SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[The Minsky Moment]

So presumably your objections would have been satisfied if the owners of Hobby Lobby had won the case as directors  and/or officers of the corporation rather than owners?

No, directors and officers are not themselves the corporation.  They are just individuals who have certain statutory powers and responsibilities. 

No one disputes that the individual shareholders couldn't be forced to act against their religious beliefs.  No one disputes that the individual directors couldn't be forced to act against their religious beliefs.  No one disputes that the individual officers couldn't be forced to act against their religious beliefs.  But the Obamacare mandate doesn't compel those individuals.  It compels the corporation.  And there is nothing about the religious beliefs of any of those individuals that impels them to create a for profit corporation in order to exercise those beliefs.

The question is whether the corporation itself can be forced to act against its religious beliefs.  And just posing the question answers it; corporations themselves don't and can't have religious beliefs so there no conceivable government regulation that would violate them.

[alfred russel]

Depends what you mean.
LLC members get to have the cake and eat it to in the sense that they get the benefits of an S Corps (limited liability + pass through tax treatment) without some of the restrictions on S Corps.  OTOH you can't really go public with an LLC.

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't give much consideration to the implication for alternative kinds of entities so it is hard to evaluate that question.

If Hobby Lobby was an LLC would you agree with the decision? It seems you are turning on the point that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, is a separate legal entity distinct from its owners. If not, are there alternative structures Hobby Lobby could form, such as an LLP or even as basic as a sole proprietorship, that would result in you agreeing with the judgment (that they don't have to cover contraceptives)?

[The Minsky Moment]

If Hobby Lobby was an LLC would you agree with the decision? It seems you are turning on the point that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, is a separate legal entity distinct from its owners. If not, are there alternative structures Hobby Lobby could form, such as an LLP or even as basic as a sole proprietorship, that would result in you agreeing with the judgment (that they don't have to cover contraceptives)?

A sole proprietorship would not raise a similar objection because then there is absolute identity between the person and the business.  There would still need to be a balancing of interest against accommodation, of course.

LLCs and LLPs I think should be treated same as the corporate entities; there are still separate and distinct legal entities even if treated as transparent for federal tax purposes.

A straight partnership is a tougher case; have to think about that.

[merithyn]

It is, of course.

For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits.  Those that don't, well, it's a free country:  keep looking for someone who does.  Of course.

But most Americans don't make minimum wage.

No, but a significant portion of them (over 46 million Americans) are living in poverty, ie living paycheck to paycheck, day-to-day. And most of them are women and children. I doubt that they bother too much with looking at the benefits package when they get a job. Like Max said, it's more about rent and food than healthcare.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

[CountDeMoney]

Heh.

[garbon]

It is, of course.

For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits.  Those that don't, well, it's a free country:  keep looking for someone who does.  Of course.

But most Americans don't make minimum wage.

No, but a significant portion of them (over 46 million Americans) are living in poverty, ie living paycheck to paycheck, day-to-day. And most of them are women and children. I doubt that they bother too much with looking at the benefits package when they get a job. Like Max said, it's more about rent and food than healthcare.

To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.

[merithyn]

Anyone know if guys can buy rubbers using their insurance?

No.  Guys should buy those with their own money if they wanna get their jollies by having sex.  Besides, Viagra is covered.  BE HAPPY WITH THAT.

I meant to comment on this before. I'd like to point out that most single women I know also buy condoms, so this isn't really a man vs woman thing. It affects both genders equally.

However, the IUD and other forms of hormonal birth control only affect women.

[merithyn]

To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.

AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and  I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.

[Jacob]

To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.

AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and  I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.

It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if a business that claims a religious exemption will have to pay a tithe.  I wonder what would happen if a corporation got excommunicated.

[merithyn]

To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.

AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and  I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.

It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.

Exactly. And when you're talking about more than 15% of our population (those living in poverty, not those close to or just above), that's not really acceptable.

[alfred russel]

It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.

I think you missed what I've been arguing for years regarding health care and in this thread.

I don't think that health care is best provided through employers in the first place. Ideally there would either be a basic public provision for universal health care or less ideally mandatory insurance with free / heavily subsidized insurance for the poor.

We don't live in that world, even if Obamacare moved us toward it. The model that Obamacare uses forces certain employers (but not all) to provide health insurance, subject to sanctions, in order to keep people out of the private sector which will be heavily subsidized by the government.

To the extent that is our model, I'm not outraged by the scope of the employers forced to provide health insurance being reduced by those that are closely held corporations that also can demonstrate a moral aversion to providing medical care. Those numbers will be so much smaller than the number of people employed by small business, why get bent out of shape over that?

Also, I really don't know how things are working so far, but theoretically such luminary employees as Wal Mart, Target, and many grocery stores are offering health insurance now. So if you really want health insurance, and somehow can't get a private plan, there should be places you can get insurance with your employment.

[Razgovory]

To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.

AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and  I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.

It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.

Exactly. And when you're talking about more than 15% of our population (those living in poverty, not those close to or just above), that's not really acceptable.

Presumably they should have invested their trust fund money better.

[garbon]

To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.

AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and  I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.

It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.

Sure if you want to be a jerk and make up positions for people.