Posted on 07/06/2014 5:32:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case demonstrates that the court, at least the five justices who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby, has little concern for, and probably little understanding of, women's health care. By ruling that corporations, on the grounds of the alleged religious views of their owners, can deny women access to some forms of contraception, the court set a horrible precedent that if followed will endanger the health and lives of many American women.
The Hobby Lobby ruling may at first seem like a victory for the minority of Americans who think that both abortion and contraception should be illegal, and for those who believe that the US should operate more as a theocracy than a country where state and church are separate. However, the ruling not only is terrible news for women seeking a guarantee of good healthcare through their employer, but also for anybody who believes in personal freedom.
In the US, where health insurance is linked to employment, health insurance is part of the compensation package. When most Americans are about to start a new job, or choosing between two or more jobs, one of the first questions they ask is about the quality of the health insurance they will get. In most cases, health insurance varies because some companies offer plans with lower co-pays, better dental care or things like that. Firms that deny dental care are doing it because of concerns about costs, not because they have an ethical or religious problem with healthy teeth. Hobby Lobby is doing something different, denying women access to some forms of health care because of the personal beliefs of the people who run the company.
This decision raises the question of whether the Supreme Court will next rule that employers can tell workers how to spend the money they earn at their jobs. This sounds a bit extreme, but in a very real way that is precisely what the court just did. By limiting how workers can use some of their compensation, the court, despite its own assertions that it was not setting a precedent, opened the door for further limitations. If Hobby Lobby can tell people how they can or cannot use their health care benefits, why can't they also tell people they can't, for example, use their salaries to, for donate to pro-choice political candidates or pro-marriage equality causes? The answer, one would think, would be obvious, but the recent court decision makes it considerably less clear.
The Republican Party has long, if not always sincerely, repeated a mantra of individual freedom, but the Hobby Lobby decision, in which all five justices who formed the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, undermines that. A central belief of all Republican politicians is that Americans should have a right to do what they want with, and keep as much as possible of, their hard-earned money. The Supreme Court made a big move against that idea this week, but the outrage from the Republican side has been absent.
Conservative opposition to healthcare have consistently argued that decisions about health care should be made by patients and doctors, not by the government. The death panel hysteria that Sarah Palin unleashed on the American people a few years ago took that point to a nutty extreme. After last week, conservatives who support Hobby Lobby should probably change their position and argue that health care decisions should be made not by a patient's doctor, but by a patient's employer. Similarly, for supporters of the Hobby Lobby decision, the new mantra of individual freedom should now be that Americans should be allowed to do whatever they want with their hard earned money, as long as their boss approves, but somehow that seems an unlikely campaign slogan for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.
The Hobby Lobby decision is about women's health care and individual freedom, but it also another sign of the consolidation of power by big corporations in the US. It is now legal for corporations to deny workers important medical services, and redefine their compensation packages, simply because, religious claims aside, they want to. During a very tenuous recovery in which real wages have not recovered, unemployment remains high and economic uncertainty on the part of working Americans is an enormous problem, the Supreme Court just gave more rights to corporations while taking wealth, as health care benefits are a form of wealth, out of the hands of working Americans.
Why does Obama, and some women, want their employers in their bedrooms?
By the author's logic, I am now denied access to health care, for reasons even flimsier than religious objections [profiteering.]
The Republican War on the Allergic?
Only if you’ve received a journalism degree from one of the right schools.
“1. Some people oppose abortion but not birth control.”
True, but some people, even prolifers, don’t realize that some birth control can cause a miscarriage, when conception takes place, even before the woman knows she’s pregnant.
...”Basic common sense is not a strong point with these gits.”...
It is the blocking of their dictatorship that they hate. They love abortion and anything which stands in the way of that murderous process is cause for great anger and intolerance on their part. Every intelligent, thinking, informed individual in this nation who pays attention knows that Hobby Lobby pays for 16 out of 20 of the birth control drugs and methods developed for the US. It is only the 4 which cause abortion that they do not intend to pay for..They believe they should not participate in what their faith tells them is murder and the Supreme Court agreed.
The restoration of freedom of religion act,which is responsible for this decision,was put on the floor of the Senate by the far,far,far,left loon Chuck Schummer of New York,it passed in the House unanimously,in the senate only 3 votes against it,and it was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
All these commie democrat a-holes can thank these lefties for cutting off their noses to spite their face
Gotta be kidding. All insurance policies of any type...some stuff is covered and some stuff is not covered. If it’s not covered that doesn’t mean it’s off limits, just purchase it.
Amen to what you said!
Insurance Companies change their formularies almost every year to define which medications they will or will not cover. Some will only cover generics on certain items, others define certain brands they WILL pay for and ones they will not. If a Physician insists on a particular medication that is not on the formulary, he can request an override. If the Insurance Company refuses the Override, the doctor can choose an alternate medication that IS covered, or the patient can opt to pay out of pocket for the non-covered medication.
Voila! problem solved.
(At least that is how it worked before the Lyin’ King messed up the greatest health care system in the world.)
You're correct, but those niceties could be a thing of the past with Obamacare-compliant policies becoming mandatory for many employers and many individuals and families being dropped from coverage by their employers. With those new policies, I believe the drugs and devices covered will mandated by Big Brother, and I don't think there will be as much flexibility as we've become accustomed to. (Of course, they will also cost a lot more.)
Let's not lose sight of the number one goal here: Repeal Obamacare ASAP!!!
Yes, the first part of that is true, but on the House side they are at least stirring a bit lately with their committee hearings and investigations. Now you have Boehner belatedly coming up with a suit against the Dictator in Chief. Hope he's serious, and not just doing it for show, but I fear otherwise. Regardless, there is new GOP leadership needed in the House, and a new majority with new GOP leadership in the Senate in order to start to turn things around.
Unfortunately, there is so much crime and scandal perpetrated by the Dictator in Chief and his administration that there are too many balls for the Republican lightweights in Congress to juggle at the same time.
Abortion and contraception should be compulsory, along with sexual promiscuity. Got that.
Lincoln may give Baghdad Bob a run for his money...
There is NO SUCH thing as “LOGICAL THINKING” on the LEFT.
After 50 years of dealing with these idiots, I’m convinced that Left-liberalism (not the old liberalism) is a form of mental illness, only curable for most by decapitation. Remove the head/brain, and you remove the problem.
Unfortunately we don’t live in a Caliphate of the type that the Left admires so “getting a head” isn’t a viable solution. That said, we just need to refine our arguments with logical, documentation, and simple words for the low or overeducated voters/parasites.
Guess this means I can’t say to them any more that “You’re out of your fucking mind”. Not PC and not effective against the mentally ill.
I’d actually like to say, “Welcome to your new living accomodations. You’ll like the pads cells” and “they are lighted by green power solar panels courtesy of Solyndra”.
One can dream!
Indeed!
Your last paragraph is exactly correct. I have no hope that the Bonehead in the House will do anything useful. He is too busy playing golf, drinking, and tanning. He despises conservatives and loves the GOPe and all the trappings he surrounds himself with
The writer starts his piece with the clearest practicable demonstration of his own intellectual confusion. How is any corporation "denying women" access to anything--except, perhaps, during their working hours? Is the chap under the delusion that a corporation can effectively deny an employee's right to buy any product, otherwise available, during off duty hours? Is he so mesmerized by the idea of claimed entitlements to having someone else pay for one's wants, that he cannot see the absurdity of his own hyperbole?
Every day there are literally scores of demonstrations, published by alert Conservatives at this venue, of the inability of the American Leftist to put subject matter into a rational perspective. We too often rail at their compulsive & intolerant efforts to suppress actual freedom; but what shines through clear as the sun on dewy grass on a fine April morn, is that their most distinguishing trait is the manifest inability to understand logical relationships.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.