Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2013, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,347 posts, read 26,255,278 times
Reputation: 15674

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReturningWest View Post
I'll bet their insurance did cover woman's healthcare prior to this suit until it was brought up about the ACA, insurance companies have been covering this for decades but all of a sudden there is a snit about it.

I believe if companies can all of a sudden pick and choose what they will or will not cover...what's next?
I was thinking the same thing, most companies include birth control have to wonder if their current insurer already covers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2013, 05:28 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
16,912 posts, read 10,603,038 times
Reputation: 16439
I'm a bit torn on this one. The contraceptive mandate is stupid. The government should not mandate coverage for birth control and, if they do, then I want my health insurance company to cover the cost of condoms. Equally stupid is the notion that a corporation, which is basically writing on a paper and stock certificates, should have a constitutional right to practice a religion. Religion and spiruality is for people, not paper. Paper does not have a "soul", and it cannot praise a god. It should, therefore, not be entitled to lodge a suit based on religious freedom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 07:18 PM
 
4,585 posts, read 3,412,463 times
Reputation: 2605
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbobobbo View Post
Parts of laws can be struck down without the entire law being struck down. This is not a case of "rewriting the law."

As for Justice Roberts' finding that the individual mandate was constitutional, he did not change anything in the law. He declared a legal justification for it (authority to tax), and dismissed one of the government's main defenses of it (commerce clause). Nothing in the mandate itself was re-worded.
As has been mentioned in other threads, the ACA is one of the rare laws the DOES NOT have a severability clause. This was not due to congressional error, but due to an atmosphere in the Dem house at the time of it being an all or nothing deal. The bill was specifically written in such a way that if one part is struck down the whole thing goes. Now, I am sure that is the SCOTUS decision becomes an issue, they will find SOME way around it. But just wanted to let everyone know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,347 posts, read 26,255,278 times
Reputation: 15674
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
I'm a bit torn on this one. The contraceptive mandate is stupid. The government should not mandate coverage for birth control and, if they do, then I want my health insurance company to cover the cost of condoms. Equally stupid is the notion that a corporation, which is basically writing on a paper and stock certificates, should have a constitutional right to practice a religion. Religion and spiruality is for people, not paper. Paper does not have a "soul", and it cannot praise a god. It should, therefore, not be entitled to lodge a suit based on religious freedom.
Corporations (for profit) are challenging the law based on religious grounds, pretty historical action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,347 posts, read 26,255,278 times
Reputation: 15674
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourereric View Post
As has been mentioned in other threads, the ACA is one of the rare laws the DOES NOT have a severability clause. This was not due to congressional error, but due to an atmosphere in the Dem house at the time of it being an all or nothing deal. The bill was specifically written in such a way that if one part is struck down the whole thing goes. Now, I am sure that is the SCOTUS decision becomes an issue, they will find SOME way around it. But just wanted to let everyone know.
If the individual mandate is taken away the ACA dies, without that provision it will not balance.

Making health care optional would make no sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 08:35 PM
 
4,585 posts, read 3,412,463 times
Reputation: 2605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
If the individual mandate is taken away the ACA dies, without that provision it will not balance.

Making health care optional would make no sense.
And for that reason the severability clause was not included. Traditionally that would result in the whole law going down if the government were to lose this SCOTUS case, but we will cross that bridge if/when that happens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2013, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,472,577 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
I'm rooting for the women who work for Hobby Lobby and all the other corporations who have brought this suit. No company should ever have any say in their employees' medical decisions. Once that wall is breached, what other medical decisions will employers attempt to make for their employees? What if they don't believe in vaccines? Can they decide their employees won't be allowed to get them?

For-profit corporations should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
I agree that Hobby Lobby and other businesses shouldn't be able to make medical decisions for their employees or impose their religious beliefs on them.

However I also have a real problem mandating that someone or a group of people (yes, this includes a business) purchase something they disapprove of because of their religious (or other, for that matter) beliefs.

The problem here is that the law now mandates buying insurance for employees and what it must cover. This conundrum is one of the reasons, though certainly not the main reason, I'm against the employer mandate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top