ObamaCare contraceptive mandate compromise? Or sleight of hand?

How do you compromise core principles of your religion, the exercise of which is guaranteed in the First Amendment?

The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case of Zubik v. Burwell — in which petitioners argue the ObamaCare mandate to provide contraceptive coverage in company insurance plans violates their religious beliefs — to lower court where it says a compromise should be worked out.

 

The court’s order states:

Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.”

Cost free to whom? Somebody pays and it is usually in the form of higher premiums. So the company is paying for something its owners believe is a sin.

This is nothing but sleight of hand trickery and a way for the court to avoid a 4-4 tie by delaying.

Protesters outside Supreme Court building this past week oral arguments in case involving ObamaCare mandate to provide contraceptives in insurance plans. (USA Today photo)

 

 

Advertisements

14 comments on “ObamaCare contraceptive mandate compromise? Or sleight of hand?

  1. Rincon says:

    If a Christian lives in Texas, can he refuse to pay state taxes because some fraction of his money pays for capital punishment or refuse to pay federal taxes because he believes the Mideast wars are murder?

    If an employer pays his employee and the employee goes out and buys a contraceptive, is he obligated by his religion to fire the employee? Only an extremist would argue that he would. Once an employee is paid, how she spends her money is her business, alone.

    Health insurance is a form of pay. Once the pay is in the hands of the employee, it is their business if they decide to use it or not. Whether the employer is paying for the sin is irrelevant just as it is if the employee was paid in cash and buys a contraceptive with it.

  2. Nyp says:

    Under the government’s proposal the employers’ premiums would not cover the cost of the contraceptives.

  3. Rincon says:

    BTW, according to a recent Gallup poll, 58% of American adults favor replacing the ACA with federally funded healthcare system. Conservatives must be glad that we live in a plutocracy rather than a democracy (or representative republic for those who favor the term). http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

  4. Steve says:

    That is a problem once you go socialist.
    Individual options become group imperatives and the individual gets run over.

  5. Rincon says:

    The same thing occurs with democracy of any kind. If 58% of the people vote for something, then the minority must yield to the will of the majority. Luckily for those of your views, we don’t live in a democracy.

  6. Steve says:

    I want the Constitutional Republic back.

  7. Rincon says:

    Not going to happen when corporations are legally defined as people and unlimited anonymous campaign contributions are the rule.

  8. Steve says:

    But that was how it was back then.

  9. Rincon says:

    Evolution is inexorable. The constitutional republic exists only in theory. In practical terms, it is quickly morphing into a plutocracy. The same thing happened in the Gilded Age, but we had a fortunate turn of events. I hope we’re as lucky again.

  10. Steve says:

    We started as a plutocracy. It has always been such, the world over.
    Our difference was being governed by a republic.
    The so called democracy it morphed to is what made the so called “rich” such bad people to be mocked even as they become today’s major candidates.

    But the wealthy have always run things, throughout history.

  11. Rincon says:

    Your point is well taken, but I believe there are substantial differences. It’s a different world now. In the early days, the rich may have owned a few farms. Today, they are worth more than some countries. Technology for mind control and usage of propaganda was rudimentary. We had a frontier that provided options for the disaffected and ungovernable, Water rights were a minor concern, pollution was only an occasional local issue, health care needed no bureaucracy because there was so little that we could do anyway. The finance industry consisted mostly of banks lending money. Corporations were a very small force. Defense was also small time because the oceans were reasonably effective barriers and the rich felt no need to control other countries as they do today. Etc., etc. Taxation was low because so many governmental services weren’t needed as they are today. Why are they needed today? 1) Far greater population 2) major changes in technology.

    The greatest difference, which exists because of these factors, is that in the early days, except for the Gilded Age, the middle and lower classes gained along with the rich. That is no longer the case.

  12. Steve says:

    “middle and lower classes gained along with the rich”

    Nope.
    Those people simply weren’t part of the system, mainly illiterate and disconnected.
    Technology has made literacy and connection viable for all, even the poorest.

    And the wealthy still run things.

  13. Rincon says:

    The Atlantic Magazine appears to disagree in their article entitled, “U.S. Income Inequality: It’s Worse Today Than It Was in 1774” http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/us-income-inequality-its-worse-today-than-it-was-in-1774/262537/

  14. Steve says:

    Hell of a disclaimer on that one, hope you didn’t waste too much time looking for it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s