Of course, if the ACA had been crafted to get employers out of the health insurance loop, none of this would be occurring. But given that it was intentionally crafted/hobbled as an incremental change, retaining as much of the existing health insurance system as possible, it was too radical of an idea to go to something like a single-payer setup as Canada has.
The DC appeals court rejected the idea that just because Citizens United established that corporations have freedom of speech, they must also have freedom of religion (or, at least, it didn't find that SCOTUS had yet so ruled). And it rejected that a secular organization inherits the religious freedoms of its owners. But it did find that if owners are compelled by law to run their business a certain way that they morally oppose, the owners' religious freedoms are, in fact, being infringed upon.
'In other words, the Gilardis are burdened when they are pressured to choose between violating their religious beliefs in managing their selected plan or paying onerous penalties. … The contraceptive mandate demands that owners like the Gilardis meaningfully approve and endorse the inclusion of contraceptive coverage in their companies’ employer- provided plans, over whatever objections they may have. nd the burden becomes substantial because the government commands compliance by giving the Gilardis a Hobson’s choice. They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong. If that is not “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,” we fail to see how the standard could be met.'
I don't see how this can coherently stand, as it allows any business to exempt itself from nearly any regulation. "I believe women shouldn't work outside the home, so anti-discrimination laws don't apply to me." "I believe the Minimum Wage is a direct conflict with the Parables of Jesus, so I don't think I should have to adhere to it." "I believe wine is a gift of the gods, so preventing me from selling it to minors is an infringement on my religious beliefs." Where does it stop?
The appeals court claims that RFRA (the act under which the suit was brought) avoids those extremes, by allowing compelling government interest to prevail — but then decides that allowing free access to contraception is not compelling. And even if it were, the appeals court claims, infringing on religious freedoms would not be the narrowest and least intrusive way of going about dealing with it.
I disagree, but I suspect what we saw here from the DC Appeals Court will have some strong echoes in how SCOTUS rules when it finally takes the matter up.
Reshared post from +Talking Points Memo
BREAKING:
Obamacare Birth Control Mandate Struck Down By Appeals Court
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided appeals court panel is siding with Ohio business owners who challenged the birth control mandate under the new federal health care law.
OMG what kind of f'd up society are we living in when your employer has the power to decide your family planning. Health care should be separated from employment, period, and if the SCOTUS somehow gets us to that, then that is a good result. I'm honestly not sure how they will go.
To be fair, +Shannon Turlington, they previously had that much power as well, by being able to decide whether to provide insurance to employees that had (or didn't have) whatever services they cared to have offered (whether for financial or moral reasons).
For that matter, arguably, employees at the company in question could still go to the insurance exchange at get coverage that includes the BC mandate — but would likely pay more than under employer-funded insurance.
The obvious solution is to simply scrap (or bypass) insurance provision through employers; as a reduction in business expense deductions driving higher effective corporate taxes, it might likely pay for a single-payer option to be less expensive for citizens as a whole, but that could be tweaked in some fashion.
Alas, that's not something the judiciary can mandate, and it's certainly not something our legislative branch could ever possibly agree upon, at least not for another decade or so.
Yes, I know, but the ACA is trying to mandate norms for insurance coverage, and family planning should be a part of that. The employer should have no interest in that. They are paying for (usually part of) the health insurance policy in its entirety. They are not giving their employees money to go buy condoms. Also, this kind of thing makes me seethe because it mostly affects women, and apparently it is still okay for judiciary, legislatures, and employers to decide for women what's best for women. Ugh.
While I think the BC mandate is a fine and useful thing, a few points:
1. I could easily argue that paying for all (or even part) of coverage that is going toward contraception is very much like giving employees money to go buy condoms. It's doing a lot else beside, but in a sense the very mandate forces the action to include giving money for birth control.
2. Yes, it affects (primarily) women. I'll note a woman wrote the majority opinion. The opinion suggested that the government had not made the compelling case that contraception was as important a public interest as not infringing on someone's religious beliefs. Especially since it was not banning contraception, just compelling someone else to pay for it against their religious beliefs.
But my point is they are not paying for contraception. They are paying for insurance. They do not and should not know or be concerned with what their employees are using their insurance for.
But there is a very simple solution to this problem that doesn't require anyone to violate their religious beliefs and that is to separate insurance from employment. It's ridiculous that this is even being litigated.
+Shannon Turlington Separating insurance from employment is exactly what +Dave Hill is talking about when he uses the term "Single Payer Option" – and that's just not a viable option in this country right now.
So we take what we can get, and we keep working toward a better solution as people get used to the new 'normal' and quit freaking out so much when they see that, hey, it actually isn't as bad as I'd thought it would be.
Yes I totally agree that we're on the road to single payer. It's just a shame that we have to go through all this nonsense to get there.
Well, recall that SSI started as a much, much more limited program than it is today. These things take time, as frustrating as it may be to be in the middle of them.
You are right, +Dave Hill. I have to keep reminding myself that this is all progress.