SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[Malthus]

I don't know if that's THE test.  It's A problem I found with your (and Ginsberg's) examples.

Do you have the same problem with the Scientology example?

[Admiral Yi]

Do you have the same problem with the Scientology example?

It's warmer.

[Eddie Teach]

This wouldn't be a problem if health care was something the government provided, rather than employers.

[derspiess]

I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way.  Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.

You just need to have your buttons pushed.  Read a bunch of articles from Breitbart.

Okay.


It didn't work.

[alfred russel]

It may not be a big deal.  If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.

Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.

[Malthus]

It may not be a big deal.  If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.

Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.

That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.

[Maximus]

It may not be a big deal.  If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.

Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.

That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.

Really, the problem is more general.

[alfred russel]

That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.

Until Obamacare it was entirely elective for a company to have health insurance, and now still is elective, provided they are willing to pay the fines.

Whether it makes sense to use employers as a vehicle to insure people is a good question, although it is possible to get insurance privately and through exchanges.

[Valmy]

It may not be a big deal.  If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.

Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.

Oh for Godsake.  Claiming certain religious beliefs can be a competitive advantage for corporations.  They can both avoid the benefit and the fines.  That is a big deal, if that is indeed the implication.

[Valmy]

Whether it makes sense to use employers as a vehicle to insure people is a good question, although it is possible to get insurance privately and through exchanges.

And this decision calls that into question, and using employers was the whole solution to the problem as determined in the 90s.  Clearly it has had big problems.  Don't you think calling into the question the viability of a system that impacts hundreds of millions of people a big deal?  How big of a deal does it have to be to satisfy whatever metric we have to meet?

[Viking]

I'm sort of confused why this is a big deal. The number of closely held businesses that are morally opposed to birth control must be very small, and it isn't as though there is a long held right to free contraceptives that is being violated.

At the same time, I doubt Hobby Lobby really cares. Probably if it is more into this to save money or oppose obama.

So what if it is a small number of businesses? Surely you aren't suggesting that the law shouldn't apply equally to everybody?

[Malthus]

That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.

Until Obamacare it was entirely elective for a company to have health insurance, and now still is elective, provided they are willing to pay the fines.

Whether it makes sense to use employers as a vehicle to insure people is a good question, although it is possible to get insurance privately and through exchanges.

What happens to the employees if the corp elects to pay fines instead? Does the government pay for their insurance, or are they just shit out of luck?

Seems a bizzare system, but that is no excuse for making it even more bizzare by having eligibility depend on the religious opinions of the employers - which provides an actual perverse incentive to *have* bizzare religious beliefs that forbid paying for certain forms of insurance!   

[alfred russel]

Oh for Godsake.  Claiming certain religious beliefs can be a competitive advantage for corporations.  They can both avoid the benefit and the fines.  That is a big deal, if that is indeed the implication.

I think only large employers (50 or more full time employees or their equivalents) are subject to Obamacare anyway. How many of these are closely held and can credibly claim an exemption? Probably a decent number in terms of contraception, because there are a lot of Catholics. I doubt many of them will take advantage of it though, because it isn't that much of an advantage. Probably very few in terms of scientology or the other more extreme stuff being discussed here.

[alfred russel]

What happens to the employees if the corp elects to pay fines instead? Does the government pay for their insurance, or are they just shit out of luck?

Seems a bizzare system,

Shit out of luck.

Not sure why it is a bizarre system. People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.

Obamacare reformed the system by encouraging employers to offer high quality insurance to employees, improving options in the private market, and augmenting government programs for the poor and old.

[Viking]

the SCOTUS seems to set the responsability for finding out the religious views of the employer on the employee before getting hired. What if the employer has a conversion experience after hiring the employee?

What happens when an employee demands that part of his or her employment contract includes a clause preventing the employer from converting religion?

The more I think about it the more FUBAR it gets. Not for the religious reasons you guys would normally apply to me, but I think about pacifists, vegans, or niggardly fuckers who have a religious zeal for not wanting to pay for health care,

Worst of all it also discriminates against non-closely held corporations.

Edit: I propose a new religion with three commandments, Beer, Bacon and No funding of employees healthcare.