See this

In any case, there is no reason for any health insurance policy to pay for any form of birth control (including after-the-fact birth control, as in this case). Insurance is meant to cover catastrophic expenses, not trivial ones.

A couple of points of clarification.

First, the SCOTUS addressed the issue of the 4 contraceptives / abortifacients (depending on your view) because that was the question brought before the court. Properly, the SCOTUS did not seek to expand a ruling beyond the question in the case.

Second, a point that many people miss is that a key component of the ruling is the availability of contraceptives. Had these 4 been the only options available, it is likely the decision would have gone the other way. I base that statement on the arguments in the published opinion itself, so that's my take-away from reading it, not that of a blogger or legal scholar.

Finally, and I think this is important, this ruling in no way impinges upon an individual's legal right to obtain those 4 options. It only addresses an employer's requirement to pay for it. Much of the outrage over this decision seeks to use emotion by claiming employers can impose their values on employees and PREVENT individuals from using these options, which is stretching the truth.

(random guy, above, has a point as well. We have become too accustomed to having insurance become health care coverage.)

To add to what Tasha said, no employer is required to provide health insurance. No person is required to purchase health insurance.

If you don't, you pay a penalty to the IRS which has already been ruled a tax.

The issue that was decided was that Hobby Lobby and the Catholic nuns, do not have to provide birth control and they are not required to pay the penalty (tax) for their non ACA compliant health plans because the requirement for them, was an unconstitutional violation of religious liberty.

No grand sweeping new case law came out of this case.

So can a business owned by a catholic refuse to pay for any sort of BC and not face a penalty?

Can a business owned by a Christian Scientist refuse to cover anything that requires a blood transfusion at any point like an organ transplant, or emergency surgery?

lujlp:

Perhaps true for any sort of BC.

As for the others, no. A requirement is allowed if a) it forwards a compelling government interest and b) there is no other less intrusive way to do it. Which remains the same as it ever was.

A corps of employees are generally able-bodies and they assemble for reasons irrelevant to their medical problems. This makes for sustainable actuarial pools, so tying insurance to employment has some utility even though there may be better systems.

lujlp:

In the case of Catholic hospitals, the employer didn't have to cover BC, but the insurance provider offered a rider to the employer sponsored plan that individuals could pick up on their own. The employer has to submit an application for this waiver, and that begins the process.

But that example is for a business that is tied directly to the Church. I would think a private employer who wished to do the same, on the same religious basis, would follow a similar process. I think the unknown is will HHS be able to apply the same standard to a private employer, meaning, do they have the authority to do so? It seems like that would be the most expedient method for what seems like a logical outcome, but don't know the rules on that.

"No grand sweeping new case law came out of this case."

Nonetheless, I think the case is significant because the SCOTUS has said for the first time since this mess started that yes, there is somewhere a boundary to the federal government's authority regarding health care. This won't be the end -- I'm not sure where else it goes, but at a minimum there is going to be another related case since this case appears to carve out an exemption to law based on religion, and that is going to have to be resolved somehow. Assuming the Court isn't going to reverse itself on this ruling anytime soon, it is going to have to expand the scope to make the exemption available to all. And once that snowball starts rolling, Obamacare could be in real trouble.

"A corps of employees are generally able-bodies and they assemble for reasons irrelevant to their medical problems. This makes for sustainable actuarial pools, so tying insurance to employment has some utility even though there may be better systems. "

A more blunt way of stating that is: This is the way to force young healthy people to subsidize the system.

" And once that snowball starts rolling, Obamacare could be in real trouble."

It all ready is. It will death spiral in the next year.

All that will remain is the tax.

"Insurance is meant to cover catastrophic expenses, not trivial ones."

Is that why Hobby Lobby still covers Viagra and Vasectomies?

"Insurance is meant to cover catastrophic expenses, not trivial ones."

Is that why Hobby Lobby still covers Viagra and Vasectomies?

Posted by: Ppen at July 4, 2014 6:28 PM

I am pretty sure hormone treatments and tubal ligation are covered too. Your point?

A lot of what insurance is required to cover is mandated by state law.

Any corporation that is a multi state corporation will pretty much have a policy that meets the mandated requirements of every state that they operate in.

So if any state requires Viagra and vasectomies be covered, than all employees will get that coverage. Too difficult to separate out the coverage for employees by state.

"Your point?"

My point is is to point out how they fought so hard to get IUDs not covered due to the ACA but have no problem with getting your dick hard pills. I find it funny, but you're humorless anyways so yo wouldn't get it.

But hey! Here is something even more curious. They have shown to have invested in the very abortion pills they're against!

(I begrudigenly agree with the court decision btw)

Wow.
Obamacare denies individual rights by compelling employers to pay for things against their will...
Like safety glasses, ear plugs, handicapped parking, those kind of things? Or those "compulsions" are alright?
...and compelling individuals to purchase things against their will.
Like auto insurance? How about license plates? Or paying your doctor when you get sick?

I did not realize that the ACA was the very first law to compel people to pay for things against their will.

...no employer is required to provide health insurance. No person is required to purchase health insurance.
**OR** you get penalized with a tax.
So a mandate (defined as an 'official command') is not a requirement in this case?

I don't like having to have health insurance either, but what does the government gain by requiring you to give money to the for-profit health insurance companies in the first place?

My point is is to point out how they fought so hard to get IUDs not covered due to the ACA but have no problem with getting your dick hard pills. I find it funny, but you're humorless anyways so yo wouldn't get it.

My friends actually think I am pretty funny, but I have found nothing humorous about the ACA, or the Obama administration for many years now.

I think most medical care in this country is basically one giant scam, like most of the dietary advice.

There are exceptions, but any discussion would be dry and humorless.

Why should Viagra not be covered? At least it does what it is designed to do.

The difference with automobile insurance is you can opt out by not owning an automobile and using other forms of transportation. PPACA requires you to obtain insurance by virtue of being alive.

Kind of like taxes. Which, now that I think of it, means the 2012 SCOTUS decision on the individual mandate as a tax vs. a penalty makes sense.

The point about health insurance covering more than catastrophic events is one we should explore. Perhaps we should look at it as two different types of insurance; a comparison would be homeowners insurance vs. an annual home warranty.

I don't like having to have health insurance either, but what does the government gain by requiring you to give money to the for-profit health insurance companies in the first place?

Given the IRS administrates, a whole new way to spy on americans financial records. Plus politicians get campaign donations for passing a bill written by insurance lobyists

A more blunt way of stating that is: This is the way to force young healthy people to subsidize the system.

Cousin Dave, insurance incorporates exchanging predictable and regular payments for occasional catastrophic expenditures. It does that through both cross-sectional and inter-temporal subventions. Sorry that irritates you, but it's pretty much the whole point of having insurance. The young and healthy people gonna get old.

My point is is to point out how they fought so hard to get IUDs not covered due to the ACA but have no problem with getting your dick hard pills. I find it funny, but you're humorless anyways so yo wouldn't get it.

They fought hard to avoid paying for contraceptives which function as abortifacients. I would wager their legal counsel told them it was hopeless to file suit against requirements that they pay for baubles which make use of medical knowledge but which are not true medical care or against requirement that they provide pre-paid services which have little to do with insuring against risk.

The moderatrix here was last seen complaining that Hobby Lobby imported supplies from China, as if either Hobby Lobby or its Chinese suppliers were the manufacturers of Chinese public policy

While were on the subject.

How is that the courts have ruled both that a religious business owner must provide services to customers that violate their religious beliefs, but they do not have to provide medical coverage to employees that violate their religious beliefs.

I fail to see any substantial difference between the two arguments.

While were on the subject.

How is that the courts have ruled both that a religious business owner must provide services to customers that violate their religious beliefs, but they do not have to provide medical coverage to employees that violate their religious beliefs.

I fail to see any substantial difference between the two arguments.

1. Two different statutes at stake.

2. Anthony Kennedy fancies himself the tribune of the homosexual population. Their interests are not at stake re Hobby Lobby

"Sorry that irritates you, but it's pretty much the whole point of having insurance. "

I know good and damn well how insurance works. And when the law (1) forces you to buy it, and (2) tries to make everyone's rates the same, that's not insurance. It's a wealth transfer program. Call it by its proper name.