Hobby Lobby Decision Means Companies Completely Rule Your Health Choices Or Something
It really wasn’t much of a stretch to predict that Liberals would continue to publish wacky things regarding the Sebelius v Hobby Lobby decision. This is what they do. Things that make no sense in the real world, but are really meant to scare the Low Information Voters and whip up their base, which seems divorced from reality. Here’s Ezekiel Emanuel, a main architect of the majority despised Obamacare law….well, sort of a law, since Obama has unilaterally changed it multiple times without statutory authority, yapping about the Hobby Lobby decision’s unintended consequences
Which would you prefer: to have the ability to decide for yourself and your family the type of coverage you want to purchase on a health insurance exchange–and having your premiums subsidized by a defined contribution or voucher from your employer–or to cede that ability to your employer entirely, having them pick your insurance for you, but empowering them to decide, based on their personal religious beliefs, which services to cover and which to exclude?
After Monday’s Hobby Lobby decision, this is exactly the type of choice that more and more Americans will face.
Except, the latter is pretty much what we’ve had for about as long as companies have offered health insurance. You might even have a slight choice in which plan, but the plans were picked by the corporation. The great thing about America is that any citizen could literally go out and purchase a health insurance plan they liked, without interference from their company. Of course, then there’s the whole notion that Government, at the federal and state levels, was interfering by deeming which services had to be covered.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, however, does seem to have added one more reason to doubt the wisdom of having employers be the main sponsors of health insurance in the United States.
Ah, now I get it. Emanuel is pushing for single payer
@WhiteHouse If women should make their own health decisions, why is your government doing it for them?
— WilliamTeach (@WilliamTeach) July 1, 2014
On its own, Hobby Lobby will not end employer-sponsored insurance in favor of a voucher system. But it adds another reason for workers to want it to end. And the reasons will continue to accumulate–wider choice of insurance options, more job flexibility, more control over services, and so on. Check back in a few years. After Hobby Lobby takes hold, employer health insurance vouchers begin to look a lot more appealing.
Except, those potential vouchers from companies will still mean that it is Government making all the rules on coverage, not citizens. Do people who have no intention of having a baby need maternity coverage? Do men need coverage for gynecology? Our only real decision will be how much we’re willing to pay for premiums and deductibles.
You also have the Washington Post giving Sandra “I can’t afford $9 for contraception” Fluke a platform for cra-cra, because Hobby Lobby is an attack on women, who are apparently such wilting flowers that they need someone to pay for their abortifacients.
Then their Salon’s Sarah Jaffe, who says Hobby Lobby, and the Harris union decision, are bad for women because they reduce power to the low wage workers
The conservatives pushing both of these cases would have you believe that these are cases about freedom–the freedom to avoid a union, the freedom to practice religion. And yet what they wind up being about is reducing power on the job for thousands of mostly women, mostly low-paid workers across the country.
Attacks on all workers’ rights often come first through attacks on those deemed less important workers. When we decide that birth control isn’t a pivotal issue because it only affects some workers, or that homecare workers’ loss is not a loss for us all, we leave the door open for the next attack.
And so, in a country where these feminized personal service jobs are increasingly the only jobs available, the court continues to rule that workers’ rights are less important than the bosses’, that protections on the job are a luxury working-class women can’t afford.
And there you go: it’s not about restricting Government tyranny and union heavy-handedness, nope, it’s about restricting freedom to…..have abortifacients covered for those wild, stupid, and drunk nights, and be forced to join a union.
Of course, Team Obama, after getting beaten like a rented mule yet again at the Supreme Court, has decided to deflect to
— Mark Canada (@mgcanada) July 1, 2014
The idea closet is empty.
SHOCKING: ‘Conscience for Liberalism’ journalist calls for impeachment of ‘most destructive, dangerous President’ in history
You know: the country is: in trouble when the man considered the ‘conscience of civil libertarianism and liberalism for decades’ calls for
The Left at its best: if they can’t get their way, they’re going to mess up everyone else’s day (NY
I haven’t picked the candidate I’ll be backing for President in 2016, but at this early date, I have to