<p>MediCAID’s the one with the reimbursment/access problems. The dysfunctional one that was expanded by ACA. The one that states declining participation in that expansion are criticized for.</p>
<p>Or maybe not, since contrary to something I recall mentioned upthread, it’s the elderly that can be counted on to vote. Which would mean Medicare is really just another unreformable, budget busting entitlement.</p>
<p>Probably just me, but I still can’t see what’s to tout about either of them.</p>
<p>Should be interesting when companies decide, based on religious objections, not to cover antibiotics, pain meds, blood transfusions, etc. </p>
<p>I also find it strange that a ruling which will lead to more abortions is being celebrated by the same people who supposedly oppose abortion, but hey, they are nothing if not hypocritical. </p>
<p>The ruling specifically says “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” There is also a claim that the principles in the case aren’t going to apply to paying taxes.</p>
<p>The decision will provoke a lot of lawsuits about closely held corporations (which is almost all corporations) not having to obey laws they don’t like.</p>
<p>They don’t want to pay for it because contraception goes against their religious beliefs. </p>
<p>Is there anything after this ruling to now prevent a family owned business whose owners are Jehiovas Witness or Christen Scientists or any number of other religious sects who are against certain types of medical interventions from not covering them? I don’t believe there is. </p>
<p>I am a Muslim business owner and everyone who works for me must wear a Hijab even if that is not a tenent of their religion as an uncovered woman goes against my religious belief and I am the boss. </p>
<p>As to that, employers could already control what their employees wear to a substantial extent. Many employers have dress codes or uniforms. </p>
<p>I don’t follow why the decision about contraception doesn’t apply to vaccinations and transfusions too, but in the decision Alito claims it doesn’t.</p>
<p>But I don’t know of any dress code which is based on an employers religious belief. I think this ruling opens up any owners religious beliefs being allowed to dictate all behaviors of their employees. If someone doesn’t like my rule they can go work somewhere else. </p>
<p>Alito’s claim that it doesn’t is only because men need transfusions and vaccinations. We all know if men could get pregnant there would be no question about allowing contraception coverage and there would be no restrictions on abortion, either. </p>
<p>Some religious owner will challenged having to cover vaccinations and transfusions for their employees. The court could argue there is a compelling reason these, especially vaccinations, have for the protection of public good, but that is true for contraception, too. After all, it’s in the best interest of society to limit the birth of unwanted children both socially and economically. I can’t see that reasoning following for transfusions though. Also, since one can get vaccinations through public health agencies and non profit clinics, the public good argument doesnt carry much weight either, imo. </p>
<p>I am really looking forward to more challenges to health care coverage based on religious reasons by business owners. Fun times! </p>
<p>C’mon, they got a woman to make it seem like it’s not a gender issue. Common tactic in lots of legal situations. You need to look at the issue, not the skirt. Works on juries, too. There’s a whole specialty that works on these subtle messages.</p>
<p>It’s an anti-ACA thing, really, And, there are obviously plenty of woman in that camp. The whole religious contraceptive angle was kind of concocted to chip away at the law which is not to say I don’t think they had a valid argument but mostly they did not want to be told what to do by the government. Look, before they were forced to provide it they provided it so you could call it hypocritical I suppose. But that is not unusual with legal technicalities, either. </p>
<p>My bet is they will revisit this and clarify. The law is a thing of beauty- it both is what it is and it is always still subject to further interpretation.</p>
<p>it doesn’t matter how many women are in that camp. It starts with the Consitution. Scotus interprets, not makes laws. This is both freedom of religion and the govt’s right to set protections for the people. </p>
<p>The funny thing is Hobby Lobby’s insurance before ACA covered almost all of the things they are now objecting to. Their conscience is mostly informed by ideology, not religion. </p>
<p>“ruled in favor of closely held for-profit businesses – those with at least 50% of stock held by five or fewer people, such as family-owned businesses – in which the owners have clear religious beliefs.”</p>
<p>So, “clear religious beliefs” will also matter and be tested. (Ie, argued. Probably in future cases that also serve to clarify the intent.)</p>
<p>CNN: “The practical result will likely be an administrative fix by the Obama administration that subsidizes the contraceptives at issue…” In legal conflict resolution, it can matter very much when there is a workaround.</p>
<p>LF- I agree, but there are plenty of easy ways for the government to deliver those 4 contraceptives without infringing on anyone’s religious freedom. They will pick one.</p>