Shady Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Contraceptives covered by Hobby Lobby: 16 Contraceptives covered by OHIP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 They are not employed by the owners but by the corporation - with all the legal benefits of corporation. There shouldn't be religious rights for corporations. Corporations should not have 'person' status either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Maybe I have missed something here but I don't get how a corporation can have religious beliefs. In the USA a corporation can be considered a person. Persons can have religious views and promote them, not that I agree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Michael Hardner, on 30 Jun 2014 - 11:07 AM, said: They are not employed by the owners but by the corporation - with all the legal benefits of corporation. There shouldn't be religious rights for corporations. That's exactly it Michael. In fact it's against the law for a representative of a corporation to not act in the corporation's best interest. This is a problem with the US corrupted justice system and so it's not going to make any legal sense to the rest of the world. Delightfull! They're tearing down their society from within! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) They are not employed by the owners but by the corporation - with all the legal benefits of corporation. There shouldn't be religious rights for corporations.Corporations are just collections of people. There are a subset of individual rights that do not disappear simple because a group of people choose to act as a unit rather than as individuals. The court ruled that when it is clear that the collection of people represented by company have a clear religious opinion then they are entitled to that protection. When it is not clear (i.e. a publicly traded company) then no such protection exist. BTW - the fact that a subset of individual rights apply a collective does not make a corporation a "person". It just means that in *some* contexts a corporation is like a person. Edited July 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Maybe I have missed something here but I don't get how a corporation can have religious beliefs. Indeed. If a person forms a corporation, they are using special government rules that allow them to run a business while shielding themselves from most personal liability. Similarly, they should keep their personal beliefs out of the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Corporations as protected persons exists largely because of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which conferred equal protection rights to persons in the wake of the Civil War (1868). Corporations had been considered persons long before that going back hundreds of years. Frankly, I don't know how the ACA (Obamcare) could survive a court challenge (over equal protection) from corporations with 50 or more employees that are subject to mandatory health insurance, while smaller corporations are not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Contraceptives covered by Hobby Lobby: 16 Contraceptives covered by OHIP. 0 And how is that relative to this discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Indeed. If a person forms a corporation, they are using special government rules that allow them to run a business while shielding themselves from most personal liability. Similarly, they should keep their personal beliefs out of the business. I tend to agree with that but it does get interesting and I'm not a lawyer. But I myself have been incorporated for the last number of years and I'm the lone shareholder as well as it's only employee so I guess I don't really need to rely on the courts to tell me what I can or can't tell myself to do. At least with regard to the topic of this discussion. It would be interesting to see how a similar case would be dealt with in Canada. I think it's well known that the USSC has a much more conservative slant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) And how is that relative to this discussion?It is relevant because it establishes that there is not a strong public health argument for free contraceptives in the US (if the public health argument was strong then why did the bureaucrats in Ontario decided it was not important enough to fund?). This supports the view that the inclusion in the ACA was an ideological move by Democrats and that it was not unreasonable for a business owner to object. If there was a clear public health argument (e.g. vaccines) then it would be unacceptable for religious views to entitle one to an exemption from regulation. Edited July 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 It is relevant because it establishes that there is not a strong public health argument for free contraceptives in the US (if the public health argument was strong then why did the bureaucrats in Ontario decided it was not important enough to fund?). Really? It "establishes" that? So anything that's not funded in Canada is automatically established to be not beneficial for public health? To establish if something is beneficial for public health or not, I'd think one might look at the science, rather than whether or not a particular country's or province's bureaucracy has funded it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Contraceptives covered by Hobby Lobby: 16 Contraceptives covered by OHIP. 0 Why aren’t male contraceptives covered ( in the U.S.) for men, maybe if they were men would take more responsibility for family planning and health issues. I wonder if they cover vasectomies or would cover any future/potential hormonal male contraception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 There are several male and female contraceptive products that are sold OTC without a prescription. Normally, these are not covered by health insurance plans unless specifically scheduled as part of the plan/policy. Some are available free of charge from several sources (colleges, universities, clinics, schools, etc.). My son's university actually has an official "condom club". Vasectomies are generally covered by health insurance plans, as are other "reproductive health" issues for men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 There are an estimated 52% of employers that possibly fall under the private held corporation ruling. No one has suggested that any other private held corporation will take the path chosen by the companies in this case but to suggest that they won't is what I would consider ignorant. I will not venture to guess why there is any concern one way or the other by Canadians who are not affected by this ruling. Maybe you can explain. Why should any of the methods be denied? I don't want a corporation prescribing the best pharmaceutical choice for me, that is between me and my doctor. Many women prefer an IUD for either personal or medicate reasons, they should not be denied that choice. WTF do doctors know? Morality should come before medicine every day of the week. ~s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Really? It "establishes" that? So anything that's not funded in Canada is automatically established to be not beneficial for public health? To establish if something is beneficial for public health or not, I'd think one might look at the science, rather than whether or not a particular country's or province's bureaucracy has funded it. Good response. I am sure if we drilled down into the two different systems we would find that the coverage differs in many other respects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 WTF do doctors know? Morality should come before medicine every day of the week. ~s Whose morality, yours or mine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Why aren’t male contraceptives covered ( in the U.S.) for men What contraceptives did you have in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Whose morality, yours or mine? The one passed directly from the Lord to the authors of The Bible obviously. ~s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Really? It "establishes" that? So anything that's not funded in Canada is automatically established to be not beneficial for public health?I choose my words carefully. Not a "strong" argument does not imply there is no argument. Just that the argument is not so compelling that any expert would agree that it should always be funded. I used the term to distinguish between things where there is clearly a public health benefit such as vaccines. Lastly, health decisions are based on a cost-benefit analysis. i.e. money matters. it is not enough to establish that X has benefits - one must establish that the benefits of X exceed the costs. For these kinds of decisions science is secondary. All science can do is rule out crap that is never beneficial. It can never decide whether it should be funded and the choose of what too fund is generally comes down to a question of values. Edited July 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Tim, none of that matters. The federal government decided it should be covered and Hobby Lobby is not a Church. Businesses should not get religious exemptions. The idea that an abstract entity can have a religion is absurd. People have a religion and a right to practice their religion. Businesses do not have a right to force their religion and religious values on their employees. I would expect that a libertarian like you would be pretty upset that a business is trying to impose religious values on its employees. Edited July 1, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Actually, none of that matters. Corporations have personhood in the U.S. with equal protection rights protected by the 14th Amendment. This is what enables the federal government to prevail over individual states. It's not just about religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) I choose my words carefully. Not a "strong" argument does not imply there is no argument. Just that the argument is not so compelling that any expert would agree that it should always be funded. I used the term to distinguish between things where there is clearly a public health benefit such as vaccines. What should be funded depends on how much money should be spent. The US spends what, like ~2x per capita on healthcare than Canada does? A lot MORE should be covered there. So just because something isn't covered in Canada doesn't say much about the US. Lastly, health decisions are based on a cost-benefit analysis. i.e. money matters. it is not enough to establish that X has benefits - one must establish that the benefits of X exceed the costs. For these kinds of decisions science is secondary. All science can do is rule out crap that is never beneficial. Well, that and it can estimate the magnitudes of the potential benefits. Edited July 1, 2014 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) It can never decide whether it should be funded and the choose of what too fund is generally comes down to a question of values.Which is pretty much my point. Why do the values based decisions embedded in the ACA necessarily trump the values based decisions of an owner of a company? I argue that they should only when there is a clear public health benefit that outweighs the harms caused by tramping on religious freedoms. Vaccines are an example of where the public health benefits are so clear that any objections to regulations should be ignored. With free contraceptives the benefits in industrialized countries are no where near that of vaccines (for developing countries they are). So I do not see a compelling argument for the ACA to override religious freedom in this case. Edited July 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Which is pretty much my point. Why do the values based decisions embedded in the ACA necessarily trump the values based decisions of an owner of a company? I argue that they should only when there is a clear public health benefit that outweighs the harms caused by tramping on religious freedoms. Vaccines are an example of where the public health benefits are so clear that any objections to regulations should be ignored. With contraceptives the benefits in industrialized countries are no where near that of vaccines (for developing countries they are). So I do see a compelling argument for the ACA to override religious freedom in this case. Sorry that was a sentence left hanging from what I quoted from you, it wasn't my statement. That being said, I do agree with it. As for the damage caused by "trampling on religious freedoms"... care to talk more about this damage? From what I've seen, trying to accommodate all kinds of religious freedoms is the source of a whole lot of problems and often results in strange situations with unequal rights for different people based on their religion, much like the same kind of situation you ardently oppose in the native thread (except there it is based on race). Personally, I'd like to see "religious freedoms" trampled on more whenever they come in conflict with any other kinds of rights, freedoms, or principles of equality. Edited July 1, 2014 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 What contraceptives did you have in mind? Snip? Then again, that is covered in Canada (at least in Manitoba anyway). No waiting either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.