Do you seriously believe that the second “rational analysis” is easier to implement than the first?
The first simply requires HHS to establish regulations as to what birth control must be provided, using the same process by which HHS determines what the minimum standards of coverage are for an insurance plan.
The second requires some types of means testing and probably involves an analysis of a woman’s income, which would of course draw in the IRS, and if she’s receiving other benefits (like maybe food stamps or rent subsidies) perhaps those need to be considered too, leading to case-by-case decisions on who really qualifies as poor enough for free birth control.
Congratulations, your “simpler” solution feeds the bureaucracy even more.
They’re not providing contraceptives, pharmacists are.
WRT the variety of food you like to have, your employer provides you with an endless variety of food much the same way HL would have provided 20 types of contraceptive. Namely they give you money (in trade for labor), and you get to choose what food to spend it on, HL gives their employees comprehensive health insurance, and they get to choose what kind of contraceptive is best for them.
An aside but the German model in my opinion corrects essentially all of the major problems of the American system without introducing the problems of true Government run healthcare (I’ve never understood why people want an American style NHS when the German system to me shows a much better path–NHS looks great compared to the clusterfuck of American healthcare but to me is no model for a country looking to fix a broken system.) If they had essentially just copied the German system in the PPACA we’d be in really good shape right now.
But you don’t need a prescription to buy toothpaste. And unless I am out of date, don’t IUDs need to be implanted by a doctor? Though, I guess to extend the analogy, you COULD do your own fillings and extractions.:eek:
I think the point is employers being required to actually be plan administrators (whether they outsource it or do it in house) results in silly situations in terms of the employee/employer relationship. With our system where the employer is truly the administrator of the plan, they are actually doing this.
A good alternative is the German system, where the main insurance funds are paid for by a combination of employee and employer contributions into the fund. These sickness funds are required to accept everyone, and persons below a certain income threshold are also required to be enrolled in them (compulsory insurance, removes the free rider effect, and for the truly indigent it’s always affordable or even free.)
But the insurance are managed by essentially a quasi-government organization that functions a lot like a public utility. The sickness funds are private non-profit organizations. It’s not the government, but it’s also not the employer, the employers are required to send them money, but they are not the plan administrators. I believe each of the German States has their own private non-profit that covers that region.
The German system also allows persons to opt-out of the system and participate in private health insurance (but you have to meet certain criteria and have a certain income to be allowed to do this.)
We tried something like that. It was called the public option and the Republicans killed it (or rather the Democrats killed it to get enough GOP votes to pass the rest of the bill.)
It’s not limited at all. The court only applied its reasoning to the facts at issue but it failed to offer almost any guidance about where its reasoning would not apply. Not sure if that was deliberate.
GOP didn’t vote for PPACA at all. The Senate passed the PPACA with a filibuster proof majority. They had intended to modify it a good bit during the reconciliation process, but Scott Brown got elected before that could happen. This left the House Democrats as having to pass the PPACA as passed by the Senate essentially “as is” without any changes other than budgetary ones, so that it couldn’t be subject to another filibuster in the Senate. No GOP House member voted for the Senate PPACA.
The idea that Obama watered it down to get Republican votes is basically nonsense. They passed the Senate bill which hadn’t been properly tweaked yet to sneak it through the system without being subject to a filibuster. Obama probably would have watered it down even more to appease the Blue Dog Democrats in the House if he could have, but that would have made it subject to a Senate filibuster.
It was really bad political strategy, as the President should have really lit a fire under the absolute majorities he had in both houses to get the shit passed earlier. They had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
He also could have considered pressuring the Senate Democrats to simply use the nuclear option after Scott Brown took his seat. I don’t really see how that would have at all altered the political situation, healthcare reform was always going to be opposed by the side that didn’t vote for it, and I don’t think an arcane technical issue like quashing the filibuster w/the nuclear option would have made it any more or less popular. Actually, as it would have allowed the Democrats more time to fine tune the bill since they wouldn’t be playing procedural games to pass it, it’s likely it would have resulted in better legislation which would have perhaps been a little less vilified by the small number of people who were willing to look at it rationally.
And before that, the Democrats had removed dozens of provisions to placate Olympia Snowe. It’s pretty well documented (though it’s certainly true they could have put them back in when she backed out anyway.)
You can hardly excoriate Hobby Lobby for failing to change their mind when the FDA still requires the label to carry the information you now claim is incorrect.
If current research has made this point clear, so much so that the FDA agrees and changes their label requirements, you can then certainly claim that Hobby Lobby is not following the science. Right now, you’re saying that a hobby retailer should second-guess the label – ignoring a label would certainly be, in other circumstances, fodder for a lawyer to argue that they were negligent.
Sure it does. The four that disagree are four lawyers who follow the “BigT” school of thought: judges should help make new law according to their moral beliefs. My five are the ones who correctly understand that we elect lawmakers in this country; we appoint judges for life and task them with being umpires, not super-senators.
While I agree that judges should not be legislators - why is it not good political strategy to appoint judges with this disagreeable philosophy? If they can get confirmed, why would a person who is appointing a judge not want to appoint an ideologue? Seems like sound strategy for achieving one’s goals.
First, Hobby Lobby doesn’t object to all drugs that “may prevent implantation,” and not all drugs that they object to are so labeled. So let’s not pretend that Hobby Lobby was relying on the FDA for this little bit of theology. And second, reliance on the FDA label is clearly misplaced by anyone familiar with the history of that labeling decision. It’s like saying that Cheney was justified in relying on the intelligence he cooked.
That’s not how it works. I suggest you read the article I linked to above.
Just because your justices are umpires rather than super senators, like MLB umpires they can still be in error.
Also, you are impugning the integrity of the dissenting judges. Are you saying Ginsberg voted solely on moral beliefs? That her interpretation of the RFRA is derived from a moral base rather than a legal base? That she’s effectively lying in her dissent, and is secretly pushing an agenda? Are you a mind reader?