IBD & implications of Hobby Lobby case

[nogutsnoglory]

The Supreme Court narrowly ruled that corporations can deny contraception based on religious values to their employees. What precedent is this setting and might it impact people with crohns?

Some ethical issues that could arise:
-blood transfusions are sometimes needed but certain religious groups are against them.
-certain medications contain animal protein that may not comply with certain religious groups dietary practices.

Are there others? I think some real issues could potentially come up.

 

[Lisa]

Ok - to get this straight - the corporation can dictate what insurance coverage its' employees may choose to receive.....

Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Couldn't an employee be given a choice of different plans/coverages (like we have where I work) - and if there is a plan that doesn't provide a specific benefit (or does) - the employee can make that choice.....

The current insurance provider I have, I chose because of the coverage.....it had better coverage for what I needed with my history vs. other plans....

 

[nogutsnoglory]

I just think it's too complicated for plans not to be inclusive. Men saying why should I pay extra for gynecological services etc. is ridiculous. It all levels out in the end and we just need full coverage and not people picking and choosing aspects of care. I think paying for the depth of coverage is one thing but not plans that single out certain kinds of procedures.

 

[LindaS]

I haven't read the entire decision, but from the highlights of the decision, it seems to me that the majority of the Justices picked an outcome and shoe-horned the law to make it work. There was already an "out" in the law for "for-profit" companies to avoid providing birth control, but that required paying a fine.

This decision won't impact insurance plans bought through the market-place/exchanges, only employer provided heath insurance. It doesn't seem clear to me from reading excerpts of the decision how a religious belief is to be considered to be deeply held. It almost seems like the court is saying employers could pick and choose what is covered. I could go on, but I don't want to get political.

 

[jwfoise]

Ok - to get this straight - the corporation can dictate what insurance coverage its' employees may choose to receive.....

Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Couldn't an employee be given a choice of different plans/coverages (like we have where I work) - and if there is a plan that doesn't provide a specific benefit (or does) - the employee can make that choice.....

The current insurance provider I have, I chose because of the coverage.....it had better coverage for what I needed with my history vs. other plans....

Yes and no.

Here is my take on it. Corporations get to pick what insurance coverage its' employees get. That's been true for a very long time. Companies can decide to give employees choices on coverage, or they can pick a single plan - that's been true for a long time (the company I work for used to give choices, now there is one choice with a couple of options, such as level of dental or drug coverage).

The Affordable Care Act changed some of this. It mandated certain aspects of the coverage, such as certain things that had to be covered in all plans, what benefits had to be offered to spouses and dependent children, etc. One of things that the ACA required was contraceptive coverage.

The Supreme Court has ruled that some of those requirements, particularly contraceptive coverage, must be waived, if the closely (privately) held company (not a publicly traded corporation) has specific religious reasons for not wanting to pay for such coverage.

I don't have a clue as to how this will impact IBD patients. My first guess is not much. Yes, there are religions that forbid blood transfusions, but such groups have not publicly expressed concerns about paying for their employee's blood transfusions.

I guess we'll just have to see....

 

[nogutsnoglory]

Well I don't think it's a major threat to IBD patients yet but it could be soon. Companies are already suing based on this ruling on other issues where they claim religious liberties are being violated.

What if a company doesn't offer any insurance because they decide that any health care is a violation of God's will and that humans shouldn't interfere. It sounds out there but there are people who die because they believe so strongly in prayer and eschew treatment.

 

[jjk308]

Zero effect. Only 4 of the 2 dozen contraceptive pills can be excluded because a number of religions consider them abortifacients.

All the other issues have been covered years ago, like blood transfusions. FYI while a blood transfusion is covered the blood itself often is not - the reason being to encourage blood donations and fund blood banks.