Hobby Lobby was only the beginning

[Ai]

And what did you do about that wish before July 1st?

Uh, I wished for Sniper Elite 3 to come out on XBox One. Wish. Granted.

-.-

[mandrina]

They do?  That's news to everybody who is familiar with ERISA and similar laws.  Or should your boss be able to condemn you a much lower retirement income by saying you can invest your money only in lower performing investments?

 
apparently they do invest in things that are against the owners religious opinions.  In which case they can't have it both ways, making money by investing against their reliigous beliefs and then using their religious beliefs to save money.  One or the other.  Accept lower returns or pay for what you invest in.  maybe ERISA would be interested, it would be easy for them to  check.

[mandrina]

If people don't like the wages / benefits being offered they don't have to take the job.  It's a balancing act between what the employer offers and what the employee accepts.  The per hour wage has a lower limit, and in that case the employer just fires the person or never hires them.

Prior to July 1st there was no govt mandate that the drugs in question be covered by health insurance.  That was the implementation date for that mandate.  That the HL decision was decided the day before is happenstance.  That's also why a couple of stays went out on the non-profit side of the law.

Although right now there is no requirement nor penalties that companies provide any medical coverage.  It would have been interesting if HL had lost the case that they dropped all coverage.  Let the employees take the money they were supposedly spending on buying health insurance from HL and get it thru the exchange.

There is already a program in place for coverage of the disputed drugs along with a bunch of others.  HHS set up a program for non-profits to get the govt to cover stuff.  So far the only things covered are various forms of birth control and the 4 abortificnat drugs related to this case (abortificants in that they can work post fertilization which makes it an abortion under Catholic teaching).

There is also an underfunded program for poor people for similar coverage, but 1) it's under funded, 2) there is no assurance that the HL employees make to little to be covered by it.

 
IIRC, They can't drop the insurance, they are too big.

[mandrina]

So your wish should trump somebody elses religious beliefs?  My wish is that a company car be part of my coverage, is that going to be a law?  At least that doesn't seem to violate anybody's religious beliefs.

And what did you do about that wish before July 1st?

As a point , the amish dont believe in social security, so amish employers do not have to pay into social security for their Amish employees, but they do have to pay into it, and pull the paycheck part out of their Non-Amish employees.  THeir firmly held religious belief does not affect their employees when it comes to social security. i'm not sure how it works the other way round for nonamish employers who hire amish.

[sailor]

As a point , the amish dont believe in social security, so amish employers do not have to pay into social security for their Amish employees, but they do have to pay into it, and pull the paycheck part out of their Non-Amish employees.  THeir firmly held religious belief does not affect their employees when it comes to social security. i'm not sure how it works the other way round for nonamish employers who hire amish.

 
I think you snipped part you didn't mean, or quoted the wrong one because I wasn't seeing a quote about the Amish. Or your bring up a new fact that is good for the discussion. Not sure if I mentioned here or on FB but I'm not finding it in the thread...

Either way, I agree that the Amish don't believe in Social Security.

I'd have to look it up again but the the govt was seizing the property (case I read was the farmers cows specifically) for failing to pay FICA.  Supreme Court ruled that they couldn't be excused from generally applicable taxes on the basis that doing so was to tough for the govt to do.  

They ruled that the religious rights of the Amish were being violated, but the court couldn't order a solution. Congress eventually did pass an exemption.  Not really all that different than the HHS program that was set up for non-profits.

[sailor]

IIRC, They can't drop the insurance, they are too big.

 
Ah only sort of.

The employer mandate has been put on hold until 2015 though. That's at the Federal level via an Executive Order or promise so state laws might turn this idea into a moot point. Although the costs for a couple of states might be insufficient to deter HL from shutting down their plan.

Theoretically they could salve their conscience and put the Obama Administration in a really tough position.  They could drop the plan, and if prosecuted for not offering coverage claim that it is selective prosecution unless Obama starts to go after lots of other companies that are not in compliance.  The political and economic blow back might condemn the Dems to minority status for a couple of election cycles.

First problem with the idea though is that apparently once they drop or significantly change their plan they'd have no more case for an exemption.   Which leads to the question of whether we're going to see a lot of companies stop growing at the 49 person limit.

[sailor]

Ah only sort of.

The employer mandate has been put on hold until 2015 though.

 
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/062414-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

Link to mention of the delay.  I'm not clear if it's for all companies or just ones under a certain size.  Finding a good source is tougher than before due to all the hits on the recent case.

[sailor]

apparently they do invest in things that are against the owners religious opinions.  In which case they can't have it both ways, making money by investing against their reliigous beliefs and then using their religious beliefs to save money.  One or the other.  Accept lower returns or pay for what you invest in.  maybe ERISA would be interested, it would be easy for them to  check.

 
It's not HL money being invested.  It's the employee's deductions, although there may be a match.

The company is pretty much bound to pick a management company and only offer top rated investment options - in this case mutual funds.  Some companies, at least used to, offer company stock for 401(k)s but after Enron I'm not sure anybody is doing that and besides HL is closely held so no shares to offer.

HL has very limited control over what the money from the mutual funds is invested in.  Although it wouldn't surprise me if they end the 401(k) entirely and to bad about the workers retirement.  That's what the $6,500 IRA contribution is for rather than the $15,000 401(k) limit.

[Merin]

If people don't like the wages / benefits being offered they don't have to take the job.  

 
It's not that easy, really.  There are a lot of factors that aren't considered in this argument; education and economy (lack of other options) are just a few examples.

[Skyth]

It's not that easy, really.  There are a lot of factors that aren't considered in this argument; education and economy (lack of other options) are just a few examples.

 
Exactly.  There is a huge disparity in power.  If the employer doesn't have someone doing a job, they'll still be fine and continue on. Also, likely they can find someone else to do the job.   If the employee doesn't have a job, they can't feed themselves or keep a roof over their head.

Trying to pretend that the employee and employer have equal bargaining power is absolute rubbish.

[veggiewolf]

So, you have a sincere religious belief that abortificants should be free?

 
*sigh*

I'm sure someone's said this to you previously, but contraception =/= abortificant.  Contraception does what it says on the tin - prevents conception - and, last time I checked, preventing something from happening in the first place is not the same as undoing something that has already happened.

Once someone is pregnant, a contraceptive will not undo the pregnancy.  Even emergency contraception, the dead horse that keeps being beaten by people who refuse to acknowledge that they should not have control over someone else's body, will not detach an already attached embryo.

I have to wonder if you'd be fighting this hard if Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs meant not including insulin on their prescription coverage.

[sailor]

*sigh*

I'm sure someone's said this to you previously, but contraception =/= abortificant.  Contraception does what it says on the tin - prevents conception - and, last time I checked, preventing something from happening in the first place is not the same as undoing something that has already happened.

Once someone is pregnant, a contraceptive will not undo the pregnancy.  Even emergency contraception, the dead horse that keeps being beaten by people who refuse to acknowledge that they should not have control over someone else's body, will not detach an already attached embryo.

I have to wonder if you'd be fighting this hard if Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs meant not including insulin on their prescription coverage.

 
Catholic religious belief is that life begins with fertilization.  Even the dissent didn't try to refute that. Plan B, Ella are thus abortificants per the FDA in that it will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.  So, the question remains.

Even you mangle their beliefs to call it birth control, what is your (somebody elses) sincere religious belief that it should be free?  And how does the HHS program to fail to meet this belief?

[Darkhawk]

Catholic religious belief is that life begins with fertilization.  Even the dissent didn't try to refute that.

 
The relevant Catholics in the case, of course, were the five who voted with the majority (there was also one with the dissent), since the lawsuit could not have turned on points of Catholic theology, as the people involved were not of that religion.  Which means that this argument appears to be "Catholic Supreme Court justices get to impose their theological perspective on people other religions", which is a rather odd one to argue, though I do not disagree that it is, in fact, the case.

(The dissent, as was pointed out in one of the blogs I read, was agreed to by the set union of the female justices and the Jewish ones.)

[beachglass]

Even you mangle their beliefs to call it birth control, what is your (somebody elses) sincere religious belief that it should be free?

Is it the affected employee's religious belief about birth control actually relevant here? I thought no-copay birth control was included in the minimum coverage requirements for insurance plans. So it's not really a case of employer belief vs. employee belief, but employer belief vs. the law, right?

[sailor]

The relevant Catholics in the case, of course, were the five who voted with the majority (there was also one with the dissent), since the lawsuit could not have turned on points of Catholic theology, as the people involved were not of that religion.  Which means that this argument appears to be "Catholic Supreme Court justices get to impose their theological perspective on people other religions", which is a rather odd one to argue, though I do not disagree that it is, in fact, the case.

(The dissent, as was pointed out in one of the blogs I read, was agreed to by the set union of the female justices and the Jewish ones.)

 
Know-Nothingism is making a resurgence I guess