Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[RussDill]

That's a ridiculous claim. Employees are free to use whatever contraception they want to. For certain forms, they have to pay for it themselves, but having to pay for something is nowhere near equivalent to being forced to not do that thing.

Its not a ridiculous claim. Its the employee's coverage, not the Hobby Lobby's. Hobby Lobby is saying that they get to choose how the employee utilizes something that belongs to them (the employee).

Why is it that you prefer Hobby Lobby to offer no plan at all than to offer a plan that doesn't fully satisfy you? Do you actually think such a position benefits employees?

The "That's a nice healthplan, it'd be a shame if something happened to it". approach. Nice. Hobby Lobby offers 13,000 of it's employees a healthplan for a reason, to stay competitive in the employment market.

The sexual discrimination angle won't work here.

Case law for the past 14 years disagrees with you.

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/title-vii-requires-covered-employers-provide-contraceptive-coverage

Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., the first federal court to consider the issue of employer’s duty under Title VII to provide contraceptive coverage after the EEOC ruling, held that an employer offering otherwise comprehensive health insurance to its employees, but failing to cover prescription contraceptives, was in violation of Title VII.

 

[Ziggurat]

Its not a ridiculous claim. Its the employee's coverage, not the Hobby Lobby's.

Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for any coverage at all. So Hobby Lobby clearly has quite a bit of say in coverage.

Hobby Lobby is saying that they get to choose how the employee utilizes something that belongs to them (the employee).

That isn't what Hobby Lobby is doing. Coverage only "belongs" to the employee after it's been purchased, and Hobby Lobby isn't making any decisions about what employees do after it's purchased. They're making a decision about what is getting purchased, but 1) employers do that all the time, the ACA doesn't prevent that, and 2) they're still free to choose to not purchase anything.

The "That's a nice healthplan, it'd be a shame if something happened to it". approach. Nice. Hobby Lobby offers 13,000 of it's employees a healthplan for a reason, to stay competitive in the employment market.

You have this backwards. Hobby Lobby offers coverage because they believe that they have a religious obligation to treat employees well. It's the government which is claiming that they are free to drop coverage completely. Hobby Lobby is arguing that the government-suggested alternative of not buying any insurance is not acceptable to them.

Case law for the past 14 years disagrees with you.

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/title-vii-requires-covered-employers-provide-contraceptive-coverage

Your argument fails. Prescription contraceptive coverage is being offered by Hobby Lobby.

 

[Upchurch]

Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for any coverage at all.

Doesn't it employ more than 50 full-time people? If so, it is my understanding that they are required to provide health insurance. That, or pay a fine.

 

[Ziggurat]

Doesn't it employ more than 50 full-time people? If so, it is my understanding that they are required to provide health insurance. That, or pay a fine.

Exactly: they can pay the fine instead. The government contends that this is a good enough alternative for them to exercise their beliefs, and evidently preferable (why? who knows) to having Hobby Lobby buy insurance without coverage for every single form of contraception.

 

[Upchurch]

Exactly: they can pay the fine instead.

Thus, by your logic, paying for the religiously offending medical treatment anyway. How is that any better from their point of view?

 

[Ziggurat]

Thus, by your logic, paying for the religiously offending medical treatment anyway. How is that any better from their point of view?

It's not better from their point of view. I just told you, but you weren't paying attention: the government is claiming that this is a viable alternative, not Hobby Lobby.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

They are obviously one of the throwback companies that want to pay employees in company scrip, and have enforced moral hygiene classes.

 

[RussDill]

Your argument fails. Prescription contraceptive coverage is being offered by Hobby Lobby.

If they are limiting the choices in a way that impacts a protected group, it would still fit the Title VII definition of discrimination.

Imagine if there were two medications that reduced the occurrence of some condition. Both cost about the same. One is about 92% effective, and the other is 99.8% effective. This condition only effects some protected group. Your company has decided to not provide the one that is 99.8% effective. Or even worse, your doctor has informed you that the only options your employer has limited your insurance company causes bad side effects in your system. However, in every other area of medicine and for no other group do they limit medications in such a way.

They are intentionally providing second class care to this protected group.

Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for any coverage at all. So Hobby Lobby clearly has quite a bit of say in coverage.

They don't have to give their employees bonuses either, that doesn't give them some magic say in how they spend them.

Your argument fails. Prescription contraceptive coverage is being offered by Hobby Lobby.

You claimed that:

The sexual discrimination angle won't work here. Male and female biology is different, so "discrimination" of some sort is inevitable. Is it discrimination against men if a company doesn't offer Viagra? You haven't (and probably cannot) established an objective standard for equivalent treatment when men and women have inequivalent needs.

The courts show quite clearly that even though male and female biology are different, ignoring legitimate medical needs just because someone is a person of a specific gender is discrimination. This is not some minor thing. Maternal mortality rates are about 24 in 100,000 births. Reducing unintended pregnancies saves lives. For women with certain conditions, a pregnancy is basically a death sentence (unless terminated).

I realize that they could get what they need out of pocket elsewhere, but the important part is they are providing a secondary level of care.

Lets do some math. Maternal complications account for about 0.89% of deaths per year. There are about 2.5 million deaths in the US every year, that means that about 22,250 women die every year due to maternal complications. About 40% of pregnancies, 40% of those deaths, were women who were not planning on getting pregnant. About 60% of those women were using some form of birth control, it failed them and as a direct result, they died.

By comparison, about 30,000 men in the US die every year from prostate cancer. If there were multiple options to prevent prostate cancer that costed around the same amount, wouldn't you think your employer should provide you and your doctor with all the options?

 

[marplots]

If they are limiting the choices in a way that impacts a protected group, it would still fit the Title VII definition of discrimination.

Imagine if there were two medications that reduced the occurrence of some condition. Both cost about the same. One is about 92% effective, and the other is 99.8% effective. This condition only effects some protected group. Your company has decided to not provide the one that is 99.8% effective. Or even worse, your doctor has informed you that the only options your employer has limited your insurance company causes bad side effects in your system. However, in every other area of medicine and for no other group do they limit medications in such a way.

They are intentionally providing second class care to this protected group.



They don't have to give their employees bonuses either, that doesn't give them some magic say in how they spend them.



You claimed that:



The courts show quite clearly that even though male and female biology are different, ignoring legitimate medical needs just because someone is a person of a specific gender is discrimination. This is not some minor thing. Maternal mortality rates are about 24 in 100,000 births. Reducing unintended pregnancies saves lives. For women with certain conditions, a pregnancy is basically a death sentence (unless terminated).

I realize that they could get what they need out of pocket elsewhere, but the important part is they are providing a secondary level of care.

Lets do some math. Maternal complications account for about 0.89% of deaths per year. There are about 2.5 million deaths in the US every year, that means that about 22,250 women die every year due to maternal complications. About 40% of pregnancies, 40% of those deaths, were women who were not planning on getting pregnant. About 60% of those women were using some form of birth control, it failed them and as a direct result, they died.

By comparison, about 30,000 men in the US die every year from prostate cancer. If there were multiple options to prevent prostate cancer that costed around the same amount, wouldn't you think your employer should provide you and your doctor with all the options?

Let's continue the analysis:
How many of the women who died by the route you laid out were using the methods Hobby Lobby wishes to avoid?

As to your question on prostate treatments, it would depend on the effectiveness of the choices. When treatments are equivalently effective, they are, well, equivalently effective and a choice can be made on other grounds - such as cost.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Let's continue the analysis:
How many of the women who died by the route you laid out were using the methods Hobby Lobby wishes to avoid?

I think you have that backwards.

The question should be: what are the death rates associated with various birt control methods, including no BC at all

 

[Ziggurat]

If they are limiting the choices in a way that impacts a protected group, it would still fit the Title VII definition of discrimination.

If they do not offer any health insurance, that accomplishes the exact same discrimination you claim. In fact, since that would remove employer support for ALL contraception, it would be far more severe. But they can do that, and the government is not only not contesting their ability to do so, it is suggesting that as a valid alternative.

You seem to be at odds with the government's own case.

The courts show quite clearly that even though male and female biology are different, ignoring legitimate medical needs just because someone is a person of a specific gender is discrimination. This is not some minor thing.

The courts have ruled that prohibiting coverage of ALL contraception meets the standards of illegal discrimination. But that's not what Hobby Lobby is doing here. They aren't trying to avoid providing any contraceptive coverage, only a small set, and you haven't shown that the much less restrictive measures Hobby Lobby is taking will meet that burden.

Furthermore, consider what it is you're arguing: discrimination is so bad in and of itself that you want to end it even if everyone involved will be objectively worse off without this discrimination (ie, Hobby Lobby offers no insurance at all). I guess that goes along with the socialist principle of equal distribution of misery.

 

[RussDill]

Let's continue the analysis:
How many of the women who died by the route you laid out were using the methods Hobby Lobby wishes to avoid?

The method they are providing results in an 8% pregnancy rate/year for normal use. The method they won't cover results in an 0.2% pregnancy rate/year for normal use.

 

[ABC10]

At *what* cost ? 15 to 50 $ per month is a lot for some people.

By the way , as far as I can tell in france it is covered. I am not sure for other country like germany or sweden, but i would bet it is. As enabling poor family to not be burdened by unwanting pregancy is actually a compelling state interrest.

I think it is about $9.00 a month. Probably can get it for free if hardship can be proven. Only Fluke required $3,000 a year contraception cause she went to an elite University where Jesuits taught. Aren't the folk at Hobby Lobby Evangelicals and the Cabinet folk are Mennonites not Jesuits?

 

[RussDill]

If they do not offer any health insurance, that accomplishes the exact same discrimination you claim. In fact, since that would remove employer support for ALL contraception, it would be far more severe. But they can do that, and the government is not only not contesting their ability to do so, it is suggesting that as a valid alternative.

You seem to be at odds with the government's own case.

Its like you don't want to listen. I clearly pointed out the governments case and how companies can avoid falling into Title VII and still not offer contraceptives.

The courts have ruled that prohibiting coverage of ALL contraception meets the standards of illegal discrimination.

Really, based on the physics threads you are in, I expect better from you. Actually to perform the 'E' in JREF. Did you even read any of the cases?

In particular, plaintiffs assert that Bartell's decision not to cover prescription contraceptives such as birth control pills, Norplant, Depo- Provera, intra-uterine devices, and diaphragms under its Prescription Benefit Plan for non-union employees violates Title VII,

[...]

The Court finds that Bartell's prescription drug plan discriminates against Bartell's female employees

[...]

Bartell is hereby ORDERED to cover each of the available options for prescription contraception to the same extent, and on the same terms, that it covers other drugs, devices, and preventative care for non-union employees.

Furthermore, consider what it is you're arguing: discrimination is so bad in and of itself that you want to end it even if everyone involved will be objectively worse off without this discrimination (ie, Hobby Lobby offers no insurance at all). I guess that goes along with the socialist principle of equal distribution of misery.

Oh yes, it was such a sad day when many whites only establishments had to shut down instead of choosing to allow "coloreds". Or banks who refused to offer fair rates on home loans to bi-racial couples closed down. Socialism at its best. As an employer, you are selling the employee a compensation package, just like you can't discriminate when you sell a house or a offer a loan, you can't discriminate when you offer compensation packages.

So yes, I want to end discrimination. I'm sorry if that creates short term discomfort because some people refuse to change. Long term, its the right thing to do.

 

[Belz...]

If this ruling goes in favor of the corporation, my feeling is that it is the most dangerous step backwards for civil rights and the strongest step towards a theocracy in the history of the us.

Legal scholars please chime in.

Ugh. You have the right to believe what you want, but not to do what you want. If your religion goes against law and ethics, then you shouldn't get an exemption because you believe in it.

 

[marplots]

The method they are providing results in an 8% pregnancy rate/year for normal use. The method they won't cover results in an 0.2% pregnancy rate/year for normal use.

Then they should pay for it on that basis - it's better care than the alternatives.

 

[Kestrel]

I think it is about $9.00 a month. Probably can get it for free if hardship can be proven. Only Fluke required $3,000 a year contraception cause she went to an elite University where Jesuits taught. Aren't the folk at Hobby Lobby Evangelicals and the Cabinet folk are Mennonites not Jesuits?

Sandra Fluke actually said it can cost $3,000 during law school. Yes, some oral contraceptives are less that $10 a month, but some women can't use the inexpensive versions of the pill. The ones they can use are a lot more expensive.

 

[Beerina]

My take is that corporations can have the same rights as people when they have the same responsibilities and obligations as people.

Once corporations have to sign up for the draft, can be arrested and/or go to prison, and serve jury duty, then come tell me that they have freedom of religion.

In the speech case, the Supreme Court was very clear -- Congress does not get to construct definitions of groups of people, stripping them of their free speech rights. The people carry it with them. Yet still the meme persists that this is some kind of "corporate personhood right". Even heard it on NPR a few weeks back.

I am against all forms of religion, but unlike many around here, I also include politics, which is a religion in form. In this case, two religions are battling it out for dominance.

I wish disease and failure on both.

 

[ABC10]

So wonderful that the Constitution affords folk the right to follow the religion of their choice or not to follow one at all. G-d Bless America.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wrong, and you and I both know it. "Most large employers did". Walmart is a large employer. Have a nice day.

What's the excuse for this false attack, anyhow?

He ment employers of the worthwhile classes, serfs don't count.