Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » How far does the "corporations are people" concept go?

How far does the "corporations are people" concept go?

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

There is talk today about the Hobby Lobby case and concerns are being raised as to the right/ability of a corporation or company to impose its religious beliefs on its employees. If a company is owned by people who don't "believe" in blood transfusions, for example, be allowed to delete that coverage in policies for their employees?

The White House released a statement Tuesday calling the requirement for private companies to provide contraceptive coverage "lawful and essential to women's health." That requirement is at the heart of the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Tuesday morning at the Obama administration's urging.

Though the White House does not comment on specifics of cases in front of the Court, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that "as a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor.  The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.  The administration has already acted to ensure no church or similar religious institution will be forced to provide contraception coverage and has made a commonsense accommodation for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds."

"These steps protect both women's health and religious beliefs, and seek to ensure that women and families--not their bosses or corporate CEOs--can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets," Carney said.

 

For more information... http://www.politico.com

Guest


Guest

I'll give you a hit.

Im in the middle on this issue.

I think contraceptives are good, abortions bad.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

anyway, I suppose the problem is that Obama has MANDATED that ALL insurance policies have these certain things. When before people had choices and companies could choose a policy to contribute to for their employees and yes, they could choose one that did not pay for that.

I personally think having this "one size fits all" types of plans is stupid. Its made it more expensive actually.

So the question here is should people who have a strong religious belief be FORCED to pay for services that they believe GOD will punish them for. In a way its the GOV forcing religious people to do things against their religion( provide these one size fits all policies with these things in it) or be punished by the GOV.

There is NO reason what so ever to have these one size fits all policies unless you want to make damn sure as few babies are born as possible. Population control.

Now if the GOV will not come to its senses and allow varied policies then I see that these very convicted religious people will have to make all of their employees part time and not pay for insurance at all.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Do Christian Scientists have to buy health insurance?  How about the Amish?

Guest


Guest

I don't see why they wouldn't have to? I believe the Amish use Dr.s.

Nekochan

Nekochan

I just Googled around a little and found this:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/religious-exemption-included-in-obamacare-individual-mandate-89189/

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Do Christian Scientists have to buy health insurance?  How about the Amish?
sees I recall a exemption for the amish... hmmm

according to politico, amish are.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/24/facebook-posts/congress-criminals-scientologists-and-other-groups/

Markle

Markle

othershoe1030 wrote:There is talk today about the Hobby Lobby case and concerns are being raised as to the right/ability of a corporation or company to impose its religious beliefs on its employees. If a company is owned by people who don't "believe" in blood transfusions, for example, be allowed to delete that coverage in policies for their employees?

The White House released a statement Tuesday calling the requirement for private companies to provide contraceptive coverage "lawful and essential to women's health." That requirement is at the heart of the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Tuesday morning at the Obama administration's urging.

Though the White House does not comment on specifics of cases in front of the Court, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that "as a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor.  The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.  The administration has already acted to ensure no church or similar religious institution will be forced to provide contraception coverage and has made a commonsense accommodation for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds."

"These steps protect both women's health and religious beliefs, and seek to ensure that women and families--not their bosses or corporate CEOs--can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets," Carney said.
For more information... http://www.politico.com
Why is it so hard to be up front about this simple issue?

As you well know, the issue has nothing to do with transfusions. The last I heard, both women AND men have transfusions. The Hobby Lobby is fighting for their right to provide health care to their employees which does not cover abortions, the morning after pill, contraception pills. The employees are perfectly free to purchase those items themselves.

All of those services are available at Planned Parenthood if they are not affordable to the employee. Also available is for the person to have sought employment elsewhere. You know, personal responsibility, freedom and liberty.

May I remind you:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

2seaoat



The Hobby Lobby is fighting for their right to provide health care to their employees which does not cover abortions, the morning after pill, contraception pills.

The government when setting mandatory minimum policies in Auto insurance or health insurance sets public policy parameters. Those public policy parameters are debated in the political process. The idea that a private corporation decides it does not like a particular component of the public policy, our system allows that corporation to challenge the same in court. If the Supreme Court rules that this is unconstitutional, it better have a very specific a tightly defined reason, because government will fail if the political process can be over turned just because somebody does not like something. The standard is simply was their a rational basis for the government classification. Birth control and abortion have governmental rational policy reasons for implementing the same as part of the law. If the law effects a fundamental right of a citizen, then the state must show a compelling state reason for the law. However, the simple fact that an insurance policy has a provision of coverage does not mean any employee must utilize that provision. The supreme court under precedent will have a very difficult time finding a fundamental right and therefore the rational basis standard if applied will be upheld.

Guest


Guest

Chrissy wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Do Christian Scientists have to buy health insurance?  How about the Amish?
sees I recall a exemption for the amish... hmmm

according to politico, amish are.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/24/facebook-posts/congress-criminals-scientologists-and-other-groups/

No, the Amish are not exempt. If you read the politifact article, it says it is mostly false. The Amish use healthcare and even the ones like scientology,they can be brought on on criminal charges for not providing healthcare to their children. If a scientologist got in a car accident, he would be brought to the hospital just like anyone else and receive lifesaving medical care. The Amish have to pay taxes and follow the law just like anyone else regardless of their religious beliefs.

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
Chrissy wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Do Christian Scientists have to buy health insurance?  How about the Amish?
sees I recall a exemption for the amish... hmmm

according to politico, amish are.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/24/facebook-posts/congress-criminals-scientologists-and-other-groups/

No, the Amish are not exempt. If you read the politifact article, it says it is mostly false. The Amish use healthcare and even the ones like scientology,they can be brought on on criminal charges for not providing healthcare to their children. If a scientologist got in a car accident, he would be brought to the hospital just like anyone else and receive lifesaving medical care. The Amish have to pay taxes and follow the law just like anyone else regardless of their religious beliefs.
maybe you should have read it. I read it. it clearly says>>> Based on who has obtained exemptions from other federal programs like Medicare and Social Security, it looks like the Amish would qualify, as would Mennonites

maybe you should learn more about amish lol

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote: The Hobby Lobby is fighting for their right to provide health care to their employees which does not cover abortions, the morning after pill, contraception pills.

The government when setting mandatory minimum policies in Auto insurance or health insurance sets public policy parameters.   Those public policy parameters are debated in the political process.   The idea that a private corporation decides it does not like a particular component of the public policy, our system allows that corporation to challenge the same in court.   If the Supreme Court rules that this is unconstitutional, it better have a very specific a tightly defined reason, because government will fail if the political process can be over turned just because somebody does not like something.  The standard is simply was their a rational basis for the government classification.   Birth control and abortion have governmental rational policy reasons for implementing the same as part of the law.   If the law effects a fundamental right of a citizen, then the state must show a compelling state reason for the law.   However, the simple fact that an insurance policy has a provision of coverage does not mean any employee must utilize that provision.  The supreme court under precedent will have a very difficult time finding a fundamental right and therefore the rational basis standard if applied will be upheld.
May I remind you AGAIN.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Doesn't that mean that the Occupy movement should have been allowed to proceed through peaceful demonstrations without attacks by police? Or does the Constitution only apply to right-wingers?

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Doesn't that mean that the Occupy movement should have been allowed to proceed through peaceful demonstrations without attacks by police? Or does the Constitution only apply to right-wingers?
Lol... they tried to occupy a museum. They were given an amazing latitude... given their ineptitude.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
Doesn't that mean that the Occupy movement should have been allowed to proceed through peaceful demonstrations without attacks by police?  Or does the Constitution only apply to right-wingers?
They were.  They camped for weeks in these parks which were sites of assaults, public masturbation, rapes and even murder.

How far does the "corporations are people" concept go? Dce95f5e-30d6-47c4-a6b5-cc24d6617934

How far does the "corporations are people" concept go? OaklandOWSVandal

How far does the "corporations are people" concept go? Oaklandmobfire
How far does the "corporations are people" concept go? WallStreetCampers

Tea Party Demonstrators
How far does the "corporations are people" concept go? 082910glenn71


Thanks!  You are such a great foil!

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » How far does the "corporations are people" concept go?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum