Obamacare's hhs contraception mandate struck down

[racrguy]

Nope because the constitution dictates that you are to pay taxes to fund the 18 enumerated responsibilities. One amendment does not trump another unless it specifically states such which is why the power to tax does not trump the freedom of religion.

So, if the power to tax doesn't trump my freedom from religion I should be exempt from paying taxes, as it's against my religion to do so. Not only that, the constitution doesn't require me to pay taxes, it only gives the government the power to lay and collect them. The constitution does not require anything of the citizens, only the government.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

[Nash B.]

They are not providing abortions by providing an insurance that covers them anymore than they are providing cigarettes to people who shop at the same grocery store. My previous analogy is apt.

The Gilardis...challenged ObamaCare’s provision that requires them to provide free contraception to their employees through a health insurance plan.

They're buying the groceries for their employees, and if the employees want them, those groceries can include contraceptives.

[Denny]

So, if the power to tax doesn't trump my freedom from religion I should be exempt from paying taxes, as it's against my religion to do so. Not only that, the constitution doesn't require me to pay taxes, it only gives the government the power to lay and collect them. The constitution does not require anything of the citizens, only the government.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Buuuuuuut, the govt looks at imprisonment and property seizure as its power to collect when needed.

[Maddhattter]

The federal government hands down a new mandate that stipulates employers have to offer, as part of their overall compensation package, $1,000 a month toward groceries, $100 a month for cigarettes and $100 a month for beer.

But that's not what their doing. They are saying that, as part of their overall compensation packages, $1,200 a month must be spent, however that money may be spent on beer and cigarettes.

You (the employer) contract with Kroger to provide your employees with their basket of goodies for $1,200 per employee/month. Not all of your employees smoke or drink - so they'll leave the Colt 45 and Salems on the shelf. But, irrespective of usage, you (the employer) have still paid for the beer and cigarettes.

Again, no I won't. I'll have paid for a service that will pay for beer and cigarettes in the same way I cut them a paycheck, as part of their compensation package. However, those that don't drink or smoke can use that service for other purposes and still receive the same benefit.

You might, for personal convictions, be inclined to argue that you shouldn't have to provide beer and cigarette money. Why should you be forced to subsidize behaviors that you find morally untenable?

I wouldn't be providing beer and cigarette money any more that I would be by giving them a paycheck.

And, obviously, you are not denying access - there is nothing to prevent individual employees from going to Kroger and buying all the beer and cigarettes that they can afford (with their own money).

If I'm adding the above benefit package to their overall compensation package, by them using it that way, they are spending their own money.

Your analogy seems to be forgetting that one of the key features of Obamacare is it creates 'one size fits all' policies that are designed to subsidize high cost groups. Historically women have paid more for health insurance because of the cost of birth control/maternity care. By forcing everyone to have the same coverage, regardless of need or personal convictions, women of child bearing age can pay less and everyone else can pay more.

My analogy doesn't forget the 'one size fits all' policies because they don't exist. Obamacare set a minumim, but that in no way makes it a one size fits all. Nor does it forget the fact that it's designed to subsidize high cost groups because that's exactly what the insurance industry does.

So, as I've said before, if you don't like the coverages you're out of luck because when you purchase an insurance package you're not supporting the coverage supplied to your employees. Your you're supporting everything the company does for all it's employees and all coverages provided to any and all of its customers.

I find it funny how some people can argue out of one side their mouth about women's reproductive rights as a privacy issue - until it's time to pay for it.

Was this directed at me? I've never claimed this is a privacy issue, but a rights issue. Even if I had, how it's paid for would still be irrelevant to whether or not the rights exist.

[Maddhattter]

They're buying the groceries for their employees, and if the employees want them, those groceries can include contraceptives.

No, they are not. They are not buying them groceries any more than giving them a paycheck is paying for groceries for them.

[blownragtop]

Let's imagine that the federal government mandated that everyone had to have flood insurance, as part of a comprehensive home owners policy. A guy who lives on a desert mountaintop will have flood insurance despite the fact that there is a 100% certainty that he will never make a claim. The fact that he doesn't use a component of his coverage doesn't mean that it fails to exist. He's still paying for it.

This is no different. By mandating what constitutes a 'full basket' (coverage minimums) the federal government is forcing employers to pay for beer and cigarettes. Employees are not paying for beer and cigarettes (forgetting about premiums and deductibles). Employers are.

[Forever_frost]

Have to love the fact that a gay man has to pay for birth control and ovarian cancer screenings as part of his health care policy even though it's impossible for him to need it or a woman paying for prostate cancer screenings for the same reason

[Maddhattter]

Let's imagine that the federal government mandated that everyone had to have flood insurance, as part of a comprehensive home owners policy. A guy who lives on a desert mountaintop will have flood insurance despite the fact that there is a 100% certainty that he will never make a claim. The fact that he doesn't use a component of his coverage doesn't mean that it fails to exist. He's still paying for it.

He's paying for a package that includes flood insurance. You've not demonstrated any deviance from the grocery store analogy I used before. You've merely restated your previous point. He's subsidizing the flood coverage of every other person that uses the same company as he does, regardless as to whether it's part of his plan or not.

This imaginary issue that the companies money goes to the employees services is just not reflected in reality or the insurance business model.

This is no different. By mandating what constitutes a 'full basket' (coverage minimums) the federal government is forcing employers to pay for beer and cigarettes. Employees are not paying for beer and cigarettes (forgetting about premiums and deductibles). Employers are.

Repeating your point with no additional information doesn't change the fact that your point is not comparable.

Also, you never answered my question...

Have to love the fact that a gay man has to pay for birth control and ovarian cancer screenings as part of his health care policy even though it's impossible for him to need it or a woman paying for prostate cancer screenings for the same reason.

It's been that way as long as insurance has existed. That's how insurance companies work.

[blownragtop]

You've merely restated your previous point...

Repeating your point with no additional information doesn't change the fact that your point is not comparable...

This imaginary issue that the companies money goes to the employees services is just not reflected in reality or the insurance business model.

Of course I restated my original point. Was I supposed to change it just because you disagreed? I think I'll continue to side with Judge Brown.

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown on behalf of the court. “It is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right – whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy – can extend to the compelled subsidization of a woman’s procreative practices.”

It's been that way as long as insurance has existed. That's how insurance companies work.

You're muddying the waters by confusing insurance with government regulation.

If I have a 1972 Pinto do I have to carry comprehensive coverage to help subsidize the rates for new car owners?

No, not really.

Does a 50 year old post menopausal women need to purchase an insurance plan with maternity care coverage?

Yes she does. Now. Under penalty of law.

What's new and different here is the mandating of minimums that are excessive and needlessly expensive. The problem isn't insurance (or how it works) - it's Obamacare.

Also, you never answered my question...

Sorry, no - not directed at you. Just a somewhat off tangent musing.

[Maddhattter]

Of course I restated my original point. Was I supposed to change it just because you disagreed?

My criticism is not that you restated your point. We've both done that several times. What I was criticizing that repeating your point was all you did. You didn't add any new or different information to support your point.

I think I'll continue to side with Judge Brown.

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown on behalf of the court. “It is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right – whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy – can extend to the compelled subsidization of a woman’s procreative practices.”

And she supported the assertion of when religious exercise is asserted where?

I'm not saying that you can't agree with her, only that the evidence doesn't support her opinion and, given that Abbot wasn't confident enough in his bill that he had to call an emergency session (that only took 3 days from request to ruling) to get a ruling overturned, it's not apparent that the ruling will stick.

You're muddying the waters by confusing insurance with government regulation.

No, I'm not as, in the case being discussed, the government regulation is on an insurance policy. So, how the insurance company behaves is tantamount to the discussion.

If I have a 1972 Pinto do I have to carry comprehensive coverage to help subsidize the rates for new car owners?

No, not really.

Actually, you do because that's how an insurance company operates.

Does a 50 year old post menopausal women need to purchase an insurance plan with maternity care coverage?

No, but she'll be subsidizing the coverage for others who have it regardless. The only difference will be how much she's subsidizing it.

Yes she does. Now. Under penalty of law.

I've already stated that I agree that the government has no business mandating the insurance to begin with. That's not the discussion being had here.

What's new and different here is the mandating of minimums that are excessive and needlessly expensive. The problem isn't insurance (or how it works) - it's Obamacare.

Then why wasn't that the complaint?

I'm sorry, the issue here is that someone is requesting a religious exemption where there is no indication that there is any reason there should be one because they will not be subsidizing contraception any more than they will be subsidizing beer and cigarettes at a grocery store.

Again, I think that we're in agreement that the government should not be requiring all grocery stores to sell beer and cigarettes to anyone (using the grocery store analogy) but the people shopping are supporting the sale merely by doing business with them.

Sorry, no - not directed at you. Just a somewhat off tangent musing.

Not a problem. Just wasn't sure where that came from.