Maybe it's the new think of younger generations that have me baffled. For instance I don't see how they can reason that a corporation, no matter the size, equates with a person. Corporations are run by people to be sure, but as an entity have no life, no ability to think or reason, no feeling or any of the other senses, in a nutshell no life. But I'm told they are the same.
It seems to me Obamacare has caused the problem on the pill issue but not for the reasons given. When I was working, the company and indeed the insurance companies had a variety of policies from which I could choose. There was actually a time when I didn't have to pay for child birth coverage after a hysterectomy or Viagra. No more. State insurance commissioners made such nonsense mandatory. ACA regulators have carried on a bad practice.
The reporting on the Hobby Lobby issue is wrongly reported as being about contraception. It's about abortion and the pills that cause it if in fact something actually happened! So it's really about abortion. I understand the religion based feelings of the company owners but I see the need for definition and separation of personal beliefs and corporate necessity.
Having said that, what exactly does the SC decision mean? Does it apply to only the abortion pills or contraceptives across the board should other 'closely' held corporations ask? Maybe it was made clear but I haven't seen it.
As for the Illinois case on home care workers suddenly being considered a public sector dues paying employee when forced into caring for a family member who is aided by public funds shows the greediness of the public sector unions. I'd rather they get rid of all unions. But then I'm not a union fan on any level. They are a perfect example of over reach.
Did the SC solve the problem of those who want to opt out of union membership in all cases or does it apply only to those specific home health workers? Again, I'm confused. I don't see a clear cut answer. Perhaps if I dug deeper I'd find it but basing a blog on information readily available in the main stream media I find such information lacking.
The only thing that seems clear is when the President tries to do something on his own and suddenly everyone in Congress is calling foul. Where were they beforehand? Worrying about re-election so they can do more of nothing and collect fat salaries to boot. I don't always agree with his decisions and feel his problems stem from his attitude but I understand where he's coming from.
No wonder the country is in such haphazard condition. It follows the trickle down theory doesn't it? It seeps down from the top until the entire country is saturated with confusion. Why is the country seemingly frozen in its tracks? Could this be why?