Hobby Lobby - are there limits on religious freedom?

[AnimalSpirits]

Gosh, yes. I trust the US federal government so much, I want them to have access to all of my health information. I’m sure it won’t end up getting hacked, since they’re so good at protecting the information they really care about. Oh, wait…

These things work much better in smaller countries.

–Jen

“Small countries” like… every other country aside from China and India? Japan is has over 100 million people and is the third largest economy. Moreover, you think the United States government is less susceptible to hacking than a given insurance company?

We’re spending more than on healthcare at the federal level than Canada- we’re already, effectively, overpaying paying for universal healthcare, but we still need massive private spending because the private model is inherently economically inefficient.

 

[revert_jen]

“Small countries” like… every other country aside from China and India? Japan is has over 100 million people and is the third largest economy.

I didn’t say “small,” I said “smaller,” and I think 1/3 of the population counts as “smaller.”

Also from all I’ve heard, it works much better in Canada (pop. 35.6 million) than in the UK (pop. 64.1 million). I’ve only experienced the UK system (where I couldn’t so much as get on a doctor’s list, despite being eligible), but I’ve heard it works better in Canada.

Moreover, you think the United States government is less susceptible to hacking than a given insurance company?

No, I think that if you put all of the health information for 320 million people in one place, it is a much more tempting target than however many people would have records in the database for a single (even a large) insurance company. I also think that potential foreign info-terrorists get more emotional about the US government than about a single insurance company, and would be willing to expend more effort into hacking the government.

I also think that if an insurance company gets hacked, they lose a lot of money, so they put a lot of effort into not being hacked.

If health records at the federal government get hacked, they lose some credibility for a while, but as the recent past has shown, anyone who remembers about some scandal all the way to the next election will be viewed as some sort of nut-job, and anyway, there’s always someone unelected who can carry the bag. So their incentive to avoid hacking is less.

I also think that if an insurance company doesn’t like your “lifestyle choices,” they can’t put you in jail for it.

Furthermore, I think that ever since the government has gotten so involved in healthcare, lots more people think that one’s lifestyle choices (I mean like beer and doughnuts, not like cocaine) are their business, and therefore they can give people unwanted advice at all times, and can get mad if the advice is not followed, because after all, it’s their money that’s being wasted on “those people” who are living unhealthy lifestyles. (Funnily enough, I have found that last sentiment to be voiced even by people who don’t actually pay any federal income taxes.)

We’re spending more than on healthcare at the federal level than Canada- we’re already, effectively, overpaying paying for universal healthcare, but we still need massive private spending because the private model is inherently economically inefficient.

IMO, we still need massive private spending because the government wastes so much of the money it gets. (Also because we need some sort of tort reform to bring malpractice insurance costs to a more reasonable level.)

–Jen

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It is about, and only about, paying for that medical treatment through a health care plan and to what extent companies should be able to refuse to pay.

Companies should NEVER have been REQUIRED to provide ANY plan to employees.

One of the hallowed hallmarks of American law is that it is supposed to apply equally to all, no exceptions. No one is above the law. Unless the Christian Scientist has equal rights to refuse to cover what he/she considers morally wrong (e.g. antibiotics) the law is not being applied equally.

If exemptions to a law are granted… for whatever reason…then it is a bad law and should be repealed as soon as possible.

“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered”.–Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[shockerfan]

Should other “closely held” companies, with different religious beliefs, have the right to more sweeping exceptions to ‘Obamacare’ than were granted to Hobby Lobby?

At it’s core, Hobby Lobby was a case where the company won the right to be exempt from a law, i.e. to be above the law. As I understand it, the portion of the law in dispute was one that set out minimum standards for what needed to be included in a health plan. The objective was to ensure a certain minimum level of coverage for all Americans.

Hobby Lobby objected to funding contraception (or at least some forms of it) and the courts basically said “OK, Hobby Lobby because of your religious beliefs you do not have to obey the law as other companies do, and your employees do not have a right to something that most other Americans enjoy”.

So, let’s say Hobby Lobby gets sold to a nice Christian Science person. Would the supporters of Hobby Lobby agree that he/she should have the right to exclude certain (or maybe even all) medications and some (or all) types of surgery from their health plan in favour of only paying for spirtitual healing practioners, based on exactly the same premise – religious belief/freedom?

Perhaps the way to say its this: Its not that Hobby Lobby is above the law, its that our government is not above the constitution.

If you have issues with a law not applying to everyone, then do you also have issues with the exemptions the administration is giving out to other businesses and unions relative to the ACA? Do you have issues with Obama picking and choosing which parts of our immigration laws to enforce and not enforce so he can grant amnesty to people who cross our borders in violation of our laws, and at the same time, enforce those laws on people from other countries who would like to immigrate here (but live in non-bordering countries)?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I didn’t say “small,” I said “smaller,” and I think 1/3 of the population counts as “smaller.”

Also from all I’ve heard, it works much better in Canada (pop. 35.6 million) than in the UK (pop. 64.1 million). I’ve only experienced the UK system (where I couldn’t so much as get on a doctor’s list, despite being eligible), but I’ve heard it works better in Canada.

So what’s the threshold? I have limited experience with Japan’s and had no complaints. It works just fine for some very small counties and some very large countries (less than a million to over 100 million). So why, around 300 million, would it all fall apart?

No, I think that if you put all of the health information for 320 million people in one place, it is a much more tempting target than however many people would have records in the database for a single (even a large) insurance company. I also think that potential foreign info-terrorists get more emotional about the US government than about a single insurance company, and would be willing to expend more effort into hacking the government.

The government has a lot of valuable info- your tax info, nuclear locations and codes, and so on. They seem to be doing just fine. Plus, your could always make the databases state level.

IMO, we still need massive private spending because the government wastes so much of the money it gets. (Also because we need some sort of tort reform to bring malpractice insurance costs to a more reasonable level.)

–Jen

right. We’re the only developed country that handles most healthcare through the private market. So we have to spend so much more than all the counties that use government funding almost exclusively. … because government is so wasteful.

 

[sallybutler]

There are limits on religious freedom. You are not allowed to sacrifice animals. You are not allowed to use drugs. You are not allowed to have multiple wives. You are not allowed to take ritual weapons into schools or on planes. You are not allowed to get married at 12.-

 

[shockerfan]

There are limits on religious freedom. You are not allowed to sacrifice animals. You are not allowed to use drugs. You are not allowed to have multiple wives. You are not allowed to take ritual weapons into schools or on planes. You are not allowed to get married at 12.-

There are limits…however, when Obamacare was being debated in congress, at NO time was it ever discussed that the Secretary of the Department of HHS would have sole discretion to determine the limits of the 1st amendment to the constitution. (Remember Pelosi: “We have to vote for it so we will know what’s in it”) That is a function of congress and the courts, not of a person appointed by the president. We have are a Constitutional Republic, not a Monarchy or a Dictatorship. The limits of the constitution are not up to the president, or his appointees to decide.