Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a liberal and Hobby Lobby has a good legal argument, but it is a very narrow issue concerning the morning after drug and the owner's of Hobby lobbies religious objections of having to pay for it. It is not about overturning Obamacare.
Fox's article is misleading. Surprised.
I agree with you, worst case scenario (for Obamacare supporters) is an exemption allowed for a small group of businesses on providing certain birth control devices and abortificants..
I agree with you, worst case scenario (for Obamacare supporters) is an exemption allowed for a small group of businesses on providing certain birth control devices and abortificants..
It is not the job of the courts to enact revisions to laws. It is the job of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the provision in the law. If it had a severability clause, which the Affordable Health Care Act does not, then if that one provision is held to be unconstitutional the rest of the law would still be in effect. However, since the Affordable Health Care Act does not have a severability clause, then the entire law's fate can be determined by the constitutionality of just one minor provision within the law.
It is not the job of the courts to enact revisions to laws. It is the job of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the provision in the law. If it had a severability clause, which the Affordable Health Care Act does not, then if that one provision is held to be unconstitutional the rest of the law would still be in effect. However, since the Affordable Health Care Act does not have a severability clause, then the entire law's fate can be determined by the constitutionality of just one minor provision within the law.
It won't be. This court does not do big things when little things suffice.
My employer limits my hours, therefore they don't have to provide me health insurance.
There are two ways of looking at that.
Your employer is not reducing your salary in order to pay for your health insurance; and
Your employer is allowing you to decide who you want to be your health care provider.
Health care insurance is overhead to business, which means that it comes out of your billable rate, a.k.a. "weighted rate." Any non-cash benefit you receive as an employee from your employer comes out of what your true value is worth to your employer.
In my business I let each employee know exactly what their billable hourly rate is the minute they begin work. If they want as much as possible, then I collect $5/hour overhead and they get the rest when I get paid by my client. If they want a guaranteed paycheck, whether I get paid or not, I collect $7.50/hour overhead. If they want health insurance, regardless of how many hours they work, I can offer Blue Cross and Blue Shield to them for $450/month through the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE), and I collect nothing in overhead. The billable hourly rates range from $75 to $120 per hour, depending upon experience and specialty.
They can work as little (within reason) or as long as they like, but I only pay them for billable hours worked. So I have no time sheets, or leave slips, and there is no overtime or "holiday" pay.
I agree with you, worst case scenario (for Obamacare supporters) is an exemption allowed for a small group of businesses on providing certain birth control devices and abortificants..
No one should have to "opt out".
Those that want to contribute to this should have to "opt in".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.