under the IRS.

 

what a bunch of hypocrites

 

Still have no clue I see. Hobby Lobby is a model company which the left would champion but only if they had no religious principles such is the liberal hate for religion. 401ks are owned by the employees, not the company. The company does not invest in them (which would indicate a return as profit) but matches a portion of employee savings.

 

a model of hypocrisy

 

Still delusional about HL eh?

 

It is about a business providing coverage according to a Standard fixed by our elected representatives.

Why does the right complain about the social costs of a pound of cure; cognitive dissonance?

- - - Updated - - -

Because our republican form of Government is supposed to balance those with the most "gold" making the most "rules".

 

it's delusional to deny certain healthcare products, then invest in the companies that make them

 

I believe it merely re-enforces the perception of American "exceptionalism" when those with the most "gold" can make the most "rules", (for others).

 

In other words, if you are a wealthy capitalist, you merely need to be able to afford enough lawyers to have socialism bail out capitalism by socializing that cost.

 

Are the owners in denial; all they needed to do was practice abstinence and just saying "no" to its use, for themselves. Or, is that preached for only the least wealthy.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is that those with most wealth can practice the most exceptionalism, in America.

 

Under ACA an employer pays a fine if it does not offer insurance that meets certain standards.
Hobby Lobby was free to offer insurance that did not cover birth control AND pay the fine.
Now the Supreme Court has decided to add to the bit of illusion, that a corporation is a person, the further fantasy, that a corporation can have deeply held religious beliefs.....

 

They don't have to. Even under Obamacare, an employer is not obligated to provide insurance. However, if they choose to do so, they can receive tax benefits. But in order to receive those tax benefits, the insurance provided has to meet certain criteria, which included 20 different kinds of contraception. The Hobby Lobby case was about 4 of those 20, those categorized as abortofactiants because they are an after the fact drug that prevent an otherwise fertilized egg from growing to term.

For me, I find 2 very important facts interesting. First is that before Obamacare came along, Hobby Lobby provided insurance to it's employees, voluntarily, that covered those drugs. Second, this is about the tax benefits. And now you know... The rest of the story.

 

If the decision went for liberals (the same judges, the same issues) liberals would be so happy they;d be wetting their pants. "the most gold" ? really..?

 

Still don't understand what investment means eh?

 

Roe v Wade established the Constitutional Right of a woman to have an abortion and the US government doesn't fund abortions and, to my knowledge, never has even if it was required to save the life of a woman (I could be wrong on that).

Obamacare has no provisions for funding of abortion to my knowledge.

The Supreme Court, in the Hobby Lobby decision, did include the caveat that the female employees are still entitled to the contraceptive benefit free of charge but it will have to be provided for on a separate insurance policy.

As I've mentioned the solution to this is easy. No price break for Hobby Lobby in it's insurance premiums and then the insurance companies can use "excess profits" to provide another insurance policy for the women free of charge. All problems solved.

 

I believe the subjective value of morals must originate with real Persons; artificial persons should have no standing.

 

In some cases, exceptionalism should be charged the full Tax rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it usually means using money and not having to practice what those seeking investment dollars may preach.

 

Investment - the action or process of investing money for profit

Still doesn't apply.