Hobby Lobby Files Suit over HHS Mandate, Could Face $1.3 Million in Fines

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


They are challenging the law because of religious beliefs.

= They feel that the law should not pertain to them.

I am not in any way for the government making anything mandetory such as insurance.

I am stating that they are trying to fight the( law unjust or not) because they feel that they should not have to follow it on religious beliefs.

They only feel it is unjust because of their "moral ethics". How can you sit there and say it any other way?

It is about religion versus the law. Otherwise they would just state that the law is unjust. Not because it goes against their Christian beliefs.

I see that you are taking a hardline position on this( it is very obvious). That is fine, I feel that it is interfering with your logical ability to se what it really is. Therefore this will be my last post on the subject.

Have a wonderful day fellow ATS member.


That has been the issue since the beginning. The law infringes on their religious freedoms. I have no idea why you bothered to post this. I have very logically stated everything I have said. What is NOT logical is stating they must follow it because it's the law. There is no logic or critical thinking there. You aren't even quoting anything I say, you just have a semi rambling post with no real point.




posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


My reply was that in my opinion, IF that was the reason (which it is not), then it is gender discrimination to only allow women options to reduce pregnancies, especially when condoms are less intrusive and have fewer side effects to accomplish the same goal

i can agree with this except that condoms are currently readily available for free, no RX needed.
can't say the same for female contraceptives which is why i responded the way i did.

don't get me wrong, in principle, i agree.
in practice, there is no comparison.

seriously? vasectomies have been mandatory for so long, i doubt they'll be removed now or anytime in the near future. kinda wish it was "elective coverage" rather covered elective surgery but wishing won't make it happen.

i agree with your line of thinking just find it a bad example cause they are not equally available currently.
nor would they be with Obamacare forcing coverage for BCs either.

agreed, it's totally whacked and out of balance before it begins



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Taiyed
Hobby Lobby is a Corporation, not a Church.

Sorry, but they have to follow the law.


The law is unconstitutional. Sorry, the government has to follow the Constitution.


The SCOTUS reviewed the entire law, they never determined this portion of it unconstitutional.

So sorry, Corporations, including Hobby Lobby, need to follow the law.
actually, the USSC determined the entire "mandate" unConstitutional and the whole package ONLY acceptable as a tax.
perhaps you should read their opinions.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


That is really the point of my post. The poster had someone had this idea BC for women is absolutely needed and must be covered to prevent pregnancies, but covering condoms for the SAME reason is somehow dumb. It's a double standard. As you said condoms can be had for free, but let's be honest, the average professional male is never going to the places they hand them out. We will buy them.

Just for the record for anyone joining late, I do not think condoms should be covered under insurance



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

yes, i was following along, just in a different time zone i think.

i didn't mean to infer that you did think that way, was just trying to emphasize the point you were making, because the conversation is truly ridiculous as there is no "real-life" comparison between any of them ... condoms, pills, procedures.

ummmm, then you don't want me to be honest on that point

trust me, they will and they do ... by the fistfulls


yes, they buy them too, just don't think for one minute they'll pass up freebies, i've never seen it happen yet.

here's a question going back to the original comment about the potential fine.
what if ... HL converted their business model to a Christian based co-op ??
do you think that would stop these silly court cases in their tracks ??

and why is it that only a company, ie, church, hospital, school, non-profit, can claim exemption via conscientious reasons ??
how did the individual get locked out of such an option ??

why is it that "our" morals (those not religiously affiliated), couldn't possibly be infringed by this ridiculous mandate ?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

yes, i was following along, just in a different time zone i think.

i didn't mean to infer that you did think that way, was just trying to emphasize the point you were making, because the conversation is truly ridiculous as there is no "real-life" comparison between any of them ... condoms, pills, procedures.

ummmm, then you don't want me to be honest on that point

trust me, they will and they do ... by the fistfulls


yes, they buy them too, just don't think for one minute they'll pass up freebies, i've never seen it happen yet.

here's a question going back to the original comment about the potential fine.
what if ... HL converted their business model to a Christian based co-op ??
do you think that would stop these silly court cases in their tracks ??

and why is it that only a company, ie, church, hospital, school, non-profit, can claim exemption via conscientious reasons ??
how did the individual get locked out of such an option ??

why is it that "our" morals (those not religiously affiliated), couldn't possibly be infringed by this ridiculous mandate ?

Well for most people there is a co-op that can allow them to opt out. I can see the argument for needing something, since medical access can not be denied. I think perhaps an emergency care payment to gain access to emergency rooms would be fine. I also personally think someone should be able to opt out and have to wear a special bracelet or some such notifying people they do not qualify for emergency care, and at that point they are left to live or die.

The issue becomes what do you do when service can not be denied, and will not be paid for by the recipient, they then becomes a burden on society and we pay their bill.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Well for most people there is a co-op that can allow them to opt out. I can see the argument for needing something, since medical access can not be denied. I think perhaps an emergency care payment to gain access to emergency rooms would be fine. I also personally think someone should be able to opt out and have to wear a special bracelet or some such notifying people they do not qualify for emergency care, and at that point they are left to live or die.

The issue becomes what do you do when service can not be denied, and will not be paid for by the recipient, they then becomes a burden on society and we pay their bill.
this opinion is far too extreme as medical services are denied regularly. (as in daily)

while it's true that emergency medical services cannot be denied, perhaps the best place to start would be by ONLY accepting emergencies, not sniffles and such. (better triage ?)

as for ID, that's just crazy unless i wouldn't have to pay any taxes either cause that's what they are supposed to be supporting, indigent emergency care. (among other things)

so, since i'm already paying for it, why deny me when it's truly an emergency ??

besides, Obamacare isn't very explicit regarding emergency care, it is more focused on wellness, preventative and end of life care, as a whole.

so, Obamacare Insurance isn't gonna do much to alleviate the indigent tax burden already supported without Obamacare ... do you follow what i'm saying here ??
yes, indigent care is excessive, however, emergency care is a whole 'nother ball game.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


That was my point, we are paying for indigent emergency room care because they do not have insurance. More insured = more people paying their own way = we should pay less for others. The indigent burden exists in part because they have no insurance, do not pay, and make use of services.

If someone refused insurance on religious beliefs they should be denied emergency care, as they are willfully opting out. It is extreme, I agree, but the government shouldn't be holding our hands, at some point we have to make decisions about our lives. Again, I am not talking about someone who is struggling to make ends meet, I am talking about someone who due to their religious beliefs refuses insurance or a co-op. I respect their right to do so. They can not visit that financial burden on others in my opinion, it's their choice.

What I really would like is a single payer system, with private healthcare. Maybe one day we will get there.
edit on 28-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

this is where we disagree in some parts.

we are paying for indigent emergency room care because they do not have insurance.
actually, we are paying indigent care because we agreed to long ago and long before insurance dug its claws into our society as deeply as it has.


More insured = more people paying their own way
in this, i also disagree because the whole concept of insurance is to diversify risk which means no one in the risk pool is "paying their own way".


= we should pay less for others
only in a pipedream.
what really happens is we pay more for ppl to receive less.


The indigent burden exists in part because they have no insurance, do not pay, and make use of services
No, the "burden" exists because no one can be denied service.
including all of those who are not willing to pay.
ability to pay does not translate to willingness to pay on any day of the year.


If someone refused insurance on religious beliefs they should be denied emergency care, as they are willfully opting out
they should never be denied emergency care, that's the whole point.

all the rest is "elective", emergency care is not.

that's another big problem with Obamacare, the types of care are not sympatico at all.


the government shouldn't be holding our hands, at some point we have to make decisions about our lives
couldn't agree more.

see, here's the thing, even you are lumping stitches or broken bones with angioplasty.

now i do believe all of them should be covered BUT here's the glitch ... with IPAB, anything goes and in both cases (stitches and angio), they can be resolved at home.
a broken bone, especially compound, needs "emergent" care.

the stitches are easy enough for a trained caregiver and the heart patient will eventually die.
THIS is the kind of "risk" pooling Obamacare will generate.

ALL are medically necessary and potentially live saving, whereas, neither stitches or angio are technically "emergent care".
and what's worse is decisions like these are pending.

i would be interested in evaluating a system like you describe that's functioning effectively.
so far, i haven't found one.
if you have an example, or a "plan", please share.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I feel we are getting way off topic so I am going to let it die rather than give my retorts. Perhaps on another thread if I see you there and it's more relevant.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
3-29-2013

Five months later the court has finally agreed to "hear" the case.



The appellate court agreed to an en banc hearing and agreed to place Hobby Lobby’s appeal before the entire court rather than the usual three-judge panel.

Hobby Lobby Granted Full Appeals Court Hearing on Mandate Challenge


The plaintiffs want to know if religious freedom no longer applies to employers.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 

good, at least it's going forward.
considering the Temporary Injunction granted to Domino Farms, this is going to get interesting.

in the meantime, i wonder who will enforce the penalties assessed for not meeting specific Obamacare deadlines ??? or, if the home States of the pending filings will be assessed penalty for non-compliance ?



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Hobby lobby is too moral to provide coverage for the morning after pill. They want to operate according to their religious convictions. I understand that but I don't get why stocking their stores with cheap crap from China doesn't upset their moral compass?

Profits from hobby lobby could be used for state funded abortion in China. Obviously that doesn't bother hobby lobby enough to stop doing business with China.

Hobby lobby is not a religious institution, they're a for profit workplace. They're certainly not above acting like a capitalist, religion/patriotism be damned, when it serves their bottom line.

Maybe if hobby lobby were as honorable as they perceive themselves to be I'd be more respectful of their stand. The fact they do biz with the Chinese doesn't make them exceptionally moral/worthy of religious exemption imo.

If you allow one religious employer to opt out it has to apply across the board for every religion/covered procedure. Slippery slope.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 


If you allow one religious employer to opt out
plenty have already received 'waivers'
need a list?
of those on the list, which 'capitalist' businesses should be forced to comply ?


it has to apply across the board for every religion/covered procedure. Slippery slope.
why ??
prescribing an RX is not classified as a procedure, nice try though.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 
Thanks for the reply. All those businesses opted out due to religion?

The point I was trying to make is it has to be fair for all religions. Some might have a problem with RX while others could have issues concerning procedures. If you honor the beliefs of one religion, you have to honor them all.

Frankly I don't care if employers/insurance covers it or not. Hobby lobby is trying to present themselves as the epitome of morality in all things business and I simply don't agree.

Imo anyone who sells out to China is neither moral or good for our country. If they don't want to comply let them opt out for religious reasons but hobby lobby needs to stop proclaiming themselves as practitioners of morality in every aspect of business when, imo, they are not.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 

you'd have to ask each of those businesses as i don't know their particulars.

some are clearly religious based, some are not.
some are non-profits, some aren't.
some are large and some are small.
but, that isn't the point here, that they are ALL exempt is.

exercising religion IS an exempt action and that's what this topic is about, please stay focused.

i agree it should be fair for all religions, however, that isn't quite how it's being applied, is it ?

i don't believe the method of application is fair for anyone, especially those of us with a mere "conscientious" objection and no religious affiliation, however, it is what it is and i still don't approve.

also, i don't agree with your assertion

Hobby lobby is trying to present themselves as the epitome of morality in all things business and I simply don't agree
how in the world did you come to that conclusion ?

our own government sells to China, as much as i agree with your stated opinion, there isn't any point in isolating one country with a track record of human abuses.

heck, if that's the qualifier, which countries would be left with whom to conduct business ??

it's not like big box stores are going to quit doing business with China but they've already qualified for an exemption and i sure wonder how that happened

in case you didn't review the list posted ... which of these do you think should be exempted ?

Greater Metropolitan Hotel
The Pictsweet Co.
Regis Corporation
MAUSER Corp
Captain Elliot's Party Boats
Wiliamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company
Mars Super Markets, Inc.

yet, they are just a few of those 'capitalists' who are apparently "trying to present themselves as the epitome of morality in all things business", so why shouldn't Hobby Lobby be included ?



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

our own government sells to China

I'm aware of that but our government doesn't take as lofty a stand as hobby lobby. The government is what it is and so is hobby lobby. Exercising religion is an exempt action but I'm not buying the rhetoric from hobby lobby.

Hobby lobby set themselves up for scrutiny. They believe they're holier than thou and that's fine but their actions prove they're no better/worse than any other business.

What I find a bit puzzling is they somehow manage to set aside their strong religious convictions in favor of profit yet promote themselves as being more about religion when taking a moral stand via health care coverage for women.

I'm not anti-capitalism the hubby & I are business owners. We don't rely on religion or anything except our good business practices to define us.

We're not religiously affiliated yet time and again we find we follow good christian values because it's simply the right thing to do. We make sacrifices that impact our bottom line, that's why we'll never be rich but that's ok. We love our community they've supported us and our commitment to them extends into all areas of our life. We don't turn it on/off when it conveniently serves our bottom line.

The town we do business in has a population of 3500 yet we stay true to the community. We buy everything locally except shoes they aren't available. We don't expect favor/exemptions we do what we do for our own self-worth.

It's damn hard sticking to your convictions. We pay higher prices for less variety/lower quality goods than the majority of locals who take their money out of town. We figure we save on gas/wear/tear but supporting our community is the biggie for us. It's a good business practice and imo the right thing to do.

Does that make us more moral than hobby lobby? No just more strongly convicted. Proclaiming religious affiliation to garner favor from government deserves a closer look. I don't see hobby lobby's practices as any more/less deserving than any other biz.

Scientologists are against many RX should one of their business owning members have a say in their employees health care package or is the exemption exclusive to baptists/catholics? Whether you believe they're a religion doesn't matter, I could be wrong but I believe the IRS gives them full exemption as a non-profit religious organization. They deserve the same consideration.

Things could get real messy. I can see business owners falsely claiming religious status to benefit their business. People routinely take advantage/ruin a good thing for their own selfish rewards. I just see this as another loop hole for corruption. Be as religious as you want but expecting favor because of it doesn't sound very religious to me. Guess the promise of rewards in the afterlife isn't enough when you run a business.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 

what does 'rhetoric' have to do with any of it ?
the law isn't addressing 'rhetoric', why are you ?

every company doing business is being scrutinized, HL is no different.
so, are you suggesting that the business of raping children (religious institutions) is OK and should be exempt ?? what IS your point, exactly ?

and how is this any different than the hypocrisy of various religious practices ?

What I find a bit puzzling is they somehow manage to set aside their strong religious convictions in favor of profit yet promote themselves as being more about religion when taking a moral stand via health care coverage for women.
RXs for women and men have NEVER been universally offered or covered, why should they be now?

so, you are a business person but not a religious person ?
if that is your choice, then why can't you honor their choice ?


We don't turn it on/off when it conveniently serves our bottom line.
apparently, HL would appreciate equal treatment.


It's damn hard sticking to your convictions.
that, it is.
now, imagine the government stating that your convictions aren't good enough and don't really matter anyway ??
welcome to my position and that of many others.

scientology ALREADY has an exemption based on religion, what's your point ??

religion has always been the greatest loophole that fosters and enables corruption, this is nothing new.
besides, RXs aren't 'emergent care' anyway.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I really don't see how providing health care hinders an employer's freedom of religion. Americans already have freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. It doesn't belong in the workplace.

Besides most employees pay for a large portion of their employee health care coverage. Where I live we don't get much of a break/group rate because of the small workforce.

I don't impose my work ethic on anyone. I do what I do without expecting much of anything except freedom to do business. We do biz everyday knowing full well our convictions don't matter one iota to government.

We don't get loopholes, small biz doesn't get much of anything except ever increasing operating costs.


RXs aren't 'emergent care' anyway.
I'd have to disagree. We provided non-emergency medical transport for medicaid clients. We transported patients from our local mental health office to larger facilities up north. The client initially requires emergency transport to the local facility for emergency treatment. Some can be suicidal/experiencing psychotic episodes, LE would often assist.

Drugs would be administered to stabilize them first, only then would they be turned over to us. It was cheaper/easier on the client to send them in a stabilized state long distance with us as opposed to emergency transport. It's most definitely an emergency we were on call 24/7 for the mental health office. Just because they're stable doesn't mean they'll stay that way. They needed to get to the larger facility asap but it had to be done as cheaply/humanely as possible.

If you want to save a woman from the trauma of abortion/unwanted pregnancy/miscarriage, I'd say getting the morning after pill is vital. You can't know the medical history of every woman. Giving them the pill could save them from emergency treatment for miscarriage later on, it's cost cutting.

My RH- mom couldn't hardly go full term without bleeding to death. She had an emergency therapeutic abortion in her 5th month of pregnancy. Without it she wouldn't be here and neither would I. Pregnancy for her was always an emergency.

I see several self-serving agendas going on here. There's the religious opposed to abortion who want to impose their beliefs in absolutely every aspect of life, there's the Obama/Obama care haters, employers who may see this as a way to meddle with health insurance packages as a cost cutting measure and then there's the non-religious pro-lifers who'd willingly jump on anyone's bandwagon with the intent of criminalizing abortion. What a cluster F@#&.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 

Perhaps it's a small point, but your comment:

I really don't see how providing health care hinders an employer's freedom of religion.
Beside the obvious answer that it makes them violate their religious beliefs, I wonder how we came to the point where we say the Feds can order an employer to put anything in their health plans?

The only case for imposing the rule seems to be that in certain, very rare cases, the employee is able to buy everything else that she needs but just can't arrange for inexpensive birth control pills. If she has a difficulty which requires hospital care, an Rh- pregnancy for example, that would be covered under the basic insurance plan, or Medicaid. As far as I can tell, the Obamacare plan only mandates anti-birth drugs and devices, not procedures.

(Looking at this, I conclude I've made a bad post. Let me try again. Obamacare's regulations don't adress a serious problem and irritate the pants off a whole bunch of people (and courts).)





new topics
 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join