gsh: (Short Hair)
[personal profile] gsh
Am I the only one who things the uproar about the Hobby Lobby case is overblown? It seems that Kennedy is basically holding up a neon sign saying "apply the same let the insurance company pay for the cost of womens contraception compromize" that fully religious organizations have. I mean Obama can direct HHS to do that in a week, and then the women get full coverage for the items in conflict with no addtional burden. Or is it that I've actually read the 90 page opinion, and haven';t been paying attention to the yammering in the news?

Date: 2014-07-01 12:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I think the crux of the decision is that employers are providing a benefit, called health care. Not a set of employer approved health services with line item veto power for any item they choose questionable.

Also, the most mentioned contraceptive is birth control pills which have other medical uses beyond contraception. Why should women require a note from their doctor for any prescription?

Ultimately, it is none of the employers business how the health care benefit dollars are spent, they have no right to know.

Date: 2014-07-01 02:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
All of the above, plus now we are apparently allowing corporations to behave as though they are churches, or individuals with religious rights. Also, where does it stop? To quote the dissenting opinion, "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."


Date: 2014-07-01 03:57 pm (UTC)
drwex: (Default)
From: [personal profile] drwex
I wrote it up for my LJ. And yes, I read the full opinion, concurrence, and the dissent.

This is a GIANT MESS not because it breaks this small issue over women's health, but because it breaks massive precedents and opens up a wave of trouble. The concurrence is desperately trying to put a finger in that dike but it's hopeless. At the very best we'll get a bunch of cases litigated that in 2-3 years will reach SCOTUS again and Kennedy might side with the liberals to undo some of the damage. On the other hand, in 2-3 years we'll have a Republican party in control of both houses and maybe the Presidency.

This is just going to be bad all up and down the line.

Date: 2014-07-01 03:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Seriously? "Yammering" over whether a private employer has any business in my reproductive choices? Or any of my medical choices? Whether or not companies can deny benefits based on religious principles? Giving the religious right, which has been following a principle of erosion of women's rights by the inch, a few more feet? Right, because that's something that makes no difference to you. Must not be important. Just a lot of yammering.

Date: 2014-07-03 01:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Easy to do when you don't have the necessary hardware to be affected by the decision. It's not your problem; I don't blame you for having a blind spot. Such is privilege. I do, however, wish you hadn't characterized an issue that affects only women in the way that you did, and in the way that countless men have from time immemorial- dismissively, because after all, it's not your problem.

Date: 2014-07-03 02:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
You characterized discussion of a serious issue that affects women as "yammering," which, imo, is a fairly dismissive thing to do.

Date: 2014-07-03 02:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The problem here is not just that you were not aware that it was important, but that you were also comfortable with characterizing those already concerned with the issue as ignorant and making useless noise. It comes across as arrogant and dismissive. Considering the uphill battle to have women's rights taken seriously in society in general, it's disappointing to see this kind of behavior from someone who knows enough intelligent, educated, activist minded people that we might have presumed you'd give us benefit of the doubt. Maybe, in the future, you could presume that the people actually effected by the issue may have an existing base of knowledge and and a rational basis for concern, or at least make neutral enquiries before passing judgement.

Date: 2014-07-03 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Which news sources have you been following on the topic? If I may ask? In which way did you feel they were yammering? Were they factually incorrect?

Eta waaagh phone
Edited Date: 2014-07-03 02:51 pm (UTC)

Date: 2014-07-03 02:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Oh wait now that I re read I see you've admitted you haven't been paying attention to this supposed yammering so nevermind, kind of moot questions.

Date: 2014-07-03 03:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Ok. The fact that Fox News is in no way actual news notwithstanding, please be aware that when you use the word "yammering" to characterize discussion of womens' issues, you're playing into a long history of sexist language that diminishes womens' voices. Now, done for the moment, as typing on my phone is terrible and I want to throw the damn thing at a wall.

Date: 2014-07-03 03:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Cool beans.

Date: 2014-07-03 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I am not trying to get a fuller explanation of why you posted as you did. I assume you are a rational person who has a coherent thought process behind your actions. I am trying to get you to understand and acknowledge why your actions were hurtful, on the assumption that you have an interest on the effect your actions have on others, rather than just your internal motivations for said actions.

I only have the words you post to go by. There is nothing in your original post making the distinction of who you felt was worthy of regard and who was 'yammering', and as the implication was that anyone concerned with this issue was ignorant and making foolish noises, it's a fair assumption that you meant everyone. I am trying to express to you that this was insulting and offensive, and that admitting you spoke from ignorance may reassure me that you are working on addressing the ignorance itself, it does nothing to address what comes across as a fairly significant insult.

If your only concern here is finding a way to not be wrong, and not with the actual effect of your words, regardless of intent, then that is another reason for deep concern. It says you genuinely do not care if you have been disrespectful and insulting, and I will disengage from this conversation rather than continue it any further.

Date: 2014-07-03 09:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
We're fine.

Date: 2014-07-01 10:27 pm (UTC)
reedrover: (Summer)
From: [personal profile] reedrover
I'm more concerned about the precident of businesses opting out of legislation in pieces than I am specifically concerned about employers providing or not providing health care. We could see more lawsuits based on this precident to allow companies to opt out of other legal standards for religious reasons. Admittedly, it might not be too likely, because so many protected class laws and suits already set precidents for those standards. And that is what the court system is for: interpreting and applying law to cases of disagreement.

With regard to the contraception issue and my own thoughts:

I am one of the people who uses chemical birth control to address a different problem than contraception. I cannot use alternatives which are "Hobby Lobby approved" to achieve the same result. And as I see it, that is a problem of self-determination. I would want to work in a way that gained me access to that group of drugs. Either I would need to find a job that pays for the prescription as a benefit, or I would need to find a job that pays enough so that I can purchase the prescription on my own outside of the company-provided health care.

Of course, on the other side, if I were a member of a place/country with a single-payer system, I wouldn't run into this problem at all. In that vein, if the US public (i.e. liberals) want a health care system that provides for everyone equally, it should be disassociated with employment entirely.

Edited to add: all of the above continues the assumption that chemical birth control continues to be widely available on the open market. This ruling doesn't restrict market access, only who is paying for it.
Edited Date: 2014-07-02 12:01 am (UTC)

Date: 2014-07-03 10:33 am (UTC)
reedrover: (Summer)
From: [personal profile] reedrover
The Affordable Care Act was a step toward divorcing health care from employment, but it still has the split payment setup. Medicare and Medicaid are also methods to decouple medicine from work. However, even with those entitlement programs, I don't think that socialized medicine is going to exist for real in the US for a while yet. And no, I don't know how it would happen, either.

I brought up the Supreme Court decision at dinner with a friend last night. She and I both went the "corporations are individuals, hunh" route in the conversation. We agreed that this is an interesting precedent, but didn't come to any conclusions.

Date: 2014-07-03 03:16 pm (UTC)

Date: 2014-07-03 05:51 pm (UTC)
reedrover: (Summer)
From: [personal profile] reedrover
What I would love to see is a baseline health system that covers all general health care for everyone. I'm talking check ups/ screenings/ vaccinations / dental cleanings. That would be a HUGE first step in establishing a minimum care standard.

After that, then we can talk about speciality care, and if that should still be handled by an insurance system or direct payer or... something else (I don't know what).

June 2015

78 910111213

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 01:33 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios