More tweaking since a reasonable line between profit and non-profit isn't good enough for SCOTUS. Prediction: selective concern for religious beliefs as this tweaking in ways that make providing benefits
more complicated is applied in the real world.
ETA: And, yeah, at some point,
what's the point? The other side isn't acting with good faith (pun not intended).
2 comments:
It appears the administration is doing what it can despite the other side's lack of good faith. By the other side, I assume you mean the
Supreme Court majority.
RH Reality Check, e.g., believes that the Administration is trying to hard to continuously tweak the regulations (before and after Hobby Lobby) and should at some point let the litigation play out. I respect what they are trying to do but at some point it does seem too convoluted.
The "other side" would be those against the mandate and health law generally, including those who claim to support religious liberty, but never give Obama credit for continuously trying to find a compromise path.
It's a mixture of lack of good faith and just not being able to see how in the long run opposition here burdens individual religious practice too, just not the sort the opponents are comfortable with.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!