They do provide them vouchers, it's called the dollar bill. It's accepted everywhere in the friggin US.
They do provide them vouchers, it's called the dollar bill. It's accepted everywhere in the friggin US.
HL chose to provide health insurance for their employees years before Obamacare ever came along.
It's not like they didn't want to or anything.
I do agree that health insurance should be portable and completely seperated from the employer responsibility.
If corporations are people and have human qualities, wouldn't shutting down be the equivalent if quitting?
Hmm, that's a pretty big "if"... but I would think shutting down the business altogether would be the equivalent of suicide.
I suppose in a way corporations could "quit" their association with the government by unincorporating and just operating as a partnership, since they made a deal with the devil by accepting a charter from the State they are organized under in the first place... though it wouldn't exempt them from the particular law in question. Also, they would be "quitting" from the State government, when it is the Feds that are placing that particular threat on them.
I suppose in a way corporations could "quit" their association with the government by unincorporating and just operating as a partnership, since they made a deal with the devil by accepting a charter from the State they are organized under in the first place... though it wouldn't exempt them from the particular law in question. Also, they would be "quitting" from the State government, when it is the Feds that are placing that particular threat on them.
The employees already have that option. Nobody's telling them they don't. Hell, nobody's telling them they can't go have an abortion every month if they want.
Why should anybody be forced to pay for somebody else's lifestyle choices? That's what this is about.
No there is one group of people (employees) being used as pawns by another group (a company, in this case HL). This company has an agenda, to deny a medicine, maybe even a particular pill. If they win their agenda, people (employees) will be at the mercy of every company. Not a person but a company. That's BS.
They're too busy endorsing co-ops.
I personally don't do business with companies that feel a need to advertise their religious beliefs in a manner to assert that they are somehow superior due to their beliefs (for example, "a Christian-owned company", "...our Christian principles...", "we'll treat you the Christian way", religious symbolism in logos, etc.). My purely anecdotal experience is that if a business feels a need to make a point of their religious beliefs, I'm 10x more likely to get screwed.
Since this centers around Hobby Lobby... I think an important question to ask if if the government has a compelling interest to protect the statutory rights of a company's employees, and if access to all forms of contraception fall under the heading of "statutory right". Remember, the requirement to cover all forms of contraception is not in the Affordable Care Act - it is part of a policy that Department of Health and Human Services developed under delegated authority to determine the specific preventative services to be covered. Because Congress did not specify this coverage in the Act, Congress did not view this coverage as a compelling interest of government. Additionally, HHS is directed by Congress in the ACA to grant religious exemptions, and HHS has interpreted religious exemptions to extend to for-profit corporations (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-21/html/2012-6689.htm). HHS also does not consider contraceptives to be a "particularly significant protection" that grandfathered policies must be modified to cover (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf).
One argument being made is that religious accommodations cannot impose a burden on a third party's statutory rights. That's simply not the case. The SCOTUS has held previously that religious accommodations can shift burdens (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US 398 (1963)) and unanimously held that religious organizations can fire employees for reasons that would normally run afoul of anti-discrimination laws (Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, 565 US __ (2012)). HHS has not offered an argument that a for-profit business whose core values includes its religious beliefs is distinguishable from a purely religious organization. (I think they should be, but apparently the government doesn't believe it to be important to argue.)
Interestingly, while arguing that Hobby Lobby's failure to cover Plan B imposes a significant burden on Hobby Lobby's employees, the government argues that Hobby Lobby should drop it's insurance plans completely for all 13,000 employees, pay a $2K fine per employee, and force it's employees to get coverage through the exchanges in order to avoid a burden on it's religious exercise. Which one of these plans imposes the more significant burden on employees - requiring employees to pay for certain contraceptives out of pocket, or requiring employees to buy admittedly lesser quality health insurance out of pocket? Also consider that such a recommendation undermines the government's argument that employer-provided insurance is an essential element of the ACA and therefore a compelling interest of the government.
You think you are "at the mercy" of someone who is making you a job offer when it doesn't include certain terms that you would like? Can you be any more melodramatic? If you don't like it, go look elsewhere. Or if you find your labor doesn't bring a sufficient price on the market to buy the job benefits you want, maybe you should consider doing something to improve it's value, so people will pay you what you want for it. Why is so many people's first instinct to have the State threaten force to make other people give them what they want, instead of working to get it through voluntary exchange? Do they think there is something about suits, flag lapel pins, and psychopathic personalities that makes politicians able to wave their wand and magically make someone's labor more valuable?
You kid yourself if you don't think your at the mercy of working for any employer. Every Labor law we have is because some company or corporation tried or did screw their employees. Every Law! Who else can anyone turn to? People need jobs, not just any job but something that allows for a little more than survivability. Our entire Nation depends on our workforce. The workforce aint going anywhere. Companies come and go, open and close. Companies like HL has their hands in the Govt pockets and their nose in the workers business.
There isn't a single company as big as HL that gives 2 shi+s about contraception. The cost of my labor is between me and the company, my healthcare and my medicine is between me and my Dr.
As for voluntary exchange, you need to check out reality....that's not the law. The Law is HL can either pay or provide insurance. They should never be allowed to influence Govt to the point of getting into an individual's personal business.
They don't like being forced to provide insurance, then move overseas or close up shop. Trust me if they go the way of the dinosaur another company will fill the gap.
I have a question, why is providing an abortion to employees so important to liberals? I have made enough money to pay for an abortion since I was 18 years old. Exactly what group of people is the government so worried about, who could not pay for an abortion if needed or wanted? I can assume it is the same group of people all of this was suppose to help, people in poverty.
I guess the next question would have to be who in our nation lives in poverty, which would be African Americans, American Indians, and Latinos. Since the 1960's there has been a war on poverty, which is generational. The war on poverty does not seem to be a fight the nation can win.
Therefore, I would have to assume we are going to provide this group of people with abortions as some sort of odd poverty class genocide. I guess If you can't solve that class of peoples societal problems, then just kill off their babies.
The sad part is, no matter what, our government is getting is citizens to pay for the genocide of its minority groups.
I guess the next question would have to be who in our nation lives in poverty, which would be African Americans, American Indians, and Latinos. Since the 1960's there has been a war on poverty, which is generational. The war on poverty does not seem to be a fight the nation can win.
Therefore, I would have to assume we are going to provide this group of people with abortions as some sort of odd poverty class genocide. I guess If you can't solve that class of peoples societal problems, then just kill off their babies.
The sad part is, no matter what, our government is getting is citizens to pay for the genocide of its minority groups.
Similar threads
