If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Supreme Court to decide if you can use your religion as an excuse to make health decisions for your employees   (wtop.com) divider line 431
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, health law, reproductive healths, faiths  
•       •       •

4471 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



431 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-26 03:50:52 PM
The government has the authority to say you can't pay your US employees with Pesos, Yen, Euros or credit at the company store... so they should be able to say which health benefits are OK.
 
2013-11-26 03:51:24 PM
It's not the corporation's money.
It's the employee's money
it's their deferred compensation
just because you pay the insurance company directly doesn't mean you can tell the insurance company what your employee can and cannot purchase with the plan.
they're paying for it not you.
 
2013-11-26 03:51:30 PM

DamnYankees: nmrsnr: I do not have a good feeling about this.

I think there is something to be said for saying that laws that harm a business that is inextricably linked to religion are problematic, like mandating a kosher bakery be open on Saturdays, or requiring a Mormon restaurant to serve alcohol or caffeine, but for a regular business that won't have its business operations affected by regulations, I don't think they have any standing, since the corporation is not the person, and the corporation has no inherent religion if it is a secular business.

That's an interesting comparison - the idea of passing a law saying that every restaurant *must* serve beer, for example. I'm trying to imagine a situation where that could be unconstitutional, but I'm not seeing it. It would be really horrible public policy, but absent a showing of discriminatory intent against Mormons, I think it should stand as a law.


I don't think you understand the concept of, of free exercise thereof.
 
2013-11-26 03:52:17 PM

Cyberluddite: CujoQuarrel: / Ran into a woman who's job had cut her 40 hours to 28 hours to avoid the 'Obama tax'
// She is making ends meet now as a part time stripper

Did she also tell you that she was just doing it to work her way through college, and also that she really, really likes you and you aren't like all the other customers?


She wasn't. Just trying to feed the three kids. She worked in a hospice by day.

And it's an amazing fact that a lot of them 'are' college students or are going to beauty school. I'll bet most of them never graduate but it is a way of paying for college.

I've tutored 3 of them in math.

Been to one graduation.

And I'm not like all the other customers. I'm a cheapskate.
 
2013-11-26 03:52:21 PM

Eponymous: vygramul: No one is forcing the employee to use contraceptives, so we're not forcing stuff onto them anymore than we force roads onto tax-payers who walk everywhere.

You fail to see the problem because you are unable to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between a private business and the government.


Logic dictates that it's the verbs that determine whether an action is an offense, not the noun.
 
2013-11-26 03:52:49 PM

OgreMagi: ACA (Obamacare) requires a company to provide health insurance if they have enough employees (I think it's 50) or pay a fine.

Companies are getting around this by limiting the number of full time employees and going with a lot of part timers.  Some are just saying "fark it, pay the fine", because it's cheaper.


I think you're confusing "make available" with "provide".

I get insurance through my company, and they're legally required to choose a plan that I pay a LOT of money to get.

They don't "provide" me with my insurance.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:02 PM

Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.


Show your work.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Forcing them to what? Provide insurance? How is that different than forcing them to pay minimum wage, a safe work environment, unchained emergency exits, breaks in a 8 hour day etc. ?


Exactly. (the middle two aren't the same as the first and last)
 
2013-11-26 03:53:17 PM

Eponymous: I don't think you understand the concept of, of free exercise thereof.


What am I missing?
 
2013-11-26 03:53:36 PM

Transubstantive: Tax Boy: Transubstantive: The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.

[newsbusters.org image 400x300]

demands a recount

Citizens United will and already has had far more wide-reaching implications for our nation than Bush v. Gore.


Yeah, but Bush v. Gore gave us Bush, who gave us Roberts and Alito, who helped give us Citizens United.

Gore might have given us a couple of crappy justices, but not THAT crappy.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:39 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I've pissed a lot of people off with my viewpoint of this.

While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG (read that more than once before proceeding) I think that forcing them provide a service that they find objectionable for whatever reason is worse. I also think that you are horribly misguided if you want these services as a condition of your employment and then go to work for a company like HL.

It seems to me that there is only one subject where people should be allowed to make their own choice.


And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea. I agree.

It's easy for someone who is comfortable to claim that you just don't have to work somewhere. But, it isn't always an easy decision. So, we end up with people working for assholes like HL, because kids come before principles. Every damn time.

It isn't the upper middle class that this type of crap affects, it is those without alternatives.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:49 PM

Cubicle Jockey: BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.
1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO
1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.
1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.
7000 shares are owned by the general public.
The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.

What is the religion of the employer?


Who knows?  That type of corporation would probably have a tough time laying out their case.  Hobby Lobby is owned by one guy and his family; their religious beliefs have always been a large part of the company (e.g. closing on Sundays, mission statements, etc.)  Not as difficult for them to establish.  Again, it's not whether or not a corporation has a religion--it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:53 PM

drumhellar: Has anybody noticed that Hobby Lobby isn't a corporation?

It is a privately-owed company, which significantly changes the issue.

The owners are still coonts, but still - it's unrelated from corporate personhood.


Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is very much a corporation.  It might be closely held and not publicly traded, but it has all the protections and obligations that go with the corporate form, and so is a legal entity distinct from his owners, officers, and employees.  Unless they want to pierce the corporate veil and make themselves personally liable for the corporation's debts and obligations.
 
2013-11-26 03:54:23 PM

Donnchadha: At this point, we've established that corporations are people and people have the right to free expression of religion, therefore transitive property.

So, could this easily be defeated by requesting evidence that the corporation, as a person-entity is actually active (or a registered member) in said religion? At most, one could only provide evidence that the people who make up the corporation are members, but not the corporation itself -- which is the whole premise behind corporate personhood.


Yeah, Hobby Lobby hardly ever comes to church these days.
 
2013-11-26 03:54:41 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Look, I don't think contraception/abortion coverage in a health plan makes the owners of the company "responsible" in the eyes of God in any way, shape or form - so they all need to farking take a breath and stop this nonsense...

BUT...

Saying you don't want your company-provided health insurance plan to cover contraception   IS NOT MAKING A HEALTH DECISION FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES!!!

That's like saying "I'm not paying my employees a million dollars a year - so I'm making decisions on where they can live, and what kind of car they can drive."


It is most certainly taking health decisions away from the people who should be making them. Arguing about whether you'll pay is mere quibbling.

Raising the religious rights of a company over an individual will never get past any SCOTUS - they'll shoot them down.
 
2013-11-26 03:55:43 PM
Well, the business will not be making health decisions for their employees. employees can take as much birth control as they like. You can walk around with a bag of RU-486 and pop 'em like candy all day long.

Th court will decide whether the business has to pay for it via insurance. But that's not as hyperbolic so good job subby.
 
2013-11-26 03:55:50 PM

BravadoGT: Who knows?  That type of corporation would probably have a tough time laying out their case.  Hobby Lobby is owned by one guy and his family; their religious beliefs have always been a large part of the company (e.g. closing on Sundays, mission statements, etc.)  Not as difficult for them to establish.  Again, it's not whether or not a corporation has a religion--it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.


Your last sentence undermines the rest of your post. You seem to be saying that's what's relevant isn't the religious affiliation of the corporation, but whether the law impacts the religious beliefs of a shareholder. No?
 
2013-11-26 03:55:56 PM

Kiriyama9000: If you don't like it, don't work there and don't take their benefits.
Go buy and work some place else.
Sounds pretty simple to me.

Disclosure: I'm an atheist.


That will work as long as there are other places to go buy and work.

Presumably non-athiest companies will be able to say no health care for atheists as it is against our religious beliefs.
 
2013-11-26 03:55:59 PM

Transubstantive: The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.


Don't get ahead of yourself.  We have another 87 years to try to top it.
 
2013-11-26 03:56:53 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.

Show your work.



Dancin_In_Anson: I think that forcing them provide a service that they find objectionable for whatever reason is worse.


I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.
 
2013-11-26 03:57:03 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.

Show your work.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Forcing them to what? Provide insurance? How is that different than forcing them to pay minimum wage, a safe work environment, unchained emergency exits, breaks in a 8 hour day etc. ?

Exactly. (the middle two aren't the same as the first and last)


Show your work.
 
2013-11-26 03:59:19 PM

PunGent: Coastalgrl: I'm split. On the one hand, I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system HOWEVER, its forcing its belief system on its employees which is not right either. The argument can be made that if someone is working there by choice and could find work elsewhere...etc.

Its the forcing the company's religious beliefs (which it shouldn't have in the first place) on their workers which is incorrect. At the end of the day, I doubt they really care all that much about their religion but trying to find a loophole to not have to pay the benefits and save money to pad their profit margin.

I'm astounded when I watch CSPAN how many times religion is used as a platform. What happened to separation of church and state?

/I'm equally offended by all religions but uphold the ability for others to practice as they choose.
//Just not on my lawn. Or in my uterus.

Problem is, current Republicans really don't think it's YOUR uterus.


Oh fantastic. Next are they going to levy a tax if I don't produce viable offspring? Call it empty incubator tax or something patriotic like Future American Tax. Taxed every year I dont produce offspring? (No don't tell them that, don't give them any ideas)

I think President Obama said it really well in one of his debates last round. Republicans have 1950's esq social policy. If we lived in Eratosthenes time, the Republicans would be the one clinging to the earth is flat idea.

We keep getting closer and closer to Orwellian society. It was meant as a warning, not a roadmap.
 
2013-11-26 04:01:00 PM

OgreMagi: DamnYankees: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees.

No Company has to provide health insurance for their employees; never have. They do it because they get a tax break and its part of competitive compensation packages.

You haven't been paying much attention for the last few years, have you?

ACA (Obamacare) requires a company to provide health insurance if they have enough employees (I think it's 50) or pay a fine.

Companies are getting around this by limiting the number of full time employees and going with a lot of part timers.  Some are just saying "fark it, pay the fine", because it's cheaper.


Wasn't there something in one of the immigration reform bills where the people we used to call 'illegals' would not count towards your 50 limit? Is that still there?

If so I'd just hire all ex-illegals and dump my current employees where it was possible.

You get what you incentivize.
 
2013-11-26 04:01:02 PM

Ghengis_Socrates: FTA: "Conestoga Wood is owned by a Mennonite family who "object as a matter of conscience to facilitating contraception that may prevent the implantation of a humsan embryo in the womb."


What is a humsan?


It's kinda like Homsar.

media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2013-11-26 04:03:25 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act   That makes it a different animal that what incorporations law would normally encompass.  Constitutional issues always trump--even without the boost from the RFRA.  SCOTUS isn't going to say "sorry, owners of hobby lobby.  If you were a sole proprietorship or maybe a partnership you would have religious rights, but since you decided to incorporate--you have forfeited these rights."   It would make no sense for a case this case to hinge on that detail.

I'm not seeing how the RFRA makes any different here. The issue isn't the standard of scrutiny that's applied, the issue is to who the law actually applies. Are you willing to make the claim that any law which affects the way corporations act must be tested under the RFRA by hypothetically imagining if that law would be constitutional had it been directed directly at the shareholders and not at the corporation?


In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.  Why should this be different?  It doesn't mean specious will get a pass and shape policy.  Moreover--since the government publicly and voluntarily accepted a high burden here--they certainly seemed willing to take on the responsibility,  Isn't the best course of action to let their power to be checked?
 
2013-11-26 04:03:31 PM
I wonder if they employed any hobbyist lobbyist to get their case going with the congress.

/just wanted to use the phrase hobbyist lobbyist, that's all
 
2013-11-26 04:03:49 PM
Employer:  Well here is our food benefit plan, we will cover half of your grocery bills from store X.  We chose this store as our food provider for many reasons, but one of the main reasons is because they don't sell mustard.  I farking hate mustard, and I think no one should be subjected to it.

Employee:  But you are denying my access to mustard you condiment Nazi.

Employer:  No, you are free to buy your own mustard wherever you like.  I'm just not going to have money that I am spending for your food needs going for any god damned mustard.  In fact, save the $10/month you are spending on birth control and you can have a smorgasbord of mustard for all I care.  Anybody with that much mustard on their breath won't be getting laid anyway.
 
2013-11-26 04:04:10 PM

BravadoGT: Not as difficult for them to establish.


Does the corporation attend the same church? Does it tithe? Was it baptized by a pastor?  Will it be buried in hallowed ground?

How do you establish what religion it is unless it follows the rituals and precepts of a religion?

BravadoGT: it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.


If the corporation does not have a religion itself,  and the corporation is the entity that provides the insurance benefits, how can the religious freedoms of a third party be infringed?
 
2013-11-26 04:04:58 PM
gilgigamesh:

For some reason this is controversial. Boner pills, naturally, still 100% okey doke.

ED drugs are way less frequently covered by insurance plans than birh control is.
 
2013-11-26 04:05:33 PM

CujoQuarrel: Cyberluddite: CujoQuarrel: / Ran into a woman who's job had cut her 40 hours to 28 hours to avoid the 'Obama tax'
// She is making ends meet now as a part time stripper

Did she also tell you that she was just doing it to work her way through college, and also that she really, really likes you and you aren't like all the other customers?

She wasn't. Just trying to feed the three kids. She worked in a hospice by day.

And it's an amazing fact that a lot of them 'are' college students or are going to beauty school. I'll bet most of them never graduate but it is a way of paying for college.

I've tutored 3 of them in math.

Been to one graduation.

And I'm not like all the other customers. I'm a cheapskate.


This is the creepiest thing I'm gonna read today, and I hang out in TFD.
 
2013-11-26 04:07:22 PM
The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered.  A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.
 
2013-11-26 04:08:54 PM

BravadoGT: In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.  Why should this be different?  It doesn't mean specious will get a pass and shape policy.  Moreover--since the government publicly and voluntarily accepted a high burden here--they certainly seemed willing to take on the responsibility,  Isn't the best course of action to let their power to be checked?


I agree with this in general, but I'm unclear on what the nature claim here is. We seem to be vacillating between 2 different claims, and I haven't been sure what it is you're thinking about:

1) A claim on behalf of the corporation, claiming the the corporation itself has some religious beliefs which are being violated.

2) A claim on behalf of a shareholder of a corporation, claiming that by imposing certain laws on the corporation, the religious rights of the shareholder are being violated.

Which is it? Because these are 2 distinct claims that need to be responded to differently.
 
2013-11-26 04:09:07 PM

BravadoGT: mithras_angel: So, if this were to pass through the Supreme Court, it would indicate that any corporation which has a religious objection to ~any~ law, would be able to file against that law, citing this case.


How long, then, before a corporation's executives creates a faith that has religious objections to paying taxes?  I'll note that certain faiths (and certainly some wingnuts) have this belief already.


Where would this end?

Well, practically speaking, it's going to be exercised most when the Federal government is trying to take new action or impose new laws (aka take more power).  When they are doing so and people can make a good-faith and well-documented complaint showing that it does infringe on their religious freedom, then I say good--the government's power SHOULD be checked by the courts.  It deserves the extra scrutiny.

You'd rather have it some other way?



But that doesn't really answer my question.  A faith, whether new or old, has a prohibition against paying taxes (or some other current law, but taxes is the easiest one for people to understand).  Would a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby allow corporations owned by members of that faith to avoid taxes?  Because paying taxes would be a violation of their religious freedoms.
 
2013-11-26 04:09:48 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Cyberluddite: If they have more than a certain number of employees (50, is it?), then yes, they are required to offer health insurance to their full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Nope, they could always pay a fine.


This.  Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide insurance under ACA, contraceptive-covering or not.  It's not criminal to not do so.  They just don't get the tax benefits of providing comprehensive insurance.

This should directly follow from John Robert's opinion that the individual mandate is effectively a tax and a  tax credit that most people get for being covered.  The employer mandate works exactly the same way.  However, the individual mandate does have a religious exemption.  Can a business?  Stay tuned.
 
2013-11-26 04:10:43 PM

DamnYankees: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: No, in light of the VRA decision, one of the all time worst opinions in court history, the court seems to have completely gone of the deep end and said "fark it, we're just gonna make shiat up entirely", but that's how its supposed to work at least.

No argument with you there. The VRA decision is going to down in history on par with other decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as a "what the hell were they thinking?"

I think its worse in purely legal terms than Plessy. Plessy was a terrible decision in that the legal logic used to uphold separate but equal actually did make abstract sense, it just didn't match the empirical reality that separate wasn't actually equal. The VRA decision is just nonsense, without any constitutional basis for it.


I find myself in the minority in VRA, as I agree with both sides and come to a different conclusion than both sides (assuming I am well-informed, which I may not be, please enlighten me if the following is excessively silly).

Conservative side: these rules are picking on certain states and regions, that's unfair. Liberal side: you were doing unfair things in your elections, these corrections fixed those problems. My solution: why not apply these limitations everywhere? Isn't it mostly the right to screw with an election at the last minute? That is asking the people in power to twiddle with things to their own benefit. Elections don't need last minute twiddling, lock them down well in advance everywhere.

The Virginia gubernatorial election is an excellent example of why we should do this--Cuccinelli only won the republican nomination because his boosters changed the primary scheme at the last second to a caucus scheme. We all suffered for that, which allowed the dems to put up a crap candidate too.
 
2013-11-26 04:10:53 PM

Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered.  A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.


The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law. The rest of your post where you don't understand risk pools has nothing to do with the case.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:10 PM

Qellaqan: Conservative side: these rules are picking on certain states and regions, that's unfair. Liberal side: you were doing unfair things in your elections, these corrections fixed those problems. My solution: why not apply these limitations everywhere? Isn't it mostly the right to screw with an election at the last minute? That is asking the people in power to twiddle with things to their own benefit. Elections don't need last minute twiddling, lock them down well in advance everywhere.


I don't disagree with you as a matter of policy. But as a matter of judge-ship and acting in the capacity as a judge and not a legislator, the VRA decision was a true abomination.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:11 PM

edmo: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Look, I don't think contraception/abortion coverage in a health plan makes the owners of the company "responsible" in the eyes of God in any way, shape or form - so they all need to farking take a breath and stop this nonsense...

BUT...

Saying you don't want your company-provided health insurance plan to cover contraception   IS NOT MAKING A HEALTH DECISION FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES!!!

That's like saying "I'm not paying my employees a million dollars a year - so I'm making decisions on where they can live, and what kind of car they can drive."

It is most certainly taking health decisions away from the people who should be making them. Arguing about whether you'll pay is mere quibbling.

Raising the religious rights of a company over an individual will never get past any SCOTUS - they'll shoot them down.


My wife was on birth control pills to help regulate her hormones. Without them her moods were really messed up. An employer restricting her would indeed have a very real impact on her mental health.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:11 PM

stewbert: And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea


How in God's name did you make that conclusion? It couldn't have been from

Dancin_In_Anson: While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG

so it had to come from somewhere else. Please elaborate.

Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.


You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Show your work


Wages and breaks are benefits and or compensation. Chained doors and safe working environments are a matter of public safety. Two entirely different animals.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:44 PM
Considering ACA contains an advisory board that allows government officials to decide the efficiacy of medical procedures...

Good thing Hobby Lobby has a slave labor force they force into Christianity.
 
2013-11-26 04:14:03 PM
It boggles my mind that we have to ask this question.

I hope I'm not disappointed in my country again.

/But I probably will be.
 
2013-11-26 04:14:29 PM

what_now: CujoQuarrel: Cyberluddite: CujoQuarrel: / Ran into a woman who's job had cut her 40 hours to 28 hours to avoid the 'Obama tax'
// She is making ends meet now as a part time stripper

Did she also tell you that she was just doing it to work her way through college, and also that she really, really likes you and you aren't like all the other customers?

She wasn't. Just trying to feed the three kids. She worked in a hospice by day.

And it's an amazing fact that a lot of them 'are' college students or are going to beauty school. I'll bet most of them never graduate but it is a way of paying for college.

I've tutored 3 of them in math.

Been to one graduation.

And I'm not like all the other customers. I'm a cheapskate.

This is the creepiest thing I'm gonna read today, and I hang out in TFD.


Why 'creepy'? They're just people trying to get by the best they can.
You think they are sub-human or something?
 
2013-11-26 04:15:22 PM

Lawnchair: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Cyberluddite: If they have more than a certain number of employees (50, is it?), then yes, they are required to offer health insurance to their full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Nope, they could always pay a fine.

This.  Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide insurance under ACA, contraceptive-covering or not.  It's not criminal to not do so.  They just don't get the tax benefits of providing comprehensive insurance.

This should directly follow from John Robert's opinion that the individual mandate is effectively a tax and a  tax credit that most people get for being covered.  The employer mandate works exactly the same way.  However, the individual mandate does have a religious exemption.  Can a business?  Stay tuned.


It's not just tax benefits of providing health insurance but also a $3,000 penalty.

Interesting to see whether the same tax logic applies as it does to the individual mandate, as you suggest. Get rid of the penalty and this isn't an issue, and employees can simply go on an exchange to buy insurance, perhaps with a credit provided by their employer in lieu of providing insurance.
 
2013-11-26 04:15:31 PM

Headso: The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law


Says every tyrant, ever.

His solution is spot on, by the way. Having a middleman, corporations you work for, be the purchaser of your insurance is perfectly retarded and a major cause of all this mess.

Remove the tax benefit from companies to purchase health care, and transfer that benefit to the actual consumers. Everyone wins.

But why am I saying this to you? You surely believe 80 year old women should have birth control mandated in their health insurance policy.
 
2013-11-26 04:15:40 PM
as someone with endometriosis, the fact that this is an issue infuriates me.
 
2013-11-26 04:15:46 PM
Perhaps SCOTUS should have lunch brought in from Chick-Fil-A
 
2013-11-26 04:16:36 PM

eurotrader: If taken to the asinine conclusion of the argument by Hobby lobby and their ilk, any person working for them must agree to all of their beliefs and since they belief providing payment as part of employee compensation for insurance means the employee has no right to private medical decisions; do  for profit business have the right to install monitoring equipment in employee's home and person to insure they do not engage in any behavior the company finds distasteful? Can the companies track any monies paid  to employees to insure they do not spend money on things like alcohol and condoms if the companies religion forbid them.


When did Hobby Lobby start do ing bedroom checks on their employees? They just don't want to pay for it. They aren't banning contraceptions for their employees.

Your logical conclusion is idiotic.
 
2013-11-26 04:16:37 PM

what_now: This is the creepiest thing I'm gonna read today, and I hang out in TFD.


I'm slipping.
I've lost it.
 
2013-11-26 04:17:38 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: It boggles my mind that we have to ask this question.

I hope I'm not disappointed in my country again.

/But I probably will be.


It boggles the mind that we are forcing employers to pay for insurance in the first place.

Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates? It's completely illogical.
 
2013-11-26 04:18:23 PM
Another important note is that a recent decision by the Obama administration is that mental health care must be covered.


Given that at least one "religion", namely Scientology, is opposed to most psychiatric services, this would mean that Scientology owned corporations, even when not staffed by Scientologists, could refuse to cover mental health care.
 
2013-11-26 04:19:53 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Well, the business will not be making health decisions for their employees. employees can take as much birth control cancer drugs as they like. You can walk around with a bag of RU-486 immunosuppresors and pop 'em like candy all day long.The court will decide whether the business has to pay for it via insurance



What is the difference between your version and mine, morally?
 
Displayed 50 of 431 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report