OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Jenksismyhero]

This is the first time a for-profit company was able to claim an RFRA exemption, right? And special pleading aside, you can't actually limit the court's argument strictly to (some versions of) Christianity's opposition to abortion and some drugs/devices they claim tangentially cause abortion (but don't actually).

 

Yes to the first part. But the 2nd point gets to what line is the court going to set. They've done that before. They're not going to allow a business to claim religious exemption because they don't believe that black people exist or something crazy like that, just like they rejected a lot of cases arguing that some drugs were used for religious purposes. You're going to have to prove whatever you're trying to sell, and I think that's where a lot of the cases will fail when they try to find a loop hole. There was no question about Hobby Lobby (and the 2 other companies) beliefs and corporate practices.

[StrangeSox]

I disagree about the sincerity regarding the practices of the owners of Hobby Lobby. They previously provided a plan that covered contraceptives they now object to, and they still provide employee matching and administration for a 401k plan that includes investment options for the companies that develop and make those contraceptives.

[Jenksismyhero]

But you just told me that it's not any individual that is refusing to provide this coverage, it's the company. Which one is it? Is it 100% the individual's money, or is it the company not providing the compensation that the employees are otherwise legally required to?

 

It's the company providing the choice, and the company paying out the profit to the owners at the end of the day. "Their money" is a reference to the amount they're going to be paid after all expenses from the company. It's not inconsistent.

 

I think this is a categorical difference between non-profit entities that exist explicitly to promote religion and a for-profit company that sells arts and crafts supplies or concrete (Ozinga) or any other random commercial good whose owners happen to have a certain set of religious beliefs.

 

I don't get why that matters. They're still taking away "compensation" that their employees are legally entitled to, right? Based on what, their religious beliefs, which is bulls*** in your opinion.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

How do you know they don't cause abortions? Those 4 contraceptives?

 

Because actual doctors say that's not how they work.

I can't believe your second paragraph. How can you be against freedom of religion in this case? Why should employers have to pay when it is DIRECTLY against their religious beliefs?

 

Because it's the law. If they don't want to comply with the law because they have a certain set of religious beliefs, they are free to either not incorporate for the legal protections or to not operate a business. Nobody has actually forced them to change their beliefs. The idea that paying for health insurance plans that include provisions for the insurance company to pay for contraceptives that your employees may or may not use is some gross infringement on your personal religious beliefs is a pretty ridiculous stretch anyway.

[greg775]

I disagree about the sincerity regarding the practices of the owners of Hobby Lobby. They previously provided a plan that covered contraceptives they now object to, and they still provide employee matching and administration for a 401k plan that includes investment options for the companies that develop and make those contraceptives.

 

They are sincere. The Catholic church has been talking about this kind of stuff a long time and asking people to take a stand and write letters to congress people, etc.

[Jenksismyhero]

I disagree about the sincerity regarding the practices of the owners of Hobby Lobby. They previously provided a plan that covered contraceptives they now object to, and they still provide employee matching and administration for a 401k plan that includes investment options for the companies that develop and make those contraceptives.

 

You've claimed this before but in the stories i've read i haven't heard this. Can you throw me a link?

 

But two responses if true:

 

1) You could argue there's a pretty big distinction between voluntarily providing it as part of insurance plans with options and being mandated by federal law to do it. I agree it undercuts their claims a bit, but perhaps the original plan had that as an employee option for an increased price. I have no idea.

 

2) And i've said before the 2nd part of that is consistent to me IF it's a 401k plan that provides the employee the choice of which fund to pick. That's entirely consistent.

[StrangeSox]

It's the company providing the choice, and the company paying out the profit to the owners at the end of the day. "Their money" is a reference to the amount they're going to be paid after all expenses from the company. It's not inconsistent.

 

Then it's the company's money and not theirs until its paid out of profits. It seems you've just washed their hands of their moral dilemma in a single sentence.

 

This is a tangent, but is it fair to other companies (say, Jo-Ann Fabrics) if Hobby Lobby's profits are higher because they don't have to pay as much in employee compensation because they've been exempted based on religious beliefs?

 

I don't get why that matters. They're still taking away "compensation" that their employees are legally entitled to, right? Based on what, their religious beliefs, which is bulls*** in your opinion.

Religious exemptions for entities that are actually religious entities and not hobby stores or concrete suppliers are more palatable.

[StrangeSox]

You've claimed this before but in the stories i've read i haven't heard this. Can you throw me a link?

 

But two responses if true:

 

1) You could argue there's a pretty big distinction between voluntarily providing it as part of insurance plans with options and being mandated by federal law to do it. I agree it undercuts their claims a bit, but perhaps the original plan had that as an employee option for an increased price. I have no idea.

 

2) And i've said before the 2nd part of that is consistent to me IF it's a 401k plan that provides the employee the choice of which fund to pick. That's entirely consistent.

 

I think 2) sinks your whole argument. The employee has a choice of what, if any, contraceptives to use. They are not required to use them. It's possible that not a single HL employee would ever use that part of the insurance plan, just as its possible that not a single employee would ever invest in a fund that includes contraceptives manufacturers.

[greg775]

Because actual doctors say that's not how they work.

The court seems to be OK with ruling for Hobby Lobby and its belief they do cause abortions.

 

Because it's the law. If they don't want to comply with the law because they have a certain set of religious beliefs, they are free to either not incorporate for the legal protections or to not operate a business. Nobody has actually forced them to change their beliefs. The idea that paying for health insurance plans that include provisions for the insurance company to pay for contraceptives that your employees may or may not use is some gross infringement on your personal religious beliefs is a pretty ridiculous stretch anyway.

You say "it's the law."

Hobby Lobby just was backed by the highest court in the land. They are totally OBEYING the law here. You say it's a ridiculous stretch. That is offensive. The Hobby Lobby owners don't want to pay for this because of religious beliefs. Why can't we have our religious beliefs? It's no stretch. If I owned a company, I wouldn't want to pay for that, either. This is becoming borderline offensive to me. Why can't Hobby Lobby owners and thousands of gregs have religious beliefs that are respected? Freedom of Religion.

[StrangeSox]

They are sincere. The Catholic church has been talking about this kind of stuff a long time and asking people to take a stand and write letters to congress people, etc.

The Greens are not Catholics.

[StrangeSox]

You say "it's the law."

Hobby Lobby just was backed by the highest court in the land. They are totally OBEYING the law here. You say it's a ridiculous stretch. That is offensive. The Hobby Lobby owners don't want to pay for this because of religious beliefs. Why can't we have our religious beliefs? It's no stretch. If I owned a company, I wouldn't want to pay for that, either. This is becoming borderline offensive to me. Why can't Hobby Lobby owners and thousands of gregs have religious beliefs that are respected? Freedom of Religion.

Because you are not your corporation, and Hobby Lobby, Inc. does not have any religious beliefs.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then it's the company's money and not theirs until its paid out of profits. It seems you've just washed their hands of their moral dilemma in a single sentence.

 

This is a tangent, but is it fair to other companies (say, Jo-Ann Fabrics) if Hobby Lobby's profits are higher because they don't have to pay as much in employee compensation because they've been exempted based on religious beliefs?

 

 

Religious exemptions for entities that are actually religious entities and not hobby stores or concrete suppliers are more palatable.

 

I'm not really stuck on the distinction like you though. I think it's consistent to say that owners/principals of a company run their company based on their beliefs because ultimately they own every bit of the company. They can run it and do with the money however they please.

 

Does fairness really matter? And how much money are we really talking about here? I can't imagine the differences in plans are going to be that significant.

 

And an exemption is an exemption. Either you buy that there's an exception to the "legally owed compensation" that an employee should receive or you don't. That's pretty much Alito's point in his opinion - it's not consistent at all in existing law or in logic to differentiate between for-profit and not-for-profit companies if they both use the same religious belief to argue that they should exempt them from the federal mandate. Why does money matter if that right is allegedly so important?

[Jake]

So since it is not the individual owners keeping something from employees, but instead the company doing so...am I allowed to start a company and bestow upon that corporation religious beliefs that, rather than reflecting my own, could earn me the most profitable exemptions?

 

Because it's 100% their money that is going to support something they don't believe in. That's why the distinction between Hobby Lobby and Wal-mart, to me, is key. You're talking about what basically amounts to a very large mom and pop shop. They don't share their revenue with anyone else. And if they all don't want to contribute towards something that offends or runs counter to their religious beliefs, I think it's perfectly fine for them to be exempted from it.

 

I mean, let's step back - do you agree that the Catholic Church or some other religious groups should lose their exemptions? Should they be required to provide that coverage even if their employees will, by choice, never use it?

 

Yes - and the bulk of their tax breaks. Yes - they cannot coerce their employees not to use benefits whose presence are guaranteed by just refusing to provide those federally guaranteed benefits. The risk pools are larger than just them anyway (usually, at least).

 

The most ironic part is that this will indubitably increase abortions.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think 2) sinks your whole argument. The employee has a choice of what, if any, contraceptives to use. They are not required to use them. It's possible that not a single HL employee would ever use that part of the insurance plan, just as its possible that not a single employee would ever invest in a fund that includes contraceptives manufacturers.

 

It's not about use, it's about funding. They're not forced to fund the 401(k) pharma companies, they are forced to provide (pay for) an insurance plan that covers contraception.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not really stuck on the distinction like you though. I think it's consistent to say that owners/principals of a company run their company based on their beliefs because ultimately they own every bit of the company. They can run it and do with the money however they please.

You're talking about of both sides of your mouth (or another orrifice) if you're telling me that, on the one hand, it's 100% their money and their religious beliefs but, on the other hand, it's the company that's not giving this benefit, not the individual owners.

 

I think that if you want to say that you are so personally tied to the company that your religious beliefs get to override the legal obligations you have to your employees, you should also lose the personal liability shield for all debts and actions of the company. edit: just to be 100% clear though, I'm not saying that this is what the law currently requires, just that maybe it should be.

Edited July 1, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

It's not about use, it's about funding. They're not forced to fund the 401(k) pharma companies, they are forced to provide (pay for) an insurance plan that covers contraception.

 

That goes back to the entire suit being disingenuous. They were completely fine with providing this sort of plan before, and they're still fine with providing funds that invest in contraceptive companies (that's a more direct link than paying an insurance company who might pay for contraceptives), but because of the PPACA, they threw a fit and challenged based on their deep, deep religious principles.

 

I have no doubt that they are anti-abortion at heart and that they incorrectly believe that these contraceptives cause abortions, but the timing of their challenge and their other actions with regards to their business belie just how much of a burden this is on those beliefs.

[EvilMonkey]

Jenks, didn't you know that corporations exist at the whim of the State and that the money they make isn't theirs to keep and use but the government's to use for it's own purposes because THEY know how to spend (your) money better than you do, and that any bit of money they are allowed to keep they should be grateful for? Come on, get with the times!

[greg775]

Jenks, didn't you know that corporations exist at the whim of the State and that the money they make isn't theirs to keep and use but the government's to use for it's own purposes because THEY know how to spend (your) money better than you do, and that any bit of money they are allowed to keep they should be grateful for? Come on, get with the times!

 

Government is getting bigger and bigger (obviously) and when one more liberal judge hits the Supreme Court, wow.

[Soxbadger]

So since it is not the individual owners keeping something from employees, but instead the company doing so...am I allowed to start a company and bestow upon that corporation religious beliefs that, rather than reflecting my own, could earn me the most profitable exemptions?

 

 

No, only specific religions will get this protection.

 

Government is getting bigger and bigger (obviously) and when one more liberal judge hits the Supreme Court, wow.

 

Both sides like big govt. Unless all of a sudden conservatives arent trying to use the govt to enforce morality.

[Jenksismyhero]

That goes back to the entire suit being disingenuous. They were completely fine with providing this sort of plan before, and they're still fine with providing funds that invest in contraceptive companies (that's a more direct link than paying an insurance company who might pay for contraceptives), but because of the PPACA, they threw a fit and challenged based on their deep, deep religious principles.

 

I have no doubt that they are anti-abortion at heart and that they incorrectly believe that these contraceptives cause abortions, but the timing of their challenge and their other actions with regards to their business belie just how much of a burden this is on those beliefs.

 

But what are the details of the plan? Was it, hey, we'll provide you with insurance coverage X, but if you want some type of coverage for contraception you'll have to pay the difference?

 

And to the 401(k), my firm gives me money, I can then take that money and invest in a select group of funds. If I happen to choose the pharma fund, I'M the one making the choice to support the bad pharma company, not the company.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, didn't you know that corporations exist at the whim of the State and that the money they make isn't theirs to keep and use but the government's to use for it's own purposes because THEY know how to spend (your) money better than you do, and that any bit of money they are allowed to keep they should be grateful for? Come on, get with the times!

 

Truth.

[Chisoxfn]

I googled each one of the ones I mentioned and got a stock quote.

Ernst and Young and PWC are not publicly traded.

[Balta1701]

You say "it's the law."

Hobby Lobby just was backed by the highest court in the land. They are totally OBEYING the law here. You say it's a ridiculous stretch. That is offensive. The Hobby Lobby owners don't want to pay for this because of religious beliefs. Why can't we have our religious beliefs? It's no stretch. If I owned a company, I wouldn't want to pay for that, either. This is becoming borderline offensive to me. Why can't Hobby Lobby owners and thousands of gregs have religious beliefs that are respected? Freedom of Religion.

Why do Hobby Lobby's employees have to give up their freedom of religion due to the beliefs of their management? Where is your respect for the actual people who work there? Why are their religious beliefs unimportant to you?

[Balta1701]

Someone also needs to point this out since no one seems to care about this either.

The most common reason U.S. women use oral contraceptive pills is to prevent pregnancy, but 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes. The study documenting this finding, “Beyond Birth Control: The Overlooked Benefits of Oral Contraceptive Pills,” by Rachel K. Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, also found that more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons.

 

The study—based on U.S government data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)—revealed that after pregnancy prevention (86%), the most common reasons women use the pill include reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31%); menstrual regulation, which for some women may help prevent migraines and other painful “side effects” of menstruation (28%); treatment of acne (14%); and treatment of endometriosis (4%). Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.

 

Menstrual-related disorders and irregular periods are particularly common during adolescence. Not surprisingly, the study found that teens aged 15–19 who use the pill are more likely to do so for non-contraceptive purposes (82%) than for birth control (67%). Moreover, 33% of teen pill users report using oral contraceptive pills solely for noncontraceptive purposes.

So please, tell me again why Hobby Lobby should be able to inflict additional pain upon their workforce.

[Jenksismyhero]

Lol.