Supreme Court strikes down contraception law

The victim quite often pays for the consequences, however.

So, you're fine with refusing to treat someone who didn't follow a healthy diet? Didn't exercise enough? Smoked? Drank? What if they did something which was thought to be healthy, but later turned out not to be? You okay with insurance companies not covering those conditions?

And do you think that this decision is going to somehow reduce that from happening?

Again, do you think that this decision is somehow going to reduce those instances?

Its only irrelevant to the subject if you think that there's a difference between speeding and having unprotected sex in terms of "failing to follow good practices."

"I can't keep my pants up, and I can't/don't want to pay my own way to mitigate the risk of my irresponsibility! Pay for my play time!"
"No."
"WAAAAAHHHHH!!!"

Rather than mandating that someone else pay for employees' contraception, maybe it would be more realistic to raise the age of majority to 30.

This decision, however, was not strictly about access to contraception. It was about access to certain forms of contraception, and who should pay for them. And not every woman has access to a free clinic. Additionally, in those areas where there are free clinics, if that clinic also provides abortion services (not all of them do), any woman going into that clinic, for whatever reason (breast exam, gynecological exam, pre-natal care, etc.) has to brave a gauntlet of douchebags who think she's just there to get an abortion and that they have every right to harass her.

And your reason for this is?

Provided they can find one.

See mine to #3 as well.

Why do you say that?

They've tried, but pressure from religious groups has blocked such efforts.

Of course, this won't go away, so long as people think that they have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Pharmacists have refused to sell contraception because they believe it leads to immoral behavior. Any time there's talk about the Federal government picking up the tab for abortions via their healthcare plans, people protest because they don't want their tax dollars going to "killing babies" (one wonders how they reconcile that with the civilian deaths occasionally caused by drone strikes).

Well, I can tell you how I reconcile it -- neither is a legitimate function of government, both are ethically monstrous, and neither should ever happen.

I think Obama should have went for the gold. The ACA works, or will work depending upon where you are in the process, but it is a patchwork. A far better option would be single payer coverage, and yes, I agree that employer based coverage is silly. When you are ill or injured, the first thing that goes is your ability to work, and with it the coverage you needed to get healthy again.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, my ears, my ears!

* Asyncritus runs out of the thread screaming *

I agree on the general point that in this day and age, connecting any social services to employment is a bad idea.

But I don't think that this is among the good reasons for that position. As long as classical employment exists (and that might not be for all that long), you're still going to have to have some general rules for employers and employees, just as for any other participants in the economy, and those rules can always potentially collide with religious beliefs. Again, interest on loans used to be considered a sin in Christianity. Some debts are incurred involuntarily, e.g. by damaging foreign property inadvertently. If you can't pay your debt right away, will you pay interest? Or are you exempt simply because your religion says so?

I think Async just gone mad over John's post.

I'm not sure I see your point...

What does any of that have to do with health insurance being provided by employers?

Nooooooo! Don't go there! Keep competition alive! Look at any country with universal healthcrae that has single payer, and compare it to any other country with universal healthcare that doesn't. Competition is ALWAYS better.

That's so clueless that it has to be a poor trolling attempt. Healthcare coverage isn't someone else paying for your irresponsibility. It's a part of your compensation package for a fair days work. You EARN it.

What this ruling does is establish the corporate organization as a religion practicing entity that can object to how you choose to spend your compensation. That's the absurdity in this.

I'll look into it.

No idea, I've seen it spelled both ways, never before come across the suggestion that one was wrong, let alone racist. Not sure how it could be racist, since Islam is practiced by people's of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.

If that was directed at me:

Again, there are many good reasons not to tie (universal, mandated) healtcare to employment.

But one of them is not, "This means making laws that may conflict with the employer's religion.", because as long as there are any laws that govern the behaviour of actors in the economy, all such laws may conflict with a given actor's religion. Preventing that situation is thus not a good reason to avoid passing a given law.

Interest as usury is one example. Being forced by law to speak to a cop or judge -- even if she is female, and your religion doesn't allow you to recognize women in professions, or speak to unmarried women, might be another. What happens to those who oppose any graven image of man and thus can't deal with bills or coinage that depict humans? What happens to the person whose religion DEMANDS he kill anyone who works on the Sabbath? And so on. If we start to recognize religious opposition to secular law, we'll splinter the law into a thousand contradictory versions of Sharia.

Do you mean single payer or single provider? Because single payer as I understand the term leaves a competitive market in place.

Both. Single payer is better than single provider, but there is no good reason not to also extend competition to insurance companies.

"I can't stop shoving food down my throat, and I can't/won't pay my own way to mitigate the risk of my irresponsibility! Pay for my my bad habits."

Keeping in mind of course that healthcare coverage is part of their benefits package. They earn it in lieu of higher wages.

Sure, let's just be sure to raise the minimum age for taxation up to 30 too. After all, no taxation without representation.

Okay, I see what you're saying. I was speaking of insurance providers, not care providers, so we probably mean the same thing. Just curious, who pays the insurance premium in Germany?

It's complicated. Originally, the idea was for the premium to be split 50/50 between employers and employees, with the employees deciding with which insurer they want to invest both halfs, but forced to pick one; if they can't afford any private insurer, the first tier or second tier insurers would have to take them (=general national insurer or any of the private alternatives to general insurance, separate from the third tier of completely private insurers). With employment not being the only means of income, and classical employment receding, we now have layers upon layers of alternatives and compromises. This is not a part of our system that I would consider worth copying.

It hasn't.

No, it establishes that the corporate organization has the right to determine what kind of compensation it will provide. Simple as that. The opposite claim is equivalent to Rob Ford demanding that the City of Toronto provide him with complimentary crack.

SCOTUS isn't saying employees of religiously-based corporations can't have contraception, merely that those corporations are not obligated to pay for it.

That phrase is a big problem right there.
How did we get to the point where that can even be uttered?

So I guess you would eliminate prenatal care, childbirth coverage, and insurance for dependents from insurance too. That's another likely outcome of playtime. One premature birth will cost a lot more than covering the pill for all female employees. You don't think insurance companies cover the pill just because they're evil do you? Well ok, they're evil and want to save money. It's a win-win situation.

We got there when religious people started corporations and ran them. So... pretty much ever. You don't think this used to be a country full of strict atheists and then the wackaloons took over, do you? We started with the wackaloons.

Does actually facing the consequences of your decisions -- e.g. engaging prenatal care and insuring your dependents -- fall into the same category as fucking everything you can reach, without protection, like a stray dog? Don't think so.

But that's an interesting point. Insuring dependents versus ensuring dependence.

No, your wording makes it sound like they're churches that pay taxes.

If the wackaloonism is so prevalent....what corporation ISN'T religiously based?
It's a meaningless distinction UNLESS "religiously based", is something above-and-beyond.
SO, either you uttered a meaningless phrase, or "religiously based", has a special meaning, which I can only interpret to mean a church that skirts the first amendment.

Pretty much all of them are, but here's the thing, with varying degrees of visibility.

Wal-Mart's corporate ethos is religious. So is Chik-Fil-A's. But which one would you think of as religious if somebody had asked ya before I said that?

It is above and beyond. Again, degree of visibility.

Nope. False binary. Pretty much all of the big ones were founded by people with some degree of religiosity. Only some of 'em are obnoxiously blatant about it.

You're the one talking economics: it's cheaper to pay for a lifetime of birth-control than one well childbirth.

If it's just a question of morals, you should stick with characterizing women as "fucking everything [they] can reach, without protection, like a stray dog."

X: "I want you to pay for something someone else wants."
Person: "Sorry, but I don't want to do that. It's against my beliefs."
X: "Shut the fuck up and hand over the money!"

For some people, this is an acceptable scenario if X="The State."