Hobby Lobby was only the beginning

[stephyjh]

OK, so my compensation should be used to pay for a wide variety of things that I can't use due to my gender.  (yeah, flip side the women don't have to cover men's only stuff).

 
Technically it's due to your sex, not your gender. Biology and identity aren't the same thing.

[Darkhawk]

Dude.  FREE is not the same as COVERED.  going around saying people want it FREE is a big fat red herring.

Even if the employer pays 100% of the health care costs, it is STILL a benefit of employment and part of the employment package.  Free is when the health care fairy farts it down from the sky.

 
Well, you know, all those people who expect their employers to adhere to the other parts of the minimum wage laws just want FREE money.

[veggiewolf]

OK, so my compensation should be used to pay for a wide variety of things that I can't use due to my gender.  (yeah, flip side the women don't have to cover men's only stuff).

Do you have a citation that the employees are paying 100% of the medical costs?  

BTW, off line notice starting Tuesday night.  Shipping out Wednesday AM.  Very likely I won't be able to access TC for the next 4 to 6 months as usual.  This time I'm going to try and get some photos of what modern sailors do in the bars ashore.  It will probably shock you.

Yes, just like it pays for things you can't use due to health status.  No one person needs every single thing that can be provided through a health plan...that's actually the Point, and part of how costs are kept down.

[Merin]

OK, so my compensation should be used to pay for a wide variety of things that I can't use due to my gender.  (yeah, flip side the women don't have to cover men's only stuff).

 

Well, I mean, Viagra is covered...so I am not sure what you're getting at.

[Merin]

Yes, just like it pays for things you can't use due to health status.  No one person needs every single thing that can be provided through a health plan...that's actually the Point, and part of how costs are kept down.

 
This.  +1

[MadZealot]

Well, I mean, Viagra is covered...

Been waiting for that to pop up.  Heh-heh.

[Skyth]

Do you have a citation that the employees are paying 100% of the medical costs?  

 
Because it is part of their compensation.  Same as the cash they receive.

[veggiewolf]

Because it is part of their compensation.  Same as the cash they receive.

 
In fact, in corporate America, we are given compensation statements each year that include the value of benefits along with our salary and any bonuses we receive.  It's all one package.

[sailor]

In fact, in corporate America, we are given compensation statements each year that include the value of benefits along with our salary and any bonuses we receive.  It's all one package.

 
Hmm, we don't get them but I work for corporate Denmark instead.

[sailor]

Because it is part of their compensation.  Same as the cash they receive.

 
Which means that the govt is forcing HL to include in compensation that they find morally objectionable and where there is a less burdening means of covering.  No difference.

[Skyth]

Which means that the govt is forcing HL to include in compensation that they find morally objectionable and where there is a less burdening means of covering.  No difference.

 
And they have no right to find it morally objectionable.  The person receiving the compensation has the right to decide how it's used.  It has no bearing on the person giving out the compensation.  They only get to decide how much is given.

It's the same as them not allowing one of their employees to donate to an Islamic church from the money that they were paid for working there.

[beachglass]

Which means that the govt is forcing HL to include in compensation that they find morally objectionable and where there is a less burdening means of covering.  No difference.

 
(Bolding mine) You keep mentioning this, but really, isn't what they're doing here just externalizing some of the cost of providing the minimum coverage, while still reaping the tax benefits as if they had provided the coverage themselves as required? If they are really that firmly opposed to providing the minimum coverage, they could just forego those tax breaks.

[sailor]

(Bolding mine) You keep mentioning this, but really, isn't what they're doing here just externalizing some of the cost of providing the minimum coverage, while still reaping the tax benefits as if they had provided the coverage themselves as required? If they are really that firmly opposed to providing the minimum coverage, they could just forego those tax breaks.

 
I guess so if you really mean the tax penalty of $375 million dollars for non-compliance compared to $115 million in earnings.

[beachglass]

I guess so if you really mean the tax penalty of $375 million dollars for non-compliance compared to $115 million in earnings.

All I could find for penalty numbers was a figure of $2,000 per full-time employee. I'm sure HL doesn't have enough workers to add up to your figure just from that. What am I missing here?

[sailor]

All I could find for penalty numbers was a figure of $2,000 per full-time employee. I'm sure HL doesn't have enough workers to add up to your figure just from that. What am I missing here?

 
Court opinion, page 8 of the file on their website.

Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide
whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially
burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do.
The owners of the businesses have religious objections to
abortion, and according to thei
r religious beliefs the four
contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the
owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they
will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply,
they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million
per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one
of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to
a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would

$100 per day per employee.  
13,000 employees
365 days
$474,500,000

Yeah, substantial burden.