Oh So Godly Hobby Lobby Holy Hobbie Horse Decision Discussion

[Jimmy Higgins]

Heh!

SCOTUS has ruled that Federal Taxpayer Dollars should pay for the birth control of people who work at those companies, instead of the companies. IE SCOTUS ruled that right-winger taxes should pay for more emergency contraception!

With that spin, I think right-wingers may actually get more pissed off.

 

[Rhea]

Heh!

SCOTUS has ruled that Federal Taxpayer Dollars should pay for the birth control of people who work at those companies, instead of the companies.

Really? Citation? That seems, at first blush, to be not a bad outcome. Medicare for all piecemeal by internal organ?

 

[ksen]

America under Scalia law

More like Kennedy. He is the swing vote in most of these 5-4 decisions.
Also Ralph Nader because he is responsible for Alito and Roberts being on the bench in the first place.

but kennedy doesn't rhyme with sharia

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'd hate to work for Jehovah Witness Mart right now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Heh!

SCOTUS has ruled that Federal Taxpayer Dollars should pay for the birth control of people who work at those companies, instead of the companies.

Really? Citation? That seems, at first blush, to be not a bad outcome. Medicare for all piecemeal by internal organ?

Maybe it isn't that direct.

In the majority opinion, Alito indicated that employees could still be able to obtain the birth control coverage via an accommodation to the mandate that the Obama administration has already introduced for religious-affiliated nonprofits. The accommodation allows health insurance companies to provide the coverage without the employer being involved in the process.


Under the accommodation, eligible non-profits must provide a "self certification", described by one lower court judge as a "permission slip" authorizing insurance companies to provide the coverage. The accommodation is itself the subject of a separate legal challenge.

 

[laughing dog]

More like Kennedy. He is the swing vote in most of these 5-4 decisions.
Also Ralph Nader because he is responsible for Alito and Roberts being on the bench in the first place.

but kennedy doesn't rhyme with sharia

No but Scalia does.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How is "I'm not going to pay for it for you" equivalent to "you can't have it at all"?

How is "We're not going to include it in your insurance coverage package that you, the employee, are paying for" equivalent to "I'm not going to pay for it for you"?

That one is easy. The employer pays for at least a portion of the employee health insurance. Now how about my harder question...

 

[Rhea]

Next question, so does this activate the midterm voters to awareness of SCOTUS or not? To awareness of gerrymandering, or not?


Time to start hammering the important things home.

 

[Derec]

but kennedy doesn't rhyme with sharia

No but Scalia does.

So I missed the pun ...

 

[ksen]

How is "We're not going to include it in your insurance coverage package that you, the employee, are paying for" equivalent to "I'm not going to pay for it for you"?

That one is easy. The employer pays for at least a portion of the employee health insurance. Now how about my harder question...

No they don't. That money is part of the employee's salary/benefit package. It's money the company spends on behalf of the employee. It's not the corporation's money.

 

[Rhea]

How is "We're not going to include it in your insurance coverage package that you, the employee, are paying for" equivalent to "I'm not going to pay for it for you"?

That one is easy. The employer pays for at least a portion of the employee health insurance. Now how about my harder question...

You mean, that employer who voluntarily paid for it with no complaint until it was a democrat's idea? That employer? The one who voluntarily gives money to corporations (buys their goods) who support a government that pays for forced abortions? That employer?


And the you can't have it at all - the RIGHT from the law to insurance-covered preventive care, they can't have that RIGHT at all because of this decision. That's how it very easily and clearly means "you can't have IT at all." The IT is the right to fully covered preventive care.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, it doesn't mean "you can't have it at all", it means "if you want it you must pay for it yourself."

Given the fungible nature of money, once an employee has his pay he can spend it on whatever he wants.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is "We're not going to include it in your insurance coverage package that you, the employee, are paying for" equivalent to "I'm not going to pay for it for you"?

That one is easy. The employer pays for at least a portion of the employee health insurance. Now how about my harder question...

If you were correct, the employee would need to get a second job to raise cash to pay for it because otherwise Hobby Lobby, according to you, would be paying for it via Insurance Premium contributions or salary in general.

 

[ksen]

No, it doesn't mean "you can't have it at all", it means "if you want it you must pay for it yourself."

Given the fungible nature of money, once an employee has his pay he can spend it on whatever he wants.

The employee already was paying for it himself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it doesn't mean "you can't have it at all", it means "if you want it you must pay for it yourself."

Given the fungible nature of money, once an employee has his pay he can spend it on whatever he wants.

The employee already was paying for it himself.

Agreed. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it is fungible if it is salary, but not fungible if it is premiums, as the Corporation is paying both.

 

[Rhea]

No, it doesn't mean "you can't have it at all", it means "if you want it you must pay for it yourself."

Given the fungible nature of money, once an employee has his pay he can spend it on whatever he wants.

No. What they "CAN'T HAVE AT ALL" is the right that the law gave them to have this benefit without co-pay. If they have to pay for it themselves, then they OBVIOUSLY do not have the the right at all to have it without co-pay.

The law says, "this preventive care shall be made available without additional cost."

and this decision says, "you can't have that at all."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the "right" that they don't have is the "right" to demand that their employer provided health insurance, paid for by both parties, include something the employer doesn't want to include.

They are having their "right" to dictate how their employer spend the employer's money.

If you were right about how the employer is denying them the right to specific forms of healthcare, then the employer would be saying "you may not take your pay, after it has landed in your bank account and we no longer have any control over it, and spend it on specific healthcare practices."

I don't see Hobby Lobby inserting clauses into their employees paycheck dictating what their employees are allowed or forbidden to buy with their pay.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the "right" that they don't have is the "right" to demand that their employer provided health insurance, paid for by both parties, include something the employer doesn't want to include.

They are having their "right" to dictate how their employer spend the employer's money.

If you were right about how the employer is denying them the right to specific forms of healthcare, then the employer would be saying "you may not take your pay, after it has landed in your bank account and we no longer have any control over it, and spend it on specific healthcare practices."

I don't see Hobby Lobby inserting clauses into their employees paycheck dictating what their employees are allowed or forbidden to buy with their pay.

You are saying it is fungible one way, but not another. That is inconsistent.

 

[Rhea]

So the "right" that they don't have is the "right" to demand that their employer provided health insurance, paid for by both parties, include something the employer doesn't want to include.

They are having their "right" to dictate how their employer spend the employer's money.

If you were right about how the employer is denying them the right to specific forms of healthcare, then the employer would be saying "you may not take your pay, after it has landed in your bank account and we no longer have any control over it, and spend it on specific healthcare practices."

I don't see Hobby Lobby inserting clauses into their employees paycheck dictating what their employees are allowed or forbidden to buy with their pay.

It sounds like you are suggesting that Hobby Lobby is offering their employees a kick-back of the money that should be spent on healthcare and is not so that the employees are now able to direct it. Is that what you are claiming? I did not hear that Hobby Lobby was offering that. I heard that they were simply reducing benefits without increasing pay.


edited to add:


When you are offered employment, you are offered a "compensation package". AND YOU ARE TAXED ON IT because it is YOUR compensation. It is compensation. Not a corporate expense. Compensation. To YOU. See the tax code on this. It is not rocket surgery.

I was wrong on the above. Normal plans are not taxed as wages. I still maintain that they are part of the benefits package that is used to compensate employees and as such are considered as part of a compensation conversation in all employment discussions.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's stop for a second. The employee is being paid for services. Among that compensation is insurance company HC. Where does a company get of deciding where the employee's money should go and for what it should go?

I don't give a damn about the beliefs of those who pay for services. They are in the public market. That should be it. Their responsibility to their money ends when it goes to the employee.

They have the option of paying the fines for not providing HC if they choose to not provide it. Sure they would lose employees. However, they are already providing HC to their employees. So that is gonna be a real problem.

My only question here is that when employees leave because they have no choice in contraceptive care will the companies that are not legally churches or church associates who only employ those who accept employer's principles be liable to de facto religious employment discrimination.